The Bible (a discussion)

The rule of 40 is superior!

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

That the "Ten Commandments is a rehash of Hammurabi's dicta, in some cases virtually verbatim", carries with it a distinct whiff of the idea that they are therefore of little consequence and only fools allow them any credibility.

I have neither said that nor meant to imply it. They are of great consequence, as was Hammurabi's original version. It's Neologist who said that anything inherited from the Babylonians (or, by implication, other ancient sources) is of a highly suspect nature, at least.

0 Replies

@timur,

You probably don't even like IPA

0 Replies

If as seems to be the case, the Ten Commandments closely follow the Code of Hammurabi, which pre-existed them, and if Hanmmurabi as he says got them from HIS god Shamash, and he presumably had no knowledge of, call him Jehovah, the Hebrews' god, they maintain the only god, then we have a conundrum. Was Jehovah plagiarizing, was he plagiarizing from a god who doesn't exist. What does that say about Jehovah's existence or non-existence if the laws originally came from a god we don't believe existed. Maybe the laws NEVER had a divine origin. Maybe they're entirely of human origin, which Christians would have to believe, since they won't admit the existence of Shamash. Maybe there's no divine origin in any of this stuff. Maybe it's all purely a human invention.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

"Maybe" is a bit limp-wristed Jack. I have asserted, more than once, that it IS a human invention. And ours is an excellent one. Had we not invented it there would be nothing to not believe in.

0 Replies

clever. you've asserted many, many things, spendius. one or two of them might even be true.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

First of all, I should apologize for suggesting you are arrogant. For one thing, it is a reflection of my own arrogance. Nevertheless, i think it important that we fight fair.

I'm not interested in a fight, I'm only interested in having an honest discussion.

neologist wrote:

To be honest, I gave a rather lengthy answer to your above referenced question in this post: http://able2know.org/topic/216546-10#post-5376881.

That's not an answer to my question. What I'm trying to understand is how you can think that using quotes from the Bible to support the veracity of the Bible is in any way reasonable, logical or meaningful.

And you're not the only person I've seen this from. Many many religious people address all challenges to the Bible from a perspective which is bounded within the Bible, as though they were not only unwilling, but incapable of looking at the challenge from the outside.

You must realize as a rational human being that you cannot justify the veracity of a source of information (any information, Bible or otherwise) by using that same source of information as the justification.

So why do you continue to respond to challenges about the veracity of the bible by siting the bible? It makes no sense. And even though I disagree with you on probably a great many things, you don't seem like a stupid person, so why respond so irrationally? Or are you truly disingenuous and just interested in selling your snake oil.

By the way, I don't put people on ignore because I disagree with them, I put them on ignore when their posts are either malicious, odious, useless our just complete self-serving twaddle.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

I'm not interested in a fight, I'm only interested in having an honest discussion.

Agreed

rosborne979 wrote:

That's not an answer to my question. What I'm trying to understand is how you can think that using quotes from the Bible to support the veracity of the Bible is in any way reasonable, logical or meaningful.

I believe my answer was the veracity of the Bible depends on its being a unified whole. One cannot quote the Bible as a moral authority otherwise.

rosborne979 wrote:

And you're not the only person I've seen this from. Many many religious people address all challenges to the Bible from a perspective which is bounded within the Bible, as though they were not only unwilling, but incapable of looking at the challenge from the outside.

You must realize as a rational human being that you cannot justify the veracity of a source of information (any information, Bible or otherwise) by using that same source of information as the justification.

Did you notice that I also said I could not show any of this to be true with empirical certainty?
Let me be clear:
If we compare two propositions, one asserting a creator who came into existence by himself, and one asserting that the universe came into existence by itself. There is essentially no difference, other than the law of parsimony seems to favor the latter.

rosborne979 wrote:

So why do you continue to respond to challenges about the veracity of the bible by siting the bible? It makes no sense. And even though I disagree with you on probably a great many things, you don't seem like a stupid person, so why respond so irrationally? Or are you truly disingenuous and just interested in selling your snake oil.

Yeah, but that was not your question

You wrote:

You do understand that none of that really happened, right?

If you wish to ask why I believe the Bible, in spite of the above, all you have to do is ask. In keeping with the OP, that is.

4 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

Agreed

You can't have a honest discusssion with ros neo. He blanks out anything he doesn't agree with.

He wrote--

Quote:

And you're not the only person I've seen this from. Many many religious people address all challenges to the Bible from a perspective which is bounded within the Bible, as though they were not only unwilling, but incapable of looking at the challenge from the outside.

Which is circular for a start. I look at the Bible objectively. He put me on Ignore. You're wasting your time with ros and anybody else who uses the same tricks.

I don't see any challenge in it. Implying he has taken on some sort of challenge is just another piece of somewhat indelicate self-flattery. It is meant to indicate an intellectual excellence but attempts it in so crude a manner that it signifies the opposite.

Quote:

Or are you truly disingenuous and just interested in selling your snake oil.

In plain English a devious, lying, itinerant pedlar of fake cures for the desperate.

And in truth--The Bible has been the real cure for the truly desperate plight of mankind before it became influential assuming a further smooth progression is envisaged for the future as I do. Traffic calming measures are in operation at this time.

Ask him about that. Ask him to take Homer as a start point and get to here without the Bible in a mere 2,500 years (about 100 generations) after 2, or 4, million years of a human plight too ghastly to describe to a genteel audience.

It is a fact. He's big on facts is ros.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I believe my answer was the veracity of the Bible depends on its being a unified whole.

Then what do you mean by that, a "unified whole"? Because that doesn't mean anything to me.

neologist wrote:

You wrote:
You do understand that none of that really happened, right?
If you wish to ask why I believe the Bible, in spite of the above, all you have to do is ask.

Ok. Why do you believe the Bible in spite of the above?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Let me be clear:
If we compare two propositions, one asserting a creator who came into existence by himself, and one asserting that the universe came into existence by itself. There is essentially no difference...

That is incorrect by virtue of Occam's Razor (of which I will assume you are familiar).

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Ros, however OT, I for one would disagree. A pantheists's position seems to simplify rather than complicate. In the first place the dualistic need for a creation is dispatched by the simple assertion that It (She) wasn't created, She was always here (in one form or another) and presumably always will be; further simplified by the notion that It and She are the same entity

….admirably surviving Occam

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Ros, however OT, I for one would disagree. A pantheists's position seems to simplify rather than complicate.

You're just kidding yourself if you think that's true Dale. You can't simplify the system by adding a precursor event/entity even if you claim it always existed. After all you could just as easily claim that the universe always existed and that would be simpler.

0 Replies

@neologist,

And another thing neo--what does "many, many Christians" mean? What do they have to do with this thread except that a fanciful comparison was made between them and yourself for the purpose of loading you up with what ros considers their faults. Pre-judging you. You're not even a Christian by the sense of your posts. But you're "not stupid" so that is something to cling on to I suppose.

How many? Is it more than the many, many Christians who are working in Africa to alleviate the suffering of the people there and sacrificing the sort of lifestyle ros has in doing so? Or even in the US.

0 Replies

@spendius,

I just ignored the straw men in his post. I don't include myself with nominal christians and have no arguments with which to defend them.

But I understand the unbeliever's perception of organized religion. I believe it was Bertrand Russell who observed that among the proliferation of worldly religions, only one could have the truth. Ros appears to agree with Russell who chose none. I choose one. So we agree on many things.

That does not mean I enjoy being talked down to as if I had the IQ of a refrigerator. I may be larger than a refrigerator, but that is irrelevant.

I choose optimism with my fellow a2kers, especially since I remind myself there are about 10 views for every post.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
I believe my answer was the veracity of the Bible depends on its being a unified whole.

Then what do you mean by that, a "unified whole"? Because that doesn't mean anything to me.

I contend that all apparent contradictions can be explained. A larger order, I realize, but I have done my homework.

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
You wrote:
You do understand that none of that really happened, right?
If you wish to ask why I believe the Bible, in spite of the above, all you have to do is ask.
Ok. Why do you believe the Bible in spite of the above?

By a preponderance of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence, not the least of which are the great number of falsehoods about the Bible advanced by those who pretend to worship the God of the Bible. Just a few examples: The trinity doctrine, immortality of the soul, hellfire, etc.
So I invite naysayers to cite examples of perceived historical error, inconsistencies, etc., for evaluation. One caveat: If you submit a list, I will choose only one or two at a time for a response.
Or, if you wish me to submit the first one, how about the eventual desolation of Babylon, prophesied by Isaiah, but not complete until after the 1st century C.E.?

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
Let me be clear:
If we compare two propositions, one asserting a creator who came into existence by himself, and one asserting that the universe came into existence by itself. There is essentially no difference...
That is incorrect by virtue of Occam's Razor (of which I will assume you are familiar).

Funny. I thought I had included a few more words in that sentence, something like "the law of parsimony seems to favor the latter. " Or, did you object to my use of the word 'seems'?

1 Reply

@neologist,

Yes, I objected to "seem". I also didn't think parsimony was particularly accurate in that context either.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
I believe my answer was the veracity of the Bible depends on its being a unified whole.

Then what do you mean by that, a "unified whole"? Because that doesn't mean anything to me.
I contend that all apparent contradictions can be explained.

Ok, I get that. But in that list of contradictions do you also include the apparent conflicts with science and nature as we currently understand them? Are you saying all of those go away with interpretation as well?

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

So I invite naysayers to cite examples of perceived historical error, inconsistencies, etc., for evaluation. One caveat: If you submit a list, I will choose only one or two at a time for a response.

Ok, here's a few examples to start with:

* Adam and Eve versus the evolution of species (including humans)
* Jesus rising from the dead versus the fact that nobody ever comes back from being really dead
* Animals marching onto an Arc and a worldwide flood versus, hmmm, common sense

Let's see how you interpret those for a start.

2 Replies

The Bible (a discussion)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know