The Bible (a discussion)

@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. A larger order, I realize, but I have done my homework.

By the way, it's not hard to interpret the bible in such a way that all contradictions and conflicts go away. I have an interpretation of the bible which satisfies all those conditions as well: The Bible is a completely fictional story. There, all contradictions resolved perfectly and unequivocally.

It seems to me that if you're having difficulty interpreting the bible in such a way as to remove its inconsistencies then you're overlooking the most obvious solution. What's making it difficult for you is that you're not just trying to remove contradictions, but you're trying to do so while maintaining selected (by you) elements of the story which you wish to support. But when you do that all you're doing is making up your own story about your own subjects and adapting the prose of the bible to support you.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

He objects to "seems" and then immediately proceeds to "apparent". And there are no apparent conflicts with science and nature. Christianity is set up in opposition to science and nature. There is an obvious conflict.

Science and nature are inhuman. Neither have room for any shred of morality. Only the fear of naked power can replace morality.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

* 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.

I interpret them as junior school discussion points.

Criticising the use of the expression "vortex of Dissipation" in the writing of a relation as a washed out cliche Jane Austen wrote--"I do not object to the Thing, but I cannot bear the expression; -- it is such thorough novel slang --and so old , that I dare say Adam met with it in the first novel he opened."

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

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?

Yes, so long as we keep in mind that the Bible was not written as a scientific treatise, but so the least sophisticated of us might understand why we have human misery and what God has set in place as a remedy.

1 Reply

neologist wrote:

so the least sophisticated of us might understand

Even the least sophisticated of us understand "money".

But it seems that those who wrote the bible didn't.

King David gathered thousands of Darics to build the Temple, five hundred years before Darius introduced them..

1 Reply

@neologist,

Oh what errant horseshit. Your bible does not propose any remedies for human miseries, beyond pie in the sky by and by when you die, something in which you do not believe. Nothing in the bible explains why there is human misery other than that the god of the old testament is a vicious f*cker who inflicts suffering on people on a whim.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

. . . here's a few examples to start with:

* Adam and Eve versus the evolution of species (including humans)

Have you noticed that the order of appearance of life forms as recorded in Genesis is parallel to the order postulated by science?
As far as Adam and Eve, I assume, as do many, that the human race had an initial pair. So:
Adam - The word means "man"
Eve - the word means "living one". Adam gave this name to Eve reportedly because she had to be the mother of everyone living.
Are these explanations, though lacking in details of organic chemistry, insufficient for the least sophisticated of us to understand the beginning of humanity?

rosborne979 wrote:

* Jesus rising from the dead versus the fact that nobody ever comes back from being really dead

Another assumption I make is the creator of life would certainly have power over death. (An article of faith, I will admit) But, when you consider the entirety of our physical traits can be encapsulated in a molecule too small to be seen by the naked eye, how difficult would it be for one possessing this power to re create any human, including his memories and traits?

rosborne979 wrote:

* Animals marching onto an Arc and a worldwide flood versus, hmmm, common sense

Did you mean 'ark'?
What is it about the construction or population of the ark that confounds you? When I first contemplated this story, I had so many what ifs I could barely count. Even the seaworthiness of the ark. But I had to conclude that had Noah made a single mistake in the application of tar to the hull of the ark, God certainly had the power to fill the crack, so to speak.
And the flood? I still have questions about how koalas ended up in Australia but nowhere else. How could it have been a worldwide flood? I ask. Is there some explanation that also takes into consideration the proliferation of flood stories in the oral history of nearly every ethnic group? The Bible doesn't explain it all; but it certainly gives an account sufficient for those of limited education.

1 Reply

@timur,

timur wrote:

neologist wrote:
so the least sophisticated of us might understand

Even the least sophisticated of us understand "money".

But it seems that those who wrote the bible didn't.

King David gathered thousands of Darics to build the Temple, five hundred years before Darius introduced them..

The word 'daric' also means 'shekel'. You should take this one up with the translators.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Oh what errant horseshit. Your bible does not propose any remedies for human miseries, beyond pie in the sky by and by when you die, something in which you do not believe. Nothing in the bible explains why there is human misery other than that the god of the old testament is a vicious f*cker who inflicts suffering on people on a whim.

I have always failed to understand why, even if considered only as allegory, why the third chapter of Genesis does not provide explanation. It certainly was sufficient for generations of Bible writers who followed. Perhaps you could explain . . .
I mean that.

1 Reply

@neologist,

So you really want to venture once more into that horseshit story, in which your god suckers these two patsies, and then, to repeat myself, inflicts suffering on them on a whim? It's tedious to have to remind you that they were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but knowing nothing of good and evil, they knew no reason to obey. When they fail this sucker play, they are punished exceedingly for the ignorance which was imposed on them at the outset.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

There was no remedy for misery offered, nor no explanation of how to find such a remedy. There was no explanation of the source of misery, other than that they did "wrong" when they were in a state which did not admit of understanding right from wrong. Genesis 3 only catalogs the miseries to which they would be subjected for having done what they knew no better than to do. You've been beaten over the head with this repeatedly for years, yet you bring it up once again. That generations of the witless faithful rejoice in their witless faith is not evidence that there is either logic or plain common sense in the bible, nor that there is either compassion or consideration in your vicious, capricious and cruel god.

1 Reply

re Neologist:
Just a couple of the multifarous points your biblical points don't jibe with the physical evidence:

There were never just an original pair. There would have been a breeding population ofa few hundred pairs, but never just one. Evolutionary biology demonstrates that, by the treces left in the DNA.

There is no physical evidence for a worldwide flood. There arenumerous places in the world (New England being one), that show no traces of universal flood deposition layers.

You vastly underestimate the number of different species, from large animals down through birds, insects, even down to the microscopic animals and soil bacteria that exist to keep the biosphere going. Most of them would have died if they were underwater for a month or a year, and the earth would be more barren than the Sahara. Noah had no way to gather them, let alone see a lot of them, and no way to even know they existed. feeding them all for an extended period would have required a couple more arks, let alone gathering a few billion different kinds of foodstuff.

Basically, the flood story doesn't get beyond the realm of a fairy story.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Basically, the flood story doesn't get beyond the realm of a fairy story.

So also the Medusa Gorgon and you can pretend there's no meaning in that if you choose. In fact it might be for the best if you do so pretend.

Take the story of the ark from the beginning, as Jane Austen might have done, and picture Noah watching it piss down forever, as it did here not long ago, and thinking that they had better build a boat to save themselves and a few chosen creatures from the rest of creation. Go from there to the conclusion on a human timescale and taking all the logistics necessary for the project into account in such an inhospitable a region as it was.

Have fun you silly moo cow. Do you think it is only given to intelligences of your excellence to realise that the tale is far-fetched? And it is nowhere near as far-fetched as Star Trek. It can't even sniff the tail of the asymptote of the far-fetchedness that Star Trek inhabited.

And people read meanings into that.

And the ark is nothing beside the pyramid idea of an ark into the unknown. And a damn sight cheaper despite it taking years to finish and round up the other mating pairs. Not a kangaroo in sight. No crocodiles. Polar bears. Oak tree seedlings.

How silly do you want to make yourself look Jack. Taking the ark story seriously at face value is really quite, quite silly doncha know?

Fallout shelters might be worth taking seriously if you believe the politicians will seek martyrdom, which I don't. In the blasts or on the end of a rope.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Leviticus 21:16-23 wrote:

The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’”

I wonder why priests don't use this to promote religion (and the bible)..

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Hmm. Genesis 1:26 says man was created in God's image.
Allegorically speaking, where did you receive the sense of
justice and fairness you have so eloquently expressed if not
from the Creator you deny? Yet you seek to impeach that
Creator for failure to live up to the standards he gave to you.
I don't get it.
Coffee's ready.
Bye for now.

2 Replies

@timur,

One might apply that to the glamour industry.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Everyone knows this is GOD!

http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes-77/OhGod7.jpeg

1 Reply

@BillW,

And he certainly taught us much about what is truly funny.

0 Replies

@timur,

So no one with defect could become a priest.
So?
It had nothing to do with discrimination.
And everything to do with identifying the one who would be "priest to time indefinite".
It helps to see the whole picture.

0 Replies

@neologist,

You presume a creator (typical) and then base your argument on the basis of said creator endowing me with certain characteristics. However, you are the one claiming that Genesis Chapter three is the source for your allegations about human misery and its remedy. Leaving aside that it says nothing about any remedy, the people upon whom your putative god wreaks misery are being punished for not behaving in a way which was inconsistent with their make-up. They did not know good and evil, so how can they be expected to keep the rules laid down for them? Not only that, the whole scam was going nowhere until your boy god sent the serpent along to give "Eve" the nudge (and additionally, an excuse to condemn women for merely being women). Don't prate to me about "standards" given me by your imaginary friend. You might as well make the same argument about the Tooth Fairy, for all the logic therein.

I don't "deny" your creator, i just don't believe it. Those are not the same things.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

The entire Bible depends on it being a unified whole.

Why do you start with begging the question in the first place?

What came first, your belief in the Bible being a unified whole, or your conversion?

1 Reply

The Bible (a discussion)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know