How to judge the Bible

[gadfly]

Hello all, new here, and so posting a new topic a mere hour from activating my account may come across as a bit audacious. But I work at a grocery store and am so d**n tired of uttering pleasantries through a mask that the opportunity to engage in real conversation is intoxicating.

I came across this quote elsewhere attributed to a Marco:

If the book makes God into a buffoon who flies through the air partly exposing himself to some open-mouthed nomad somewhere or who shouts "I can see you!" to a cavemen or loses his temper and casts a spell on a woman turning her into table salt or gives Moses a chunk rock on which he has scratched some words or who says: "Know what I'd really like - a bit of your genitalia, please." - there is no need for proof. Laughter will suffice.

The statement (delightfully caustic! although I did not get the caveman reference--Adam hiding?) raises some interesting questions seldom mentioned by skeptics: i.e., those features of the Bible with which they would heartily agree. The Bible gives us the Golden Rule no less than the flood; is the former thereby rendered "laughable" in the light of the latter? I doubt Marco or anyone would be so eager to chuckle that away. But if not, why not? They both appear in the same sacred text and claim (or at least are given by some) the same authority. What standard are we using when we confirm one part of the Bible and reject another? If we appeal to nothing more than our own intuitions (moral or rational) the problem of relativity arises: clearly the author who wrote "do not murder" felt it equally important to say, "don't pick up firewood on Saturdays". Yet we will endorse the former as fundamental to a healthy society and reject the other as ancient taboo. The same author condemned the ancient practice of idolatry: we would call this enlightened. But then he replaced it with a "Jealous god", which we would reject as a crude anthropomorphism.

We might answer that though this author was ancient and therefore limited by the ignorance of his culture, no one gets its 100% wrong. But obviously mere time is not the only divider: many today will not find all of Marco's references as ridiculous as he, and surely this is not because they are all morons!

Marco's argument thus presents the problem of relativism, and both within and without. As to without, some will find the referred incidents laughable, others will not. As to within, the same person might applaud the Golden Rule as enlightened while rejecting the flood as savage mythology.

And if all were at stake was each person's personal criterion for accepting or rejecting traditions of faith, all would be fine.

But this is a debate forum, and debates require an agreed upon criterion/a before progress can be made. One's personal reaction to episodes in the Bible (i.e., does one find it laughable or not) obviously will not do. Are we to decide an argument based on who is laughing hardest?!

Question for debate: is there a standard other than individual reactions on which we can all agree when it comes to evaluating claims of the bible?





gadfly

[DavidLeon]

I don't think it matters much, ultimately. If one is seriously interested in what the Bible says that will be reflected in a serious attempt to evaluate it fairly, whether believer or unbeliever. If the intent is merely to mock and scorn then that will be reflected as well. As far as debate goes, I think that is a product of vanity more than anything else. It may be helpful but ultimately it doesn't matter. Spirituality and education is primarily a personal responsibility.

[VVilliam]

Question for debate: is there a standard other than individual reactions on which we can all agree when it comes to evaluating claims of the bible?

I think the main reason why non-theists gravitate to the laughable parts of the bible is that they find these are easy to argue against and those who do so are perhaps being a bit intellectually lazy...
Most of this type of critique can be evaluated as projection - how we see our self comes through how we express our self...onto others, directly against the person, or indirectly against the persons beliefs or lack of beliefs.
Certainly theists are guilty of the same type of expression, so it is only natural that their stories will reflect something of that attitude.

I would suppose that the best standard we can all equally apply is the standard of intellectual honesty. Not only in regard to evaluating claims of the bible, but evaluating claims in general, and evaluating the evidence of life specifically.

I suppose at that rate, one shcould start by being intellectually honest about how we each evaluate our self, and how we react to that.

[WeSee]

Question for debate: is there a standard other than individual reactions on which we can all agree when it comes to evaluating claims of the bible?

I think the main reason why non-theists gravitate to the laughable parts of the bible is that they find these are easy to argue against and those who do so are perhaps being a bit intellectually lazy...
Most of this type of critique can be evaluated as projection - how we see our self comes through how we express our self...onto others, directly against the person, or indirectly against the persons beliefs or lack of beliefs.
Certainly theists are guilty of the same type of expression, so it is only natural that their stories will reflect something of that attitude.

I would suppose that the best standard we can all equally apply is the standard of intellectual honesty. Not only in regard to evaluating claims of the bible, but evaluating claims in general, and evaluating the evidence of life specifically.

I suppose at that rate, one shcould start by being intellectually honest about how we each evaluate our self, and how we react to that.

I would suppose that the best standard we can all equally apply is the standard of intellectual honesty. Not only in regard to evaluating claims of the bible, but evaluating claims in general, and evaluating the evidence of life specifically.

Of course the problem there is that many who believe that they apply "the standard of intellectual honesty", do not actually do so. Especially amongst those who are "motivated" to believe as they do. The higher the motivation, the lower the standard of intellectual honesty. Many Christians - especially evangelicals - are very highly motivated.

[Zzyzx]

.

The Bible gives us the Golden Rule no less than the flood

Correction: The Bible does not “give us the Golden Rule”. That platitude, known as the Ethic of Reciprocity, is 'given' in many cultures and ideologies – some of which long predate the Bible.

The Bible does proclaim a flood, as do many other mythical tales. However, the Genesis account is very specific that it is worldwide 'to the tops of mountains' – a tale / mythology has not been shown to be anything more than product of human imagination.

[JehovahsWitness]

Regarding your preamble , I find the typical "sceptic" response is as follows:

• The beautitudes are considered the impractical /unworkable gibberissh of a fool who would have us pacifly sucumbing to all manner of abuse and actively asking for more ("turn the other cheek"). Clearly a madman.

• The "Golden Rule" pleasant but unoriginal regugitations of truly great men like Buddah or some other non-christian (read worthy of respect) sage

Once you've had to argue that Jesus wasn't in fact worse than Hitler, sowing war, rebellion and mistreatment of ones aging mother enough times, you will no doubt learn lower your standards somewhat when it comes to pointing out any positives in scripture.

Anyway, you make some valid points about relativity but I fear you will find that once a hard-core sceptic has decided the bible is only worthy of scorn and mockery it is quite a task to get them to consider things on a deeper level. I find that replying with seriousness explaining elementary points of logic usually picks their pride enough to snap them out of the "haha hes a God's got a red bottom" mode but they go directly from that to fight (no flight) and that usually is just as unreasonable and unbalanced if a little more intellectually satisfying.

But this is a debate forum, and debates require an agreed upon criterion/a before progress can be made. One's personal reaction to episodes in the Bible (i.e., does one find it laughable or not) obviously will not do. Are we to decide an argument based on who is laughing hardest?!

Question for debate: is there a standard other than individual reactions on which we can all agree when it comes to evaluating claims of the bible?

To answer your question: We all either succumb to the standards of the higher power some attempt to judge or judge everything by our own subjective standards.




JEHOVAHS WITNESS

ps: welcome

pps: keep an eye out for flying memes.

[gadfly]

I would suppose that the best standard we can all equally apply is the standard of intellectual honesty. Not only in regard to evaluating claims of the bible, but evaluating claims in general, and evaluating the evidence of life specifically.

I suppose at that rate, one shcould start by being intellectually honest about how we each evaluate our self, and how we react to that.

No doubt sage advice in general, but hardly practicable in the current situation, which is a debate on a specific forum.

I believe Marco was quite honest when he regarded as laughable the notion of an alleged Incarnate God flying off into the sky. Let us suppose Marco is a fairly educated skeptic; at any rate, he is well aware that what goes up must either come down or keep going up...up, and still up. In his mind, this would have Jesus in some distant galaxy by now.

It would be futile to explain to him (I apologize Marcos, I now merely use your name as a "representative", not all presuming to know your thoughts) that ancient cosmology was symbolic: Luke clearly did not mean to have Jesus be the first astronaut: he was conveying Jesus' transmission into a sphere of reality not physically coterminous with our own. But (a Marcos might ask) why the levitation act?! Geographical movement has nothing to do with dimensional travel.

All in all, I do not think intellectual honesty and dishonesty is the only thing that separates believers from skeptics. Certainly, there are some skeptics who are "lazy", who propose problems but do not want to hear solutions, let alone do the hard work of finding them for themselves. But this is equally true on the believer's side: I for one prefer the company of skeptics over fundamentalists.

the question remains: is there an absolute standard by which all can agree when it comes to evaluating the various claims of the bible?

gadfly

[gadfly]

.

The Bible gives us the Golden Rule no less than the flood

Correction: The Bible does not “give us the Golden Rule”. That platitude, known as the Ethic of Reciprocity, is 'given' in many cultures and ideologies – some of which long predate the Bible.

The Bible does proclaim a flood, as do many other mythical tales. However, the Genesis account is very specific that it is worldwide 'to the tops of mountains' – a tale / mythology has not been shown to be anything more than product of human imagination.

Hello Zzyzx.

I see you are a "site supporter"; I am not sure what that means but it seems you are "up there". I also see you come on pretty aggressive against someone like me who has just joined, lol. This is not a complaint! I like a good sparring match, especially when I don't have to wear a mask! I only hope you will not mind me for answering with equal curtness.

If I had said the Bible ALONE gives the Golden Rule, you would have a good CORRECTION. But I did not; anymore than I claimed the Bible ALONE gave the verdict against "Murder": that was in agreement with any ancient legislation, for instance Hammurabi's code. I never once claimed originality for the Bible in the OP, only some compatibility with modern views.

As for the flood, I do not see how the details you give are relevant to the discussion. I was not asking whether the flood was true or not. I for one think it was a piece of mythology, but that is neither here nor there.

The point of the OP was to explore whether there was a standard for judging the Bible which all here could agree upon. For instance, some might think MORALITY were the common denominator: if anything in the Bible is morally reprehensible to one, it is rejected as "made up": that is one possible criterion. Take another example: some seem to put great value in the discrepancy between modern science and geographical statements made almost 4,000 years ago: that is, whoever wrote Genesis presented a "world-wide flood"; but modern science has shown this did not happen. It follows that whatever this author of Genesis had to say, whether of the flood, or Abraham, or Egyptian culture, is of no enduring significance.

Two different standards of evaluation. The question is, Are they truly Objective? Is intellectual honesty behind them, or are they artificial evasions?

[gadfly]

Regarding your preamble , I find the typical "sceptic" response is as follows:
The beautitudes are considered the impractical /unworkable gibberissh of a fool who would have us pacifly sucumbing to all manner of abuse and actively asking for more ("turn the other cheek"). Clearly a madman.

I certainly admit that there are some very hard and perhaps contradictory statements of Jesus. But I did not cite "Jesus"; I simply cited the Golden Rule, and Modern Western Democracy, right or wrong, believes itself to be founded on this.

The "Golden Rule" pleasant but unoriginal regugitations of truly great men like Buddah or some other non-christian (read worthy of respect) sage

A certain Zzyx (I've no doubt misspelled it) also mistook me for assuming that the Golden Rule was original to Jesus (or Leviticus, for that matter). That was not my point. My point was to find common ground by which to judge various statements of the Bible. Not "The Bible as a Whole", but individual propositions. The Golden Rule is an individual statement (certainly not original) and most accept it; the story of the flood is an individual statement (that is, it presents something for consideration) and many scoff. Why the one attitude and then the other?

Anyway, you make some valid points about relativity but I fear you will find that once a hard-core sceptic has decided the bible is only worthy of scorn and mockery it is quite a task to get them to consider things on a deeper level.

Are you claiming that there are only two sides, and neither have any intention of listening to the other with open-minds? If that is the case, then what is the point of joining a forum like this, lol?

I trust your good intentions: however, your last comment is worthy of a post, no? Is there any hope of getting the other side to "cross over"?

gadfly

[Difflugia]

Question for debate: is there a standard other than individual reactions on which we can all agree when it comes to evaluating claims of the bible?

I'm sure we could agree on one, it's just unlikely that we will.

Are we to decide an argument based on who is laughing hardest?!

Or who most misuses the word "evidence?" Or who most obliviously uses "clearly" and "obviously" in lieu of reasoned justification? Or who repeats unfounded assertions with the most stubborn conviction? Without debate moderators, those are all along for the ride.