A matter of faith and pride

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

A matter of faith and pride

Post #1

Post by Willum »

Theists often brag about their faith, based on what, to an impartial observer, is a 3rd century comic.*
Their faith can override observation, even science - depending on the myth, story or fable.

So the question is this:
If you yourself acknowledge you have no knowledge but faith in these stories, and you yourself can not distinguish the Bible from other myths (except by personal opinion or upbringing), why should you expect your opinions to be taken seriously?



* = Indeed, it can be shown many, if not all Bible story were reproduced from other people’s fairytales, childrens’ stories, myth or religion.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #11

Post by TRANSPONDER »

theophile wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:51 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:16 pm
theophile wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 2:25 pm
Willum wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:07 pm Theists often brag about their faith, based on what, to an impartial observer, is a 3rd century comic.*
Their faith can override observation, even science - depending on the myth, story or fable.

So the question is this:
If you yourself acknowledge you have no knowledge but faith in these stories, and you yourself can not distinguish the Bible from other myths (except by personal opinion or upbringing), why should you expect your opinions to be taken seriously?



* = Indeed, it can be shown many, if not all Bible story were reproduced from other people’s fairytales, childrens’ stories, myth or religion.
Faith ought not be intellectual acceptance that the bible is, say, historical truth. Or scientific even, at least in the the sense of the hard sciences as often compared. Biblical stories are more on the side of the softer sciences like moral and political science. Economics even. And we should look at them from these vantages if we want to assess their truth value.

So to your question I say sure, the stories are false from certain perspectives. But perhaps they will not be from others. And that these other aspects are perhaps much more important. So who cares?
That's fine so far as it goes. Rather like cafeteria Christianity. I have to say that it is a bit evasive, and one has a grudging admiration for those Inerrantists who would rather break than bend, but the Cafeteria Christians say that they are choosing the Good and eschewing the Evil. Which is rather where you came in.

I say that the honest approach would be to say 'Ok, the Bible is no more valid than any other book'. That is where you came in, too. You are arguing (effectively) that it might not be true but it can have some good ideas, lessons and advice.

To which I say: "And it might not". It has to be stripped of all residual credit and evaluated like any other book that seeks to teach life lessons. And I need hardly add that it is human moral codes and human logical reasoning that will apply as 'God's logic' and God's commandments are as invalid as the supposed factual events in a book that has just been declared unreliable, if I got you correctly.

Bear in mind that the much - vaunted Golden Rule is not Patented by Christianity but borrowed from human basic morality - Reciprocity. And as I recall, it is actually reversed in meaning to make it a pestilential evangelists' charter ("If I were in your shoes, I'd want you to convert me." effectively) and we all know how devoutly followed is the exhortation to give your assailant mugger your mobile 'phone, car keys, shirt, tie and boxer shorts, or to give all you have to the poor and follow Jesus.

Bad advice dudes and they know it. Never mind the one about helping out your neighbour pleases God more than going to church. ;) Sure you know it, but maybe it didn't sink in what it actually said.
To be clear, I am not saying pick and choose what you like from the bible. (A cafeteria Christianity as you suggest.) I am not saying we should disregard Genesis 1 (for example) because it lacks cosmological fact, as if it's some kind of intellectual embarrassment that should be hidden away. Rather I'm saying we need to view it through a different lens, with every single word of it being important to conveying (and understanding) its truth value. (Which I think is significant -- far more so than the physical truth of how the cosmos formed.) So I get why you're saying 'cafeteria Christianity', but it's less picking and choosing from the bible as it is picking a certain lens to view the bible --in its entirety-- from.

To that end, yes, I am effectively saying that the bible still has 'good ideas, lessons, and advice' as you put it. I would use stronger terms than that (i.e., I think the bible conveys a complete and robust moral-political-economic system), but your comment is fair enough. And I wouldn't argue against your point that it needs to be evaluated like any other such system (say, Communism). Of course it does. Nor your point that it shares in 'basic human morality' (whatever that is). The bible doesn't have a monopoly on such truth.

I'm not sure I'm following your point on God's logic and commandments though. Are you saying that from a moral perspective, the bible is false, because the laws it conveys are false? A bigger discussion, but if so, I would suggest that focusing on the law loses the forest for the trees. Not that we should disregard the law (a la cafeteria Christianity), but that the law and following the law was never the point to begin with. Any such codification of moral truth will eventually breakdown under the weight of the world and its limitless variations. As Paul says, Christians are not under the law, but grace.
Thank you. That's a thoughtful response. Now it may make me look a bit narrow in outlook, but I have a fundamental problem with taking something that doesn't work in practical or evidential terms and then 'view it through a different leans'.

Ah yes, I know what I was trying to get at. The truer than true fallacy. Effectively 'science is not the only or best way at looking at things'. Sure, the emotional, poetic and artistic stained window of human thought is perfectly valid. Science can't help us with art or music (other than the physics of chords and chemistry of oil paints) but with the way the world works, science has shewn itself the best (indeed the only) way of saying what is and is not so. And you may take that to the bank.

Now, if you will accept that on Geological and Palaeontological (never mind astronomical) evidence, Genesis is simply wrong, we are on the same page. What, then, is the other 'lens' through which we see it? Dude, if it's trying to wangle and fiddle Genesis, etc. to fit the science, you are only cheating yourself. If it is a poetic/symbolic approach to human musings of these things, that's back to human books and story -telling and is limited to human art and poetry and nothing to to do with science facts that exist no matter what humans know or don't know.

Chum, I would urge anyone not to go down the 'symbolically true' rabbit hole unless they dearly want to cling to a debunked book of Faith -claims. In the "Theist to English dictionary and phrase book" (1) "Metaphorically true" translates as "Not true at all".

If I may refer again to the Beloved LoR, it is a great story, but I do not agree with or approve of many of the messages Tolkien lays down. So a Metaphorical Bible, like a wrong (factually) Bible still has to be approached with eyes open and the rose colored classes shut in the spectacle -case. We have to consider the metaphor or symbolism just as we do 'good ideas' or ethical urgings - open to discussion, not smuggled into the factual credibility section with the fake passes of metaphor and symbolism.

That said, what...yes to both, or No. The Bible is open to question on all fronts and aspects, simply because it fails on factual claims. And looked at as we would look at any other Book, yes it does fail as a moral guide. And even if it worked, that would only mean that it was a successful adaptation of human moral codes. It would not validate the Bible as any more credible or reliable than any other book (and less so than a few others) even if the morals worked out fine. They signally do not. It is of course considering the whole moral messaging and examples and indeed claims, promises and prophecies and of course not the Law if you mean the Mosaic law. Which Jesus revised, adapted and changed utterly in a New Covenant and then (Matthew tells us (2) swore that he hadn't. No it's the whole moral thing. Even sound advice and good ideas in the Bible are found in other human cultures, so they don't especially validate the Bible as anything else but yet another old book of ideas, beliefs and fairy -tales.

Your final part ..hang on.... "following the law was never the point to begin with. Any such codification of moral truth will eventually breakdown under the weight of the world and its limitless variations. As Paul says, Christians are not under the law, but grace."

:D Well, it depends what 'Grace' means to you. If you mean what God is pleased with, then that is a non starter. With a book we can't trust on fact, we can hardly trust it for supernatural claims. If you are interpreting it as doing good so as to please God, then that's ok, but still it's human moral codes that is the guide, and not the Bible which (evaluated as a moral manual) fails too often. If Grace is a metaphor for human moral strivings producing the best results...I get the metaphor, but reference to Paul is no more True than Boromir swearing that Osgiliath will once again be a place of music, light and drunken foam -parties. The substance, not the scenery, is what matters.

That's assuming that you are not trying to use metaphor to smuggle Bible (NT or even Christian Dogma) validity in disguised as Humanist Ethics. You may be unable to shake the idea of a huge invisible curtain - peeping granny behind It All, but you won't get it past me that she is the best example of how I should live.

(1) It caused Google translate to crash, so it isn't there.

(2) I am sure that Matthew means by fullfilled is that Jesus has rendered the Law obsolete as he has just made it better with the spirit of the Law rather than the letter. And see also Luke's version of this (Q material) Luke 16.17 which has been in the past a discussion of whdther Matthew or Luke best reflects the original and which one of them has altered it.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #12

Post by Willum »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11]

You do realize that you are invoking the books of the Bible, without having distinguished them significantly from Grimm’s Fairytales?

Matthew did not live at the same time as Jesus, so why should we care if he quotes or interprets a man or demigod that can’t be shown to exist?
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.

You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.

To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #13

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Willum wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 11:00 am [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11]

You do realize that you are invoking the books of the Bible, without having distinguished them significantly from Grimm’s Fairytales?

Matthew did not live at the same time as Jesus, so why should we care if he quotes or interprets a man or demigod that can’t be shown to exist?

Well yes. The claim is that they are factual and that is how the argument has to go. Other that trying to pass them off as metaphorically factual, they are, as you say. no more than fairy tales and so nothing to be discussed.

I agree that Matthew was later than Jesus. In fact I suspect a lot later, perhaps even later than John, despite John's Jesus being more godlike or Mythological and Matthew's interest in the OT makes him look Jewish. I just wanted to point up this often debated idea that Matthew reported that Jesus wanted to uphold the Jewish law. In fact Matthew's words (that he stuffs into Jesus' mouth) suggests that he was much interested in the OT and wanted to argue that Jesus continued on the Jewish basis. That didn't stop him (I argue) trashing all the old Law (while protesting that he was 'fulfilling' it) and also the Jews along with it, since he clearly detested them.

I fully agree that Matthew's opinion doesn't matter, except that Bible -believers (and not a few skeptical Bible -critics) seem to think that his opinion does matter. I don't know how many skeptics and Bible - critics seriously think that Matthew (the writer - whoever he really was) was a Jewish follower of Jesus and an eyewitness, but I'd say that even I (coming clear -eyes and untrammelled by previous lore, unhampered by stringent certificates, unrestricted by restrictive degrees or studies, in fact totally ignorant) can prove that Matthew was neither Jewish nor eyewitness. Though some have argued that few Jews at the time could read Hebrew. But I'm sure that Rabbis trained in the Law, could and there is No reason why Matthew was restricted to the Greek Septuagint for his prophecies - unless he was a Greek Christian who never hobnobbed with Jewish Rabbis, but preferred to damn them from a safe distance.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #14

Post by theophile »

Willum wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 9:33 am [Replying to theophile in post #9]

True, but the Bible has so many bad ideas, poor examples and downright evil, that a wise man would begin without it.

But remember, the topic is about whether you can distinguish the Bible from a 3rd century comic book.

I would presume if you could have, you would have.

Since you can’t, why should the opinion of someone who venerates a comic as real, be given serious consideration?

Do you value a toddler’s insight into Santa?
What comic book are we comparing it to sorry? Is this a pure hypothetical? A comic book may express the same truth as the bible (again, no monopoly) but what distinguishes it in general is as I have been saying: it is the moral-political-economic (versus historic-scientific) truth that the bible conveys.

We can go into detail on what that is, if you want, but that would potentially derail.

As for a toddler's insight into Santa, again, there is no taking serious those who do not pursue truth. (What I take to be your main question.) So no, I don't value it. Not intellectually at least.

But I do trust human ability to understand God, whatever that is. If that is what you mean to capture by toddlers and Santa.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #15

Post by theophile »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am Thank you. That's a thoughtful response. Now it may make me look a bit narrow in outlook, but I have a fundamental problem with taking something that doesn't work in practical or evidential terms and then 'view it through a different lens'.
Here is the rub. I keep suggesting that the bible is economics, which is measurable (or practical / evidential to use your terms). But biblical economics has never been allowed to reign. So I have no data to back that up, other than mostly anecdotal data of the current economic system (but that sure as heck isn't biblical).
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am Ah yes, I know what I was trying to get at. The truer than true fallacy. Effectively 'science is not the only or best way at looking at things'. Sure, the emotional, poetic and artistic stained window of human thought is perfectly valid. Science can't help us with art or music (other than the physics of chords and chemistry of oil paints) but with the way the world works, science has shewn itself the best (indeed the only) way of saying what is and is not so. And you may take that to the bank.
100%. But how the world works (physical science) is one thing. How to work in the world is another thing altogether. That, again, is more of a moral-political-economic question than it is physical science. And a more important question at that (at least, I would argue, for those currently living in the world).
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am Now, if you will accept that on Geological and Palaeontological (never mind astronomical) evidence, Genesis is simply wrong, we are on the same page. What, then, is the other 'lens' through which we see it? Dude, if it's trying to wangle and fiddle Genesis, etc. to fit the science, you are only cheating yourself. If it is a poetic/symbolic approach to human musings of these things, that's back to human books and story -telling and is limited to human art and poetry and nothing to to do with science facts that exist no matter what humans know or don't know.
Not fitting it to physical science, no. I appreciate physical science but I think it's of secondary concern. Per above, Genesis 1 doesn't show us how the world works but how to work in the world. How to live. That is its truth. (Frankly, I don't think Genesis 1 even tries to show the beginning of the cosmos-- that is a huge misconception-- and so to call it wrong on that front is to miss the point.)
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am Chum, I would urge anyone not to go down the 'symbolically true' rabbit hole unless they dearly want to cling to a debunked book of Faith -claims. In the "Theist to English dictionary and phrase book" (1) "Metaphorically true" translates as "Not true at all".
No, the opposite in fact. We need to convert the symbolism of the bible (of stories such as Genesis 1) down to real, straightforward, practical terms. Again, there's a moral-political-economic system being conveyed by those stories. That is what we must ascertain to see how it holds up (either to intellectual scrutiny or real world tests) before we call it false.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am The Bible is open to question on all fronts and aspects, simply because it fails on factual claims. And looked at as we would look at any other Book, yes it does fail as a moral guide. And even if it worked, that would only mean that it was a successful adaptation of human moral codes.
It would not validate the Bible as any more credible or reliable than any other book (and less so than a few others) even if the morals worked out fine. They signally do not.
Why does the bible fail as a moral guide? What evidence do you have of this? Per above, I don't think a truly biblical order has ever been established, so how can we judge it a failure? While a majority in the world today may call themselves Christian, today's economic order is not biblically aligned. We live in a world of consumerism and relative self-interest. That is the 'basic human morality' if there is one. So this, or any previous time frankly, does not provide any evidence to the claim it is a failed system.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am Your final part ..hang on.... "following the law was never the point to begin with. Any such codification of moral truth will eventually breakdown under the weight of the world and its limitless variations. As Paul says, Christians are not under the law, but grace."

:D Well, it depends what 'Grace' means to you. If you mean what God is pleased with, then that is a non starter. With a book we can't trust on fact, we can hardly trust it for supernatural claims. If you are interpreting it as doing good so as to please God, then that's ok, but still it's human moral codes that is the guide, and not the Bible which (evaluated as a moral manual) fails too often. If Grace is a metaphor for human moral strivings producing the best results...I get the metaphor, but reference to Paul is no more True than Boromir swearing that Osgiliath will once again be a place of music, light and drunken foam -parties. The substance, not the scenery, is what matters.
Grace means we live freely, and give freely of ourselves. It means others do the same, and we're the beneficiaries. It's a completely different system than one ordered by law, which comes with strict terms and conditions, versus the unconditional nature of grace, where everything is free.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #16

Post by Purple Knight »

This is not entirely on-topic, but I'm often jealous of people who have higher morals than I do.

I can definitely see having pride in one's faith, because I look at myself and see a pathetic piece of greedy garbage clutching at worldly things like my house and my cats. I'm sitting here valuing low things. Ultimately, material things.

Then I look at moral people and see them reaching higher. This is not limited to the religious, but also includes the extremely moral. Even if they happen to be wrong I still respect it. They're still higher than I am in this regard.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #17

Post by Willum »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #13]

Are you really trying to turn my OP into the stale boring one about whether the Bible is metaphor, and how much.

I am insulted.

I guess it does allow folks to ramble and meander and not reach a conclusion.

But this kind of argument, changing an argument from one that can reach a conclusion, to the same stale ones that never can, is poor logic and problem solving.

I am not asking about metaphor, I am stating, in strong form, the Bible can’t be distinguished from fairytales.

And if one takes pride in that, in having faith in that, how could a sane person respect that person?

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #18

Post by Willum »

[Replying to theophile in post #14]

At this point your avoiding the topic is just amusing.

I suppose you can put forward no reason why someone who can’t distinguish their holy book from comic book should have respect, and therefore we should respect such people as our intuition dictates.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #19

Post by TRANSPONDER »

theophile wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 9:07 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am Thank you. That's a thoughtful response. Now it may make me look a bit narrow in outlook, but I have a fundamental problem with taking something that doesn't work in practical or evidential terms and then 'view it through a different lens'.
Here is the rub. I keep suggesting that the bible is economics, which is measurable (or practical / evidential to use your terms). But biblical economics has never been allowed to reign. So I have no data to back that up, other than mostly anecdotal data of the current economic system (but that sure as heck isn't biblical).
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am Ah yes, I know what I was trying to get at. The truer than true fallacy. Effectively 'science is not the only or best way at looking at things'. Sure, the emotional, poetic and artistic stained window of human thought is perfectly valid. Science can't help us with art or music (other than the physics of chords and chemistry of oil paints) but with the way the world works, science has shewn itself the best (indeed the only) way of saying what is and is not so. And you may take that to the bank.
100%. But how the world works (physical science) is one thing. How to work in the world is another thing altogether. That, again, is more of a moral-political-economic question than it is physical science. And a more important question at that (at least, I would argue, for those currently living in the world).
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am Now, if you will accept that on Geological and Palaeontological (never mind astronomical) evidence, Genesis is simply wrong, we are on the same page. What, then, is the other 'lens' through which we see it? Dude, if it's trying to wangle and fiddle Genesis, etc. to fit the science, you are only cheating yourself. If it is a poetic/symbolic approach to human musings of these things, that's back to human books and story -telling and is limited to human art and poetry and nothing to to do with science facts that exist no matter what humans know or don't know.
Not fitting it to physical science, no. I appreciate physical science but I think it's of secondary concern. Per above, Genesis 1 doesn't show us how the world works but how to work in the world. How to live. That is its truth. (Frankly, I don't think Genesis 1 even tries to show the beginning of the cosmos-- that is a huge misconception-- and so to call it wrong on that front is to miss the point.)
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am Chum, I would urge anyone not to go down the 'symbolically true' rabbit hole unless they dearly want to cling to a debunked book of Faith -claims. In the "Theist to English dictionary and phrase book" (1) "Metaphorically true" translates as "Not true at all".
No, the opposite in fact. We need to convert the symbolism of the bible (of stories such as Genesis 1) down to real, straightforward, practical terms. Again, there's a moral-political-economic system being conveyed by those stories. That is what we must ascertain to see how it holds up (either to intellectual scrutiny or real world tests) before we call it false.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am The Bible is open to question on all fronts and aspects, simply because it fails on factual claims. And looked at as we would look at any other Book, yes it does fail as a moral guide. And even if it worked, that would only mean that it was a successful adaptation of human moral codes.
It would not validate the Bible as any more credible or reliable than any other book (and less so than a few others) even if the morals worked out fine. They signally do not.
Why does the bible fail as a moral guide? What evidence do you have of this? Per above, I don't think a truly biblical order has ever been established, so how can we judge it a failure? While a majority in the world today may call themselves Christian, today's economic order is not biblically aligned. We live in a world of consumerism and relative self-interest. That is the 'basic human morality' if there is one. So this, or any previous time frankly, does not provide any evidence to the claim it is a failed system.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 10:31 am Your final part ..hang on.... "following the law was never the point to begin with. Any such codification of moral truth will eventually breakdown under the weight of the world and its limitless variations. As Paul says, Christians are not under the law, but grace."

:D Well, it depends what 'Grace' means to you. If you mean what God is pleased with, then that is a non starter. With a book we can't trust on fact, we can hardly trust it for supernatural claims. If you are interpreting it as doing good so as to please God, then that's ok, but still it's human moral codes that is the guide, and not the Bible which (evaluated as a moral manual) fails too often. If Grace is a metaphor for human moral strivings producing the best results...I get the metaphor, but reference to Paul is no more True than Boromir swearing that Osgiliath will once again be a place of music, light and drunken foam -parties. The substance, not the scenery, is what matters.
Grace means we live freely, and give freely of ourselves. It means others do the same, and we're the beneficiaries. It's a completely different system than one ordered by law, which comes with strict terms and conditions, versus the unconditional nature of grace, where everything is free.
I don't know about 'economics' but I'd agree that science is useful for understanding the world, but how to live in it is morality and ethics. I don't agree however with ..what was it?.. We need to convert the symbolism of the bible (of stories such as Genesis 1) down to real, straightforward, practical terms" I suspect that is trying to make the Bible work when iot actually doesn't , e.g by saying a wrong fact is a symbolic lesson. On the other hand it can be argued that it is 'symbolic' as giving life -lessons.

You ask why I don't think it is a good example. I don't think I need labour the OT but the New, and there, my argument is that it is not to be given any more credit than any other book of lifestyle advice (of course, those who see it as divine inspiration rather than human won't accept that).

I have given some examples of why it fails - not giving all you have to the poor and following Jesus. Christians don't do that (other than Monks and nuns) and so it's a fail. Treating the sick with Faith and prayer is hardly a good model. Just a few examples, and the rest is a matter of discussion. But that establishes the principle. Any good ideas are not (as I said) the exclusive province of the Bible but is human ethics. The Bible needs to be judged by ethics, not ethics by the Bible.

In fact I had an argument on this. think it was slavery. The point being that it was accepted that it was wrong and apologetics (aside from those who might approve of slavery, and we can ignore those) tries to argue that it wasn't really slavery, or God didn't actually approve but had to go along with it. If this is God's book of lifestyle, it would be good and no evasions. But here human morality is being used to judge the book.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #20

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to Willum in post #1]

The problem you'll likely run into here is with this sentence:
"...you yourself can not distinguish the Bible from other myths (except by personal opinion or upbringing)..."
Christians are arrogant in the sense that they think they can tell the difference. How many believers on this site, in reference to cults, have said something akin to "I can tell the real messiah" or "cult leader XYZ can't fool me/REAL christians"?*
So I doubt you'll get any honest replies from christians as they believe they're mentally advanced more than the average person due to their personal 'walk with christ'. Faith seems to increase pride and promote arrogance while discounting the ability to be humble.
But we shall see...


*To be fair, this is something that we see in most all people regardless of their belief, but as your question was directed towards believers, the response is as well.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

Post Reply