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.

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 #41

Post by nobspeople »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 1:36 pm
Eloi wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 12:16 pm This is an evolutionist fairytale: human brain grew in size because apes learned how to cook, transforming from ape to human. I heard it from one of your atheist storytellers. I don't need to be a scientist to understand that fairytale ... It is just that I don't put my faith in whom you put yours.
:D Kneejerk swipe at evolution, which you don't know about and probably don't want to. But it's irrelevant. Even if it was compleletely false that would not do a single solitary thing to prove that it was a god that did it, never mind which god. Swiping at evolution only exhibits your bias (at least) and does not do a thing to make your case for God, Bible, Jesus or Christianity.
Shinning the light of truth through (purposeful?) misunderstanding of facts is a popular MO among some. I wonder if that's a part of a personality trait or something that's indoctrinated among some sects? Or a combination of both?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

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 #42

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Eloi in post #33]

Nonsequitur.

Distinguish god from a fairytale and we’ll talk.

Until then, YOU CAN’T!

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 #43

Post by theophile »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 11:01 pm 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 say economics because the main goal in the bible is productivity / prosperity. It essentially offers an economic promise. A fecund world if only we stick to the path.

Folks get so absorbed in questions of God and if God exists (among other questions), versus thinking through / pressure testing the economic model on offer. Something more akin to a gift economy. Hence my emphasis on grace.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 11:01 pm 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.
This has nothing to do with "making the bible work." It's about understanding what the bible is saying in the first place so that we can then fairly judge whether it works or not.

So you disagree that there is, let's call it, a relatively consistent philosophical system behind all the stories? That the stories express / give voice to? Theology itself, I would argue, is the academic study and articulation of that system. It is a purposeful abstraction of the stories into more straightforward, conceptual terms. (And for sure there is difference of opinion on what that system is --many schools of thought on the matter-- but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.)
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 11:01 pm 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).
It deserves no more credit until we can fairly judge it alongside all the others, I agree.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 11:01 pm 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.
These all feel like surface attacks. And I've always stressed as well that the bible doesn't have a monopoly on truth. But more importantly, from where do we source these ethics you mention that we should use to judge the bible? You keep saying 'human morality' but what the heck is that but a conditioned set of views that prevail today? ...
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 11:01 pm 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.
It wasn't slavery in the sense of chattel slavery. More indentured servitude. Does that make it okay? No. But let's be clear about what it is (again) before we cast stones. :)

But yes, it brings back that whole concept of 'human morality' you keep raising. And there was a time (many times) when that was the prevailing view -- in Ancient Israel too (i.e., that slavery in various forms was okay). The bible doesn't run and hide from that cultural fact -- more to the point, it charts a path through / beyond it with its deeper motive and goal, even as it abides it for a time (just like in the US for example: slavery wasn't abolished in a day).

So as much as this will stick in your craw, I see this as another surface attack. It is to be offended and outraged by the very conditions / institutions that the bible itself seeks to dismantle and overcome.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #44

Post by TRANSPONDER »

theophile wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 9:28 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 11:01 pm 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 say economics because the main goal in the bible is productivity / prosperity. It essentially offers an economic promise. A fecund world if only we stick to the path.

Folks get so absorbed in questions of God and if God exists (among other questions), versus thinking through / pressure testing the economic model on offer. Something more akin to a gift economy. Hence my emphasis on grace.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 11:01 pm 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.
This has nothing to do with "making the bible work." It's about understanding what the bible is saying in the first place so that we can then fairly judge whether it works or not.

So you disagree that there is, let's call it, a relatively consistent philosophical system behind all the stories? That the stories express / give voice to? Theology itself, I would argue, is the academic study and articulation of that system. It is a purposeful abstraction of the stories into more straightforward, conceptual terms. (And for sure there is difference of opinion on what that system is --many schools of thought on the matter-- but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.)
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 11:01 pm 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).
It deserves no more credit until we can fairly judge it alongside all the others, I agree.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 11:01 pm 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.
These all feel like surface attacks. And I've always stressed as well that the bible doesn't have a monopoly on truth. But more importantly, from where do we source these ethics you mention that we should use to judge the bible? You keep saying 'human morality' but what the heck is that but a conditioned set of views that prevail today? ...
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 11:01 pm 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.
It wasn't slavery in the sense of chattel slavery. More indentured servitude. Does that make it okay? No. But let's be clear about what it is (again) before we cast stones. :)

But yes, it brings back that whole concept of 'human morality' you keep raising. And there was a time (many times) when that was the prevailing view -- in Ancient Israel too (i.e., that slavery in various forms was okay). The bible doesn't run and hide from that cultural fact -- more to the point, it charts a path through / beyond it with its deeper motive and goal, even as it abides it for a time (just like in the US for example: slavery wasn't abolished in a day).

So as much as this will stick in your craw, I see this as another surface attack. It is to be offended and outraged by the very conditions / institutions that the bible itself seeks to dismantle and overcome.
Prosperity Gospel? :D Sorry, Chum, the only Economic benefit of Christianity and its' Book is how the Christianity industry can get rich from its' dupes.

I'm all in favour of understanding what the Bible is saying, but I maintain that (obvious poetic similes aside) what is says is what it means, and Interpreting it to fit what is frankly current human scientific, Logical and social thought to try to imbue the Bible with undeserved authority is not what we should be doing.

That said, (and agreed) we are on the same page in assessing the Bible as we would any other book.

I would indeed doubt that there was a consistent Philosophical system behind the Bible, not least because the New Covenant inverts all the philosophy there was, even the teachers and the god they teach us to worship become an altogether 'alter' 'philosophy.

The source of human morals and ethics was one Q. impossible to explain. 'Human morals subjective; God's morals objective' was the argument. The way it looks now is that morals and ethics is human empathy and co -operation, which is an instinct also found in the animal world (notwithstanding that war is another persistent instinct). Empathy is also known but Humans have a particular refinement of problem -solving that allows us to see how the other person feels. So Reciporocity (co -operation) and empathy are the mechanics of what was a basic origin and instinct developed for survival (Evolution). As to an objective value apart from an objective basis and origin, human well - being is the nearest you are ever going to get.

Contrast that with an invisible dictator telling us what our morals and ethics should be, and doing something different as often as not.

No, old mate, don't pretend that Human ethics are lacking when compared to the vileness and foolishness of the Bible. Quite apart from factual and scientific fallacy.

Slavery? Read the Bible rather than your apologetics site. Indentured servitude for Hebrew slaves may have been the rule (though it seems the Rule is to release them after 7 years whether they had their life on track or not, unless you could saddle him with a wife and trick him into lifetime servitude). But for Foreign slaves, there was no get out; they were your property for life, and could be parcel -wrapped for your kids as birthday presents.
Chattel slavery, and don't let no apologetics page tell you anything else.

If slavery doesn't stick in your craw, if trying to pass it off as something else, lying to you who trusted your mentoring apologists, doesn't stick in your craw, it should. I don't know about offended and outraged, but I feel sorry for those who are lied to and bamboozled and trust what they are told so they don't feel the need to check it themselves. I am aggrieved for you, pal as I hate people who try to fool and bamboozle me, and I feel it when they have done it to you.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #45

Post by Difflugia »

theophile wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 9:28 amIt wasn't slavery in the sense of chattel slavery. More indentured servitude. Does that make it okay? No. But let's be clear about what it is (again) before we cast stones. :)
Yes, let's.

Slavery in the Roman Empire was chattel slavery.
Slaves were chattel in the Roman empire, a material, legal, philosophical and existential fact.—Slavery in the Late Roman World AD 275-425 by Kyle Harper, p. 35
Some owners of slaves were kind and humane and others weren't. Christian apologetic arguments typically compare the worst of American antebellum slavery with an often idealized version of Roman slavery, but the two were foundationally the same: slaves were property in an absolute sense. During later centuries of the Roman Empire, slaves began to enjoy more legal protection, similar to the ways that animal rights protections are stricter now in the United States than they were 50 or 100 years ago, but at no point did slavery mean something fundamentally different than it did in the antebellum South.

This was explored a bit in this thread and I provided more sources.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7956
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #46

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Difflugia wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:58 am
theophile wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 9:28 amIt wasn't slavery in the sense of chattel slavery. More indentured servitude. Does that make it okay? No. But let's be clear about what it is (again) before we cast stones. :)
Yes, let's.

Slavery in the Roman Empire was chattel slavery.
Slaves were chattel in the Roman empire, a material, legal, philosophical and existential fact.—Slavery in the Late Roman World AD 275-425 by Kyle Harper, p. 35
Some owners of slaves were kind and humane and others weren't. Christian apologetic arguments typically compare the worst of American antebellum slavery with an often idealized version of Roman slavery, but the two were foundationally the same: slaves were property in an absolute sense. During later centuries of the Roman Empire, slaves began to enjoy more legal protection, similar to the ways that animal rights protections are stricter now in the United States than they were 50 or 100 years ago, but at no point did slavery mean something fundamentally different than it did in the antebellum South.

This was explored a bit in this thread and I provided more sources.
Thank you. Of course I can see that the OT tries to deal with slavery in as decent a way as seemed good to them at the time, though it doesn't impress us now. But slavery (particularly for not - Hebrew slaves owned by Hebrews) it certainly was and part of the argument is why God (supposedly knowing morals now as much as morals then) did not tell Hebrews not to own another person as property.

But your point is valid about what the NT says, never mind the OT (made all new as we know, when Jesus arrived). Slavery is not denounced either by Jesus or by Paul, and the most that apologists can say is that Paul implies that it is good if slaves can become free, by buying their freedom, for example. They knew that people did not want to be slaves, as often as not, so there isn't even the excuse that they thought it was Indentured servitude and perfectly good for them. And yet not a word of denunciation.

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 #47

Post by theophile »

Difflugia wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:58 am
theophile wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 9:28 amIt wasn't slavery in the sense of chattel slavery. More indentured servitude. Does that make it okay? No. But let's be clear about what it is (again) before we cast stones. :)
Yes, let's.

Slavery in the Roman Empire was chattel slavery.
Was Israel under the Roman Empire when those laws were written down? I don't think so. So what does slavery under Rome have to do with my point about the form of slavery in Ancient Israel?

Here, check out the 'Biblical era' section. It's more pertinent to the conversation at hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_vi ... blical_era

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 #48

Post by theophile »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:50 am I'm all in favour of understanding what the Bible is saying, but I maintain that (obvious poetic similes aside) what is says is what it means, and Interpreting it to fit what is frankly current human scientific, Logical and social thought to try to imbue the Bible with undeserved authority is not what we should be doing.
If what it says is what it means, then what it says is we are no longer under the law. Which means, there is something bigger going on, and folks need to look at that and stop getting stuck on parts that are rendered obsolete in the broader narrative. Things like slavery, which is rendered obsolete with the law. Or death even at the end.

So don't suggest, as you seem to, that I'm okay with slavery. I said I was not and I am not. The problem, frankly, is that most folks don't stick to the text as you say, but they read things into the text that aren't there. Things like God = omnipotent. Or has more control over things than we could possibly imagine. Which makes the broader narrative I'm suggesting suspect and a non-starter. (Everything comes down to the same inane argument that God could have and should have done otherwise.)
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:50 am Slavery? Read the Bible rather than your apologetics site. Indentured servitude for Hebrew slaves may have been the rule (though it seems the Rule is to release them after 7 years whether they had their life on track or not, unless you could saddle him with a wife and trick him into lifetime servitude). But for Foreign slaves, there was no get out; they were your property for life, and could be parcel -wrapped for your kids as birthday presents.
Chattel slavery, and don't let no apologetics page tell you anything else.

If slavery doesn't stick in your craw, if trying to pass it off as something else, lying to you who trusted your mentoring apologists, doesn't stick in your craw, it should. I don't know about offended and outraged, but I feel sorry for those who are lied to and bamboozled and trust what they are told so they don't feel the need to check it themselves. I am aggrieved for you, pal as I hate people who try to fool and bamboozle me, and I feel it when they have done it to you.
See? I told you it would stick in your craw :)

Also, what do you think I do all day? Read apologetics websites? Listen to internet crazies? Jeez.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: A matter of faith and pride

Post #49

Post by Difflugia »

theophile wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 9:10 pmWas Israel under the Roman Empire when those laws were written down? I don't think so. So what does slavery under Rome have to do with my point about the form of slavery in Ancient Israel?
First, if your point was only about slavery in Ancient Israel, then it didn't fully address the earlier post that was discussing how both the Old Testament and the New failed as lifestyle advice.

Second, if by "it" you mean Ancient Israelite slavery in general, then "it" also included the enslavement of prisoners of war, which pretty clearly isn't debt slavery by any definition.
theophile wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 9:10 pmHere, check out the 'Biblical era' section. It's more pertinent to the conversation at hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_vi ... blical_era
Thanks.

The statement that Israelite slavery was more like indentured servitude seems not to be supported by either the rest of the article, other scholarly treatments, or the Bible itself. While biblical law does anticipate and regulate the debt slavery of fellow Israelites, there is always a class of slaves that is not subject to the protections afforded fellow Israelites:
The laws governing non-Hebrew slaves were more harsh than those governing Hebrew slaves: non-Hebrew slaves could be owned permanently, and bequeathed to the owner's children, whereas Hebrew slaves were treated as servants, and were released after six years of service or the occurrence of a jubilee year.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

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 #50

Post by Willum »

Boy y’all will talk about any dead horse if it means you don’t have to face reality huh?

I bet if citied how Gods okay with slavery, and so it’s good, you’d be like rats on a ship with that one.

Post Reply