OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real
Offline In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.
Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.
In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.
In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.
Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat. Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.
One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.
Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.
The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.
I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline Part of the reason I even raise the point is my general lack of understanding about the field of apologetics. I don't think I have ever seen a theistic debate that does not eventually lead to a root cause of faith where belief is concerned. If you are willing to believe that you'll live in eternal bliss because a deity killed part of itself then turned that piece into a member of the living dead to ward of a punishment laid out by the deity against you for parts of your nature that the deity created in the first place, because he loves you so much he needs a blood sacrifice of himself to stop himself from torturing you....and take that all on faith, why spend a significant portion of study about little things like historical fact?
Seriously, what is the point besides personal edification? You already believe so you don't need more proof. Whether or not there were 60, 600 or 60,000 people won't convince anyone that a zombie will save them from eternal torture either, either they swallow it or they don't.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:So if you think that it's a poor excuse to say the Moses story didn't happen or to hold it in a state of suspension, it's also a poor excuse to say you don't know or dismiss the Sumerian creation story of Enki. How do you know for sure that it wasn't badly translated or misunderstood and Enki really existed doing many of the activities described? Enki could be from an advanced civilization who started life or Earth and those who finally wrote about it did so with poor understanding.
Be it that my knowlege of that is somewhat limited, sure it could be. I'd have to look into it more. Though question. Are there at least 65 other books that would support the happenings and existence along with other outside sources futher confirming its possibility?
There are thousands of clay tablets from Sumer with stories not just 65 books, visit the site I mentioned earlier in this thread, ETCSL to see what I mean. That doesn't mean they are based in the real world either, but they could have basis in real events that have been misunderstood. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly convinced the gods of Sumer are real and I'm going to start building ziggurats which is how I perceive those who believe in the God of Abe.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You're welcome to consider the OT and its supposed occurrences as a theory. You're also welcome to attempt to prove it as well. Show me your parallels and connections that support the Exodus and the invasion of Canaan if you have any sources.
I'm not sure what you'd be looking for as far as 'proof' be it that any 'proof' of anything happening in history is subjective to the observer as far as reliable sources. I'll look into what is out there and check with my sources.
I'm looking for verification, which you explain somewhat in a later post that perhaps it's an insignificant number of Hebrews involved in the Exodus thus leaving no trail to track.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Science evolves as more understanding occurs. Theories are refined and some are abandoned. We still have much to learn and understand. Moses and much of the OT should be considered in the same way. As far as I see, the beliefs based on Genesis up to this point, they have little support to show they are any more likely to be part of our reality than do the stories from Sumer. Neither one has me convinced that they are little more than ancient myths or story telling so far.
As does our following as Christians. Any true follower will tell you that they are 'growing in Christ until they die'. In other words, they are constantly refining their understanding of God and his intention for their lives and is always trying to improve on their understanding generally as well as their actions in life in reflection of that understanding. As for me, this includes further confirming what i understand to be true through those who will dispute it.
And since the growing in Christ is all internal and involves nothing measurable this does what in the way of supporting the belief has any basis in the real world?
you say these stories so far aren't any more likely to be a part of our reality from what you've seen. We seem to be in similar boats, though on the other side of the river. I feel the same way with what I understand of the stories through the historical information you have presented me. The fact that we concluded any discrepencies in congruency was due to lack of understanding from the writer suggests your only support is poor to conclude mythical to me. Granted my support goes beyond just the speck of what we have covered so far in our forum. We shall continue and see where it leads and I will continue to have an open mind to what you have to say.
Clearly writing from ancient sources can't be enough to support a belief in an invisible unknowable god. Since, all gods of antiquity were invisible except for the idol representations which were a likeness not thee god it seems somewhat erroneous to consider any of the ancients had enough understanding to grasp what was real and what was fabrication (or literature if you will).
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:What time period do you suggest for the events of Moses including the Exodus and invasion of Canaan?
I don't understand how timelines have anything to do with a source for the following. Regardless of when it happened, there must be something specific in history that it stemmed from. i fear that through a timeline, you're going to list of a few assumed sources that might have been the cause during that time, though if they were confirmed as such, a timeline would be irrelevent. Assuming sources is completely different than confirming sources. Most major religions of the world have a known source in history.
Since you won't commit to a date as to the alleged occurrence of the Exodus I'll have to show why it was unlikely for nearly 2,000,000 slaves to escape and wander for 40 years without running into conflict or being enslaved. Though, I notice in a later post you somewhat take this position yourself, or your sources do.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I've read some of the arguments regarding how such things as the fiery pillar occurred as well as how they crossed the"reed sea" not the Red Sea. Pretty much conjecture.
Geology and archeology would be a good step in proving that any of these events happened. So far I'm unaware of anything that indicates this in either field.
As far as I'm also aware there's nothing elsewhere that supports Moses and the Exodus.
As to the history suggested by the Bible how can I tell if an event was real. Only by comparative support. So, in the case of Ahab I know he existed because he was discussed by other cultures. In the case of Israel being invaded by the Assyrians I know this occurred because of supporting history of others. What I don't know from this support from Assyrian sources is what exactly were the religions in Israel for example. I know that there were at the time discussed 2 countries, Judah and Israel. But, I can not tell from supporting sources exactly which god or gods were worshiped. Concluding that it was only Yahweh isn't even supported by the OT, so how can one even know?
When a person comes to know Christ, the Exodus and Genesis stories tend to come later in their learning and understanding.
It'd be like me describing to you a cousin of mine who not only is a brain surgen, but also is an olympic snowboarder yet he can't spell the simplest of words (or add in your own extreme cases). The point is, until you actually get to know him in other ways, it seems a bit far fetched to assume he does both and yet cant' spell. Right now you could be thinking, how could he possibly be a certified brain surgen and yet not spell. There's no way he could have earned the degree. yet when you get to know him, you find out that it was a terrible snowboarding accident that damaged part of his brain so he can't spell but still remembers his degree skills. Now it's all making sense.
Unfortunately, I'm an engineer and engineering manager made even worse with a MBA in Finance and Accounting. This means I will dissect and follow audit trails from the start of an event or what appears to be a starting position. Since Hebrew/Jewish beliefs were around for many years prior to Christianity the proper place to begin is where the God 1st shows up, not in its modified version of Christianity. If we were only analyzing Christianity and how it began we could start with the belief structure in place in the late 1st century BCE and progress from that point. However, my position is that the foundations of God of Abe beliefs lie in the original Hebrew and Judahite beliefs (note how I don't say Israelite). First one must show what the Hebrew people believed and where it originated. If you can't support this position, then the entire structure falls down as it has no foundation.
I really take issue with the idea that Christians have any foundation to their belief when they know nothing about where their God originated and why the original believers who followed the god Yahweh for supposedly several thousand years missed the real understanding of their own prophecies and writers. One should not need the NT to explain where they missed the boat.
As to your cousin, I understand that quite well, it is a reasonable explanation as I have seen it in others.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:My disbelief started early in the myths of Genesis and all that happened following does nothing to add much that suggests any of it was in our dimension of reality at all. I can't say that Adam wasn't a real man, but the first man, I think not. Maybe the 1st Hebrew of Yahweh believing ancestors, but I'm not sure even if that has any basis in reality. Canaan also had a god named El as was the name of Abraham's god as well. How can one know it isn't the same El of the Canaanite myths?
Personality and actions play a roll in belief as well. Think about it. The Jesus of evangelical Christians is not the same Jesus that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe in, yet they hold onto the same God and the same names with a completely different following. El could have been the same God in reference, but the following may have been different.
Maybe, or maybe the original god EL of the Canaanites is the fantasy god that is the origin for Jewish myths and then it morphed through Paul into Christianity.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The problem with your acceptance of Christianity over Jewish views is you don't understand what the Jews actually accept and why. Christianity from a Jewish point of view has completely warped and misunderstood what the promised messiah was all about and through Paulinity has developed into something that was never understood to be expected in Jewish understanding. Isaiah clarifies it adequately for the Jews as well and can show you exactly where you misunderstand what the moshiarch was supposed to be. Jews have abandoned using messiah generally because the Christians have adopted it as meaning Jesus which is not at all what the moshiarch was about at all.
The NT is all about what the Jews actually accepted and why. What do you feel Christians are misunderstanding about the Jews?
The prophecies that Christians use to claim Jesus is the messiah are twisted to mean things that were not the original intentions of the passages. The Jews have a well understood expectations and prophecies of what the mosharch was/is supposed to do and Jesus does not fit the description.
See : http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
and: http://www.jewfaq.org/looking4.htm
and: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:So are you saying that you studied Judaism and Jewish understanding of the moshiarch in your quest for following your new path and rejected what they believe? If so please detail what it was in Jewish interpretations and prophecies that you saw as errant. If this is not what you mean we can discuss this more when we get to the prophets.
There's so much to cover, it might make more sense to cover it as we go through it. I have looked into it. I have studied a lot of other followings to get a better understanding. It's why I was able to confidently reference the notion that most followings have a source in history.
The group; Jews for Christ would be a great people to start with as far as misunderstandings be it that they're from a Jewish background and hold onto their heritage yet accept Christ as the messiah. I'd be curious with all the knowlege they basically have to know through their youth how they can still misinterpret the scrolls to think that Jesus is the messiah.
I'd also be curious as to why Muslims are more likely to convert to Christianity vs. a Jewish following be it that their Quran is more congruent with the Jewish following than the Christian following.
OK, as we encounter issues we'll continue to thrash them over.
Jews for Christ is thoroughly gutted by this Jewish web site mentioned above called jewsforjudaism
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The Greek and Roman gods were followed for a considerable time as were Oracles especially the Oracle at Delphi. What then were the sources for the acceptance by even larger groups of people than the Hebrews for such beliefs?
Did they eventually fade away though? That's where the difference lies. No credible source leaves open suspicion of legitimacy. Yet Christianity and Jewdaism have thrived. keep in mind it was common during Biblical times also to have a belief in may gods or to regularly change beliefs when one following wasn't working to your favor. Therefore, it's not out of the question to suggest a large following in history. The question comes in to which stood the test of time.
Many pagan religions were driven underground or viciously attacked by Christians and faded away by way of fire and swords wielded by Christians. This is another subject for another day in another thread, Christians as Killers.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline Some sources got back to me early.
They suggest as supported with other sources that historically the Exodus is plausible. Yes, there is an abundant lack of evidence for it in history. We can deduce through what we know about the history of the period that it is not impossible, given the cultural and political situation of the times, that an Exodus-like event could have happened. By that I mean, it is not impossible that a Hebrew could have risen to a politically powerful position in Egypt, brought his family there, whose descendants were later enslaved, and then a small group of which along with others who joined them, escaped with some guy named Moses who led the whole group. There is no way to prove something like this happened or didn't happened, but it is historically plausible.
I say "Exodus-like" because what is not historically plausible is the number of people the Bible claims left Egypt. 600,000 male Israelites (over 2 million people once women and children are included--to say nothing of animals!) who left Egypt and then wandered in the wilderness for 40 years is just too many to be plausible for that time. Not only are there no physical artifacts left behind by this massive movement of people in this region, but it's just too many. Our estimates of the population of Canaan are no where near that many. They just didn't have armies that large back then.
You take all the fun out of this discussion by more or less agreeing with what I was about to post. As this number was a very large city for even our times and greater than the entire population of Canaan in the 2nd millennium BCE it was unsupportable in so many ways. When I was in 6th or 7th grade in parochial school I was made to stand in the corner because I asked the question of my fundie Lutheran Schoolteacher, "where's the trash." I was considered a smart-ass for this.
If a small group of 60 to 600 escaped then possibilities exist for not much evidence or none in fact.
Archeology of Egypt especially in the city built by Ramses II, Pi-Ramesse, show that the people who built it generally were paid and lived all their lives in very community type settings. There were prisoners of war who also labored there as well until they saved enough to buy their way out. See a recent book by writer Amy Docker Marcus, "The View from Nebo" p65 or several PBS/Discovery Channels programs.
As far as the invasion of Canaan goes, there is also no evidence to support a whole-sale conquest of the land. In fact, in this instance, the evidence can be used against the record in Joshua. If something like this occurred, there might be a plethora of destruction layers throughout Canaan around the same time, evidencing an invading army (assuming they burned the cities). There are a couple here and there, but nothing like would be required for this. On the other hand, if they didn't burn the city, then once again there is no evidence either way. The book of Judges is a better picture of the settlement of Canaan by the Israelites. If you compare Joshua and Judges, you'll find that Joshua presents this massive conquest during which the Israelites wiped out all the Canaanites. Judges, on the other hand, makes it quite clear that the Israelites left many (most?) of the Canaanites alive, because they continued to plague them throughout their history.
Pretty much what Israel Finklestein says in his book, The Bible Unearthed, that the archeology does not support a sudden invasion by hordes of Israel lites, that many cities claimed to be destroyed, Ai for one was already a ruin for nearly 1000 years prior to the late 2nd millennium and Jericho had no walls at the time that would be required for Joshua to blow down.
That's obviously going into other books far beyond our position in this forum right now, but its' a good point to see that what I believe is relative to what else is there and not solely what we've covered.
That's OK, we'll be there shortly.
Your issue I believe with this is that the Bible "ought" to present a realistic, factual picture of exactly what happened, and there should be evidence to back this up, and if not evidence, certainly there should not be counter-evidence. This is a belief that many Christians hold to and are shocked to find out doesn't match up with what the Bible actually presents when they do some study.
At this, many are unable to reconcile this in their mind and will ultimately walk away. Others will stick their head in the sand and ignore it, and yet others find creative ways (that I don't think are very convincing) to work around the evidence, which basically amounts to sticking their heads in the sand.
It certainly shouldn't be based in the land of fantasy and Sci-Fi as the account of Exodus seems to be. I understand that the ancients wrote much that was literature or fiction, but unfortunately too many have taken this to be real and used such as part of their religion or for validation of it.
Another option is to re-evaluate how we think about the Bible. What it is, is literature very at home in its Ancient Near Eastern context, where history was purposefully shaped to present truths that go beyond historical "fact." Joshua is very at home within ancient near eastern "conquest" narratives - where the king would exaggerate his claims of conquest in his records of war, in order to make himself or his god look good. Exaggeration of conquest is common, and it wasn't "deceitful" - people were familiar with what was going on and would have understood the truth trying to be portrayed behind the narrative (which, in secular contexts, is that the king is a great king, or his god(s) is awesome and mighty). Joshua has its own spin on things in an Israelite, Yahwistic context. As far as the Exodus goes, either somewhere along the line someone made an error in the number (I doubt it), it was purposefully inflated for some theological purpose, or they really, honestly, didn't know how many people came out of Egypt when the author wrote down the narrative, and so they picked something impressive sounding. Once again, this is only "deceitful" or "untrue" to us moderns, who don't understand that fact does not always equal truth. They would have understood perfectly that this is an outrageous number for their time, but it was part of their tradition, and so there it is. The truth remains that their God is an awesome, delivering God who redeemed them from slavery in Egypt and made them his own.
Yes it was very common for the ancients especially kings to over state what really occurred. Yet, claiming an invasion of any kind into Canaan at the time is not supportable at all. Simply slipping into the country and establishing your homestead in the highlands as did many nomadic tribes doesn't give the tribe much of a glorious heritage. Making the claim their ancestors invaded the country and for example burned Ai to the ground would be quite impressive to an unknowing young person and they could even see that it was rubble to this day. Unfortunately, it had been so since about 2000-2100 BCE and had nothing to do with Hebrew invasions.
Your concessions that the Exodus was very small and insignificant as too was the invasion of Canaan if any occurred at all is a good step. Though I'm not sure you completely take the position the Israelite/Judahite ancestors were just nomadic settlers as Finklestein suggests.
This does not mean that we can just throw out all the narratives as myth. There must be some historical fact behind them if the truth of God being a delivering God is to be at all substantiated. But the fact is, the "facts" don't have to match exactly what happened. They weren't concerned with presenting factual historical narrative, they were concerned with shaping history in such a way that it got across the theological truths they needed to get across. Remember, these narratives were not written to modern, 21st century, scientific Americans. They were written by and to ancient semites, who had a very different worldview. To do justice to interpreting Scripture, we must as much as possible seek to understand their worldview, rather than imposing our own on Scripture. Only then can we understand the supra-cultural truths that God intends for all believers, including us. We need to allow Scripture to speak on its own terms, rather than impose our own values and worldview on it.
This gives to much credibility to something that may have no more basis in reality than the stories of Enki or Jason and the Argonauts. Maybe their stories need to be considered in the same exact methods you suggest of the Israelite sagas. Yet, you may consider these stories to be without merit and if so quite unfairly held to another standard you have imposed.
If you can agree that there were in fact not 600,000 Israelite men who left Egypt, for the reasons stated above, I would have to ask what evidence would you expect there to be? It's highly unlikely that the Pharaoh would have mentioned in his "journal" this embarrassing incident when this unknown god basically defeated his gods. Besides that fact the Egypt is difficult, because most of what we have is monumental inscriptions. I seriously doubt some king would have inscribed on his tomb, "Oh yeah, and there was this group of Hebrews who left Egypt during my reign." The fact is, in this case, we wouldn't necessarily expect evidence. If we had it, it would be surprising. Exciting, yes, but surprising. Even if such a thing did exist, there's no guarantee it survived the ravages of time. We're talking about thousands and thousands of years of history, much of which is completely lost to us forever. Absence of evidence is only important when we would expect to see evidence (such as if there were 600,000 Israelite men).
Understanding that, I'll try to find more information, but it sounds like what is said above is most of what is for or against the writing and therefore cannot be concluded either way logically through history.
Clearly 600,000 men and families did not depart Egypt and wander the Sinai for 40 years. The excrement and debris would have been noticed by others, such as the Hittites or Assyrians for example and they would have made short work of the slaves. The Sinai would be a very difficult place to march a city of 2 million people plus animals for 40 years without leaving substantial evidence, most likely 2,000,000 corpses. Of course God could have vaporized all the evidence just so you and I could argue over this point 3000 years later, right. Tsk Tsk!
I have a post I was getting ready which was discussing these very points that I will have to rewrite based on your position expressed in this post.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline Your rebuttal does not significantly change my point. You are saying it won't make sense unless we *want* to believe. Why should I walk into a decision wanting to believe one way or another? Isn't it better to attempt a neutral starting point and see both sides clearly? Either way you seem to be saying bias in favor of your brand of theism needs to be present before true understanding can appear.
uh.. not *want* to believe, but want to understand whatever the real truth might be (of course in my mind that's God, in yours it might be the absense of a god). Which in turn it seems we are in agreement that the neutral starting piont is a great place to go from.
I have expressed an open mind and a neutral approach to the issues from the beginning. I have charged everyone to challenge what i know so that I may better my understanding. You have misunderstood me, though I apologise, I dont' always explain as clearly as I'd like.
If you want to continue further with this discussion, this isn't the forum for it. The Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the unholy grail forum is the place for it. I'll see you there.
I understand your analogy of the snowboarder, I was poking fun at it, so don't take that part too seriously. Jesus, if he existed, may have been nuts but saying he was brain damaged is just speculation.
Don't worry. I joke around a lot with people on here. sometime's it's hard to tell though and i apologise. didn't want to offend you if you were being serious.
And I don't think it is a different issue. You are credulous about non-central points and standing firm on the central tenants of faith. Both should be analyzed with the same level of scrutiny. No, I take that back, the main parts should be handled with more skepticism because they are about magic, which as far as I know, does not exist.
Again, a good topic for the other forum. On there I have expressed that I never coined it magic and have in fact elaborated on theories from science and geology as other sources that might explain how some of this so called "magic" may have happened.
- Login to post comments
Your rebuttal does not significantly change my point. You are saying it won't make sense unless we *want* to believe. Why should I walk into a decision wanting to believe one way or another? Isn't it better to attempt a neutral starting point and see both sides clearly? Either way you seem to be saying bias in favor of your brand of theism needs to be present before true understanding can appear.
I understand your analogy of the snowboarder, I was poking fun at it, so don't take that part too seriously. Jesus, if he existed, may have been nuts but saying he was brain damaged is just speculation.
And I don't think it is a different issue. You are credulous about non-central points and standing firm on the central tenants of faith. Both should be analyzed with the same level of scrutiny. No, I take that back, the main parts should be handled with more skepticism because they are about magic, which as far as I know, does not exist.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.