Liars and whores

Niall001 · Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:01 am Post subject: Genesis

Yup, I know thats what it sounds like. But really, what were you expecting? I can speculate as to his motives, but I can't really expect to be able to answer the question anymore than a toddler can expect to understand why they are getting a shot. That is the bottom line.

However, it is my belief, and the belief of the majority of christians I have known, that the story of creation is written in a style that should not be interperated in the literal way that you seem to assume christians do.
As far back as St. Augustine (354-430) and further still, bible scholars have said that the language of Genisis is poetic and theological and should NOT be interpeted literally. According to christianity, man is made of both body and soul. Of course science cannot detect 'souls'.
Perhaps, it tells the story of the creation of man's soul?

AS to why God would give an allegory as opposed to a factual account, you have to consider what the prupose of Genesis is. It tells us WHY we are here, rather than how we got here. Genesis is not even considered to be the complete account of creation by christians for instance check out John 1:1-3 and Job 38:4, 6-7 if you want specifics.

Anyway, so you know what I meant first time round:
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.' Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength. - 1 Corinthians 1:18-25

Jeremy1952 · Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:21 am Post subject: Re: Genesis

Naill

Quote:
Of course science cannot detect 'souls'

Why not?

Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples, a culture of illuminations hit upon by a fortunate turn of history that yielded the most effective way of learning about the real world ever conceived. E.O.Wilson

Niall001 · Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:42 am Post subject: Re: Genesis

Because it is not physical.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 4:09 pm Post subject: Re: Genesis

Nial

Quote:
However, it is my belief, and the belief of the majority of christians I have known, that the story of creation is written in a style that should not be interperated in the literal way that you seem to assume christians do.

Ok, fine. We don't have to accept the creation story literally. Now that we have established that some of the stories in the Bible didn't really happen as written, you should have no problem considering my next statement. I say we should not take literally the story told in the Bible of Jesus being born of an immaculate conception. I also say we should not take literally the story about Jesus rising from the dead. Sound cool?

Who is to decide which stories should be taken literally and which should be considered embellishment? If you can identify several incidents where the Bible tells fictitious stories, why would you consider any of the Bible to be of historical significance? It seems far more rational to conclude that the entire Bible should be eyed with scrutiny. Why does this make sense for me and not for Christians? Could it be that Christians want to believe reeeaaally bad and are more than willing to perform mental gymnastics in order to believe?

So why are we to not take the creation story literally...and then take the story about Jesus rising from the dead literally? Please explain.

On souls...

You said science cannot detect them because they are not physical. Then how do you detect them? What sensory organs did you employ when you first became aware that souls exist. Explain in detail.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be." -- Leonardo da Vinci

PeterDF · Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 4:33 pm Post subject: Re: Genesis

When I went to Dawkin's lecture last year he said something that gave me one of those "WOW" moments. He said that the Christian story that says that God sent his only Son to be tortured and murdered on the cross was grossly repugnant. I had never thought of it in that way before, and of course he was right. How could any loving father do that to his son?

As for the Judao/Christian origin myth - if this had been in the least bit plausible I would probably be a believer today - the fact is it isn't. I like the Ancient Egyptian one that says that the universe is the product of God's masturbation to be far more interesting. :lol

Kostya · Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Genesis

Speaking of genesis, I have just finished reading "The Antichrist" by Nietzsche and this is his take on the bible's creation story:

--Has any one ever clearly understood the celebrated story at the beginning of the Bible--of God`s mortal terror of science? . . . No one, in fact, has understood it. This priest-book par excellence opens, as is fitting, with the great inner difficulty of the priest: he faces only one great danger; ergo, "God" faces only one great danger.--

The old God, wholly "spirit," wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is promenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. What does he do? He creates man--man is entertaining. . . But then he notices that man is also bored. God`s pity for the only form of distress that invades all paradises knows no bounds: so he forthwith creates other animals. God`s first mistake: to man these other animals were not entertaining--he sought dominion over them; he did not want to be an "animal" himself.--So God created woman. In the act he brought boredom to an end--and also many other things! Woman was the second mistake of God.--"Woman, at bottom, is a serpent, Heva"--every priest knows that; "from woman comes every evil in the world"--every priest knows that, too. Ergo, she is also to blame for science. . . It was through woman that man learned to taste of the tree of knowledge.--What happened? The old God was seized by mortal terror. Man himself had been his greatest blunder; he had created a rival to himself; science makes men godlike--it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific!--Moral: science is the forbidden per se; it alone is forbidden. Science is the first of sins, the germ of all sins, the original sin. This is all there is of morality.--"Thou shalt not know"--the rest follows from that.--God`s mortal terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one to protect one`s self against science? For a long while this was the capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure, foster thought--and all thoughts are bad thoughts!--Man must not think.--And so the priest invents distress, death, the mortal dangers of childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all, sickness--nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles of man don`t allow him to think. . . Nevertheless--how terrible!--, the edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing the gods--what is to be done?--The old God invents war; he separates the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (--the priests have always had need of war....). War--among other things, a great disturber of science !--Incredible! Knowledge, deliverance from the priests, prospers in spite of war.--So the old God comes to his final resolution: "Man has become scientific--there is no help for it: he must be drowned!". . . .

You can actually find the whole text of this book right here: http://www.underthesun.cc/Classics/Nietzsche/antichrist/

Edited by: Kostya at: 9/23/03 9:37 pm

PeterDF · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: Why indeed once again

Niall

No! I don't pretend to be an expert on ancient Hebrew. My terminology was a bit loose here. I should have said that pre-scientific people would have had no reason to believe that the Genesis story was not a literal description of the creation. (But you already knew that that was what I meant.)

I don't know very much about Augustine either but I did find this passage in Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy":

Quote:
The Greek view, that creation out of nothing is impossible, has recurred at intervals in Christian times, and has led to pantheism. Pantheism holds that God and the world are not distinct, and that everything in the world is part of God. This view is developed most fully in Spinoza, but is one to which almost all mystics are attracted. It has thus happened that mystics have had difficulty in remaining orthodox since they find it hard to believe that the world is outside God. Augustine however, feels no difficulty on this point; Genesis is explicit, and that is enough for him. His view on this matter is essential to his theory of time.

(My emphasis) I would genuinely be interested to know where you got your information. I do not have a closed mind, if there is a good case that Genesis is an allegory I would be happy to listen to it, but I suspect that you won't find one.

Quote:
However, most scholars seem to disagree with your interpretation

You are probably right that most scholars of theology would disagree. But most scientists and a majority of leading thinkers would agree with me.

Surely the point is that there is no way that anyone can make an effective rational argument that there is a god. Those that believe, do so either in spite of the lack of evidence, or even in spite of specific evidence against the individual interpretation of their particular religion. Those that want to believe are free to do so, but let us not fool ourselves that there is any rational basis for belief. The three main arguments for god are all flawed in various ways, and if you cannot find a good rational basis for god per se it is of many orders of magnitude more difficult to establish a good rational case for a specific religion like Christianity.

Edited by: PeterDF at: 9/29/03 6:01 pm

Niall001 · Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:59 am Post subject: Re: Why indeed once again

We are here because we disobeyed God's first command. We were no longer able to stay in the Garden.

As for how to interpret the Bible correctly, well that is a question I could not answer without bias. I could tell you how to interpret most parts of the bible but I would be giving you the Catholic viewpoint. I believe it to be the correct way, but for me to say that it is right, wouldn't be fair.

What you have to understand about the bible is that it contains biography, testimony, poetry, prophetic writings, parables, hyperbole etc. and learn where one should read the bible writings in certain ways. This involves asking the w questions. You must put the line in the context of the paragraph, the paragraph in the context of the chapter, the chapter in the context of the book and the book in the context of the bible.

Peter, here is a quote from St. Augustine in one of his commentaries on Genesis:
''In the beginning were created only the germs or causes of the forms of life which were afterwards to be developed in gradual cause"
Its far from literal. A good online biography for Augustine can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Another interesting reference to genesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is ''The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

It was only during the reformation that the 'more literal than thou' movement began to take center stage.

Alas, I've gotta burn.

Edit: I had to leave the lab before I said everything I had to say.

Quote:
Surely the point is that there is no way that anyone can make an effective rational argument that there is a god. Those that believe, do so either in spite of the lack of evidence, or even in spite of specific evidence against the individual interpretation of their particular religion. Those that want to believe are free to do so, but let us not fool ourselves that there is any rational basis for belief. The three main arguments for god are all flawed in various ways, and if you cannot find a good rational basis for god per se it is of many orders of magnitude more difficult to establish a good rational case for a specific religion like Christianity.

I agree.

Quote:
You are probably right that most scholars of theology would disagree. But most scientists and a majority of leading thinkers would agree with me.

Most scientists etc. are hardly experts in the relevant fields. A man may be an expert in one field but this does not make him an correct on all matters. *cough*chomsky*cough*

Edited by: Niall001 at: 10/2/03 4:47 am

Meme Wars

Niall001:

"Really unless you've studied the entire bible in the correct manner, theres no point trying to understand most of it. Most people here haven't and until they do..... "

Monty Vonn:

After meeting a diverse group of people in the military, I came back home to study the Bible to decifer which denomination was more on track. I spent the next 4 years reading it from cover to cover. The things I discovered shocked me, horrified me and discussed me. It was probably the one move I made that moved me furthest from my faith (Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, or Nondenominational)

The Bible was so full of contradictions and nonsense, that the only way I could make sense out of it was to accept this is a history of a group of people and their society slowly maturing over time, and weaving complicated stories to help tie together the past and future to keep some kind of continuity. They really had no clue of ultimate reality. And that much of what was written was from old oral traditions that were glorified and deified over time from lip to lip, and then eventually committed to paper.

Niall001 · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:01 am Post subject: ^^^^^^^^^

Well if monty wants to go specifics then thats fine.
Ever read the Laudabiliter that gives Henry the 2nd permission to invade Ireland? Last year, a student I know read it and concluded that Henry the 2nd was gay and having an affair with the pope.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 7:35 am Post subject: Re: ^^^^^^^^^

Niall

Umm...he was.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be." -- Leonardo da Vinci

Niall001 · Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 8:07 am Post subject: well that explains a lot!

Typical Brits!

Actually wait, were you talking about henry the second or monty?


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT