You can't prove something does not exist. A logic giant such are yourself should know that.

Then why are you so certain? If you know this to be true, the most honest claim would be to say that you doubt there are such things as minor gods.

I have sufficiently addressed this issue for the scope of this thread. We are intruding on DWill's Chapter 13. If you want to discuss this further, start a new thread.

You are making claims based on dogma which in no way addresses geo's problems with the transition of polytheism to monotheism, which is a part of this thread. Don't blame me for calling shenanigans when I see it.

geo wrote:

geo wrote:
Wright argues that we tend to find a scriptural basis for intolerance or belligerence when we are in zero-sum relationships with other people, but when they see the relationship as non-zero-sum we are more likely to find the tolerant and understanding side of their scriptures. Is that where Wright is wrong? Or do you disagree with Wright's argument that our concept of God has changed over time? That religion has evolved from polytheism to monotheism?

Stahrwe, you still haven't responded to this. I have summarized some of Wright's major ideas. Are any of them wrong? All of them? Why?

Wright appears to be incapable of reading scripture. With respect to zero sum games he is a one trick pony. That seems to be his comfort zone. The question of our concept of God changing over time seeks a defintion. My concept of God has certainly changed over time as I went from ignorance of Him to salvation, to back slidden to returned to the fold. All the while I was changing He was constant. The same is true for each individual and society at large. Polytheism is an aberration of the true relationship of humanity to God. It tries to distract from that relationship by providing a replacement. That Wright is incapable of understanding that is not unexpected. His idea that conflict is brought about when members of society disagree is tautological. That is the basis of conflict and his assertion that monotheism abhorred synchretism, in my opion is a major reason to reject his (Wright's) theory that monotheism evolved from polytheism. Generally polytheism has room for one more god. In fact, in the Book of Acts we find a prime example:

Acts 17 wrote:
16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols.
17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.
18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?
20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.
23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

The Greeks were so ready to accept new gods they did so in advance before it was known.

Wright argues that it is monotheism's flaws which lead to conflict and perhaps that is the case. But I point out, that it was not the Christians who started the persecutions. In fact they were the victims of polytheism and it wasn't religious intolerence which was necessarily the driving force.
So, Geo, since this is pop quiz day, what was the source of the conflict I refer to above?

I don't see any point in continuing from here. There are plenty of books on the history of Christianity by people who know what they are talking about that we could read and discuss and pick apart.

Interbane wrote:

You can't prove something does not exist. A logic giant such are yourself should know that.

Then why are you so certain? If you know this to be true, the most honest claim would be to say that you doubt there are such things as minor gods.

I stand by my original statement without the word doubt.

I have sufficiently addressed this issue for the scope of this thread. We are intruding on DWill's Chapter 13. If you want to discuss this further, start a new thread.

interbane wrote:You are making claims based on dogma which in no way addresses geo's problems with the transition of polytheism to monotheism, which is a part of this thread. Don't blame me for calling shenanigans when I see it.

It is not shenanigans to discredit portions of a book which are obviously wrong. In fact it is empiricism to do so and if your 'belief' system wasn't so closely linked to that of Wright you should be supporting my efforts. When I read a book by Christian authors I am very intolerant of mistakes, even minor ones as it calls into question to correctness of the large issues, but perhaps you don't care.

I stand by my original statement without the word doubt.

You are absolutely certain they don't exist. But you cannot prove it. That is an excellent example of faith. When will you ever admit that faith is far more a part of your life than logic and reasoning? Each and every one of your belief system axioms depends primarily on faith.

Even the most sound argument on Earth has room for doubt. But you do not doubt your own conviction.

"Inquiry is fatal to certainty." ~ William J. Durant

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." ~ Charles Edward Montague

"To be uncertain is to be uncomfortable, but to be certain is to be ridiculous." ~ Chinese Proverb

“Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous.” ~ Voltaire

It is not shenanigans to discredit portions of a book which are obviously wrong. In fact it is empiricism to do so and if your 'belief' system wasn't so closely linked to that of Wright you should be supporting my efforts.

Nearly every item you have an issue with is nothing more than a difference of opinion. It's a matter of interpretation. I agree with you that if you read between the lines regarding Jesus explicitly saying he was the "Son of Man", the thread is tenuous. But how does this relate to the overall book?

You cannot criticize his overall thesis, so you claim that by nitpicking the molehills and proclaiming them to be mountains that the entire book is false. Your attempts are severely biased, and everyone in this discussion but yourself finds it absurd. At least be objective.

Interbane wrote:

I stand by my original statement without the word doubt.

You are absolutely certain they don't exist. But you cannot prove it. That is an excellent example of faith. When will you ever admit that faith is far more a part of your life than logic and reasoning? Each and every one of your belief system axioms depends primarily on faith.

Even the most sound argument on Earth has room for doubt. But you do not doubt your own conviction.

"Inquiry is fatal to certainty." ~ William J. Durant

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." ~ Charles Edward Montague

"To be uncertain is to be uncomfortable, but to be certain is to be ridiculous." ~ Chinese Proverb

“Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous.” ~ Voltaire

It is not shenanigans to discredit portions of a book which are obviously wrong. In fact it is empiricism to do so and if your 'belief' system wasn't so closely linked to that of Wright you should be supporting my efforts.

Nearly every item you have an issue with is nothing more than a difference of opinion. It's a matter of interpretation. I agree with you that if you read between the lines regarding Jesus explicitly saying he was the "Son of Man", the thread is tenuous. But how does this relate to the overall book?

You cannot criticize his overall thesis, so you claim that by nitpicking the molehills and proclaiming them to be mountains that the entire book is false. Your attempts are severely biased, and everyone in this discussion but yourself finds it absurd. At least be objective.

You have not been paying attention and since you insist, I will continue.
I am not nitpicking Wright. If Wright makes a statement based on Biblical reference he has an obligation to be correct. The items I have cited are not matters of interpretation, or if they are the people who should know the correct interpretation were ready to stone Jesus because they interpreted His statments to mean that He was claiming to be the Son of Man.

If you want me to nit pick I will be happy to do so because write leave a nit on nearly every page. I have only mentioned the big ones. As for criticizing Wright's premise, I did that in one of my earliest posts where I pointed out that he missed the easiest explanation for the transition from polytheism to monotheism. I cited the error Wright made and the correct version of the story, a version which, if you were being honest would be preferred as it is consistent with Occam's razor.

Here is what I would do with TEoG
Ditch Section 1 completely

Excise any mention of Jesus or the Bible from the rest of the book because Wright invariably gets it wrong and it just confuses the issue.

Stay away from any mention of the Koran or Islam to avoid any possibility of jihad.

If he does this he should have a reasonable story to tell.

ps, do you really like your collection of pithy quotes?

stahrwe wrote: As for criticizing Wright's premise, I did that in one of my earliest posts where I pointed out that he missed the easiest explanation for the transition from polytheism to monotheism. I cited the error Wright made and the correct version of the story, a version which, if you were being honest would be preferred as it is consistent with Occam's razor.

I missed this explanation of the transition from polytheism to monotheism. Can you point me to it.

ps, do you really like your collection of pithy quotes?

I do. Do you enjoy the feeling of certainty?

The items I have cited are not matters of interpretation, or if they are...

They most certainly are matters of interpretation. Into this grouping I classify a literalist interpretation of the bible. You may be using the words exactly as they are written, but that is precisely the problem. You are approaching this conversation as if the words are true, yet everyone else here approaches it as if much was fabricated. Interpretations include not only the biblical hermeneutics you're used to, but also the lens of literary scholarship, that bits and pieces are true while others are false. To treat a work of fiction as if it contained half truths is most certainly a valid method of interpretation.

I'm not saying it's appropriate to cherry pick the parts you want to be true, but it is also not appropriate to say that all parts are true. Such an approach leads to absurd conclusions.

Interbane wrote: I'm not saying it's appropriate to cherry pick the parts you want to be true, but it is also not appropriate to say that all parts are true. Such an approach leads to absurd conclusions.

You mean, like a flat earth or a 6,000-year-old earth?

geo wrote:

stahrwe wrote: As for criticizing Wright's premise, I did that in one of my earliest posts where I pointed out that he missed the easiest explanation for the transition from polytheism to monotheism. I cited the error Wright made and the correct version of the story, a version which, if you were being honest would be preferred as it is consistent with Occam's razor.

I missed this explanation of the transition from polytheism to monotheism. Can you point me to it.

It's in one of the other chapter discussions. Perhaps in My Thoughts. It relates to Genesis and Abraham. You can use the search feature of BT.

Interbane wrote:

ps, do you really like your collection of pithy quotes?

I do. Do you enjoy the feeling of certainty?

I do. But I have always thought that pithy quotes should be used sparingly. Usually one can find a counter quote and most of the time the person quoted is of marginal interest.

The items I have cited are not matters of interpretation, or if they are...

Interbane wrote:They most certainly are matters of interpretation. Into this grouping I classify a literalist interpretation of the bible. You may be using the words exactly as they are written, but that is precisely the problem. You are approaching this conversation as if the words are true, yet everyone else here approaches it as if much was fabricated. Interpretations include not only the biblical hermeneutics you're used to, but also the lens of literary scholarship, that bits and pieces are true while others are false. To treat a work of fiction as if it contained half truths is most certainly a valid method of interpretation.

I have never appreciated your method of posting quotes. There is no interpretation necessary when Jesus references the Son of Man and the Pharisees prepare to stone Him. Wright claims that Jesus was not explicitly referring to Himself. Perhaps, but that is a distinction without a difference, or, for the nose bleed crowd, a parsing akin to 'it depends on what the definitiono of the word is - is.'

Interbane wrote:I'm not saying it's appropriate to cherry pick the parts you want to be true, but it is also not appropriate to say that all parts are true. Such an approach leads to absurd conclusions.

If Jesus was not claiming to be the Son of Man, please explain what other interpretation of what Jesus was saying caused the urge to stone Him.

thanks.