(December 14, 2014 at 2:55 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'm never assuming I'm always right. I just try the best with what I know.

Well that's pretty arrogant of you.

I'm sorry, I think I got a bit carried away and preachy here and on other occasions. I don't mean to speak as if I'm some sort of authority and if you disagree you are an idiot. I apologize for making that seem to be the case. I should choose my wording more carefully.

It seems to me that large parts of the Bible were written as something to take literally, though not quite as much as the fundies think. Job is certainly a literary creation, Jonah is an entertaining folk tale, and maybe even Balaam's talking donkey is the creation of an ancient Hebrew Aesop.

We can also allow that whatever the author's intention may have been, some parts have been read figuratively from ancient times. For instance, Augustine did not take the Genesis creation story as a literal point-by-point history.

There are also passages which are understood to convey a spiritual truth but are also deemed to be literally true. That is the case with many of Jesus' miracles: cleansing a man of leprosy (supposedly) shows Jesus to have the power to forgive sins. However, until very recent times no one doubted that a man was actually healed of a skin disease.

However, IMO, there is still a problem with the liberal use of the Bible. There will be some point which they insist is true, likely that Jesus saves us from our sins. Now the only way they could know this is from the Bible, but how did they separate this one precious nugget from the other 99% which is largely dreck: atrocities, genocides, etc?

Grant that there is a revelation of spiritual truth in the Bible, and you give licence to the fundies to claim the whole damn thing is God's perfect revelation.

Yes, the problem is that some people say "this bit is literal" and treat that as a fact. Someone else says the same bit is a metaphor, as fact. How can you possibly tell who is right?

(December 9, 2014 at 4:40 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(December 9, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Saudi Arabia is a case study for why religion, government, and the law should never ride in the same cart.

Religion should not ride in any cart except for the mortuary corpse gurney as it travels to its ultimate destination, a grave site next to Zeus and Odin in the cemetery of forgotten gods.

Of course ... but politics has been defined as the art of the possible.

I don't think religion's death will happen any time soon. That being the case, we'd do well to examine case studies of religious government in order to sell secularism to even our own believers of all stripes here in America.

---

(December 9, 2014 at 4:43 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Unfortunately, the Saudi "government" seems to be the violent drug dealing thug in class that the students put up with because we're addicted to his products.

If I could change one thing about the Middle East situation, it would certainly be breaking free of the Saudi oil leash. It would remove so much incentive for joining wars in the region..

The good news is that their share of our oil imports is dropping; down to 13% as of last April. The bad news is that that is being replaced by Canadian oil, which is heavily carbon-intensive in its production, and fracking, which carries risks of its own.

---

(December 12, 2014 at 1:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 9, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Saudi Arabia is a case study for why religion, government, and the law should never ride in the same cart.

And also a case study of how keeping the oil flowing matters more to America than any supposed moral considerations.

One of many, sad to say.

(December 14, 2014 at 1:11 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: Why not? Why is there an excluded middle? The Church Fathers believed that the Bible was true, but it would never have occurred to them to ask whether or not the events 'happened as written'. They were interested in what the truth of the passage was, and that is perhaps an approach Xians should rediscover...

Two reasons, one of which was already explored by Rob. If the Bible is "inspired" or "metaphoric", then we must have some means of discerning which parts are divine and which parts are human in origin. If the Bible relates some truth but through metaphoric means, we still need some way of properly translating the divine author's intent.

The second reason has to do with the burden of proof lying with the one making the claim. For example, apologists like to argue that the TF is "partially authentic". They assume the burden of proof to show us exactly which parts are contaminated and which parts are not. When we consider just how dire the consequences are in a false positive (thought to be divinely inspired but actually not), it only underscores the importance of the one making such a claim to prove their assertions.

i think this is appropriate.

(December 14, 2014 at 5:57 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: If the Bible is "inspired" or "metaphoric", then we must have some means of discerning which parts are divine and which parts are human in origin.

I'm really not sure that's the case at all.

Why do we need to know, for example, whether someone called Moses actually lead the Jewish nation out of Egyptian slavery? It doesn't affect at all my actions, or my decision to follow Jesus. It makes a crucial part of the meta-narrative, but that works whether or not it is wholly, partly, or not at all true. The historicity is irrelevant.

Where it becomes perhaps more significant is NT historicity. But unless one wants to insist on the gospels as Jesus-cam transcripts, there is oodles of room for a mixed view on NT historicity, within a strong faith (many Xian scholars don't take the pastoral letters as being written by Paul, for example).

I believe firmly that history is the friend of Xianity, not its enemy.

Quote: The second reason has to do with the burden of proof lying with the one making the claim. For example, apologists like to argue that the TF is "partially authentic". They assume the burden of proof to show us exactly which parts are contaminated and which parts are not. When we consider just how dire the consequences are in a false positive (thought to be divinely inspired but actually not), it only underscores the importance of the one making such a claim to prove their assertions.

I'm not sure what is meant by TF, and Google doesn't help.

As with the post by Deistpaladin, you're actually attacking a strong view of inspiration here, because I'm not making a claim about inspiration, hence no proof burden. The meta-narrative of the Bible coming to a climax with Jesus I believe to be true. Which “parts are contaminated” is therefore a non-issue.

It's all true, and some of it actually happened.

(October 27, 2014 at 12:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:"What Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."


--Life of Brian

Best reply post ever.

I just spent about half an hour trying to put together a cohesive response to the OP when I realised the tone and context of this Python quote is far better than anything I could ever say.
MM

If you're going to go with a conceptual argument and detach yourself from historicity, then you're going to have to do things like justify atrocities as good acts without being able to appeal to historical context, or accept the fact that you worship a god who is, at best, amoral.