Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 28, 2024 at 1:23 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah, lots of people donate to megachurches but it is questionable if that is really charity since they are donating to millionaires who spend most of it on themselves.
I'm sure most people who donate know the money's going to the preacher, but on the off chance that this will get them into heaven they'll still do it. It's the nadir end of charity.
My parents went to church to hang with the town movers and shakers bolstering their chances to get ahead. Donation was the price of admission to the club.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
(March 4, 2024 at 8:00 pm)Jillybean Wrote: Another one for me is why didn't Jesus write down his own teachings (or have someone else write them down at the time he taught), since presumably being God he knew that controversies over authorship would arise in the future?.
If you listen to Jesus words and read them you will see that He preached to teach people lessons. If He personally write everything down Himself there would be no questions. The gospel is understood and spread until this very day with questions.
(March 4, 2024 at 8:00 pm)Jillybean Wrote: Okay I admit the title is clickbait.
No, I think "lazy" is the right word. You're arguing in favor of your atheism with the easiest possible arguments.
Quote:Like do we really have to read the entire Bible when the first few pages of Genesis conflict with scientific facts we now know? Such as that the genetic diversity of the human race means we could not possibly have evolved from a single mating pair 6,000 years ago?
Do you really think that a literalist reading of Genesis is essential to Christianity? If you think "the world wasn't created in six days" is sufficient to make all of Christianity unbelievable, then I think that's a bit too lazy.
Quote:I've always wished that atheist debates with theists would focus more on the basic, simple stuff.
Well, sure... If you focus on the simple stuff you can knock down a straw man or two and then go home satisfied. But you've made it too easy on yourself.
You know the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't believe in a literal Genesis, and is quite aware that arguments against sodomy or abortion are not clearly stated by Jesus? Non-lazy people might look into the theory of natural law, which is used by many Christians (since at least the time of Thomas Aquinas) to argue against certain practices, even if there is only tenuous biblical support for this.
You don't have to learn anything about the history of Christian thought. Lots of people have long happy lives without knowing anything about it. But if you're going to be making claims about the believability of what Christians have said, it might make sense to know what the smart ones think.
All religions more or less take the same form:
1. There is a guy called the god or gods.
2. One day, for some reason, they decide to create this universe/Earth combo.
3. They create the visible lifeforms: trees, humans, cats, giraffes, etc.
All ancient people were curious and they all had the big questions:
Why do I exist?
Why does all this stuff around me exist?
Who made it?
What happens when I die? What happened to my dead friend? My dead child? My dead grandparents?
The natural, most obvious solution for a priest is to claim that the gods created them one day for reason X.
The guy who made up the Genesis story and his colleagues who modified it over time know very well that they are making it up.
The listeners would not be told that it is a metaphor. The listeners would be literalists and the listeners would be in the thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions over the years.
In other words, the people want a scientific answer, an exact answer as to what happened in the past. They don’t want a fairy tail or some 3 little pigs story.
It is the majority’s beliefs that are important, not the handful of priests who regarded the story as metaphor.
And I already checked a link that you gave. None of those non-literalists from thousands of years ago accepted the Big Bang theory, Evolution theory.
They were just arguing why it would take their jewish god 6 days instead of 1 nanosecond.
In other words, all of them, including the priest class were young earth creationists.
Religion was the science of the old days. Religion was more than that. It was at times politics, history, philosophy, moral laws, biology, geology.
(March 5, 2024 at 2:26 am)Belacqua Wrote: No, I think "lazy" is the right word. You're arguing in favor of your atheism with the easiest possible arguments.
Do you really think that a literalist reading of Genesis is essential to Christianity? If you think "the world wasn't created in six days" is sufficient to make all of Christianity unbelievable, then I think that's a bit too lazy.
Well, sure... If you focus on the simple stuff you can knock down a straw man or two and then go home satisfied. But you've made it too easy on yourself.
You know the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't believe in a literal Genesis, and is quite aware that arguments against sodomy or abortion are not clearly stated by Jesus? Non-lazy people might look into the theory of natural law, which is used by many Christians (since at least the time of Thomas Aquinas) to argue against certain practices, even if there is only tenuous biblical support for this.
You don't have to learn anything about the history of Christian thought. Lots of people have long happy lives without knowing anything about it. But if you're going to be making claims about the believability of what Christians have said, it might make sense to know what the smart ones think.
All religions more or less take the same form:
1. There is a guy called the god or gods.
2. One day, for some reason, they decide to create this universe/Earth combo.
3. They create the visible lifeforms: trees, humans, cats, giraffes, etc.
All ancient people were curious and they all had the big questions:
Why do I exist?
Why does all this stuff around me exist?
Who made it?
What happens when I die? What happened to my dead friend? My dead child? My dead grandparents?
The natural, most obvious solution for a priest is to claim that the gods created them one day for reason X.
The guy who made up the Genesis story and his colleagues who modified it over time know very well that they are making it up.
The listeners would not be told that it is a metaphor. The listeners would be literalists and the listeners would be in the thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions over the years.
In other words, the people want a scientific answer, an exact answer as to what happened in the past. They don’t want a fairy tail or some 3 little pigs story.
It is the majority’s beliefs that are important, not the handful of priests who regarded the story as metaphor.
And I already checked a link that you gave. None of those non-literalists from thousands of years ago accepted the Big Bang theory, Evolution theory.
They were just arguing why it would take their jewish god 6 days instead of 1 nanosecond.
In other words, all of them, including the priest class were young earth creationists.
Religion was the science of the old days. Religion was more than that. It was at times politics, history, philosophy, moral laws, biology, geology.
I take issue with one point: cats didn't need a creator.
(March 5, 2024 at 2:26 am)Belacqua Wrote: No, I think "lazy" is the right word. You're arguing in favor of your atheism with the easiest possible arguments.
Do you really think that a literalist reading of Genesis is essential to Christianity? If you think "the world wasn't created in six days" is sufficient to make all of Christianity unbelievable, then I think that's a bit too lazy.
Well, sure... If you focus on the simple stuff you can knock down a straw man or two and then go home satisfied. But you've made it too easy on yourself.
You know the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't believe in a literal Genesis, and is quite aware that arguments against sodomy or abortion are not clearly stated by Jesus? Non-lazy people might look into the theory of natural law, which is used by many Christians (since at least the time of Thomas Aquinas) to argue against certain practices, even if there is only tenuous biblical support for this.
You don't have to learn anything about the history of Christian thought. Lots of people have long happy lives without knowing anything about it. But if you're going to be making claims about the believability of what Christians have said, it might make sense to know what the smart ones think.
All religions more or less take the same form:
1. There is a guy called the god or gods.
2. One day, for some reason, they decide to create this universe/Earth combo.
3. They create the visible lifeforms: trees, humans, cats, giraffes, etc.
All ancient people were curious and they all had the big questions:
Why do I exist?
Why does all this stuff around me exist?
Who made it?
What happens when I die? What happened to my dead friend? My dead child? My dead grandparents?
The natural, most obvious solution for a priest is to claim that the gods created them one day for reason X.
The guy who made up the Genesis story and his colleagues who modified it over time know very well that they are making it up.
The listeners would not be told that it is a metaphor. The listeners would be literalists and the listeners would be in the thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions over the years.
In other words, the people want a scientific answer, an exact answer as to what happened in the past. They don’t want a fairy tail or some 3 little pigs story.
It is the majority’s beliefs that are important, not the handful of priests who regarded the story as metaphor.
And I already checked a link that you gave. None of those non-literalists from thousands of years ago accepted the Big Bang theory, Evolution theory.
They were just arguing why it would take their jewish god 6 days instead of 1 nanosecond.
In other words, all of them, including the priest class were young earth creationists.
Religion was the science of the old days. Religion was more than that. It was at times politics, history, philosophy, moral laws, biology, geology.
I think you've written a clear and concise summary of a myth or just-so story which is very popular these days. It provides a decent description of some people in some times and places, and ignores huge swaths of history.
Naturally it seems like the best just-so story to modern people, because it's ours. But I think it projects our own concerns and methods onto people whose concerns and methods were very different. It also seems to imply a telos to human thought, which I'm not sure is justified. The idea that the goal of our thinking is primarily to provide an accurate description of a truth that's "out there," independent of mind, is not the only way of approaching things. Many aspects of religion work differently.
I think the remaining textual evidence doesn't support the idea that the goals of religion have been the goals of modern science, but done poorly.
June 15, 2024 at 1:15 pm (This post was last modified: June 15, 2024 at 1:31 pm by arewethereyet.)
(June 15, 2024 at 8:18 am)Belacqua Wrote:
(June 13, 2024 at 9:33 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: All religions more or less take the same form:
1. There is a guy called the god or gods.
2. One day, for some reason, they decide to create this universe/Earth combo.
3. They create the visible lifeforms: trees, humans, cats, giraffes, etc.
All ancient people were curious and they all had the big questions:
Why do I exist?
Why does all this stuff around me exist?
Who made it?
What happens when I die? What happened to my dead friend? My dead child? My dead grandparents?
The natural, most obvious solution for a priest is to claim that the gods created them one day for reason X.
The guy who made up the Genesis story and his colleagues who modified it over time know very well that they are making it up.
The listeners would not be told that it is a metaphor. The listeners would be literalists and the listeners would be in the thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions over the years.
In other words, the people want a scientific answer, an exact answer as to what happened in the past. They don’t want a fairy tail or some 3 little pigs story.
It is the majority’s beliefs that are important, not the handful of priests who regarded the story as metaphor.
And I already checked a link that you gave. None of those non-literalists from thousands of years ago accepted the Big Bang theory, Evolution theory.
They were just arguing why it would take their jewish god 6 days instead of 1 nanosecond.
In other words, all of them, including the priest class were young earth creationists.
Religion was the science of the old days. Religion was more than that. It was at times politics, history, philosophy, moral laws, biology, geology.
I think you've written a clear and concise summary of a myth or just-so story which is very popular these days. It provides a decent description of some people in some times and places, and ignores huge swaths of history.
Naturally it seems like the best just-so story to modern people, because it's ours. But I think it projects our own concerns and methods onto people whose concerns and methods were very different. It also seems to imply a telos to human thought, which I'm not sure is justified. The idea that the goal of our thinking is primarily to provide an accurate description of a truth that's "out there," independent of mind, is not the only way of approaching things. Many aspects of religion work differently.
I think the remaining textual evidence doesn't support the idea that the goals of religion have been the goals of modern science, but done poorly.
I agree, it is a just-so story. This is because we are talking about what ancient man was thinking, what the earliest thoughts of ancient man was and they simply did not record it, there is no archeological evidence, there is no video tape showing what early life was like. There are some cave painting but they give very limited info as to what humans were thinking.
So, I am plugging that gap in our knowledge with some logic.
For example, if I were to say, that ancient man had a need to communicate, so they started to make sounds. Eventually, those sounds were accepted by the group. Each new kid that is born, grows up learning that sound and understands the meaning. This would be the beginning stages of language evolution and all cultures went through that process.
It is a basic human need. If some tribe doesn’t have a language, it would mean they didn’t have talented individuals in their group and their lack of language will always held back their culture.
Then someone comes along and says, that is a just-so story.
Of course it is a just-so story but you think there are human tribes who don’t communicate and they don’t have a need to communicate?
Having the Big Questions is part of a basic need for humans.
“I think the remaining textual evidence doesn't support the idea that the goals of religion have been the goals of modern science, but done poorly.”
==Why stuff exist and why we exist are a couple of the big questions. When you try to answer these questions, when you try to develop a story about the steps that the god goes through, it is going to come into conflict with the Big Bang theory and Evolution theory.
When primitive man develops an answer to those questions, I am calling that the “science” of ancient people.
I do not expect any primitive culture to ask questions such as:
What is the smallest life form?
What would be its size?
How should we invent a microscope and what is a microscope and let’s go and observe the smallest structures of plant life.
What is a metal?
How should we make copper and what is copper? We haven’t even seen copper but there must be something like copper?
What is polyethylene? Are we ever going to discover how to make polyethylene? Will the gods ever show us?
One day, Jesus will be born and will talk to us about radioactivity. What is that and how did I come up with that word?
A few of those Big questions, such as Why does stuff exist and why do I exist, is going to create a point of contact with old time religions and modern science.
The rest of the Bible?
Read Luke 3:23.
It gives the complete lineage. It says that Adam is the son of the jewish god and continues all the way to Jesus.
^^^^^Young Earth creationism is integrated into the Bible.
More specifically, look at
Luke 3:28 KING JAMES VERSION
Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
Read 1 Chronicles 1:1
This is a list again. Notice that it starts with Adam.
1 Chronicles 1:1 KING JAMES VERSION
Adam, Sheth, Enosh, {1:2} Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered,
^^^^^Young Earth creationism is integrated into the Bible.
Exodus 20:8 KING JAMES VERSION
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. {20:9} Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: {20:10} But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: {20:11} For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
^^^^^The six day creation story is present in the 10 commandments.
Again, this is evidence that jews believed that the universe/earth combo was literally created in 6 days.
Luke 22:70 KING JAMES VERSION
Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
^^^^^In the above case, the idea is that Jesus is also a direct creation from the jewish god, just like Adam is a direct creation.
The idea is that when you are a direct creation, you are sinless until you commit a sin.
If you commit a sin, your descendants are considered to carry the same sin to the 3 rd or 4 th generation or forever.
John 3:16 KING JAMES VERSION
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
^^^^^This line is wrong. Jesus is not the only son. The jewish god has 2 sons: Adam and Jesus.
Unless if begat means sexual reproduction. Maybe someone can explain it to me?
Luke 17:26 KING JAMES VERSION
And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
^^^^^For Jesus, Noah and the story that goes along with it is real.
Luke 17:27 KING JAMES VERSION
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. {17:28} Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; {17:29} But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. {17:30} Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
^^^^^Noah and his guys were eating, drinking, marrying women. Then they got on the boat.
For Jesus, Lot was a real guy too and sulfur and fire rained from heaven on Sodom.
Jesus says the same thing is going to happen. When humans learn that he is the son of man (or god), an apocalypse is going to start. It will start in year 33 CE or around that time.
Administrator Notice Let's be aware that some people are viewing the forum on their phones and walls of text are better shortened with the use of "hide" tags.
June 16, 2024 at 6:51 am (This post was last modified: June 16, 2024 at 6:57 am by Belacqua.)
(June 15, 2024 at 1:15 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote:
(June 15, 2024 at 8:18 am)Belacqua Wrote: I think you've written a clear and concise summary of a myth or just-so story which is very popular these days. It provides a decent description of some people in some times and places, and ignores huge swaths of history.
Naturally it seems like the best just-so story to modern people, because it's ours. But I think it projects our own concerns and methods onto people whose concerns and methods were very different. It also seems to imply a telos to human thought, which I'm not sure is justified. The idea that the goal of our thinking is primarily to provide an accurate description of a truth that's "out there," independent of mind, is not the only way of approaching things. Many aspects of religion work differently.
I think the remaining textual evidence doesn't support the idea that the goals of religion have been the goals of modern science, but done poorly.
I agree, it is a just-so story. This is because we are talking about what ancient man was thinking, what the earliest thoughts of ancient man was and they simply did not record it, there is no archeological evidence, there is no video tape showing what early life was like. There are some cave painting but they give very limited info as to what humans were thinking.
So, I am plugging that gap in our knowledge with some logic.
For example, if I were to say, that ancient man had a need to communicate, so they started to make sounds. Eventually, those sounds were accepted by the group. Each new kid that is born, grows up learning that sound and understands the meaning. This would be the beginning stages of language evolution and all cultures went through that process.
It is a basic human need. If some tribe doesn’t have a language, it would mean they didn’t have talented individuals in their group and their lack of language will always held back their culture.
Then someone comes along and says, that is a just-so story.
Of course it is a just-so story but you think there are human tribes who don’t communicate and they don’t have a need to communicate?
Having the Big Questions is part of a basic need for humans.
“I think the remaining textual evidence doesn't support the idea that the goals of religion have been the goals of modern science, but done poorly.”
==Why stuff exist and why we exist are a couple of the big questions. When you try to answer these questions, when you try to develop a story about the steps that the god goes through, it is going to come into conflict with the Big Bang theory and Evolution theory.
When primitive man develops an answer to those questions, I am calling that the “science” of ancient people.
I do not expect any primitive culture to ask questions such as:
What is the smallest life form?
What would be its size?
How should we invent a microscope and what is a microscope and let’s go and observe the smallest structures of plant life.
What is a metal?
How should we make copper and what is copper? We haven’t even seen copper but there must be something like copper?
What is polyethylene? Are we ever going to discover how to make polyethylene? Will the gods ever show us?
One day, Jesus will be born and will talk to us about radioactivity. What is that and how did I come up with that word?
A few of those Big questions, such as Why does stuff exist and why do I exist, is going to create a point of contact with old time religions and modern science.
The rest of the Bible?
Read Luke 3:23.
It gives the complete lineage. It says that Adam is the son of the jewish god and continues all the way to Jesus.
^^^^^Young Earth creationism is integrated into the Bible.
More specifically, look at
Luke 3:28 KING JAMES VERSION
Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
Read 1 Chronicles 1:1
This is a list again. Notice that it starts with Adam.
1 Chronicles 1:1 KING JAMES VERSION
Adam, Sheth, Enosh, {1:2} Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered,
^^^^^Young Earth creationism is integrated into the Bible.
Exodus 20:8 KING JAMES VERSION
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. {20:9} Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: {20:10} But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: {20:11} For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
^^^^^The six day creation story is present in the 10 commandments.
Again, this is evidence that jews believed that the universe/earth combo was literally created in 6 days.
Luke 22:70 KING JAMES VERSION
Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
^^^^^In the above case, the idea is that Jesus is also a direct creation from the jewish god, just like Adam is a direct creation.
The idea is that when you are a direct creation, you are sinless until you commit a sin.
If you commit a sin, your descendants are considered to carry the same sin to the 3 rd or 4 th generation or forever.
John 3:16 KING JAMES VERSION
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
^^^^^This line is wrong. Jesus is not the only son. The jewish god has 2 sons: Adam and Jesus.
Unless if begat means sexual reproduction. Maybe someone can explain it to me?
Luke 17:26 KING JAMES VERSION
And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
^^^^^For Jesus, Noah and the story that goes along with it is real.
Luke 17:27 KING JAMES VERSION
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. {17:28} Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; {17:29} But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. {17:30} Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
^^^^^Noah and his guys were eating, drinking, marrying women. Then they got on the boat.
For Jesus, Lot was a real guy too and sulfur and fire rained from heaven on Sodom.
Jesus says the same thing is going to happen. When humans learn that he is the son of man (or god), an apocalypse is going to start. It will start in year 33 CE or around that time.
Administrator Notice Let's be aware that some people are viewing the forum on their phones and walls of text are better shortened with the use of "hide" tags.
I think you're continuing the argument that everything in the Bible or other holy texts has to be read literally.
There have been lots of Christians in history who don't agree with that. Both Jesus and Paul used Old Testament stories allegorically, which means that the important meaning for them was not the literal one. If they even believed the literal meanings, which we don't know. You assume they took it all literally because you are reading all the passages you quote literally. But a person can say "You'd better not do that or you're going to end up like Darth Vader" without thinking that Darth Vader is real.
Augustine was clear that, in his opinion, not every part of the Bible should be read as literal fact. He says that Christians shouldn't get attached to interpretations that may turn out to be wrong. And when you say "They were just arguing why it would take their jewish god 6 days instead of 1 nanosecond." This is exactly the opposite of what he concluded. He rejected the idea of a six-day creation and decided it was more likely that the world appeared in a single instant. (He also argued that it doesn't make sense to ask "where was God before creation?" because before creation there would be no time. I think it's very likely that the Reverend Georges Lemaître knew of this -- he was another Christian who didn't feel the need for a literal reading.)
I understand that there have been a lot of Christians in history, and a lot of them are guilty of what you accuse them of. But I think that Jesus, Paul, and Augustine were fairly important in the history of Christianity, and they don't do what you say.
As for why the authors of the Bible didn't ask "What is metal?", I think it's because they were more interested in how we can be good people. Socrates also made this choice. He thought there was no point in improving our alloys if we are just going to use them for bad reasons.
And of course here we're just talking about Christianity -- far from all of religion. Buddhists, for example, believe that while our world may have a beginning and an ending, that we are part of a multiverse that didn't begin. So within the phenomenon of religion, there are a number of views. Kōbō Daishi also didn't address any metallurgical issues because his mind was on other things.
As for what religion is for, and what kind of knowledge people are seeking, I think that Richard Rorty's book Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity is really good on this issue. He certainly doesn't ask us to believe any religious stories, but he also sees the stories and metaphors people use as being separate from a desire for objective knowledge of the physical world.
June 16, 2024 at 1:07 pm (This post was last modified: June 16, 2024 at 1:11 pm by Ferrocyanide.)
(June 16, 2024 at 6:51 am)Belacqua Wrote:
(June 15, 2024 at 1:15 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: I agree, it is a just-so story. This is because we are talking about what ancient man was thinking, what the earliest thoughts of ancient man was and they simply did not record it, there is no archeological evidence, there is no video tape showing what early life was like. There are some cave painting but they give very limited info as to what humans were thinking.
So, I am plugging that gap in our knowledge with some logic.
For example, if I were to say, that ancient man had a need to communicate, so they started to make sounds. Eventually, those sounds were accepted by the group. Each new kid that is born, grows up learning that sound and understands the meaning. This would be the beginning stages of language evolution and all cultures went through that process.
It is a basic human need. If some tribe doesn’t have a language, it would mean they didn’t have talented individuals in their group and their lack of language will always held back their culture.
Then someone comes along and says, that is a just-so story.
Of course it is a just-so story but you think there are human tribes who don’t communicate and they don’t have a need to communicate?
Having the Big Questions is part of a basic need for humans.
“I think the remaining textual evidence doesn't support the idea that the goals of religion have been the goals of modern science, but done poorly.”
==Why stuff exist and why we exist are a couple of the big questions. When you try to answer these questions, when you try to develop a story about the steps that the god goes through, it is going to come into conflict with the Big Bang theory and Evolution theory.
When primitive man develops an answer to those questions, I am calling that the “science” of ancient people.
I do not expect any primitive culture to ask questions such as:
What is the smallest life form?
What would be its size?
How should we invent a microscope and what is a microscope and let’s go and observe the smallest structures of plant life.
What is a metal?
How should we make copper and what is copper? We haven’t even seen copper but there must be something like copper?
What is polyethylene? Are we ever going to discover how to make polyethylene? Will the gods ever show us?
One day, Jesus will be born and will talk to us about radioactivity. What is that and how did I come up with that word?
A few of those Big questions, such as Why does stuff exist and why do I exist, is going to create a point of contact with old time religions and modern science.
The rest of the Bible?
Read Luke 3:23.
It gives the complete lineage. It says that Adam is the son of the jewish god and continues all the way to Jesus.
^^^^^Young Earth creationism is integrated into the Bible.
More specifically, look at
Luke 3:28 KING JAMES VERSION
Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
Read 1 Chronicles 1:1
This is a list again. Notice that it starts with Adam.
1 Chronicles 1:1 KING JAMES VERSION
Adam, Sheth, Enosh, {1:2} Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered,
^^^^^Young Earth creationism is integrated into the Bible.
Exodus 20:8 KING JAMES VERSION
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. {20:9} Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: {20:10} But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: {20:11} For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
^^^^^The six day creation story is present in the 10 commandments.
Again, this is evidence that jews believed that the universe/earth combo was literally created in 6 days.
Luke 22:70 KING JAMES VERSION
Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
^^^^^In the above case, the idea is that Jesus is also a direct creation from the jewish god, just like Adam is a direct creation.
The idea is that when you are a direct creation, you are sinless until you commit a sin.
If you commit a sin, your descendants are considered to carry the same sin to the 3 rd or 4 th generation or forever.
John 3:16 KING JAMES VERSION
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
^^^^^This line is wrong. Jesus is not the only son. The jewish god has 2 sons: Adam and Jesus.
Unless if begat means sexual reproduction. Maybe someone can explain it to me?
Luke 17:26 KING JAMES VERSION
And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
^^^^^For Jesus, Noah and the story that goes along with it is real.
Luke 17:27 KING JAMES VERSION
They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. {17:28} Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; {17:29} But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. {17:30} Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
^^^^^Noah and his guys were eating, drinking, marrying women. Then they got on the boat.
For Jesus, Lot was a real guy too and sulfur and fire rained from heaven on Sodom.
Jesus says the same thing is going to happen. When humans learn that he is the son of man (or god), an apocalypse is going to start. It will start in year 33 CE or around that time.
Administrator Notice Let's be aware that some people are viewing the forum on their phones and walls of text are better shortened with the use of "hide" tags.
I think you're continuing the argument that everything in the Bible or other holy texts has to be read literally.
There have been lots of Christians in history who don't agree with that. Both Jesus and Paul used Old Testament stories allegorically, which means that the important meaning for them was not the literal one. If they even believed the literal meanings, which we don't know. You assume they took it all literally because you are reading all the passages you quote literally. But a person can say "You'd better not do that or you're going to end up like Darth Vader" without thinking that Darth Vader is real.
Augustine was clear that, in his opinion, not every part of the Bible should be read as literal fact. He says that Christians shouldn't get attached to interpretations that may turn out to be wrong. And when you say "They were just arguing why it would take their jewish god 6 days instead of 1 nanosecond." This is exactly the opposite of what he concluded. He rejected the idea of a six-day creation and decided it was more likely that the world appeared in a single instant. (He also argued that it doesn't make sense to ask "where was God before creation?" because before creation there would be no time. I think it's very likely that the Reverend Georges Lemaître knew of this -- he was another Christian who didn't feel the need for a literal reading.)
I understand that there have been a lot of Christians in history, and a lot of them are guilty of what you accuse them of. But I think that Jesus, Paul, and Augustine were fairly important in the history of Christianity, and they don't do what you say.
As for why the authors of the Bible didn't ask "What is metal?", I think it's because they were more interested in how we can be good people. Socrates also made this choice. He thought there was no point in improving our alloys if we are just going to use them for bad reasons.
And of course here we're just talking about Christianity -- far from all of religion. Buddhists, for example, believe that while our world may have a beginning and an ending, that we are part of a multiverse that didn't begin. So within the phenomenon of religion, there are a number of views. Kōbō Daishi also didn't address any metallurgical issues because his mind was on other things.
As for what religion is for, and what kind of knowledge people are seeking, I think that Richard Rorty's book Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity is really good on this issue. He certainly doesn't ask us to believe any religious stories, but he also sees the stories and metaphors people use as being separate from a desire for objective knowledge of the physical world.
I did not see anything that indicates that Jesus takes the Noah story non-literally or anyone else in the Bible itself.
As for Adam and all the other begats, every mention of it states that Adam is created by god and then he has a child, and that child has another child and finally you reach Jesus or some similar guy.
It tells their life story of Adam, his kids and quite a number of these guys.
(June 16, 2024 at 6:51 am)Belacqua Wrote: I think you're continuing the argument that everything in the Bible or other holy texts has to be read literally.
No, that is not what I am saying.
(June 16, 2024 at 6:51 am)Belacqua Wrote: Augustine was clear that, in his opinion, not every part of the Bible should be read as literal fact. He says that Christians shouldn't get attached to interpretations that may turn out to be wrong. And when you say "They were just arguing why it would take their jewish god 6 days instead of 1 nanosecond." This is exactly the opposite of what he concluded. He rejected the idea of a six-day creation and decided it was more likely that the world appeared in a single instant. (He also argued that it doesn't make sense to ask "where was God before creation?" because before creation there would be no time. I think it's very likely that the Reverend Georges Lemaître knew of this -- he was another Christian who didn't feel the need for a literal reading.)
So, instead of believing that it took the jewish god 1 nanosecond to create the universe/earth and everything, it took him 0 nanoseconds.
So, instead of believing that the universe/earth has existed for approximately 6000 y + 1 nanosecond, it has existed for approximately 6000 y.
So, does Augustine believe that Adam and some of the boys lived almost 1000 y like the Bible says?
Does he believe that Adam was the first human?
Is he a non-literalist YEC or a non-literalist OEC or non-literalist “I don’t know”?
Georges Lemaître is a 20 th century man.
Born = 1894
Dead = 1966
I don’t know much about him but a lot of christians these days seem to be OEC, they accept the Big Bang theory, Evolution theory, a 4.56 billion y old Earth. This is because they have been influenced by science and they try to keep science and the religion of their ancestors.
I am talking about primitive humans. I am talking about what the majority would believe, not what a couple of people believed.
(June 16, 2024 at 6:51 am)Belacqua Wrote: I understand that there have been a lot of Christians in history, and a lot of them are guilty of what you accuse them of. But I think that Jesus, Paul, and Augustine were fairly important in the history of Christianity, and they don't do what you say.
Well, at least you accept that. Maybe you should take another step and accept that most likely, 99+% of them (18 th century and before) are YEC.
Which one is Paul? Is he a non-literalist YEC or a non-literalist OEC or non-literalist “I don’t know”?
(June 16, 2024 at 6:51 am)Belacqua Wrote: As for why the authors of the Bible didn't ask "What is metal?", I think it's because they were more interested in how we can be good people. Socrates also made this choice. He thought there was no point in improving our alloys if we are just going to use them for bad reasons.
1. They wouldn’t known what a metal is until it was discovered.
2. Once it is discovered, it doesn’t play much of a role in the “Big questions”.
So, those are 2 reasons why they aren’t explaining to us what a metal is.
How stuff began, why does stuff exist, why do I exist, who was the first human, Was there a first human are some of the big questions that any human being would have.
The chances of a human being having such questions is very high.
This is why all religions (I am guessing since I don’t know every religion) give us answers to such questions.
The chances of a primitive human talking about metals, metalloids, semi-conductors, atoms, bacteria, cells, chromosomes, RAM chips is very low.
Even when metals are discovered, they might include it in their religious text, saying that this angel was wearing a gold bracelet, that angel has bronze boots, the god has a golden finger and an iron foot. They are not going to go further than that.
Some things are the lowest hanging fruits and any primitive human should be able to achieve them.
The Big Questions are low hanging fruits.
All cultures will develop an answer as to how it began, who was the first human, what was life like for them, did they interact with the gods, was the god satisfied with something they did somewhat satisfied or dissatisfied or totally pissed off.
What were the gods like for all the cultures? Are all the gods human like? They have feelings and thoughts? Is there a god that is basically a 3D printer and it prints out a universe?
Why did all these primitive cultures go with the human like gods (sometimes having an animal part)?
June 16, 2024 at 1:24 pm (This post was last modified: June 16, 2024 at 1:28 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
No literal reading, no original sin, nothing for christs death to fix.
Anywho, as far as the archeological record is concerned, those other questions look to be outgrowths of a singular question about human mortality. In that sense, gods are just background characters in a narrative that predates them and will outlast them. I'm not entirely sure what you would be referencing by primitive humans and what it looks like they believed..but, it looks like the majority of primitive humans (i use this to refer to early full modernity) believed in ghosts...but not gods, and certainly not gods as we conceive of them today (if/when we do).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
