Truth : Science Vs. Religion

[twilyth]

that sounds great twilyth - but what is this context knowledge that is so necessary? it can't be that hard or we wouldn't be trying to teach it to children so young.

you make it sound like that understanding is hard to come by. but i have never gotten that impression.

i know what the world was like when it was written. I know how the people who wrote it lived. i know it was multiple authors in different times. many saying different things. i know it was edited and combined by a council 300 years after every apostle who wrote anything died. i know they picked and chose out of 100s of accounts for the 13 they wanted to be "the bible". that's a decent amount of contextual information off the top of my head, without even trying.

what exactly is the context we are missing? and what great understanding of the contradictions inside does it lend?

If I'm going to get specific, I need to know if you want to talk about the old or new testaments. That's really the first problem right there. People talk about the bible as if it is some monolithic tome. The fact that you understand things like the Council of Nicea puts you at the far end of the bell curve already. So the odds are that, if you are only talking about the new testament, you probably also have a pretty good understanding of it's history anyway. You probably also understand what the competing thought systems and religions were at the time and how understanding those helps you to understand the text.

In the case of the Old Testament, you're looking at the same kinds of elements, but the history is much murkier and spans a much, much longer period of time. So everything becomes more difficult in that context. You also have the problem of a long, if not ancient oral tradition preceding the codification of the OT. That adds another layer of complexity.

I could go on but does that give you generally an idea of what I had in mind?

 

[erocker]

I could go on but does that give you generally an idea of what I had in mind?

Religion ain't easy?

 

[twilyth]

Religion ain't easy?

Exactly. But still easier than pimpin'.

 

[WhiteLotus]

If I'm going to get specific, I need to know if you want to talk about the old or new testaments. That's really the first problem right there. People talk about the bible as if it is some monolithic tome. The fact that you understand things like the Council of Nicea puts you at the far end of the bell curve already. So the odds are that, if you are only talking about the new testament, you probably also have a pretty good understanding of it's history anyway. You probably also understand what the competing thought systems and religions were at the time and how understanding those helps you to understand the text.

In the case of the Old Testament, you're looking at the same kinds of elements, but the history is much murkier and spans a much, much longer period of time. So everything becomes more difficult in that context. You also have the problem of a longer oral tradition preceding the codification of the OT. That adds another layer of complexity.

I could go on but does that give you generally an idea of what I had in mind?

I have no idea what you're banging on about twily. Even if you cast your mind back to try and live in the context of what half the bible bangs on about, you still have a monumental task of trying to find a place for it in todays society. Times have moved on. We no longer sell our daughters, carry out genocides on young males, or think for two seconds that we can wave our hands and part a sea.

The bible, and the Torah, and the Koran are all books about Chinese Whispers. We wont EVER know what the true intentions, meanings and facts were until some lucky person develops a time machine and goes back to find out. For all we know half of it could be damn right true with minor errors (replace the Red sea with the Reed sea and you have yourself a natural phenomenon that allows the sea to "part"), and half of it could be a bed time story that uncle jack made up to tell his son billy about why he should be good.

 

[erocker]

or think for two seconds that we can wave our hands and part a sea

Please just speak for yourself sir. I completely believe that I can do this. I haven't done it yet, but my time will come. There are many types of "waves" that can be done with the hands and one day I will wave the correct one, the sea will part and it'll be good fishin'. Sigh.. If only Doug Henning was still alive.

 

[twilyth]

I have no idea what you're banging on about twily. Even if you cast your mind back to try and live in the context of what half the bible bangs on about, you still have a monumental task of trying to find a place for it in todays society. Times have moved on. We no longer sell our daughters, carry out genocides on young males, or think for two seconds that we can wave our hands and part a sea.

The bible, and the Torah, and the Koran are all books about Chinese Whispers. We wont EVER know what the true intentions, meanings and facts were until some lucky person develops a time machine and goes back to find out. For all we know half of it could be damn right true with minor errors (replace the Red sea with the Reed sea and you have yourself a natural phenomenon that allows the sea to "part"), and half of it could be a bed time story that uncle jack made up to tell his son billy about why he should be good.

And thus you have seen the truth with the truth. Another triumph of the Socratic method.

I would just add one caveat. Despite the infinite number of layers and the boundless complexity of trying to understand what the text meant to the people who lived it, there are nonetheless certain general principles and ideas which anyone can understand. The only problem is that even these are subject to interpretation.

For example, you can view the old testament as a type of love story. God chooses Israel to be his people to the exclusion of all others. But they betray and defy him time after time. Time after time he punishes them but ultimately relents. So the Chinese fortune cookie version of the OT is that god is love - something that is so cliche as to be virtually meaningless now - unfortunately.

 

[overclockthesun]

I'm currently reading the Bible with an open mind, but so far it's nonsense. He's consistently creating situations where he knows the outcome will possibly be negative and then when it happens he punishes people for it. But if you created temptation within man then why are you temping them and getting frustrated when it doesn't go your way? Since you already know what will happen, then why must you punish those who follow through on your will?

Then God saw the violence of the earth and in man, so he flooded the Earth in order to kill every living thing he created(besides the animals in Noahs ark), but he created that situation himself, i don't understand a God that creates man in knowing violence will exist and then murdering all living creatures because he screwed up.

Then in Genesis 2:22 is states that God put Adam to sleep and pulled out his one of this ribs to create Woman, some people are saying not to take anything literal, but how can you not?, it states it clearly.

I'll probably come back with my overall analysis of the book in the end, but so far it really takes a stretch of imagination.

that is something even I wonder about. But hink about this..... even in his own world, God must play by his rules..... he just couldnt create another person out of nothing on Earth once he set the ball rolling... os he had to take something from Adam....that something was his DNA... the Bible only speaks in riddles.... its like reading a Law book..

PS: Most of it sounds like bullshit because ... many important books were left out of it.... they were left out because the truth would be too much for anyone of us to handle.
But if we put all of them together....(yes I mean the one which the church doesnt accept0 only then will everything make sense....

remember the calendar from Enoch's book....its perfect. It makes up for the "extra day" in a leap year with almost perfect accuracy.

 

[WhiteLotus]

For example, you can view the old testament as a type of love story. God chooses Israel to be his people to the exclusion of all others. But they betray and defy him time after time. Time after time he punishes them but ultimately relents. So the Chinese fortune cookie version of the OT is that god is love - something that is so cliche as to be virtually meaningless now - unfortunately.

See, I see that as "God gives up and lets the wankers have what they want".

 

[overclockthesun]

I never quite got that myself.

If you read the bible literally there are conflicts within stories, openly racist and hateful messages, and a surprisingly calous and amoral god. These things are inherently different than the kind and loving absolute truth that religious zealots would have you believe.

I prefer to think of the bible, and most holy texts, as something akin to Aesop's Fables. The tales are fantastic, so they retain their readers interest. The core message, once you strip away the fantasy, is a reasonable moral compass and treating your fellow people with dignity and respect. That message I can stand behind.

Seriously though, does god ever sound kind and loving in the old testament? God tempts people to see if they are worthy, is openly hateful of creation, and destroys on a whim. That sounds more like sociopathic tendencies than a benevolent creator.

Ironically, he lost his ruthlessness when his "Son" died on the cross. So if god exists, then this is a funny predicament. His son came to teach us peace, instead he taught it to his father.

 

[overclockthesun]

I shouldnt be posting in a religious thread with an avatar pic showing a n00b Pope! :wheee: