Scriptural literacy

[Ladewig]

Simple, nothing has shown a need for a so-called god. But many people seem to need for one, but on a whole, the more people learn the less that need becomes. After all, the entire universe has gotten along just fine without a so-called god for about 13.7 billion years.

Paul

I thought I was a hard atheist, but I guess that I cannot fall into that category because I cannot say "God's existence is impossible."

 

[Paulhoff]

I thought I was a hard atheist, but I guess that I cannot fall into that category because I cannot say "God's existence is impossible."

Which so-called god, see there is the problem, which one.

Paul

 

[Ladewig]

Which so-called god, see there is the problem, which one.

Paul

Why is that a problem? Why can I not say, Jehovah, Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, and Kanaloa are all possible but are all completely lacking in evidence?

 

[Paulhoff]

Why is that a problem? Why can I not say, Jehovah, Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, and Kanaloa are all possible but are all completely lacking in evidence?

WHY..........

Paul

 

[Piggy]

Why is that a problem? Why can I not say, Jehovah, Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, and Kanaloa are all possible but are all completely lacking in evidence?

There's actually a way around the "pick a god, any god" ploy.

I won't derail here because I've dealt with it on other threads.

But yeah, that's not a ringer. We can get to "false" when it comes to God/gods, in my opinion.

But that's irrelevant to the topic of scriptural literacy, no?

This is what really astounded me about Radrook's original post:

A sincere scripturally illiterate person will ignore context, be it historical, immediate textual, or the more extensive textual biblical one which are all essential to accurate understanding.

All of Radrook's allegedly Biblical theology does just that.

When anyone brings in actual historical and textual scholarship, Radrook counters with some modern doctrine that has nothing to do with the ancient texts, or dredges up some completely bogus pseudo-scholarship.

Amazing.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I said what I wanted to say in post #88. Radrook ran away from this thread a while ago. Apparently Jehovah's Witnesses have special stretching exercises they have to do after sticking it to nonbelievers-- and by "stretching exercises" I mean patting themselves on the back and kissing their own butts.

 

[Ladewig]

There's actually a way around the "pick a god, any god" ploy.

I won't derail here because I've dealt with it on other threads.

But yeah, that's not a ringer. We can get to "false" when it comes to God/gods, in my opinion.

But that's irrelevant to the topic of scriptural literacy, no?

I was responding to a specific claim made in the opening post; I view the subject matter as being on topic.

 

[Ladewig]

WHY..........

Paul

I am not following. You claimed there was a problem and I asked what that problem is.

 

[Paulhoff]

I am not following. You claimed there was a problem and I asked what that problem is.

Why bother coming up with so-called gods that don't explan and/or do anything but split people. It only begets magical thinking.

Paul

 

[Ladewig]

Why bother coming up with so-called gods that don't explan and/or do anything but split people. It only begets magical thinking.

Paul

I agree that with no evidence of a god, there is no practical use. I was considering the possiblity from a philosophical standpoint.

I still don't understand why the many differing and often conflicting deities that have been imagined pose a problem when considering the hypothetical existence of any one of them.

 

[Paulhoff]

I agree that with no evidence of a god, there is no practical use. I was considering the possiblity from a philosophical standpoint.

I still don't understand why the many differing and often conflicting deities that have been imagined pose a problem when considering the hypothetical existence of any one of them.

Because most people don't think of them as a hypothetical exestence, they think of them as real.

Paul

 

[RandFan]

I still don't understand why the many differing and often conflicting deities that have been imagined pose a problem when considering the hypothetical existence of any one of them.

As Paul said, because people that believe in gods take the belief seriously.

People all over the world overwhelmingly have the very same beliefs that their parents do and they just happen to be correct. From a pure statistical standpoint any given person believes in the wrong god. Further The majority of everyone is atheistic toward every god but theirs. So, again, statistically, all religions are seen as false by the majority.

This doesn't prove any god false but it is a damn good reason to question one's held beliefs.

 

[Toke]

I like the danish state church. The priest are all graduates of theology and they are almost all rather peacefull, perhaps the loonies are sorted out.

I did ask one (my uncles girlfriend) about jesus as literary fiction. She insisted he existed as a historical person and that theology was a triving field with constantly new discoveries.
I guess it takes hard work to fit christianity to a society in constant change.

The seamens priest around the world are very nice people with not the slightest smell of fire and brimstone.

Scriptual Literacy, as in theologi studies, leads to more balanced priests who prefer the "do onto others as you want them to do to you" to hellfire and damnation.

The danish church does not support creationism or id in school.

 

[Paulhoff]

She insisted he existed as a historical person and that theology was a triving field with constantly new discoveries.

That he did exist would be a discovery, I'm waiting for the proof that he did and the being a son of a so-called god while still being that same so-called god, give me a break, playing the magical thinking card does not make it with me.

Paul

 

[Toke]

I did ask one (my uncles girlfriend) about jesus as literary fiction. She insisted he existed as a historical person and that theology was a triving field with constantly new discoveries.
I guess it takes hard work to fit christianity to a society in constant change

Could that be misunderstood?

I don´t know and don´t care much whether jesus existed as a historical person or not.

And I see no reason to alienate my uncles girlfriend, she is quite nice.
She does not bother me with religion, so why should I go further than light teasing, and occational theological curiosity.

 

[Paulhoff]

Could that be misunderstood?

I don´t know and don´t care much whether jesus existed as a historical person or not.

And I see no reason to alienate my uncles girlfriend, she is quite nice.
She does not bother me with religion, so why should I go further than light teasing, and occational theological curiosity.

So, where did I say that you sould said and/or do anything.

Paul

 

[Toke]

That he did exist would be a discovery, I'm waiting for the proof that he did and the being a son of a so-called god while still being that same so-called god, give me a break, playing the magical thinking card does not make it with me.

Paul

Don´t hold your breath waiting for evidence.

 

[Paulhoff]

Don´t hold your breath waiting for evidence.

Never have and never will.

Paul

 

[Brian-M]

They were written for different audiences.

Oh, and btw, there is no definitive "10 commandments". In fact, if you look at the decalog, which the scripture identifies as the "ten commandments", it is not the passage which 99.9% of Americans think of as the Ten Commandments.

Here it is...

He was there with Yahweh forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread, nor drank water. He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

By coincidence I've just spent half the week-end going through the laws of Exodus (and putting them into a handy-dandy easy-to-read web-page), so I've already worked that one out for myself. The tenth commandment is particularly pointless...

You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.

I've recently started to read parts of the bible. I have to thank Radrook for that. If it wasn't for him, I would have missed out on all the funny bits.

Did you know hares chew their cud like cows? (Leviticus 11:6) Or that insects have four legs? (Leviticus 11:20-23). Or that Jacob defeated God in a wrestling match, and wouldn't let God go until he agreed to bless him? (Genesis 32:24-30)

From what I've seen so far, If Radrook (or anyone else) believes the Bible is literal fact then he must either be seriously deluded or scripturally illiterate himself. There's not much room for middle ground.

Anyway, if you want to look up the laws of Exodus, I've posted them here...
http://www.deadsquirrel.net/heresy/exodus-law.html
Although, there's not much funny about it. I've just put it in as a reference source. (I wasted far too much time on it. I was originally just going to cut/paste selected passages, but got carried away.) Posting the laws of Leviticus is the next logical step, but that can wait for another week/year/eternity.

 

[Ethnikos]

Here it is...., so I've already worked that one out for myself...

My brother told me this one 24 years ago, about the second version of the ten commandments. I think he figured it out from reading the Bible all the time.

I looked at this big stone monument at the local Catholic church that has the ten commandments carved into it. They take out the one about graven images and split another on into two, to still have ten.