Author Topic: TOT's Heretical Beliefs  (Read 5968 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: TOT's Heretical Beliefs
« Reply #87 on: October 14, 2011, 01:06:40 PM »
ah, I get it, I think.  You think that the events as described, you thinking that they are metaphor, another thinking them as literal, would give the same conclusion, that one should obey god's commands.  I can see this happening occasionally, but not entirely.   How about the resurrection story?

In the case of Jonah, I don't think it was metaphorical as the context gives me no reason to draw that conclusion. I just think the writer was telling a lie, deliberately or in ingorance, I think that the writer wrote something that never happenned with the intent of conveying the message that the event in question did in fact happen.
Same would apply to the resurrection, either it was literal and happenned or the writers were mistaken, I see no way based on what was written that one can reasonably conclude that the NT writers were being metaphorical when discussing the resurrection of Jesus and the soon to be expected (1970 years or so ago) resurrection of the saints.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: TOT's Heretical Beliefs
« Reply #88 on: October 19, 2011, 03:24:42 PM »
In the case of Jonah, I don't think it was metaphorical as the context gives me no reason to draw that conclusion. I just think the writer was telling a lie, deliberately or in ingorance, I think that the writer wrote something that never happenned with the intent of conveying the message that the event in question did in fact happen.
Okay, I can understand that.  However, this would seem to indicate that you think that since it seems real that it could have been a real event.   I’ve read a lot of myths.  They also seem quite real too, e.e. Odysseus’s travels, the war at Troy with the gods interfering, etc.  Assuming you’ve read them, do you find those as true events too?  From what you’ve said, I would suspect that to be the case.   
Quote
Same would apply to the resurrection, either it was literal and happenned or the writers were mistaken, I see no way based on what was written that one can reasonably conclude that the NT writers were being metaphorical when discussing the resurrection of Jesus and the soon to be expected (1970 years or so ago) resurrection of the saints.
So you don’t think that the story of the resurrection could be just a myth, telling a story that sounds real but isn’t?  For example, if I said that the resurrection story was about how mankind was leaving behind a tribally based culture and was becoming more based on “humanity” as a whole, that JC stood for this change of paradigm and wasn’t real at all, this would be unacceptable to you?  Can you expand upon that? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: TOT's Heretical Beliefs
« Reply #89 on: October 19, 2011, 03:37:41 PM »
Okay, I can understand that.  However, this would seem to indicate that you think that since it seems real that it could have been a real event.   I’ve read a lot of myths.  They also seem quite real too, e.e. Odysseus’s travels, the war at Troy with the gods interfering, etc.  Assuming you’ve read them, do you find those as true events too?  From what you’ve said, I would suspect that to be the case.   

 So you don’t think that the story of the resurrection could be just a myth, telling a story that sounds real but isn’t?  For example, if I said that the resurrection story was about how mankind was leaving behind a tribally based culture and was becoming more based on “humanity” as a whole, that JC stood for this change of paradigm and wasn’t real at all, this would be unacceptable to you?  Can you expand upon that?

Honestly I never thought that the journeys of Odyseus were based in much truth due to Posiden, the Muses, etc and how in Christian culture I was taught to believe that the were no such things as gods with a small "g". It was unclear to me whether Homer was intending for his audience to believe the accounts were actual events or if he was using the stories to communicate a deeper truth.

The story of Jesus and his resurrection from various accounts in addition to the letters that follow stand as strong evidence that the writers actually believed the events they discussed actually took place. If you were to say that  "the resurrection story was about how mankind was leaving behind a tribally based culture and was becoming more based on “humanity” as a whole, that JC stood for this change of paradigm and wasn’t real", I'd have a difficult time understand how you reached such a conclusion based on the writings. Without being able to ask the original writers I couldn't be certain your conclusion was mistaken however. I just think drawning that conclusion based on what was written requires a major leap and is a rather unsubstantiated assumption.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: TOT's Heretical Beliefs
« Reply #90 on: October 19, 2011, 05:50:45 PM »
Honestly I never thought that the journeys of Odyseus were based in much truth due to Posiden, the Muses, etc and how in Christian culture I was taught to believe that the were no such things as gods with a small "g". It was unclear to me whether Homer was intending for his audience to believe the accounts were actual events or if he was using the stories to communicate a deeper truth.
That’s rather obvious that you didn’t think of the other myths to be similar to your own.  So, do you understand why I don’t think the stories about JC are based in much truth due to god, miracles, angels, raising from the dead, etc?  and what deeper ‘truth’ do you think possible to be communicated?  I find your argument to be terribly ignorant and dependent on your presuppositions. 
Quote
The story of Jesus and his resurrection from various accounts in addition to the letters that follow stand as strong evidence that the writers actually believed the events they discussed actually took place. If you were to say that  "the resurrection story was about how mankind was leaving behind a tribally based culture and was becoming more based on “humanity” as a whole, that JC stood for this change of paradigm and wasn’t real", I'd have a difficult time understand how you reached such a conclusion based on the writings. Without being able to ask the original writers I couldn't be certain your conclusion was mistaken however. I just think drawning that conclusion based on what was written requires a major leap and is a rather unsubstantiated assumption.
there is no reason to think that Homer didn’t think the same thing.  You have one account, the bible, which itself can’t get the story straight.   The writers wrote long after the supposed events, events that have no evidence supporting them.  Just like Homer.  Why would you have trouble understanding on how I got my interpretation of the resurrection story based on the writings?  I can assign symbolism like any writer can.  I can ignore the parts that don’t fit, just like theists do.    Unsubstantiated? No more than your interpretation. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: TOT's Heretical Beliefs
« Reply #91 on: October 19, 2011, 10:40:45 PM »
That’s rather obvious that you didn’t think of the other myths to be similar to your own.  So, do you understand why I don’t think the stories about JC are based in much truth due to god, miracles, angels, raising from the dead, etc?  and what deeper ‘truth’ do you think possible to be communicated? I find your argument to be terribly ignorant and dependent on your presuppositions.

What argument are you reading into my answers to what you asked of me?
 
Quote
The story of Jesus and his resurrection from various accounts in addition to the letters that follow stand as strong evidence that the writers actually believed the events they discussed actually took place. If you were to say that  "the resurrection story was about how mankind was leaving behind a tribally based culture and was becoming more based on “humanity” as a whole, that JC stood for this change of paradigm and wasn’t real", I'd have a difficult time understand how you reached such a conclusion based on the writings. Without being able to ask the original writers I couldn't be certain your conclusion was mistaken however. I just think drawing that conclusion based on what was written requires a major leap and is a rather unsubstantiated assumption.


there is no reason to think that Homer didn’t think the same thing.  You have one account, the bible, which itself can’t get the story straight.   The writers wrote long after the supposed events, events that have no evidence supporting them.  Just like Homer.  Why would you have trouble understanding on how I got my interpretation of the resurrection story based on the writings?  I can assign symbolism like any writer can.  I can ignore the parts that don’t fit, just like theists do.    Unsubstantiated? No more than your interpretation.

I have no way of knowing Homer's intent, so perhaps he was writing what he meant to be understood as a real and historical narrative. I won't argue against that idea. Remember that unlike Homer's Odyssey, the Bible is a compilation of various writers takes. With that being the case it is far less likely the all of the writers that discussed Jesus resurrection were employing an allegorical usage of the resurrection.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: TOT's Heretical Beliefs
« Reply #92 on: October 24, 2011, 09:50:41 AM »
What argument are you reading into my answers to what you asked of me?
Well, TOT, you seem to be arguing that the Christian myths should be accepted as valid representations of real events and that those of other cultures shouldn’t be.  I could be wrong.  Am I?    From what you have said “It was unclear to me whether Homer was intending for his audience to believe the accounts were actual events or if he was using the stories to communicate a deeper truth.”  this seems to be the case, since you seem to want to have split between “actual events” and some vague “deeper truth”.  Truth, “deeper” or not, should be able to be supported with evidence.
 
Quote
I have no way of knowing Homer's intent, so perhaps he was writing what he meant to be understood as a real and historical narrative. I won't argue against that idea. Remember that unlike Homer's Odyssey, the Bible is a compilation of various writers takes. With that being the case it is far less likely the all of the writers that discussed Jesus resurrection were employing an allegorical usage of the resurrection.
And this would also apply to the bible.  The bible is indeed a compliation of various writers, and we don’t know what any of them *really* intended.  So we have a mess that Christians pick and choose out of to create their own religion and god, with no way to determine which thought what was metaphor and what was literal.  As it stands, with no actual evidence of the events in the bible, it could have been that people simply thought things were literal and they never were, just like those who never saw Zeus and Hermes descend to speak to Baucis and Philemon but were sure that they caused a flood to kill those who didn’t belive in them, or that Apollo drove a literal chariot with the sun in it, etc.  Any compliation of Greek myths can be read quite similarly to the bible and has as much evidence to say that it was real, e.g. none.   

I am curious to know more about why my interpretation of the resurrection as a metaphor would be so hard to extract from the NT. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1449
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: TOT's Heretical Beliefs
« Reply #93 on: October 24, 2011, 11:09:07 AM »
Well, TOT, you seem to be arguing that the Christian myths should be accepted as valid representations of real events and that those of other cultures shouldn’t be.  I could be wrong.  Am I?

Validity is no the issue. The issues I was focusing on were style and intent. The Christian stories from the gospels to the letters that follow, whether true or false seem to have been written in such a way as to reflect that those who wrote them believed the events they wrote of actually happenned and were real as opposed to allegorical events.
Again, this has no bearing on the truthfulness of the accounts, but it does seem to indicate that the writers believed and were trying to communicate and relay accounts of what THEY either thought or wanted others to think were actual events.
From reading Homer, I do not find his intent (metaphorical vs. literal) to be as clear as the writers of the NT, though his accounts may in fact hold the same amount of truth as theirs.   

The bible is indeed a compliation of various writers, and we don’t know what any of them *really* intended.  So we have a mess that Christians pick and choose out of to create their own religion and god, with no way to determine which thought what was metaphor and what was literal.  As it stands, with no actual evidence of the events in the bible, it could have been that people simply thought things were literal and they never were, just like those who never saw Zeus and Hermes descend to speak to Baucis and Philemon but were sure that they caused a flood to kill those who didn’t belive in them, or that Apollo drove a literal chariot with the sun in it, etc.  Any compliation of Greek myths can be read quite similarly to the bible and has as much evidence to say that it was real, e.g. none.   

I am curious to know more about why my interpretation of the resurrection as a metaphor would be so hard to extract from the NT.

For starters, those that wrote of Jesus like the writer of Luke said things like this:
Quote
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The writers, like Luke above often were clear in expressing their intent of giving accounts of events they beleived happenned and were true, but as you indicated, with there being no actual evidence that's been uncovered that to suggest that the events described were real, the accounts could be erroneous.

As far as the resurrection being written and intended by the writers to be a metaphor, what evidence suggests such a conclusion?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: TOT's Heretical Beliefs
« Reply #94 on: October 25, 2011, 08:06:45 AM »
Validity is no the issue. The issues I was focusing on were style and intent. The Christian stories from the gospels to the letters that follow, whether true or false seem to have been written in such a way as to reflect that those who wrote them believed the events they wrote of actually happenned and were real as opposed to allegorical events.
Again, this has no bearing on the truthfulness of the accounts, but it does seem to indicate that the writers believed and were trying to communicate and relay accounts of what THEY either thought or wanted others to think were actual events.
From reading Homer, I do not find his intent (metaphorical vs. literal) to be as clear as the writers of the NT, though his accounts may in fact hold the same amount of truth as theirs.
  Can you show me what makes you think that they seem to be written in a way that supposedly reflects that the authors believed the events they wrote of as actually happening and can you also show me how Homer didn’t do this?   I don’t see any differences myself, which is why I’m asking.  I’ve read both the Odyssey, the Iliad, a bunch of myths, the Theogony (a myth class in college for all of those, plus my own interest), the bible, other cultures’ myths, wrote my own (dabbling in Wicca) etc, and don’t see much, if any difference at all.       

Quote
For starters, those that wrote of Jesus like the writer of Luke said things like this:
Quote
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The writers, like Luke above often were clear in expressing their intent of giving accounts of events they beleived happenned and were true, but as you indicated, with there being no actual evidence that's been uncovered that to suggest that the events described were real, the accounts could be erroneous.

As far as the resurrection being written and intended by the writers to be a metaphor, what evidence suggests such a conclusion?
Yes, I agree, the writer of luke was fairly clear on what he intended. I don’t recall any others who write like that, with the possible exception of the writer of Revelation. This is one, maybe two, out of how many books?  Also, the author of Luke, seems to indicate that he finds the other “many” accounts to be wrong.  If this is the case, then why should we accept that his is any better?  He is not an eyewitness, we have no idea on what this person thought “careful investigation” would be, especially 60 to 90 years after the supposed events.  It is thought to have come from the Gospel of Mark and the “q” text but adds huge amounts of things to the story. The author may have believed that his version was right, and wrote it that way but I can point to a myriad of books that do the same thing, presenting fiction very much as a fact.   

I’m also still curious to know your thinking processes about the style/validity of my interpretation and those of others.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/