Author Topic: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?  (Read 8957 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #522 on: May 16, 2014, 02:09:43 PM »
I asked about the particular story regarding the bears.  Are you saying that you get 'follow me, I love you' from that story?
I'm sorry I mixed our 2 conversations. I thought you were asking about the message in the whole Bible
The message that I get from the bears story is a simple one. Mockery is bad.
And how is telling the story of someone imploring the LORD to curse the children, thereby causing bears to maul them, a superior way of passing the message 'mockery is bad' than to simply state 'mockery is bad'?

In oral tradition, people would remember the story and would be able to tell it again later. Do you think that "mockery is bad" would have the same impact? What about the children? Wouldn't they have trouble understanding why it is bad without an example?
Even today we learn using stories that don't have factual events in it. What is considered as the book of morale from your childhood?
In France we have "le petit prince" or "les comptes de Lafontaine"
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #523 on: May 16, 2014, 02:26:15 PM »
It is my contention that having one's view of reality shaped by fictitious stories rather than observable and testable evidence to be a detriment to our advancement as a species.
Where the stories of your childhood full of actual events?

Quote
If you have a missionary imparting the full message of Christianity including the penalty for failing to convert (eternal damnation), then to think that anyone would base such a life-altering decision on a story seems ludicrous.
Again with that eternal damnation. Atheist can go to heaven, is part of what missionaries teach today.
I agree, it wasn't always so. Missionaries talk(ed) more about Jesus than anything else. They spread the gospel. Plenty of factual events there.
 
Quote
If you were a non-believer faced with two or more competing religions vying for your conversion with each and every one claiming that they and they alone represent the One True Word of God, then wouldn't you take in to consideration which faith can back up this statement with actual evidence?

Yes, but maybe not the kind you are thinking of. Back up the statement(s) with logic. If the Mormon told me that their book wasn't factual events I would have listen to them more seriously because it make more sense to me that their book is just a story than factual events. Anyway they asked me 10% of my weekly income so...bye bye :)

Quote
Do you also feel that there is no need for actual evidence that Jesus died for your sins on the cross and then resurrected to get his message across?

If it was possible to have them it would be great. Catholicism does not prevent the possibility that one day we have them. (contrary to the Mormon had their golden tablets disappear) In the meantime I will use other sources like testimony and logic to believe in them being factual.

Quote
I think I may have to retract my claim, as it appears that according to various polls only 1/3 of Christians take the Bible literally.

Whoa that's more than I thought. Thank you.
You're worth more than my time

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1929
  • Darwins +347/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #524 on: May 16, 2014, 02:34:41 PM »
And how is telling the story of someone imploring the LORD to curse the children, thereby causing bears to maul them, a superior way of passing the message 'mockery is bad' than to simply state 'mockery is bad'?

In oral tradition, people would remember the story and would be able to tell it again later.
I'm a bit concerned that god would rely on oral tradition to pass down his presumably important message.  But, other than that, you are correct insofar as more vivid stories are more memorable.

Quote
Do you think that "mockery is bad" would have the same impact?
No, I don't think just having 'mockery is bad' would be sufficient.  I think that explicitly including it, say, at the end of the story, would be even more helpful.  I also think it would have something of a different impact, because, I have to be honest with you, the message that you're getting from that story is rather different than the message I'm getting from the story.  An explicit explanation avoids that potential problem.

Quote
What about the children? Wouldn't they have trouble understanding why it is bad without an example?
You think that children being mauled by bears is a good example?  Is this story often told to children?  You don't think someone would get the idea that part of the message of the story is that it is OK to cause physical pain and death in response to being taunted?  Or do you actually think that's a good lesson?

Quote
Even today we learn using stories that don't have factual events in it. What is considered as the book of morale from your childhood?
In France we have "le petit prince" or "les comptes de Lafontaine"
The Little Engine That Could is usually my go-to example of a "and the moral of the story" is kind of thing.  That story does not include someone responding to bad behavior with violence.  I don't think The Little Prince does either (I do not remember it very well), and I'm unfamiliar with Les Comptes de Lafontaine.

Furthermore...in the case of children's stories...there are other adults around to clearly explain to the children what the lessons are, or to at least help guide the children to fully understanding the lessons.  God does no such thing.  We are on our own for interpretation.  Do parents typically read stories to their children in the hopes that the children will get the right lesson, but never actually provide any feedback to their children about the story?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #525 on: May 16, 2014, 03:21:49 PM »
No, I don't think just having 'mockery is bad' would be sufficient.  I think that explicitly including it, say, at the end of the story, would be even more helpful.  I also think it would have something of a different impact, because, I have to be honest with you, the message that you're getting from that story is rather different than the message I'm getting from the story.  An explicit explanation avoids that potential problem.

He does the explicit bit with the 10 testament. If they follow them, people would never use mockery.

Quote
You think that children being mauled by bears is a good example?  Is this story often told to children?  You don't think someone would get the idea that part of the message of the story is that it is OK to cause physical pain and death in response to being taunted?  Or do you actually think that's a good lesson?

That's ok, no one will think that "it is OK to cause physical pain and death in response to being taunted". Remember that these stories were told orally by people? They did not just told the story, they explained the lesson contained in it. Even today, every Sunday at church, we have the homily to make sure that the lesson is learned from the lectures we just heard.

Quote
The Little Engine That Could is usually my go-to example of a "and the moral of the story" is kind of thing.  That story does not include someone responding to bad behavior with violence.  I don't think The Little Prince does either (I do not remember it very well), and I'm unfamiliar with Les Comptes de Lafontaine.
Furthermore...in the case of children's stories...there are other adults around to clearly explain to the children what the lessons are, or to at least help guide the children to fully understanding the lessons.  God does no such thing.
Oh yes he does. God never let us "on our own" with the comprehension of the Bible. See reasons above.
As a kid I remember 2 pigs and how they were eaten by a wolf because they didn't build on solid rock enough. Also there was a red riding hood that was eaten in another story. Villagers were terrorized by the beast because he wasn't kind to the sorcerer. My childhood is full of memories like that.

Quote
Do parents typically read stories to their children in the hopes that the children will get the right lesson, but never actually provide any feedback to their children about the story?
No. (I love yes no questions :) )
You're worth more than my time

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #526 on: May 16, 2014, 04:07:36 PM »
Just a couple of thoughts, Luk.

1. Stories learning by reading / listening to stories is the way a child starts to learn more about the world and to see how he has to behave in it. We (my wife and I) told lots of stories to our children when they were small as well as reading lots to them. The thing about them was, however, that we all knew we were reading fiction. In the case of stories I made up they realised I was making them up too.

Now, there is a great deal of difference between taking a message from a story you know is fiction and being told a story that is, at least on the surface, history. The thing than whilst one would not base one's life around a story book, people are asked to base their lives around another book - a holy book - and yet that appears to be reciting history. Sure, one can interpret some of it as, well... myth and then say it didn't happen like it says and the story is there for morals and not for fact but that become arbitrary and can lead to people choosing their own bits.

2. Oral Stories It's an old gag but if one takes a group of people and puts them in a line and then asks the first one to pass a whispered message to the second one and so on down the line, its quite easy for 'send re-enforcements we're going to advance' to end up as 'send 3and 4 pence we're going to a dance.' You see every time a story is retold it gets a bit extra - maybe only a gesture or maybe an extra word - so that over the course of lots of tellings, the story changes. maybe, sometimes, it deliberately changes too. the thing is that the last person to hear it has no way of working out that it has changed from start to finish.

Now, anything that is claimed as oral tradition has to be viewed in the light that we cannot know what the original said and, even, cannot know if the original was a story, made up, or a record of real events. The latter is not quite true as real events often have multiple sources to back them up, just like various people who witness a crime or for a war, various war correspondents filing stories with their newspapers.When we haven't got the multiple sources is the time that we cannot tell if something is fiction or fact.


So, what can we say about the bible. It claims to be telling history but, apart from the odd king's name and a few geographical places, we cannot tell the difference between an account that is historically accurate and a historical novel. So, did the Egyptians write about the plagues? Did the Babylonians write about Israel? Is there evidence in the desert to show that the Israelites trampled for 40 years in it? 'No', is the correct answer to the above. There is no other accounts and no corroborating evidence.Withot this, we cannot tell if there is any historical fact in the stories.

The same applies to the Gospels, or course. Nothing in texts, which vary rather, can be corroborated in Roman texts of the time. Ah, but I hear you say, Luk, but there are four gospels so we have more than one source! Try again! There is Mark, the model for the other three. The other three add their own stuff to mark, rearranging Mark's text to suit. Mark wrote first but the other knew more details than Mark? Hardly! The others are added details to suit themselves - trying to make the text suit their own theology. So, are the gospels accurate history? How can we know? We can be sure of a few things, though.

  • No king killed all the under 2s in Bethlehem because if he had we would have lots of text condemning it
  • No zombies were raised as per Matthews account of Jesus' crucifixion

I could add lots but its getting late here. the main point is that one cannot claim the gospels as, err...., 'gospel'  except by deciding it is so before opening them. There is no case for this any more for a case for any other part of the bible being actual history.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1257
  • Darwins +40/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #527 on: May 16, 2014, 04:11:07 PM »
Ignore
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 04:12:45 PM by eh! »
Signature goes here...

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #528 on: May 16, 2014, 07:25:51 PM »
2. Oral Stories It's an old gag but if one takes a group of people and puts them in a line and then asks the first one to pass a whispered message to the second one and so on down the line, its quite easy for 'send re-enforcements we're going to advance' to end up as 'send 3and 4 pence we're going to a dance.' You see every time a story is retold it gets a bit extra - maybe only a gesture or maybe an extra word - so that over the course of lots of tellings, the story changes. maybe, sometimes, it deliberately changes too. the thing is that the last person to hear it has no way of working out that it has changed from start to finish.

That works today but did not work for people who studied in the age of the bible. As this article support, the oral tradition wasn't something to mess with.

  • No king killed all the under 2s in Bethlehem because if he had we would have lots of text condemning it
Bethlehem as far as the Romans was concerned, was an insignificant and very small town located about five miles south of Jerusalem at around 2500 feet elevation. It probably had a population of no more than 500-600 people. Nothing worth noticing in history books.

Quote
  • No zombies were raised as per Matthews account of Jesus' crucifixion

It's an allusion to the vision of dry bones in Ezekiel 37:12
You're worth more than my time

Offline Disciple of Sagan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Darwins +54/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Current mood: Malcontent
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #529 on: May 16, 2014, 08:09:30 PM »
Where the stories of your childhood full of actual events?

I see where you are trying to go with this.

None of the stories I can recall from my childhood (nursery rhymes, Santa Claus bringing presents, the Tooth fairy leaving money underneath my pillow) neither contained actual, historic characters nor were meant to be taken as actual events. And when I became old enough to either be told the truth or to figure out for myself that said stories were just that, they no longer shaped/reflected my view of reality.

The stories in the Bible, however, were designed to be taken as actual, historical facts by the mostly uneducated, illiterate and scientifically illiterate populous of the time. Unlike nursery rhymes, Santa and the Tooth Fairy, however, at least 33% of Americans still have their view of reality molded and guided by Biblical events that not only have been proven to have not transpired as written but you yourself have stated are not to be taken as literal fact.

What would your view be of individuals who still subscribed to these childhood stories as adults? Say, a grown man or woman who still wakes up on Christmas day expecting presents to magically have been delivered by Saint Nick and instead of coming to the logical conclusion that no, Virginia, there is not a Santa Claus they instead continue to believe that the reason must be because they have been naughty?

Quote
I agree, it wasn't always so. Missionaries talk(ed) more about Jesus than anything else. They spread the gospel. Plenty of factual events there.

Conjecture. In addition, what do you think the proper response would be from a Christian missionary if asked what was the penalty for not accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior? What does your faith tell you to say?

Quote
Yes, but maybe not the kind you are thinking of. Back up the statement(s) with logic. If the Mormon told me that their book wasn't factual events I would have listen to them more seriously because it make more sense to me that their book is just a story than factual events. Anyway they asked me 10% of my weekly income so...bye bye :)

Why would you not ask them to back up their statement(s) with both logic and facts? Remember, it is your eternal soul that is hanging in the balance. Would you want it's fate to be decided by a well-worded fable or by evidence that could be both tested and verified?

Quote
If it was possible to have them it would be great. Catholicism does not prevent the possibility that one day we have them.

And should this actually occur, I will change my beliefs accordingly. As it stands, my logic and scientific and historical evidence continues to support my atheistic nature.

Back to work for me.
The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #530 on: May 16, 2014, 09:16:51 PM »
The stories in the Bible, however, were designed to be taken as actual, historical facts by the mostly uneducated, illiterate and scientifically illiterate populous of the time.

What makes you think that? (links?) The way I understand it, oral tradition teach us otherwise. The stories where designed to be remembered easily and shared with an explanation. Jesus sent his apostles to the word two by two and asked them to spread the gospel.

Quote
Unlike nursery rhymes, Santa and the Tooth Fairy, however, at least 33% of Americans still have their view of reality molded and guided by Biblical events that not only have been proven to have not transpired as written but you yourself have stated are not to be taken as literal fact.

Those Americans eh? Crazy people, extremists! Good thing 67% are still sane or the country would be burning.

Quote
What would your view be of individuals who still subscribed to these childhood stories as adults? Say, a grown man or woman who still wakes up on Christmas day expecting presents to magically have been delivered by Saint Nick and instead of coming to the logical conclusion that no, Virginia, there is not a Santa Claus they instead continue to believe that the reason must be because they have been naughty?

I don't judge them. I know I wouldn't adhere since it restrain me.

Quote
Conjecture. In addition, what do you think the proper response would be from a Christian missionary if asked what was the penalty for not accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior? What does your faith tell you to say?
"Jesus loves you and will forgive you... *turn his tongue 7 times in his mouth* if you are willing to ask"

Quote
Why would you not ask them to back up their statement(s) with both logic and facts? Remember, it is your eternal soul that is hanging in the balance. Would you want it's fate to be decided by a well-worded fable or by evidence that could be both tested and verified?

Of course. I would want my soul's fate to be decided by a well-worded fable AND by evidence that could be both tested and verified.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #531 on: May 16, 2014, 10:10:56 PM »
Test and verify that God exists. Do it and you won't need to argue with us. You can claim your Nobel prize and flick us off.

And remember, use the scientific method or it doesn't mean crap.

And yeah, evidence.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #532 on: May 16, 2014, 11:12:50 PM »
Test and verify that God exists. Do it and you won't need to argue with us. You can claim your Nobel prize and flick us off.

And remember, use the scientific method or it doesn't mean crap.

And yeah, evidence.
Flowers with that? I proved already to you in the debate that God existed.
I use a science called logic. You should try it sometime. It brings evidence to the existence of God.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #533 on: May 17, 2014, 12:38:30 AM »
Again with that eternal damnation. Atheist can go to heaven, is part of what missionaries teach today.
I agree, it wasn't always so. Missionaries talk(ed) more about Jesus than anything else. They spread the gospel. Plenty of factual events there.

No, you are wrong for two reasons. The pope has not said that atheists can go to heaven. He's said that atheists can experience the orgasmic earthly "kingdom" that Christians are supposed to experience by Luke 17

[20] And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
[21] Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

This is just an exploitation of the other Thomas sect of Christianity, who didn't believe that Jesus' death was significant.

The second reason, is that you are allowing the pope to change the religion, against scripture. They do this, so that the religion can be seen as reasonable, not because there is any scriptural reason to believe anything they say. In this case, The Revelation says you have to be a virgin to get to heaven.

Why not just write your own Bible?
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #534 on: May 17, 2014, 12:39:58 AM »
I use a science called logic. You should try it sometime. It brings evidence to the existence of God.

Logic can't bring you anything outside the axioms that you started with. A consequence of using logic is that logic created this rule.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Disciple of Sagan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Darwins +54/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Current mood: Malcontent
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #535 on: May 17, 2014, 12:55:20 AM »
What makes you think that? (links?)

I admit that it is an educated opinion, as neither of us was present at the time. Please refer to my following response as to the reason why.

Quote
The way I understand it,oral tradition teach us otherwise. The stories where designed to be remembered easily and shared with an explanation. Jesus sent his apostles to the word two by two and asked them to spread the gospel.

And as for the rest of the people, places and events from the OT? Would I be correct to assume they also spread those stories?

Do you think it likely that the apostles added this disclaimer when preaching, for example, the Genesis account of creation: "What we are about to tell you is really just a parable and in no way should be taken literally."?

I will also go so far as to state that were it not for scientific advancements that aided humanity in the  understanding of the natural universe (which eventually led to the debunking of Biblical claims such as the sun revolving around the earth and a global, near extinction-level flood), there would be far greater than 33% who refer to themselves as literalists.

Quote
Those Americans eh? Crazy people, extremists! Good thing 67% are still sane or the country would be burning.

Nice use of sarcasm. While it is true that the forces of sanity and reason are slowly making headway in this country, but the fight is far from over. Polls have shown that atheists are more distrusted than terrorists, and to date there is not one "out" atheist to hold an office on the state or Federal level.

Do not forget the uphill battle that was fought in the Scopes Monkey Trial and the uproar it caused in those Christians who viewed evolution as a flat-out denial of how God created Adam and Eve or the movement in some school systems to put creationism on par with evolutionism.

Quote
I don't judge them. I know I wouldn't adhere since it restrain me.

Would you want such an individual as I had described in my example to be in charge of the public education system? I would not.

Quote
"Jesus loves you and will forgive you... *turn his tongue 7 times in his mouth* if you are willing to ask"

That's a nice and comforting reply. It still does not address my point, however. There is a penalty for not accepting Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior is there not?

2 Thessalonians 1:8
Quote
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #536 on: May 17, 2014, 04:34:37 AM »
2. Oral Stories It's an old gag but if one takes a group of people and puts them in a line and then asks the first one to pass a whispered message to the second one and so on down the line, its quite easy for 'send re-enforcements we're going to advance' to end up as 'send 3and 4 pence we're going to a dance.' You see every time a story is retold it gets a bit extra - maybe only a gesture or maybe an extra word - so that over the course of lots of tellings, the story changes. maybe, sometimes, it deliberately changes too. the thing is that the last person to hear it has no way of working out that it has changed from start to finish.

That works today but did not work for people who studied in the age of the bible. As this article support, the oral tradition wasn't something to mess with.

Well, maybe... the thing is that we can't know what stories were being told or how accurately they were being passed down until they got to be being written down. So anything on this topic is certainly speculative. We get a clue, though, from the book of Jeremiah. In the 200BCE Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint (LXX) the book is much longer than the Hebrew text. Some of the extra text comes in modern bibles as the Apocrypha and in Catholic bibles it is sometimes in the main text. Now we have found Hebrew scrolls among the Dead Sea Scrolls for both versions of the text. Whatever happened to the text supposedly written by a Jeremiah  obviously got quite a makeover.

Then there's the gospels. Matthew used Mark to base his gospel. He was writing in the 70sCE, was not an eyewitness and it was unlikely that there were any eyewitnesses left. Yet Matthew is able to add swathes of extra detail to Mark. This can either be real, actual, remembered detail (but there aren't any eyewitnesses) or imaginative expansion or the story was passed on orally until Matthew got the thing. I know which I think is more likely but hang onto to that for now.

Quote
  • No king killed all the under 2s in Bethlehem because if he had we would have lots of text condemning it
Bethlehem as far as the Romans was concerned, was an insignificant and very small town located about five miles south of Jerusalem at around 2500 feet elevation. It probably had a population of no more than 500-600 people. Nothing worth noticing in history books.

The Romans and their populations were actual very keen on writing everything down. Even down to a resident of Bristol in the UK who complained about the screams from the Roman baths coming from those having hair plucking! The killing of every 2 year old would have attracted a lot of grief ... and yet no one mentions it? Come on! Small town or not surely someone would have thought to wrote something.

Quote
Quote
  • No zombies were raised as per Matthews account of Jesus' crucifixion

It's an allusion to the vision of dry bones in Ezekiel 37:12

Indeed that could be the case. If it is, of course, your belief in the accuracy of the gospels is misplaced as it is clear, if you are right, that Matthew is presenting theological ideas as historical fact. How do we know that lots of other parts of Matthew are not the same. In fact, one could construct the whole of Matthew with OT quotes more or less. Tell me how we distinguish these. Remember, Matthew and Luke both realise that they have to set the birth in Bethlehem, based on the same text, but have entirely different ways of making this happen in their birth narratives. Given that the two narrative can't both be true we seem ti have here people 'making it up' and not recording history as they appear to be doing.

How do you account for that?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #537 on: May 17, 2014, 08:07:23 AM »
I like the way that God told Mary and Joe to hide in Egypt, because you know, everybody has to run to Egypt to get away from Herod. Can't we just hide in Jerusalem? No, no. Has to be Egypt. Maybe God couldn't see the future, and over-reacted?
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #538 on: May 17, 2014, 08:18:15 AM »
Remember, Matthew and Luke both realise that they have to set the birth in Bethlehem, based on the same text, but have entirely different ways of making this happen in their birth narratives. Given that the two narrative can't both be true we seem ti have here people 'making it up' and not recording history as they appear to be doing.

How do you account for that?

I can account for Luke not knowing about the mass murder in Bethlehem. It's because Bethlehem as far as the Romans was concerned, was an insignificant and very small town located about five miles south of Jerusalem at around 2500 feet elevation. It probably had a population of no more than 500-600 people. Nothing worth noticing in history books, or even to Biblical authors.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #539 on: May 17, 2014, 11:02:16 AM »
Remember, Matthew and Luke both realise that they have to set the birth in Bethlehem, based on the same text, but have entirely different ways of making this happen in their birth narratives. Given that the two narrative can't both be true we seem ti have here people 'making it up' and not recording history as they appear to be doing.

How do you account for that?

I can account for Luke not knowing about the mass murder in Bethlehem. It's because Bethlehem as far as the Romans was concerned, was an insignificant and very small town located about five miles south of Jerusalem at around 2500 feet elevation. It probably had a population of no more than 500-600 people. Nothing worth noticing in history books, or even to Biblical authors.

really, Luke went to great effort to engineer Jesus and family into Bethlehem for him to be born citing a fictitious census so Luke knew something about Bethlehem. Of course, it could be that matthew and Luke were using the OT prophecy[1] and wrote their stories to match it. In which case, the birth narratives aren't factual history and the gospels start to crumble at the edges. Naturally, anyone who compares the genealogies of Luke and Matthew would smell a rat anyway as they can't both be true!
 1. Well, it's called a prophecy because the two picked up the verse and made it fit the 'facts' of their birth narratives!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #540 on: May 17, 2014, 11:38:10 AM »
So you would accept their claims that their claimed god is actually talking to them?
Yes. If it does not impact my liberty.


This is total hypocrisy. You cannot say that you will accept someones claims as true but then turn right around and say you WILL NOT accept their claims if they "impact my liberty". That is absurd. Something is either true or not, regardless of whether it impacts you!! You should know this.


Yes. As long as I get to keep my freedom.

I can meet a guy who tells me that he met an alien and I will believe him as long as this does not impact my freedom. If he says the alien told him to eat at my place and sleep in my bed or that the alien prodded him and that he must now kill me or he dies. I might not want to believe him anymore.
Yay more yes or no questions! :)

Notice your hypocrisy here again. You make it sound as if you are willing to just believe (actually believe - not just say you believe) anything that you here from someone. That is called gullibility. But you claim to practice this gullibility selectively (which is likely untrue). Belief is not about choice. You cannot choose to believe something. You must be convinced by either good or bad reasons. More importantly, you likely do not truly believe every-single extraordinary claim someone tells you, do you? Do you actually believe every single fantastical, miraculous, or extraordinary claim that anyone tells you without critically checking into it? If so, how can you determine what is bullshit, mistake, or delusion from what is real??
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 11:41:11 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Disciple of Sagan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Darwins +54/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Current mood: Malcontent
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #541 on: May 17, 2014, 11:40:59 AM »
$20 says his answer is "logic".
The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #542 on: May 17, 2014, 11:43:04 AM »
Test and verify that God exists. Do it and you won't need to argue with us. You can claim your Nobel prize and flick us off.

And remember, use the scientific method or it doesn't mean crap.

And yeah, evidence.
Flowers with that? I proved already to you in the debate that God existed.
I use a science called logic. You should try it sometime. It brings evidence to the existence of God.

No, you didn't. As I have noted many times in your posts. You used irrational arguments and I noted the fallacies you are continually trying to use. You are using the nonsense of being illogical.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #543 on: May 17, 2014, 12:50:28 PM »
No, you are wrong for two reasons. The pope has not said that atheists can go to heaven. He's said that atheists can experience the orgasmic earthly "kingdom" that Christians are supposed to experience by Luke 17

For real!? Well I wish to see that because as you can read : non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.. It says that I am the one telling the truth and you are the one telling a lie.

Quote
The second reason, is that you are allowing the pope to change the religion, against scripture. They do this, so that the religion can be seen as reasonable, not because there is any scriptural reason to believe anything they say. In this case, The Revelation says you have to be a virgin to get to heaven.
Why not just write your own Bible?

We don't need to, the bible is ok as is it today. Tell me more about the pope and how he changed the religion against scripture. As, for the moment you are the one changing the pope.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #544 on: May 17, 2014, 01:13:18 PM »
And as for the rest of the people, places and events from the OT? Would I be correct to assume they also spread those stories?

Names were more important back then. You did not use a name in vain. (remember God and his commandment about his name?) So the names are facts. events are not.

Quote
Do you think it likely that the apostles added this disclaimer when preaching, for example, the Genesis account of creation: "What we are about to tell you is really just a parable and in no way should be taken literally."?

Yes, after or before the stories, like you do with your kids.

Quote
I will also go so far as to state that were it not for scientific advancements that aided humanity in the  understanding of the natural universe (which eventually led to the debunking of Biblical claims such as the sun revolving around the earth and a global, near extinction-level flood), there would be far greater than 33% who refer to themselves as literalists.
No. The bible contains scientific claims that we did not discover but at a later time. The evolving sun around the earth is a good example.
Scientists have long believed that the earth revolved around the sun, which was stationary. This caused them to scoff at the following verses which, they said, taught the opposite…

"In them has He set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race. His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." [Psalm 19:4-6]

However it was later discovered that the sun is in fact moving through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour. It is traveling through the heavens and has a "circuit", just as the Bible says. It is estimated that its circuit is so large, it would take 200 million years to complete one orbit. - Scientific Facts In The Bible

Quote
Would you want such an individual as I had described in my example to be in charge of the public education system? I would not.

No. If I don't adhere to his ideas, I won't vote for him.

Quote
That's a nice and comforting reply. It still does not address my point, however. There is a penalty for not accepting Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior is there not?
Non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences. There is no penalty.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #545 on: May 17, 2014, 01:21:37 PM »
The Romans and their populations were actual very keen on writing everything down. Even down to a resident of Bristol in the UK who complained about the screams from the Roman baths coming from those having hair plucking! The killing of every 2 year old would have attracted a lot of grief ... and yet no one mentions it? Come on! Small town or not surely someone would have thought to wrote something.

Do we have all the scrolls from the roman empire? Was the complaint about the noise written in many scrolls and spread around Europe? Or were we lucky to find such a scroll?

Quote
Indeed that could be the case. If it is, of course, your belief in the accuracy of the gospels is misplaced as it is clear, if you are right, that Matthew is presenting theological ideas as historical fact. How do we know that lots of other parts of Matthew are not the same. In fact, one could construct the whole of Matthew with OT quotes more or less. Tell me how we distinguish these. Remember, Matthew and Luke both realise that they have to set the birth in Bethlehem, based on the same text, but have entirely different ways of making this happen in their birth narratives. Given that the two narrative can't both be true we seem ti have here people 'making it up' and not recording history as they appear to be doing.
How do you account for that?
I am not versed enough in theology to account for that.
What I know is that it really doesn't matter much, this is not what would make me rethink my faith in the scripture.
You're worth more than my time

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #546 on: May 17, 2014, 01:36:56 PM »
Luk , the point being made is that the gospels, as texts,

1. Do not appear to be eye witness accounts. If they were we could allow for some degree of differences of opinion between them over minor details but they are clearly not.

2. That we can say, with reasonable certainty, that some parts for the stories have accumulated extra details in the telling - compare Mark and Matthew in the same  pericope - so we know that this is the same process are the way any other story grows and grows in the telling. Consider the long speeches John gives to Jesus and this was only written down in the 90s.

3. Some details are clearly either factually inaccurate of are theologically motivated suggesting that quite a bit of the story telling might be a theological fabrication. Look at the footnotes of a good bible for the crucifixion passage in Matthew's gospel as see juts how many texts he took to write his piece. He could have done the whole thing without any event to describe!

So I am asking you, given these things, why do you trust to the historical accuracy of these texts while allowing that the rest of the bible might be legend only?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #547 on: May 17, 2014, 01:39:15 PM »
This is total hypocrisy.
Now I am an hypocrite. Bravo! :)

Quote
You cannot say that you will accept someones claims as true but then turn right around and say you WILL NOT accept their claims if they "impact my liberty". That is absurd. Something is either true or not, regardless of whether it impacts you!! You should know this.
Of course I can! Why not? I don't care if something is real or not as long as it doesn't affect me. Breathe, many things affect me :)

Quote
Notice your hypocrisy here again. You make it sound as if you are willing to just believe (actually believe - not just say you believe) anything that you here from someone.
your forgot "as long as it doesn't affect me"
Quote
That is called gullibility.
No no the gullible will act on the stories he believes in. You don't know me, any other baseless judgement like this one?
Quote
But you claim to practice this gullibility selectively (which is likely untrue)
As if you know me better than I do.
Quote
Belief is not about choice. You cannot choose to believe something.
No more freedom? are you crazy?
Quote
You must be convinced by either good or bad reasons. More importantly, you likely do not truly believe every-single extraordinary claim someone tells you, do you?
It depends, does that claim affect me?
Quote
Do you actually believe every single fantastical, miraculous, or extraordinary claim that anyone tells you without critically checking into it?
It depends, does that claim affect me?
Quote
If so, how can you determine what is bullshit, mistake, or delusion from what is real??
You mean when the claim affect me? It depends of each claim. For example in the case of the Mormons they told me a supposedly true story about golden plates, I asked if I could see them and they answered to me "God took it away". Logically I am not a Mormon today.
And...20$ for Disciple of Sagan :)
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #548 on: May 17, 2014, 01:41:24 PM »
No, you didn't. As I have noted many times in your posts. You used irrational arguments and I noted the fallacies you are continually trying to use. You are using the nonsense of being illogical.
I wasn't talking to you. Stop taking things personal. Tell me, where was I really using irrational arguments? Or fallacies? You should be able to support your claims or some mods will moderate you :)
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1854
  • Darwins +13/-240
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #549 on: May 17, 2014, 01:59:42 PM »
So I am asking you, given these things, why do you trust to the historical accuracy of these texts while allowing that the rest of the bible might be legend only?
As I answered already to Disciple of Sagan in the post #435 :
My certainty comes with all the sources[1] that confirmed this Idea. I have yet to read an event in the Gospel that doesn't make sense or doesn't resist the scrutiny of logic.
 1. Historians and Historicity of JesusWiki made me believe they where true history.
Plus there is the Meticulous Care in the Transmission of the Bible that confirmed this belief.
1. You might be right or you might be wrong. I can easily believe that the apostles took their time to give their testimony and pick up some of when they weren't around. These testimonies arrived untouched to the ear of the bible writer. Plus I believe that this guy was aided by the holly spirit. That his words where inspired by God.
2. More details better the story, no? I don't see how this could shake my belief.
3."quite a bit of the story" is an awful extrapolation without basis. "He could have done the whole thing without any event to describe!" yes, he could have written down the grand unified theory too! The baseline is that he did and I am glad he did.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Disciple of Sagan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Darwins +54/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Current mood: Malcontent
Re: Why all the cloak and dagger shit [from God]?
« Reply #550 on: May 17, 2014, 05:29:16 PM »
Yes, after or before the stories, like you do with your kids.

Not to offend, but I am having a difficult time believing this. Can you point to a source that backs this up? I am specifically asking for proof that the apostles clearly stated to those that they preached to that the stories of the OT were not factual events.

Quote

No. The bible contains scientific claims that we did not discover but at a later time.  Scientific Facts In The Bible

A suggestion, if I may. I think you should start a separate thread specifically to address the claims made by this site because right off the bat I... not being the most educated and scientifically savvy member on the Forum... immediately debunked three of the claims being made. The first:

Quote
Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were, receding from the earth, and the further away they were, the faster they were moving, which leads to an interesting conclusion... the earth is the center of God's attention in the universe.

The reason as to why this is a false assumption lies in the preceding paragraph:

Quote
...the islands of stars are moving at tremendous speeds away from the earth?and from each other?like dots painted on the surface of an expanding balloon.

If you were to occupy a point in space anywhere in the universe, you would notice the same effect where everything else appears to be moving away from where you currently are. Go ahead and try the balloon experiment to see for yourself.

The second:

Quote
Space is Empty

Wrong. Here is just one random link to explain why: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/no-empty-space-in-the-universe-dark-matter-discovered-to-fill-intergalactic-space-.html

If you do not wish to accept this as evidence, then you'll have to take it up with an actual astrophysicist.

To specifically address the sun's "circuit" through space:

The information in the link you provided makes a false assumption that the psalm reference to the sun's circuit was of a larger orbit around the galactic center and not the appearance of a circuit around the Earth (Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd century BC is considered the first known to support a heliocentric model). It appears to me that the site in question is altering the actual meaning of the psalm using modern knowledge of astrophysics.

Do you believe the author of that psalm was privy to the knowledge of a heliocentric solar system that revolves around the galactic core (a notion the Catholic church up until 1993 believed was heretical)? How did he become privy to this information?

I'll leave others to sift through the rest of the site as I am going to be away from my computer all day tomorrow.

Quote
Non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences. There is no penalty.

Where does it say this, and by whose authority was this "pass" given?

How do you explain the contradiction between your opinion and 2 Thessalonians 1:8?

<edit>

This will be my last back-and-forth conversation for the remainder of the weekend as I will be away until Monday.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 05:31:51 PM by Disciple of Sagan »
The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.