The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[Iron MikeyJ]

You guys are misunderstanding me... It's NOT that the bible CANT be studied through the scientific method, it's that it was written BEFORE it existed. So it doesn't contain the methods that a scientific or history book would contain. This is just a common "issue" that I have heard that MANY people use to try and disprove it. It's like comparing the general knowledge of people before Google and the internet vs people that HAD those things. Of course modern people will have more consitancies,  they benefited from MORE knowledge. 

My point was, some people try and "poke holes" in Christ's existence by using dates. Which that's the problem, NO DATES from those times can be considered 100% accurate. Which people use the reign of Harrod and the Roman Census to try and date things. Which is still impossible. Historians can give a good guess at the speculated dates these things happened, but you CAN'T do it down to the EXACT years. Why? Because of the inconsistencies in keeping time that existed then. Same goes for Christ himself, we can give a pretty good guess that he was born sometime between 7 B.C.E. and 3 A.D. and he died sometime around 30 A.D. or slightly after. But to say "He lived from X and died in X" is NOT possible, same goes for Herrod and the census. We also have to take into account how long it took news to spread in THOSE days. We know how long it took to deliver news 100 or 150 years ago, imagine how long it took before things like the postal service even existed. It would have taken YEARS to complete the Census, so again because the census began in a certain year in one area, it might have been a year or two later in another area. 

As for other historical writings that DD mentioned, I don't really see your point. Yes OBVIOUSLY they existed, but you even said "5 B.C." you didn't say it was written in an EXACT year. Yes certain Greek and Romans were planting the beginnings of science and history at that time, but they were by NO MEANS an EXACT science yet. They laid the foundation, but it took hundreds more years for them to REALLY start taking modern shape. 

What I was getting at by that first post was this; take hyroglyphics for example. When those get studied, they get treated with more reverence than the bible does at times. Archeologists read them, gain information, give them general dates for when they were written, etc. They take the information they can get from them to help give us a better understanding of that society. The bible on the other hand gets scrutinized for things people say are "inconsistencies". I'm sure hyroglyphics and other ancient writings contain PLENTY of historical inconsistencies as well, but we don't hear about those. Just those from the bible. 

@SoulMonster, I'm seriously shocked you brought up dinosaur bones.  You can't tell the difference from an archeological find that CAN be researched via the scientific method as opposed to human writings? That's like putting the bones of an animal and the writings of a human to the same test. Different methods HAVE to be used to study different things. 

[soon]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

To actually say that we shouldn't judge the New Testament by scientific-historical methods is to do it a bit of a disservice, as a lot of The Bible holds up. The Pilate Stone (discovered 1961) confirms the Pilate governorship independent of The Bible. The Pool of Bethesda, commonly thought to be a bunch of bollocks, was discovered by archaeologists. 

I dont disagree.  I think the total record of my posts supports this.  I must have not spoke clearly, but I certainly never meant to suggest anything contrary to what you write here.  Im sad to find out that my posts on further revelation through science and discovery havent left more of an impression on you.

I said that people scrutinizing scripture the way they would scrutinize a modern work is incorrect.  I didnt speak to science or archaeology.  There are literary and rhetorical aspects that are widely misunderstood from a modern-centric reading for instance.

Edited February 23, 2018 by soon

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Whether you believe or not, it's STILL the most remarkable text that exists from ancient times.

EVERY religion says that about their book?   Islam even says that The Qu'ran, in and of itself, is proof of Gods existence because it is, as a piece of literature/poetry/prose, perfect.  In its original language it is like...a flawless text, as in a psychical testament to the perfection of its creator.  The poetic qualities of it in the original language it was written in (which to me means you gotta be from Saudi Arabia to truly get God ) make it clear that it is a work of divinity. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

40 minutes ago, soon said:

 

Im curious about the idea that both texts be read as BCE?  Certainly the NT was early on in CE, is that why its best read as BCE?

Because Christ's birth didn't restart the calendars, that happened later. Now we can look back on it as the moment that changed the world from the ancient times into the modern era. But at the time it was written, I think it HAS to be considered ancient times still. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

 

I said that people scrutinizing scripture the way they would scrutinize a modern work is incorrect.  I didnt speak to science or archaeology.  There are literary and rhetorical aspects that are widely misunderstood from a modern-centric reading for instance.

THIS!!

Perhaps you just said it more straight to the point or clearer than I did. But this was my point.

[Iron MikeyJ]

11 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

EVERY religion says that about their book?   Islam even says that The Qu'ran, in and of itself, is proof of Gods existence because it is, as a piece of literature/poetry/prose, perfect.  In its original language it is like...a flawless text, as in a psychical testament to the perfection of its creator.  The poetic qualities of it in the original language it was written in (which to me means you gotta be from Saudi Arabia to truly get God ) make it clear that it is a work of divinity. 

I dont disagree with you, but that's not my point either. I'm speaking about the historical significance of the bible, the new testament specifically. Which it predates the Quran by a few hundred years. The NEW Testament IS the most amazing piece of historical writings that exists from the dates (roughly) 10 BC to 40 or 50 AD. Even a non believer has to acknowledge it's historical significance in this reguard. 

I DO disagree with you in regards to the divinity of the Quran though... But we don't need to go down THAT road, lol.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

My point was, some people try and "poke holes" in Christ's existence by using dates. Which that's the problem, NO DATES from those times can be considered 100% accurate. Which people use the reign of Harrod and the Roman Census to try and date things. Which is still impossible. Historians can give a good guess at the speculated dates these things happened, but you CAN'T do it down to the EXACT years. Why? Because of the inconsistencies in keeping time that existed then. Same goes for Christ himself, we can give a pretty good guess that he was born sometime between 7 B.C.E. and 3 A.D. and he died sometime around 30 A.D. or slightly after. But to say "He lived from X and died in X" is NOT possible, same goes for Herrod and the census. We also have to take into account how long it took news to spread in THOSE days. We know how long it took to deliver news 100 or 150 years ago, imagine how long it took before things like the postal service even existed. It would have taken YEARS to complete the Census, so again because the census began in a certain year in one area, it might have been a year or two later in another area. 

This is fair enough and this is all taken onboard by textual scholars. 

I do not agree with you that the ancients were such shoddy chronologists though. We can actually be very specific about certain dates thanks to the evidence they've left us. We know for instance that Caesar crossed the Rubicon in January 49 BC. 

Their system(s) were as precise as ours actually. 

10 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

As for other historical writings that DD mentioned, I don't really see your point. Yes OBVIOUSLY they existed, but you even said "5 B.C." you didn't say it was written in an EXACT year. Yes certain Greek and Romans were planting the beginnings of science and history at that time, but they were by NO MEANS an EXACT science yet. They laid the foundation, but it took hundreds more years for them to REALLY start taking modern shape. 

I'd say they were doing more than that (just laying foundations). The ancients were certainly not lacking in biases but they were fairly good at what they did.

As I said earlier, you are actually doing the New Testament a disservice here. The Gospels broadly follow a Hellenistic genre of ancient biograph and are not devoid of veracity and historic methodology. Doesn't Luke even state (my bold),

Quote

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

- Luke 1

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I dont disagree with you, but that's not my point either. I'm speaking about the historical significance of the bible, the new testament specifically. Which it predates the Quran by a few hundred years. The NEW Testament IS the most amazing piece of historical writings that exists from the dates (roughly) 10 BC to 40 or 50 AD. Even a non believer has to acknowledge it's historical significance in this reguard. 

Oh its historically significant...but so's The Beano. 

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Perhaps it isn't divinity, perhaps the breadth and limitations of our understanding only allow for divinity thus far so thats the best we can think of, whatever the case may be.  See the internal meaning thing seems like a cop out, which is what I mean, we can't find a meaning because there is no meaning so we create an illusory one based on our personal pleasures and enjoyment...which is no more of a delusion than believing in God.  The internal meaning we lean on is no less illusory than the God that the other lot believe in.

I guess it depends on what you mean with 'meaning'. To me it's whatever makes it worthwhile, and then for most people love, arts, hobbies, pleasure, etc does the trick and provides whatever meaning is necessary. 

If by 'meaning' you look for something deeper than that, something outside ourselves, then I would question why that question is even raised. It's a wild goose chase. Basically, people add a problem to their lives that can only be solved by adding that supernatural dimension, only then can they find that meaning. 

I am very happy I realize there doesn't have to be an outside meaning. Because I would never be content with the inevitable answer, just like so many theists struggle with doubt. It is an unsatisfactory answer to a problem that is entirely constructed. 

Me, I accept that we are not put here for some ulterior meaning, we are products of an entirely indifferent process. Does this mean my life is any worse than the lives of those that both have an outside meaning and inside meanings (love, arts and all that)? No, I don't think that at all. If you realize the problem is just constructed, you will never suffer from having to answer it, and by answering it you only get back to baseline condition - but usually with doubt and supernatural belief as well. Much better to never descend into that rabbit hole. 

I don't think our internal meaning is in any way illusionary. If we derive enjoyment out of it, then it is real. The love I have for my daughters is as real as anything else in life and gives me so much meaning, purpose and drive as anything. Granted, it is not why I have been born, it is not part of some elaborate divine plan - and thank god for that! - it is just what is meaningful to me and makes my life so astonishing wonderful and scary. 

[DieselDaisy]

It is very historically significant, but I honestly couldn't say more or less than Homer. 

[Len Cnut]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I guess it depends on what you mean with 'meaning'. To me it's whatever makes it worthwhile, and then for most people love, arts, hobbies, pleasure, etc does the trick and provides whatever meaning is necessary. 

If by 'meaning' you look for something deeper than that, something outside ourselves, then I would question why that question is even raised. It's a wild goose chase. Basically, people add a problem to their lives that can only be solved by adding that supernatural dimension, only then can they find that meaning. 

I am very happy I realize there doesn't have to be an outside meaning. Because I would never be content with the inevitable answer, just like so many theists struggle with doubt. It is an unsatisfactory answer to a problem that is entirely constructed. 

Me, I accept that we are not put here for some ulterior meaning, we are products of an entirely indifferent process. Does this mean my life is any worse than the lives of those that both have an outside meaning and inside meanings (love, arts and all that)? No, I don't think that at all. If you realize the problem is just constructed, you will never suffer from having to answer it, and by answering it you only get back to baseline condition - but usually with doubt and supernatural belief as well. Much better to never descend into that rabbit hole. 

I don't think our internal meaning is in any way illusionary. If we derive enjoyment out of it, then it is real. The love I have for my daughters is as real as anything else in life and gives me so much meaning, purpose and drive as anything. Granted, it is not why I have been born, it is not part of some elaborate divine plan - and thank god for that! - it is just what is meaningful to me and makes my life so astonishing wonderful and scary. 

I think we all function on delusion.  The love we feel could be seen to be a survival mechanism.  It could be it will take many centuries more of evolution until we figure out some kind of meaning, if there is one which I don't think there personally is.  We have delusions handed to us by a society which are a construct of humanity to put some kind of order to all this shit and concepts like love etc are a part of that as religion is.  Fascination with the arts is just fascination with ourselves, a form of arrogance...but a necessary one.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Iron MikeyJ]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

This is fair enough and this is all taken onboard by textual scholars. 

I do not agree with you that the ancients were such shoddy chronologists though. We can actually be very specific about certain dates thanks to the evidence they've left us. We know for instance that Caesar crossed the Rubicon in January 49 BC. 

Their system(s) were as precise as ours actually. 

I'm not saying their system wasn't accurate, they were quite amazing at judging the earth rotation around the sun, tbh.  It was just VERY different. That's my point. They NEVER said "ceasar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC" because thats NOT how they kept track of dates. It would have been "Year 5 of the rule of Ceasar" (which I'm just guessing there, I have no idea of what year of Caesar it actually was). When humanity switched from B.C to AD, trying incorporate those dates together is where the trouble really lies. As I said earlier, when Christ was born the world didn't just change calendars then, that came MUCH later. So trying to date 50 BC to probably 100 or so AD will ALWAYS cause some issues. Which it's NOT a knock on how ancients kept track of dates, like I said they actually did an amazing job. It was just a different way of doing it.

[Iron MikeyJ]

21 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is very historically significant, but I honestly couldn't say more or less than Homer. 

A couple of issues here, lol. For one, I CANNOT agree that the writings of Homer are MORE important the the scriptures, I just can't do that,  lol. 

For two, from a straight historical stand point, Homers writings are considered fiction while the Bible, more specifically the New Testament is traced to actual society. So in a way it's sorta arguing what's more important fiction or non-fiction? 

Which on a side note, I tend to think a lot of the writings and mythology of ancient societies WERE a lot more historical than we give them credit for. It's only later we through the label "mythology" on them, but at the time it was written, it WAS their religion. These ARE just my personal feelings, not anything I care to debate about. I suppose if a Pagan is present, they might actually consider them to be historical. But again, that's neither here nor there. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

A couple of issues here, lol. For one, I CANNOT agree that the writings of Homer are MORE important the the scriptures, I just can't do that,  lol. 

For two, from a straight historical stand point, Homers writings are considered fiction while the Bible, more specifically the New Testament is traced to actual society. So in a way it's sorta arguing what's more important fiction or non-fiction? 

Which on a side note, I tend to think a lot of the writings and mythology of ancient societies WERE a lot more historical than we give them credit for. It's only later we through the label "mythology" on them, but at the time it was written, it WAS their religion. These ARE just my personal feelings, not anything I care to debate about. 

I cannot agree with any of this - sorry. 

Homer is the very foundation of our European, and by extension Western, civilization! It includes our earliest - and many would say greatest - stories, the Judgement of Paris, the Trojan Horse, Cyclopes, Circe's island. It has our earliest heroes, Achilles, Hector, Odysseus, Agamemnon. Secondly, Homer's writings were most definitely not fiction; they were believed and venerated by Graeco-Romans. Christianity's triumph over ancient polytheism gives off the erroneous impression that these were merely fictional adventure stories. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I cannot agree with any of this - sorry. 

Homer is the very foundation of our European, and by extension Western, civilization! It includes our earliest - and many would say greatest - stories, the Judgement of Paris, the Trojan Horse, Cyclopes, Circe's island. It has our earliest heroes, Achilles, Hector, Odysseus, Agamemnon. Secondly, Homer's writings were most definitely not fiction; they were believed and venerated by Graeco-Romans. Christianity's triumph over ancient polytheism gives off the erroneous impression that these were merely fictional adventure stories. 

That's ok, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm also NOT downplaying it's historical importance. Honestly when I made my original post about the historical importance of the bible, I KNEW someone would bring up Homer. Which that's fair. I would personally rate it 2nd AFTER the bible. If you want to put it first, that's your thing. Regardless BOTH are extremely important and amazing historical texts from ancient times. Which that's what my point was in the beginning. People like to downplay the importance of the bible, but just from a historical point of view, it's quite amazing.

[classicrawker]

Watched Lewis Black's comedy special last night and got a laugh from these bits

 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by classicrawker

[Iron MikeyJ]

^^ that was actually quite funny.

[SoulMonster]

38 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

You guys are misunderstanding me... It's NOT that the bible CANT be studied through the scientific method, it's that it was written BEFORE it existed. So it doesn't contain the methods that a scientific or history book would contain.

@SoulMonster, I'm seriously shocked you brought up dinosaur bones.  You can't tell the difference from an archeological find that CAN be researched via the scientific method as opposed to human writings? That's like putting the bones of an animal and the writings of a human to the same test. Different methods HAVE to be used to study different things. 

What do you mean by saying that the bible doesn't contain the "methods that a scientific or history book would contain"? The bible can be studied exactly like any other ancient book, using the exact same methods. Unless you happen to think there is something magical about it that makes it unstudiable. 

I am seriously shocked (no, not really) that you don't think human writings can be studied. Of course you use different methods. 

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What do you mean by saying that the bible doesn't contain the "methods that a scientific or history book would contain"? The bible can be studied exactly like any other ancient book, using the exact same methods. Unless you happen to think there is something magical about it that makes it unstudiable. 

I am seriously shocked (no, not really) that you don't think human writings can be studied. Of course you use different methods. 

Its divinely inspired human writings fuckball, the same rules don't apply

[Iron MikeyJ]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What do you mean by saying that the bible doesn't contain the "methods that a scientific or history book would contain"? The bible can be studied exactly like any other ancient book, using the exact same methods. Unless you happen to think there is something magical about it that makes it unstudiable. 

I am seriously shocked (no, not really) that you don't think human writings can be studied. Of course you use different methods. 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

I think we all function on delusion.  The love we feel could be seen to be a survival mechanism.  It could be it will take many centuries more of evolution until we figure out some kind of meaning, if there is one which I don't think there personally is.  We have delusions handed to us by a society which are a construct of humanity to put some kind of order to all this shit and concepts like love etc are a part of that as religion is.  Fascination with the arts is just fascination with ourselves, a form of arrogance...but a necessary one.

I think more or less all our behaviours are formed through evolution to increase our fitness. The love I feel for my kids, as an example, is an evolutionary adaptation that forces me to protect our shared genes through protecting the bodies that harbours them. Does this knowledge taint the love? Not to me, it doesn't. In a sense it brings satisfaction to understanding the underlying mechanism of something as cherished as our capacity to love another human being. Is it a delusion? No, it is a very real and effective solution to the problem of how we can protect our genes and make sure they survive through generations. 

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

You are claiming that the bible cannot be studied using normal historical-scientific methods that we use to study any ancient writings. Why is that? 

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 hour ago, soon said:

 

I said that people scrutinizing scripture the way they would scrutinize a modern work is incorrect.  I didnt speak to science or archaeology.  There are literary and rhetorical aspects that are widely misunderstood from a modern-centric reading for instance.

Soon put what I said in clearer terms. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Iron MikeyJ

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Soon put what I said in clearer terms. 

What would those "literary and rhetorical aspects" be, and if you and soon are aware of those, isn't it a bit arrogant to not think experts on ancient literature would be aware of them, too? 

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

I cannot agree with any of this - sorry. 

Homer is the very foundation of our European, and by extension Western, civilization! It includes our earliest - and many would say greatest - stories, the Judgement of Paris, the Trojan Horse, Cyclopes, Circe's island. It has our earliest heroes, Achilles, Hector, Odysseus, Agamemnon. Secondly, Homer's writings were most definitely not fiction; they were believed and venerated by Graeco-Romans. Christianity's triumph over ancient polytheism gives off the erroneous impression that these were merely fictional adventure stories. 

I tried reading Illyad or whatever its called when I was a kid, couldn't make head nor tail of it!