Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because despite what the Bible says, pi is not equal to 3.

What do you mean by "pi is not equal to 3?"


I don't see the connection.

Anonymous wrote:Jesus -- liar, Lord or legend?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus -- liar, Lord or legend?

“And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.”


? Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus -- liar, Lord or legend?

“And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small café in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.”


? Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone to tell anyone about it, a terribly
stupid catastrophe occurred, and the idea was lost forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a class on the historical/critical analysis of the NT and you will see why. You can easily see where the authors copied each other and copied ideas from other sources. You can also see where they inserted their own perspective. Using what we know about the period as a whole from contemporary sources, you can begin to piece together why they might have done that. Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't offer anything worthwhile. It just takes the supernatural element out of it.

I've taken such a class, and it was fascinating. I disagree it takes the supernatural out of it, though, but obviously that's a personal response. Instead, it's sort of like any event that involves witnesses, where some witnesses are going to remember different things, or are going to remember the same things differently. This happens every day with witnesses in courts. I take your point that some of the gospel authors did their own editing, but the larger consistencies among the accounts witness to an underlying truth, IMO.

the historical-critical method is absolutely non- supernatural. Historians do not study things which there is no evidence -- like the supernatural. They can report on what people say, but do not make historical determination of events for which there can be no historical evidence.

Historical and literature-type approaches have a lot to add to faith, IMO. But at the end of the day, it all comes down to faith (the supernatural, if you will). Short of proving the whole thing is a complete fabrication, which neither approach has done to date, you still come back to the issue of faith (supernatural, if you prefer). Even accepting the various OT or NT books as a historical record compiled by witnesses or people who talked to witnesses, vs. a complete fabrication by some patriarchy, is a matter of faith. So you look at the historical evidence, and then you add faith, or you don't.

That's a very neat rationale for discounting factual information that could be applied to anything. Don't like the outcome of a scientific experiment? No problem -- accept the empirical evidence and add faith to get the preferred result.

Don't like the fact that you've found your spouse in bed with another? Just add faith (the supernatural if you will) and all's well.

"add faith" becomes an excuse to believe what feels good, instead of what common sense tells you. It's a way to deny reality that sounds like you're doing something noble and good -- and that could get you to heaven.

I hate to think that intelligent people are accepting this kind of thinking -- and maybe learning it in church from people who should know better.

A better example is saying, my cat was out last night and I found a dead bird on the porch this morning. I don't know for sure what happened. There are (1) the facts, the dead bird, and some of these facts may have different historical roots (or was it a mouse, maybe it's hard to tell). And then there are (2) the interpretations/beliefs. Two different things. So I can believe my cat was the killer, but you're free to believe it was the neighbor's cat.

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

A better example is saying, my cat was out last night and I found a dead bird on the porch this morning. I don't know for sure what happened. There are (1) the facts, the dead bird, and some of these facts may have different historical roots (or was it a mouse, maybe it's hard to tell). And then there are (2) the interpretations/beliefs. Two different things. So I can believe my cat was the killer, but you're free to believe it was the neighbor's cat.

The difference, though, is that in either case it was a cat that really exists and a member of a species that is known to hunt and has the capability to do the historical action. You might believe your cat did it, you might believe another cat did it - both are reasonable.

However, what religion adds is the supernatural element that says, "No, it wasn't any of your cats, a divine entity that you cannot detect or explain struck down the mouse because of the divine entity's ineffable plan, but trust me it's for the best because the divine entity loves you."

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

A better example is saying, my cat was out last night and I found a dead bird on the porch this morning. I don't know for sure what happened. There are (1) the facts, the dead bird, and some of these facts may have different historical roots (or was it a mouse, maybe it's hard to tell). And then there are (2) the interpretations/beliefs. Two different things. So I can believe my cat was the killer, but you're free to believe it was the neighbor's cat.

The difference, though, is that in either case it was a cat that really exists and a member of a species that is known to hunt and has the capability to do the historical action. You might believe your cat did it, you might believe another cat did it - both are reasonable.

However, what religion adds is the supernatural element that says, "No, it wasn't any of your cats, a divine entity that you cannot detect or explain struck down the mouse because of the divine entity's ineffable plan, but trust me it's for the best because the divine entity loves you."

No, actually. It's not a good analogy to compare this with a cat coming down from the skies, cat ex machina, and killing the bird/mouse.

In both cases, we start with actual facts, actual evidence, but we use the evidence to come to different conclusions. We start with an agreed set of facts. We know that we and the neighbors own cats. Similarly, there is historical evidence for many of the OT figures and Jesus. There is an independent Roman source for Jesus and many (not all, obviously) also are convinced that the Gospels are accounts written down by people who talked to eye witnesses. Same goes for various OT books.

The difference is what we do with this starting set of facts-- the facts are incomplete, and we interpret them differently. I think our cat killed the bird and left it on our stoop, you think the our cat is too much of a pussy and instead the neighbor's cat killed the bird and got chased off (by some third neighbor?) before it could leave. Similarly, you look at the Roman account of Jesus and think, meh, just a man. I look at the Roman account and also at the gospels, which I have no reason to believe are not accounts written down by people who talked to witnesses, and I think there is something miraculous going on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

A better example is saying, my cat was out last night and I found a dead bird on the porch this morning. I don't know for sure what happened. There are (1) the facts, the dead bird, and some of these facts may have different historical roots (or was it a mouse, maybe it's hard to tell). And then there are (2) the interpretations/beliefs. Two different things. So I can believe my cat was the killer, but you're free to believe it was the neighbor's cat.

The difference, though, is that in either case it was a cat that really exists and a member of a species that is known to hunt and has the capability to do the historical action. You might believe your cat did it, you might believe another cat did it - both are reasonable.

However, what religion adds is the supernatural element that says, "No, it wasn't any of your cats, a divine entity that you cannot detect or explain struck down the mouse because of the divine entity's ineffable plan, but trust me it's for the best because the divine entity loves you."

No, actually. It's not a good analogy to compare this with a cat coming down from the skies, cat ex machina, and killing the bird/mouse.

In both cases, we start with actual facts, actual evidence, but we use the evidence to come to different conclusions. We start with an agreed set of facts. We know that we and the neighbors own cats. Similarly, there is historical evidence for many of the OT figures and Jesus. There is an independent Roman source for Jesus and many (not all, obviously) also are convinced that the Gospels are accounts written down by people who talked to eye witnesses. Same goes for various OT books.

The difference is what we do with this starting set of facts-- the facts are incomplete, and we interpret them differently. I think our cat killed the bird and left it on our stoop, you think the our cat is too much of a pussy and instead the neighbor's cat killed the bird and got chased off (by some third neighbor?) before it could leave. Similarly, you look at the Roman account of Jesus and think, meh, just a man. I look at the Roman account and also at the gospels, which I have no reason to believe are not accounts written down by people who talked to witnesses, and I think there is something miraculous going on.

because you believe in miracles when it comes to the bible -- but not, I presume, when it comes to cats. It may not be your cat, but it was someone's cat or some other animal. And if you had a camera out on the porch, it could be recorded and the matter would be settled. However, with the bible, it sounds like your desire to believe, coupled with your acceptance of the "miraculous" does the trick - you just add faith - like cream to your coffee, accept the faith is in your head, not in a real pitcher on a real table going into a real cup.

You could also believe anything else "witnesses" said over 2,000 year ago which was subsequently written down in a book - just by adding faith and "thinking" something miraculous was going on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

A better example is saying, my cat was out last night and I found a dead bird on the porch this morning. I don't know for sure what happened. There are (1) the facts, the dead bird, and some of these facts may have different historical roots (or was it a mouse, maybe it's hard to tell). And then there are (2) the interpretations/beliefs. Two different things. So I can believe my cat was the killer, but you're free to believe it was the neighbor's cat.

The difference, though, is that in either case it was a cat that really exists and a member of a species that is known to hunt and has the capability to do the historical action. You might believe your cat did it, you might believe another cat did it - both are reasonable.

However, what religion adds is the supernatural element that says, "No, it wasn't any of your cats, a divine entity that you cannot detect or explain struck down the mouse because of the divine entity's ineffable plan, but trust me it's for the best because the divine entity loves you."

No, actually. It's not a good analogy to compare this with a cat coming down from the skies, cat ex machina, and killing the bird/mouse.

In both cases, we start with actual facts, actual evidence, but we use the evidence to come to different conclusions. We start with an agreed set of facts. We know that we and the neighbors own cats. Similarly, there is historical evidence for many of the OT figures and Jesus. There is an independent Roman source for Jesus and many (not all, obviously) also are convinced that the Gospels are accounts written down by people who talked to eye witnesses. Same goes for various OT books.

The difference is what we do with this starting set of facts-- the facts are incomplete, and we interpret them differently. I think our cat killed the bird and left it on our stoop, you think the our cat is too much of a pussy and instead the neighbor's cat killed the bird and got chased off (by some third neighbor?) before it could leave. Similarly, you look at the Roman account of Jesus and think, meh, just a man. I look at the Roman account and also at the gospels, which I have no reason to believe are not accounts written down by people who talked to witnesses, and I think there is something miraculous going on.

because you believe in miracles when it comes to the bible -- but not, I presume, when it comes to cats. It may not be your cat, but it was someone's cat or some other animal. And if you had a camera out on the porch, it could be recorded and the matter would be settled. However, with the bible, it sounds like your desire to believe, coupled with your acceptance of the "miraculous" does the trick - you just add faith - like cream to your coffee, accept the faith is in your head, not in a real pitcher on a real table going into a real cup.

You could also believe anything else "witnesses" said over 2,000 year ago which was subsequently written down in a book - just by adding faith and "thinking" something miraculous was going on.

I think miracles are possible today, too. But I'm not silly enough, when faced with a cat and a dead mouse, to think that was a miracle. I am willing to believe that the extremely rare type events that have no good scientific explanation, and that rise above the level of cats and dead mice to something sublime and/or meaningful, may involve miracles. Do you see the difference?

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes I wonder how many self-professed Christians have actually *read* the bible.

I've read about 80% of it many years ago, out of curiosity and wanting to learn, and I've even gone to church a few times and listened to quite a few sermons, and I have to say, there's a lot of stuff in the bible that's pretty messed up. I believe in God, but not anyway near the way the bible describes. Many parts of the bible (not all) portray God as one who is jealous, vindictive, desperately wants all the humans to worship and glorify him, willing to kill of entire cities and towns including little children because they did not glorify him enough, wants humans who are willing to kill their own kids to prove their faith to God, and portrays women as the source of evil and lesser beings than men.

Take another close read of the bible. That is not the God I know. It's some perverted version.

Anonymous wrote:I've enjoyed this thread. Very enlightening to various points of view.
Can someone speak to the Koran? Would you use the same arguments as the Bible.
I was raised Catholic , but also believe, the bible is a compilation of "stories" used to teach lessons or explain some of the mysteries of our existence.
My spouse is Islam, not practicing, more cultural. But he likes to argue with me that the Koran was written by God through Mohammed. Verbatim.