Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Textbook wrote: BJ: No, put thy trust in a book written by people who "heard voices". Far more sensible.

I did not say one should put trust in the bible; I am not of Christian faith. but to judge it one should have read it and not put the trust in authorities about it


Edited by BaldJean - July 18 2010 at 16:39

Well I must confess I did not read the entirety of this thread. Perhaps if I had I would've been clearer about people's positions. If only I had read all of it before mouthing off, then my comments would've carried more weight.

jampa17 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ How are Kafka's most important works second hand knowledge? And when talking about the bible, let's also keep in mind that even considering only the new testament, there were many more books than the 27 that we now know as the "canon" - and it took the church(es) about 300 years to decide which ones to include and which ones not to include, and even then - as shown by the vast number of Christian denominations today - the matter wasn't settled. When looking at historical documents of that kind, I'll always look for research about their history, origins and interpretations ... ignoring them is IMO a bad idea. You can't do all that research for yourself. You don't have to accept second hand opinions on a faith basis either ... simply see whether the scholars are independent, or what their biases are, and compare analyses of scholars with differing biases. Saying that any form of analysis is to be completely ignored seems like a completely ridiculous position to me.   You came again with not accurate information Mike, sorry. Yes there are 27 books, but not all of them were "evangelistic", or giving the "good news" about Jesus (which is what Evangelistic means). Most of them were scriptures made later about the life of Jesus and most of them were just fables and stories made up in some Christians societies. Remember that Christianity was an underground movement during those days, so, the communities didn't have a unified vision of things. Even more, the control over how the "good news" were told in different places was very poor, so when Christianity became "official" and public, they needed to take out those books that didn't have accurate information.   That's nothing to do with the "different" christian communities that exists today. Because most of the Christian communities agrees that the 4 books, the letters, the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse are the official accepted New Testament. So, in that matter, the issue is basically settled...

The different Christian communities exist because the bible contains so many contradictions on key issues. All of the 27 books were written decades after Jesus had died, by people who didn't know him personally, and most likely in distant countries - that's all very evident and not really controversial information. All these authors had different ideas about what it meant to be a Christian, and as a result the different denominations arose, each emphasizing different theories about which parts of the bible are more valid than others. In addition to that some denominations invented additional ideas (such as the holy trinity, or the Catholics with their transubstantiation).

Today most denominations agree on the 27 books, but it took many centuries to even get to a proposed list of these 27 books, and many more centuries until a vast majority existed for calling these books the "canon".

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ How are Kafka's most important works second hand knowledge? Yes, it's second hand knowledge. First hand knowledge is the one you get from PERSONAL AND DIRECT EXPERIENCE, and the analysis you make from that PERSONAL experience. In the case you mention, you are reading Kafka's interpretation from another text, an interpretation that carries his personal experiences plus his personal perspective, prejudices and conclusions, SOur opinion,is only your perspective, prejudices and conclusions OF KAFKA'S WORK. The same goes for example for a car accident: I see a red car and a blue car having a collision in a corner of two streets, if a policeman asks me, I will probably say "The red car who crossed on excessive speed hit the blue car where a woman and two poor kids were, then a guy came from the blue car smelling as he was drunk" The policeman doesn't have an exact account of the accident, he only have my word full of prejudices (I'm not even a human breathalyser). And probably if he asks ten other persons he will receive ten different versions, so he has to recreate the accident, take measures of the brake marks, take an alcohol test to the guy of the red car...He can0't base his opinion in what I said, he has to get the closer he can to the real experience and that's scientific tests. Your opinions about religion are usually based in what Kafka or Dawkins say. It's only hearsay.   Iván   BTW: Asking Friede about the parable proves that your knowledge is based in what others say, because a parable is a short story from which you make an interpretation and get a message on religion or morals, so if Friede or me, or anybody else tells you something, will be our own conclusion about the parable.   To make a real interpretation of a parable, you must read it yourself and make your own conclusion.

I feel like I'm back at elementary school ... apparently I'm such an idiot that I don't even know what a parable is.


I said "Kafka's most important works". How are those second hand information about Kafka? Please, read my posts before answering them. I don't want to read the rest of your post or comment on it, given that you're not really interested in understanding my point of view.

BaldFriede wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Besides: I question your knowledge about the book. Incidentally: I never claimed to be particularly knowledgeable about the bible - I'll happily leave that to others. I'm primarily interested whether it contains major contradictions on central elements of the Christian faith, and my opinion is that for example Bart Ehrman shows this in his book "Jesus, Interrupted". Please take into account who Ehrman is and what he believes before making unfounded assumptions about his bias. The parable that you mentioned appears only in Matthew, and I don't see any profound implications on the Christian faith. It does not matter at all which authority you cite on it, Mike; as long as you have not read it yourself your knowledge is second hand knowledge only; you are just trying to wriggle. You should really try first hand knowledge; it is a much more entertaining read than you think, and there are even passages in it which you would expect in an erotic novel but not in the bible (Song of Solomon).

The bible itself is second hand knowledge. Actually ... even the originals of the gospels were second hand - no third hand - no, nth hand knowledge to begin with. Then they were copied, and copied, and copied ... manually, by scribes, who were often theologists themselves and had their own ideas about what certain passages were *supposed* to mean.

I'm sure it would be an entertaining read. But when it comes to whether I think that it's the inspired word of God or not, I'll content with reading key passages. And no, I don't think that the parable that you mention is a key passage (to begin with, only one of the gospel mentions it).

BaldFriede wrote: Granted, there are some tedious passages, especially the minor prophets like Hosea or Joel, but the entertaining passages more than make up for it. And you will be a lot more surprised about the deep truths inside the bible, regardless of contradictions. And, most important of all, it will give you a much better understanding of Christian faith than reading Ehrman or anyone else.

"deep truths, regardless of contradictions". You lost me with that. I mean, of course I know what you mean by that, but I can't ignore the contradictions. And any deep truth that you find - can't you find it in earlier philosophical texts as well? Many of the deep truths of the bible that I remember actually come from eastern/asian religions and philosophies that predate Christianity by a couple of centuries.

BaldFriede wrote: You know that I am not of Christian faith, but there are nevertheless profound truths in the bible, as there are in the holy books of any religion. My advice is: Read the bible like a fantasy novel. That means: Take the premises of the book for granted during the read (you know very well there are no elves or fairies either when reading a fantasy novel, but while reading it you take their existence for granted). Afterwards you can still say: What a load of rubbish!

The profound truths come from us - humans, who wrote all of these books based on our collectively developed ideas about morality. When I want to read a fantasy novel, I'd choose TLOTR over the bible any time, because as important as the bible may have been, the grief and suffering that it caused - and is still causing today - spoils any pleasure that I might get from reading the lighter and/or historically interesting bits.

Mike, about Kafka, I missunderstood your post, my fault, and I accept my mistakes.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 19 2010 at 01:04

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I just want to differentiate between "what happens in the parable " and "what does the parable mean". The former is simply an objective summary of the parable, the latter is a subjective interpretation.

The meaning of the parable is quite obvious: It is not important what you say, it is important what you do. Hence if you say "I am not a believer" but act like one, following the two commandments of the New testament which Ivan already mentioned, then you will achieve heaven. And not, as you claimed, burn in hell.

Very interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Comparison_Chart_of_the_Major_Gospels_.5B120.5D

John 3:18, 36, He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

^ I did check out some scholars who are critical of Ehrman though. I was quite certain that you would attack him because of what he believes, not what he actually writes in his books.

Since you keep reminding me in every post: Don't judge a book by its cover. If you disagree with what he writes, please do give me a specific statement.

BTW: You are describing a phenomenon called "confirmation bias", and of course you're right. However, I think it's very far fetched to compare the question of what the bible says about how people achieve salvation to the theory of relativity. The former has no basis in reality except for hearsay, while the latter makes specific predictions about the real world that can be tested in experiments. I'm not saying that you can't apply the scientific principle to metaphysical problems (in fact I'm sure that you not only can, but must), but the tools that are used are undoubtedly different to a great extent.