Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Barrister]

In my opinion the part of Leviticus supposedly condemning male same sex relations actually is talking about the temple prostitutes that used to be common...but I could be wrong but it doesn't really bother me since what God tells you what to do is not really the point of Leviticus IMO.  But I don't want to get too far into this.

"God telling you what to do" was precisely the point of Leviticus.  It contained all the Jewish laws of purity and what not.

[Valmy]

"God telling you what to do" was precisely the point of Leviticus.  It contained all the Jewish laws of purity and what not.

Well then it is demonstably false.  Plenty of Jews have not done the laws and none of the bad things promised happened to them.  Ergo you must accept this chapter has been proven false.

[Viking]

A lot of the mythology in the OT is a way of making sense current conditions. The flood story probably pre-dates Judaism, but its "message" probably has more to do with the notion that everyone is related to a single ancestor. This message has been used both negatively and positively - negatively, in that some have based racism on the fact that the descendants of one of Noah's sons was cursed; positively, in that Jews in particular base the fact that all humans are equal (and can be equally "righteous" (see: 'Noahide').   

It predates judaism. It's in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The P source probably added the Noah story from Babylonian mythology during the babylonian exile.

I thought the garden of eden story confirmed the decent from one man and the cursed son parts of the story. The end of the Noah story ( and the Utnapishtim story from Gilgamesh) god/gods promise never to do this again (and in the babylonian story allow humans to die).

[Barrister]

"God telling you what to do" was precisely the point of Leviticus.  It contained all the Jewish laws of purity and what not.

Well then it is demonstably false.  Plenty of Jews have not done the laws and none of the bad things promised happened to them.  Ergo you must accept this chapter has been proven false.

I took Leviticus to be of much more historical importance, since it contains a number of the 'rules' that were subsequently superceded in the New Testament.

It's important, and I don't know how you can call it false.  But it clearly is about God telling the Jews what to do.

[Viking]

Well, the bible does say something about the movement of the stars. It claims the stars are fixed in the firmament. That is just plain wrong.

As for human existence and the relationship to the outside world. If you are going to use Religion to help you understand this then I expect you deal with the truth of the religion first. Until you do that then you don't pass the laugh test.

Don't have anal sex! Why? God sez so! WTF?

I said something useful to say.  I didn't say they had nothing to say, but usually the things they do have to say are only in service to their other objective and are not really about the birds flying or the stars moving.

No where does God say anything about anal sex btw.  Many rather fundy Christians use this as a way to not have sex before marriage.

In my opinion the part of Leviticus supposedly condemning male same sex relations actually is talking about the temple prostitutes that used to be common...but I could be wrong but it doesn't really bother me since what God tells you what to do is not really the point of Leviticus IMO.  But I don't want to get too far into this.

If you are an astronomer then saying something about how the stars move or not is pretty useful.

[crazy canuck]

That distinction makes ALLTHE DIFFERENCE. Faith does not have a routine for error correction. Science does. That makes the two things fundamentally different.

I agree.  But that difference does not make one irrational for having faith.

For God of the Gaps sake. Redefining the question is not a counter argument!

I am not. this is the one pont I entered the conversation on.

[The Minsky Moment]

Which historial personages claim to have known and met him?

All the "rightly-guided" Caliphs, and Muhammad's own family (Aisha, Fatimah, Ali, etc)

[crazy canuck]

Insert Quote
The hypothesis that Muhammad didn't exist seems very unlikely: too many known historical personages claim to have known and met him - it would have to be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.  the fact that there is material related to Muhammad that also contains Christian-style iconography is in no way suggestive of Muhmammad's non-existence; it is not unusual for a new monotheistic movement that claimed descent in part from the christian tradition to appropriate their iconography or symbols.  Note also that even if Muhammad was a title and not a proper name; that is hardly evidence that the individual in question did not exist.

Which historial personages claim to have known and met him?

For a start the next three or four leaders of the faith.

[Viking]

I certainly do not expect you or anyone to find any truth "obvious". Nor do I think that the Bible is necessary for finding truth.

What is necessary is to have as many inputs as posible - by all means read the Bible, read the Analects, read philosophers both modern and ancient. Then make up you own mind.

What one should not do, is assume that the ancients were all morons and their works all nonsense, and that we know so much better about the human condition  that we can afford to ignore them. That doesn't mean that one's work is not cut out for one, seperating the useful from the useless in their writings.

obvious /= easy. Being able to determine that stoning an adulturess despite it being mandated in the bible is obvious from all our other inputs and our own internal morale sense.

As we adressed earlier then we know that I have no reason to be sure that any part of the bibler is fact as opposed to allegory. I'm making judgements about how to use the bible, what to include and what to exclude. My moral sense is present before reading the bible, or your argument makes no sense; it follows that the bible doesn't add anything to my reasoning and morality, it just provides me with rich material to justify my previously arrived at moral conclusions.

The ancients were not stupid, by no means. They just didn't know anything about bacteria, atoms, physics, chemistry, astronomy etc.etc. They knew desert survival, sheep herding, farming and jewish theology.

[The Brain]

Insert Quote
The hypothesis that Muhammad didn't exist seems very unlikely: too many known historical personages claim to have known and met him - it would have to be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated.  the fact that there is material related to Muhammad that also contains Christian-style iconography is in no way suggestive of Muhmammad's non-existence; it is not unusual for a new monotheistic movement that claimed descent in part from the christian tradition to appropriate their iconography or symbols.  Note also that even if Muhammad was a title and not a proper name; that is hardly evidence that the individual in question did not exist.

Which historial personages claim to have known and met him?

Blücher.

[The Brain]

the bibler

= BB?

[Barrister]

My moral sense is present before reading the bible,

Oh I suspect whether you knew it or not, or whether it was explicit or not, your own moral sense was very much shaped by what is in the Bible.

[Berkut]

My moral sense is present before reading the bible,

Oh I suspect whether you knew it or not, or whether it was explicit or not, your own moral sense was very much shaped by what is in the Bible.

Hard to be a part of western civilization without that being true.

For better AND worse.

Anyone want to buy a slave?

[Barrister]

My moral sense is present before reading the bible,

Oh I suspect whether you knew it or not, or whether it was explicit or not, your own moral sense was very much shaped by what is in the Bible.

Hard to be a part of western civilization without that being true.

For better AND worse.

Anyone want to buy a slave?

Can't argue with you there.

[Malthus]

It predates judaism. It's in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The P source probably added the Noah story from Babylonian mythology during the babylonian exile.

I thought the garden of eden story confirmed the decent from one man and the cursed son parts of the story. The end of the Noah story ( and the Utnapishtim story from Gilgamesh) god/gods promise never to do this again (and in the babylonian story allow humans to die).

No, the end of the story is about Noah's relations with his sons.

The descent from Noah is more significant than the descent from Adam, as Noah was universally considered to be a good guy. The earlier Adam story is more confused - Adam wasn't himself particularly a good guy - he disobeys God and gets cursed, and his "good" son gets killed by his "evil" son. Adam fathers another afterwards (Seth), and presumably everyone around at the time of the flood was descended from Seth or Cain.

Noah is described as being descended from Seth (see Genesis 5).

The fact that God showed favour to a 'righteous man' who was not a Jew (Noah) is extremely significant in Judaism. It is if you will the positive good that can be found in the story.