Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[Valmy]

Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?

Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?

But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.

Um this is a story told about Jesus.  It is like somehow you cannot get your head around the Bible not being literal facts even though you keep saying it isn't.

[Razgovory]

Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?

Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?

But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.

Where do you get Prostitutes out of this?  If you are going to arguing about this stuff, you really should brush up on your theology.

[Barrister]

Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?

Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?

But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.

No, Jesus is saying that everyone is a sinner, and therefore nobody should be throwing stones at anyone.

Yes, Jesus was presented with two unpleasant options (much like you are trying to do), and he selected the third option.

[crazy canuck]

Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?

Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?

But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.

No, Jesus is saying that everyone is a sinner, and therefore nobody should be throwing stones at anyone.

Yes, Jesus was presented with two unpleasant options (much like you are trying to do), and he selected the third option.

I am not sure Viking has yet got his mind around the fact this is a parable rather than a literal story from which no deeper meaning may be found.

If he gets to that point he will understand the point you are now making.

[Viking]

Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?

Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?

But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.

Um this is a story told about Jesus.  It is like somehow you cannot get your head around the Bible not being literal facts even though you keep saying it isn't.

This is not an actual reply to my post. I have no problem with parts of the Bible not being considered literal. The problem I have is the Bible is presented as consisting of literal facts which are untrue. I have a problem with the ONLY means of separating the literal from the symbolic parts of the bible is the proof by external agents (scientists and historians) that certain parts are not literal. What I want to hear from the Bibilical Figurativists what criteria you can use to segregate the symbolic from the literal? If you can't point to any cause that is not scientists and historians proving bits of the bible to be wrong then I feel I can safely assert that the symbolic view of the bible is bunk. If you can't make a internally consistent argument for your own religion then it is BS.

The phrase Literal facts is a self contradictory phrase. Any facts that are not literal are not facts. Things cannot be sort of true or sort of exist.

[Viking]

Where do you get Prostitutes out of this?  If you are going to arguing about this stuff, you really should brush up on your theology.

I have sound reason to considering the Adulteress to be equivalent to a modern Prostitute, you should really brush up on your theology.

[Barrister]

This is not an actual reply to my post. I have no problem with parts of the Bible not being considered literal. The problem I have is the Bible is presented as consisting of literal facts which are untrue. I have a problem with the ONLY means of separating the literal from the symbolic parts of the bible is the proof by external agents (scientists and historians) that certain parts are not literal. What I want to hear from the Bibilical Figurativists what criteria you can use to segregate the symbolic from the literal? If you can't point to any cause that is not scientists and historians proving bits of the bible to be wrong then I feel I can safely assert that the symbolic view of the bible is bunk. If you can't make a internally consistent argument for your own religion then it is BS.

The phrase Literal facts is a self contradictory phrase. Any facts that are not literal are not facts. Things cannot be sort of true or sort of exist.

Viking, you want 100% perfect and consistent worldview.  Well, nohing works like that - not even science.  We have competing scientific views.  Historians argue constantly.

In my own opinion, some parts of the Bible are 100% true.  That Christ was the son of God, died on a cross, and rose from the dead, actually happened (IMHO).  The rest of the stuff?  I dunno.  I'm willing to think and discuss it.

You want perfection and consistency about what is almost by definition the unknowable.  I don't think it works that way.

[Viking]

Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?

Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?

But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.

No, Jesus is saying that everyone is a sinner, and therefore nobody should be throwing stones at anyone.

Yes, Jesus was presented with two unpleasant options (much like you are trying to do), and he selected the third option.

Please try responding to my argument. You said it was a parable. I say it is not.

Now, what I want to hear from you is an explanation of how we, with obviously completely different understandings of this part of the bible, can reach any form of truth or harmony given this obvious opposed understanding of this? How is morality supposed to come from lessons that are understood completely differently and how is morality supposed to come from a book that fails the euthyphro test?

[Barrister]

Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?

Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?

But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.

No, Jesus is saying that everyone is a sinner, and therefore nobody should be throwing stones at anyone.

Yes, Jesus was presented with two unpleasant options (much like you are trying to do), and he selected the third option.

Please try responding to my argument. You said it was a parable. I say it is not.

Now, what I want to hear from you is an explanation of how we, with obviously completely different understandings of this part of the bible, can reach any form of truth or harmony given this obvious opposed understanding of this? How is morality supposed to come from lessons that are understood completely differently and how is morality supposed to come from a book that fails the euthyphro test?

I would respond with saying "please try and listen to my argument", but I know the effort would be wasted.

Have a nice evening Viking.

[Viking]

I am not sure Viking has yet got his mind around the fact this is a parable rather than a literal story from which no deeper meaning may be found.

If he gets to that point he will understand the point you are now making.

It is not a parable. It's a story about Jesus. The parables are stories told BY Jesus to his followers as analogies to explain theology to them. This is a story about Jesus being challenged by the Priests. I have no problem with the Parables as they can and do stand on their own merits, you can deal with them outside the divinity of Jesus and outside the political situation of 1st century Palestine.

[crazy canuck]

Now, what I want to hear from you is an explanation of how we, with obviously completely different understandings of this part of the bible, can reach any form of truth or harmony given this obvious opposed understanding of this? How is morality supposed to come from lessons that are understood completely differently and how is morality supposed to come from a book that fails the euthyphro test?

You believe that if all people do not have exactly the same understand of a piece of text the text can have no ability to teach a lesson?

[Barrister]

I am not sure Viking has yet got his mind around the fact this is a parable rather than a literal story from which no deeper meaning may be found.

If he gets to that point he will understand the point you are now making.

It is not a parable. It's a story about Jesus. The parables are stories told BY Jesus to his followers as analogies to explain theology to them. This is a story about Jesus being challenged by the Priests. I have no problem with the Parables as they can and do stand on their own merits, you can deal with them outside the divinity of Jesus and outside the political situation of 1st century Palestine.

Aw, Jesus, I can't stand it any more.

IT *IS* A PARABLE BECAUSE JESUS WASN'T LITERALLY TALKING ABOUT WHO WOULD THROW AN ACTUAL STONE AT THE WOMAN IN FRONT OF HIM!!!111

I have now lost this thread, because I responded moments after I said I wouldn't. 

[HVC]

Have a nice evening Viking.

Jesus would have known this was the proper answer posts ago

[Barrister]

Have a nice evening Viking.

Jesus would have known this was the proper answer posts ago

Unlike the Beatles, I do not pretend to be better than Jesus.   

[HVC]

Have a nice evening Viking.

Jesus would have known this was the proper answer posts ago

Unlike the Beatles, I do not pretend to be better than Jesus.   

it's ok. If it makes you feel any better about your relapse into the thread there's a a small but not insignificant possiblilty that jesus, upon reading this thread, would have gotten pissed and knock over some tables. Even Jesus ain't perfect