Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[crazy canuck]

Have a nice evening Viking.

Jesus would have known this was the proper answer posts ago

BB was taking the Viking approach and literally was turning his cheek.  Problem is BB can type and turn his cheek at the same time.

[Viking]

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.

Each of those world views are contending that they are presenting the best view possible and that the struggle is to gain a still better view. The difference between science and religion is that religion claims to have the 100% answer and that no seeking is needed, just surrender of acceptance of an already existing dogma or theology.

I don't demand perfection and consistency. I demand that we strive for perfection and consistency. Religion claims to have the answer (e.g. Jesus died for your sins), that is a claim of perfection and consistency which does not stand up to even the mildest examination of those claims.

I'm actually glad that you finally have admitted that you are a theist. You have refused to do so up until now. I'd like to chide you for declining to testify your faith when given the opportunity; not very Christ-like. The Sagan view on de-conversion is that you can't reason somebody out of a position that he didn't reason himself into; so I'd like to ask you how did you reach your faith position? The reason I ask this is because I'd like to know what discussions can be fruitful.

[Valmy]

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.

It is entirely symbolic.  The parts that either did happen or resemble something that happened is entirely coincidental because that was not the intention of the book.  Because that is the way people taught lessons and passed on learning and so forth.  Frankly I have a real hard time trying to figure out what you are trying to convince me of besides the fact you do not find the Bible personally useful.  And, you know, so what?

[Viking]

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?

No, I believe that this text (the bible) is much more badly suited to teach moral lessons than say Huck Finn, Oliver Twist or James and the Giant Peach. If Bible stories can result in opposite conclusions then it doesn't lead to the truth. If the Bible doesn't lead to truth then what is the point of the bible?

[Razgovory]

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.

What is that sound reason?

[Viking]

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. 

Read John Chapter 8:1-11. The scribes and Pharasees bring a woman before him and ask him, trying to entrap him, what should be done.

[Viking]

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

You are better than Jesus, you don't think that prostitutes should be killed (by sinless executioners).

[crazy canuck]

No, I believe that this text (the bible) is much more badly suited to teach moral lessons than say Huck Finn, Oliver Twist or James and the Giant Peach. If Bible stories can result in opposite conclusions then it doesn't lead to the truth. If the Bible doesn't lead to truth then what is the point of the bible?

Bit of a tautology dont you think? - you dont understand the parable the way the rest of us do and so you think there is no value in it?  I must say you are the only person I have ever met that does not understand this particular parable.  Perhaps there should be a Viking exception?

Also, are you seriously contending that Huck Finn does not also have different possible interpretations? -you may not be aware it has been banned in some US schools because of the use of the word Nigger.  Literature is all about interpretation and people can debate endlessly about its meaning.  That does not mean it is devoid of any useful meaning but rather that the meanings are so rich as to be amenable to debate.

[The Brain]

What the hell do we know about the intention of the Bible?

[Valmy]

No, I believe that this text (the bible) is much more badly suited to teach moral lessons than say Huck Finn, Oliver Twist or James and the Giant Peach. If Bible stories can result in opposite conclusions then it doesn't lead to the truth. If the Bible doesn't lead to truth then what is the point of the bible?

Well it might not.  But everybody is familiar with it and it is referenced constantly in popular culture and people are used to considering it sacred.  Teaching moral lessons using the Bible is generally more impactful than citing Oliver Twist as very few Americans will be familiar with it outside of the musical and British Lit students.

[Viking]

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.

It is entirely symbolic.  The parts that either did happen or resemble something that happened is entirely coincidental because that was not the intention of the book.  Because that is the way people taught lessons and passed on learning and so forth.  Frankly I have a real hard time trying to figure out what you are trying to convince me of besides the fact you do not find the Bible personally useful.  And, you know, so what?

If you think that the Bible is nothing more than literature then I have no problem with that. You'd do much better getting your morality from Huck Finn though.

[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.

What is that sound reason?

Read some theology books and get back to me...

[crazy canuck]

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.

What is that sound reason?

Read some theology books and get back to me...

Wait a minute, I thought you didnt do that sort of thing Viking.  I though you learned your morality from Huck Finn.

[Valmy]

If you think that the Bible is nothing more than literature then I have no problem with that. You'd do much better getting your morality from Huck Finn though.

I guess I disagree.  A book written over hundreds of years by many different authors has alot more to say about things than one book written by one dude.  But I guess less damage would come out of people thinking Huck Finn was literally true

[Viking]

No, I believe that this text (the bible) is much more badly suited to teach moral lessons than say Huck Finn, Oliver Twist or James and the Giant Peach. If Bible stories can result in opposite conclusions then it doesn't lead to the truth. If the Bible doesn't lead to truth then what is the point of the bible?

Bit of a tautology dont you think? - you dont understand the parable the way the rest of us do and so you think there is no value in it?  I must say you are the only person I have ever met that does not understand this particular parable.  Perhaps there should be a Viking exception?

Also, are you seriously contending that Huck Finn does not also have different possible interpretations? -you may not be aware it has been banned in some US schools because of the use of the word Nigger.  Literature is all about interpretation and people can debate endlessly about its meaning.  That does not mean it is devoid of any useful meaning but rather that the meanings are so rich as to be amenable to debate.

Yes, religious morality from a book is necessarily tautologous given the non-existence of god; Socrates sort of makes that clear about 300 years before Jesus. I keep having to repeat this, John 8:1-11 is not a parable. I understand the parable and I understand it's interpretations. I'm possibly the only person here who has taken a comparative religion course of any sort so I know the interpretations that the pastor is not telling you.

The reason I picked this story is because it is Euthyphro's dilemma in the bible. It is religion attempting to deal with a 300 year old philosophical problem that the Gospel writers were almost certainly aware of (given that many of them were greek). Jesus is confronted with an obviously unjust situation. This woman is about to be killed because she could only feed herself by relying on the favor of men she was not married to. This was obviously morally wrong to kill her for trying to feed herself and not die, it was also GOds law that she must die for this crime. Stoning her is obviously wrong, but GOd already said it was right. Euthyphro's dilemma is solved by Jesus threatening to out the Johns among those who are about to stone her.

This is an exceptionally unsatisfactory morality tale because at the end what is right and just is still obviously impious and criminal and the only salvation for this woman was the grace of Jesus (Calvin FTW). It is a story where the moral content is completely reliant on the divinity of Jesus and the inherent sinful nature of man (again Calvin FTW).

Now the point I was trying to make to Valmy that got this discussion started was that this story is completely immoral unless it presumes Jesus as God. It does not stand on it's own merits without the divinity of Jesus. I had gotten Valmy to the point where he agreed that there was not spiritual realm outside of the material world and I had gotten him to agree that happiness, love, envy etc. were artifacts of the material brain. He did argue at that point that the Bible was still a good source for morality, I disagree with that.

As for Huck Finn, the book depicts immoral and bad characters using the word Nigger. Banning Huck Finn is like insisting that Mississippi Burning gets remade, only with the Klansmen referring to African-Americans. Jim is shown to be a decent and good man and a moral paragon, at least compared to the characters that call him Nigger. I suggest you read Huck Finn, since it seems you have not. It is one of the great books of the world and a treasure of literature.