Noah never existed

[Sushi X]

(note: moderators please feel free to move this as I am new to this branch of the forum)

Noah never existed. Plain and simple. Why? I'll try and break it down for you.

The Jews (who I believe wrote this passage) had little to no knowledge about any of the so called "God's Creatures," not even themselves. Not only that, but there were animals that would remain un-discovered to X-ian Europe for thousands of years. There are creatures we are still discovering today? What about in Asia, or the Americas, which the Jews didn't even know existed? How could Noah possibly get those animals on board, seeing as the flood supposedly covered the Earth.

Okay, let's say that, somehow, Noah managed to round up 2 of every animal in the world and kept them from eating each other. The size of a ship needed to carry all those for any length of time would have to be the size of a small country. An amount of wood that size doesn't exist, and it would have to be a very LARGE miracle, which the Bible doesn't state happened.

X-ians, go ahead and try to prove me wrong. I'll be keeping an eye on this forum, and feel free to e-mail me.

The Sushi has spoken.

[phlebas]

Welcome, Sushi.

I think this post is better off in Biblical Criticism and Archaeology.

[young_bible_boy9]

To be blunt about it, you're really kind of wasting your time with by-rote Biblical literalism
concerning the supposed feats of Noah, as read in English translations of scripture.
The mythos surrounding Noah, having "saved the world" or his family having been the Earth's only survivors,I think, are centered around Noah having one of, (if not THE) longest recorded geneologies on record for the Judaic record-keepers of that time, some 950 (approx) years. So Noah is the world's champ, so to speak. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
This gets hugely misinterpreted as having been the lifespan of a single individual, when it was actually a 950 yr span of male offspring of an original patriarchal "Noah".
As for "floods covering the Earth" - sure! there were a number of them thru the ages at that time.
...and yes..it's also highly likely that one or more of Noah's generations were prolific in animal husbandry & ranching, and may have claimed,or alleged to have specimens of "every single animal known to man" (step right up, folks!!) :)


To sum it up, yes, it's possible an ancient Noah person(s) did exist - just don't believe much of what you read or hear about 'em!! ;)

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: young_bible_boy9 ]</p>

[Kosh]

[quote]Originally posted by young_bible_boy9:
<strong>
This gets hugely misinterpreted as having been the lifespan of a single individual, when it was actually a 950 yr span of male offspring of an original patriarchal "Noah". </strong><hr></blockquote>

Please provide scriptural and interpretive evidence/research to support this assertion.

[Marduk]

"Noah never existed. Plain and simple. "

WHAT!? A 500 year old drunk really didn't put all the animals in the world in a wooden boat for a year!!??

I find that hard to believe, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence you know.

:D
welcome

[Marduk]

"Please provide scriptural and interpretive evidence/research to support this assertion."

Pardom as I interupt but the idea that the many year old patriarchs refer to families instead of individuals is from "Isaac Asimov's Gide to the Bible"

[CX]

[quote]Originally posted by Sushi X:
<strong>(note: moderators please feel free to move this as I am new to this branch of the forum)

Noah never existed. Plain and simple. Why? I'll try and break it down for you.

The Jews (who I believe wrote this passage) had little to no knowledge about any of the so called "God's Creatures," not even themselves. Not only that, but there were animals that would remain un-discovered to X-ian Europe for thousands of years. There are creatures we are still discovering today? What about in Asia, or the Americas, which the Jews didn't even know existed? How could Noah possibly get those animals on board, seeing as the flood supposedly covered the Earth.

Okay, let's say that, somehow, Noah managed to round up 2 of every animal in the world and kept them from eating each other. The size of a ship needed to carry all those for any length of time would have to be the size of a small country. An amount of wood that size doesn't exist, and it would have to be a very LARGE miracle, which the Bible doesn't state happened.

X-ians, go ahead and try to prove me wrong. I'll be keeping an eye on this forum, and feel free to e-mail me.

The Sushi has spoken.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Unfortunately your argument does not establish that Noah never existed. It only illustrates the dubiousness of the claims made in regard to him in the Pentateuch. Ultimately the existence of the biblical patriarchs, including Noah, is a matter of faith which cannot, in principle, be confirmed nor denied on any scientific grounds.

[Tercel]

[quote]Originally posted by Sushi X:
X-ians, go ahead and try to prove me wrong.<hr></blockquote>Er Sushi, do you realise that your point is only relevant to conservative literalist Christians (and many even among them are prepared to accept a more localised flood) since the rest of us see the story in a symbolic light? ie it's a story with a moral.

eg from the Hodder Pocket Bible Commentary by William Neil (1962)
"The Flood:
It should hardly be necessary to repeat that in the prologue we are dealing with stories, parables, symbols and images and not with history....
In 4:15 we saw the first suggestion that despite man's perversity God still cares for him. Cain's murderous act is punished but his life is spared. This merciful attitude is, however, misunderstood and abused. The blood thirsty song of Lamech (4:23-24) and the parable of the Nephilim (6:1-4) show humanity turning its back on God, persuming on his leniency, and marching steady downhill to perdition until even the merciful Creator has had more than he can stomach....
The point of the flood story is not that mankind was once obliterated and then given a fresh start. To say that would be to bring the Bible down to the level of Greek mythology. The Flood is the symbol of God's timeless judgment on us as we are, twentieth-century man no less than man in the anceint world...." etc. (he goes on for a few pages on the subject)


I would point out though that archeological evidence seems to provide some suggestion of the possibility of a localised flood in the region of Ur in about 4000BC. And that there is a similar Babylonian parallel from which the Biblical author has no doubt drawn. Hence I would give reasonable odds (ie 50%) to the idea that there actually [i]did exist some sort of "Noah" person behind it all. -Not that that has any relevance whatsoever to the Biblical passage.

[young_bible_boy9]

[quote]Originally posted by marduck:
"Please provide scriptural and interpretive evidence/research to support this assertion."

Pardom as I interupt but the idea that the many year old patriarchs refer to families instead of individuals is from "Isaac Asimov's Gide to the Bible"<hr></blockquote>

IS THAT RIGHT????!!&&%%?? Hmmm....amazing! - I do think this view was around before Asimov- I have never done any extensive internet research for impressive links to back this up(lack of time,really). My source is OSU Bible/history profs. ;)

"Please provide scriptural and interpretive evidence/research to support this
assertion."
As far as scriptural evidence goes - I find it highly unlikely that ancient Biblical texts would have included instructive, self-contained explanations of how various passages and information were arrived at. ;)

[young_bible_boy9]

[quote]Originally posted by marduck:
the idea that the many year old patriarchs refer to families instead of individuals is from "Isaac Asimov's Gide to the Bible"<hr></blockquote>
That might be an interesting read, I'll have to snag a copy sometime!!! (Nope I was'nt aware of it)

[Marduk]

"IS THAT RIGHT????!!&&%%?? Hmmm....amazing! - I do think this view was around before Asimov- "

I'm sure it's been around for awhile, Asimov just mentions it, I don't believe he trys to claim it as his own. He quotes many scholars, since this is not really his primary field.

[Answerer]

Hi Tercel, I'm curious, just how many of you here view the bible in a pure symbolic way like Amos did?

[Tercel]

[quote]Originally posted by Answerer:
Hi Tercel, I'm curious, just how many of you here view the bible in a pure symbolic way like Amos did?<hr></blockquote>Amos is crazy. I don't even bother to read his posts anymore. To answer your question: 2 - Offa is equally as wacko as Amos.
I don't view the entire Bible as symbolic the way Amos apparently does. Obviously most of the Bible is meant by the writer to be taken literally and to start interpreting everything allegorically at will is just stupid. However a few things like pre-history mythology in Genesis, Revelation etc are clearly meant by their writers to be symbolic not literal.

[Bible Humper]

[quote] Amos is crazy. I don't even bother to read his posts anymore. To answer your question: 2 - Offa is equally as wacko as Amos. <hr></blockquote>

Ironically, Amos has by far the strongest theology I've seen, simply because he makes no claims of magical events.

[quote] I don't view the entire Bible as symbolic the way Amos apparently does. <hr></blockquote>

Well, it seems to me that the only ones with consistent theologies are those who take it all literally, and those who take it all symbolically. What methodology is available to decide what parts to believe and which to declare "metaphors"? The parts you don't like all become allegory? Is that it?

[quote] Obviously most of the Bible is meant by the writer to be taken literally and to start interpreting everything allegorically at will is just stupid. <hr></blockquote>

What's so obvious about that? Early Christians took many things literally which most modern Christians don't. If they got it wrong, how can you say that you haven't got many things wrong also since your brand of Christianity evolved out of theirs?

You say to "interpret everything allegorically at will is stupid", well from my perspective it seems that the mix and pick theologies are the illogical ones. Once you have decided to rely on "intuition" to decide, you can't help but let your own biases creep in.

Ever notice how the narrow-minded fundies believe in a bigoted Yahweh? They intuitively judged the OT admonishments against homosexuals to be Yahweh's eternal will. They "intuitively" know that the sacrifice of the avatar didn't change this law. You won't find one believing that Yahweh doesn't mind gays these days, but that the old laws should be observed anyways, they all believe in a Yahweh who hates fags.

Now do you notice the Yahweh of liberals like Seebs and Rev Joshua? They don't believe in a Yahweh who disapproves of gays, and their decision to not be personally judgemental towards them is thought to be exactly what the deity expects. They actually believe in a more gentle Yahweh who changed the rules with the sacrifice of his avatar, and loves gays as much as anyone.

Start using "intuition" and "common sense" to interpret your religion, and you will inevitably recreate your deity in your own image.

[Tercel]

[quote]Originally posted by Bible Humper:
Ironically, Amos has by far the strongest theology I've seen, simply because he makes no claims of magical events.<hr></blockquote>Amos has a theology? I seriously thought he was just crazy...

[quote]Well, it seems to me that the only ones with consistent theologies are those who take it all literally, and those who take it all symbolically.<hr></blockquote>It seems perfectly possible to consistently follow your common sense as to whether a passage warrents literal or symbolic interpretation.

[quote]What methodology is available to decide what parts to believe and which to declare "metaphors"? The parts you don't like all become allegory? Is that it?<hr></blockquote>Generally I follow common sense, I do what I see as best in each situation and don't follow any hard and fast like of rules. Augustine's ideas on the subject are certainly not bad:
[quote]"But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative.
And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one's neighbour; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one's neighbour.
Every man, moreover, has hope in his own conscience, so far as he perceives that he has attained to the love and knowledge of God and his neighbour."<hr></blockquote>But I think there are many other things that need be considered - writers intent, scholarly analysis yada yada.
But yes, certainly whether I "like" something or not is going to play a part especially since how much I like something is going to depend on how well it fits in with the rest of my understanding of Christian theology.

[quote]<strong>Obviously most of the Bible is meant by the writer to be taken literally and to start interpreting everything allegorically at will is just stupid.</strong>

What's so obvious about that? Early Christians took many things <strong>literally</strong> which most modern Christians don't.<hr></blockquote>Er, don't you mean <strong>allegorically</strong> there not <strong>literally</strong>?
In which case, yes, I grant that and I have nothing against allegorical interpretation. But the even the Alexandrian school unlike Amos didn't do allegorical interpretations all the time and at least recognised that some things are obviously supposed to be literal Christian truths.

[quote]You say to "interpret everything allegorically at will is stupid", well from my perspective it seems that the mix and pick theologies are the illogical ones. Once you have decided to rely on "intuition" to decide, you can't help but let your own biases creep in.<hr></blockquote>I'm quite happy with my own biases. :p

[quote]Start using "intuition" and "common sense" to interpret your religion, and you will inevitably recreate your deity in your own image.<hr></blockquote>Well I wouldn't quite use those words, but I agree with the thought. But unfortunately there isn't any other way to do it... unless you have a better solution?

[WRW Mattfeld]

I would just like to interject here as a new arrival to this list, how much I enjoy the "outrageous humor" on this list. At times I find myself laughing so hard, tears run down my cheeks !
All the best, Walter

[Vorkosigan]

And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one's neighbour; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one's neighbour.

Ah! So when god commanded the Israelites to kill everyone in region X and take their land, that must have been figurative language...

Where have you been hiding, Tercel?

[Bible Humper]

Hi Tercel,

[quote]Amos has a theology? I seriously thought he was just crazy... <hr></blockquote>

It doesn't have to be an either/or situation! :D


[quote]It seems perfectly possible to consistently follow your common sense as to whether a passage warrents literal or symbolic interpretation. <hr></blockquote>

Well, the problem is not that you are inconsistent in your use of intuition, the problem is that intuition isn't consistent. The use of intuition has not only resulted in thousands of sects within Christianity itself, but it has also somehow led the non-christian portions of the world to somehow imagine deities/spirits/animistic energies which we both know aren't real!!!

It seems to me that you have no choice but to acknowledge the unreliability of intuition, including your own, and avoid basing an entire worldview upon it!

[quote] Generally I follow common sense, I do what I see as best in each situation and don't follow any hard and fast like of rules. <hr></blockquote>

This is the problem, your assumption that your own common sense is a reliable tool for divining the deity's will. All believers make this mistake, even the ones who have these questions answered for them by the religious authorities think that it is common sense that the priest/wizard/shaman knows supernature enough that his judgements can be taken as Truth.

[quote]Augustine:

But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative.
And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one's neighbour; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one's neighbour.
Every man, moreover, has hope in his own conscience, so far as he perceives that he has attained to the love and knowledge of God and his neighbour." <hr></blockquote>

LOL, surely if the passage seems to contain ideas that run counter to church doctrine, it must have been meant figuratively!!

Augustine is no help here, he is just saying that if something written in the bible contradicts the church, the church trumps the bible. He has merely codified the practice of divining the "real meaning" intuitively, note that he takes for granted that the "doctrine" he refers to is Truth, and so anything in the bible that contradicts that "must" have been allegorical.

[quote] But I think there are many other things that need be considered - writers intent, scholarly analysis yada yada. <hr></blockquote>

This doesn't say anything, it is indeed "the writer's real intent" that everyone is trying to divine intuitively! These men are alleged to have been divinely inspired, so the question is rather critical, don't you think?

Remove the cart from in front of the horse, determine if the religion is true rather than skipping to how the religion is true.



[quote] But yes, certainly whether I "like" something or not is going to play a part especially since how much I like something is going to depend on how well it fits in with the rest of my understanding of Christian theology. <hr></blockquote>

Hats off for acknowledging this, most people would rabidly insist that their "understanding" is due to it being 100% truth.

There has to be something else Tercel, we can see how intuition has failed countless billions of believers! Your own "understanding" of Christian theology is coloured by your own biases because of your reliance on intuition, surely you realise that it wouldn't be prudent to rely on a tool which you know has failed the vast majority of humanity throughout time as the rock to build your own house upon!

[quote] Er, don't you mean allegorically there not literally? <hr></blockquote>

No. The medieval Christians thought that the stories of Noah and Jonah were literally true. It used to be thought that disease and insanity were caused by demons, the stars were holes in the "fabric" of the sky between heaven and Earth, Heaven could be reached if you built a tall enough tower, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

[quote]In which case, yes, I grant that and I have nothing against allegorical interpretation. But the even the Alexandrian school unlike Amos didn't do allegorical interpretations all the time and at least recognised that some things are obviously supposed to be literal Christian truths. <hr></blockquote>

And how did they decide which bits were which? Intuitively!

And don't use the word "obviously", because if it was obvious there wouldn't be bible literalists on one side, Amos on the other, and thousands of sects in between.

[quote] I'm quite happy with my own biases. :p <hr></blockquote>

Sure, so am I! We have to be honest to even recognise that we have biases, but once we pass that hurdle we still have to endeavor to excise it from our perception of information. You have recognised that you have biases, like everyone, so it seems prudent for you now to reject a methodology for discerning truth which is little more than telling yourself what you want to hear!

[quote] Well I wouldn't quite use those words, but I agree with the thought. But unfortunately there isn't any other way to do it... unless you have a better solution? <hr></blockquote>

Remove the cart from in front of your horse!

You have decided that the bible contains the Truth before you even look at it, it has always been a matter of discovering how it is true, skipping the natural first step of determining if it is true.

Be wary of your own biases, and always keep in mind that there are billions of people in the world, many of whom have dedicated their lives to their interpretations of supernature, who have got it wrong because they trust their own intuitions and think we are both "blind" not to see it!

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

[Tristan Scott]

[quote]Noah never existed. Plain and simple. <hr></blockquote>
Maybe he existed under a different name, like Utnapishtim or something.

[Tercel]

[quote]Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Ah! So when god commanded the Israelites to kill everyone in region X and take their land, that must have been figurative language...<hr></blockquote>If you were following that system of interpretation, then I suppose, yes.
Personally I'd probably interpret it as the writer's conviction that God was on their side. Whether he was correct or not is hard to say from our perspective. My understanding of God's love leads me to suggest that God wouldn't do that sort of thing as a general rule. However, not being there myself it's hard to judge the exact circumstances etc so I cannot say that there was NOT as sufficient justification for God to act in the way he is presented acting.
Thus given my agnosticism on the literal interpration of the passage I'd settle for using it as a story with a moral... (ie back to Augustine's version really) if anyone can find a nice moral in genicide...

[quote]Where have you been hiding, Tercel?<hr></blockquote>I kind of got fed up with posting and reading boards and took an intended permanent break. But with the James Ossuary thing I just had to read threads to see how you guys would react! (btw am I the only one whos had the idea that a second author on the "brother of Jesus" part of the inscription makes it more likely to be the authentic thing? My logic there being that the 2nd inscription would likely have been added later to distinguish for pilgrims etc that this (as opposed to any other "James son of Joseph") was Jesus' brother's Ossuary. Of course that assumes that the Ossuary's basically genuine - not necessarily a good assumption in a plot as convoluted as this one! :p )
And of course reading threads inevitably got me back posting again... :p

[Tercel]

[quote]Originally posted by Bible Humper:
The use of intuition has not only resulted in thousands of sects within Christianity itself, but it has also somehow led the non-christian portions of the world to somehow imagine deities/spirits/animistic energies which we both know aren't real!!!

It seems to me that you have no choice but to acknowledge the unreliability of intuition, including your own, and avoid basing an entire worldview upon it!<hr></blockquote>Well, unfortunately beyond my own reasoning abilities and intuition I don't really have any means of working out what is true. Unless you're suggesting I presuppose things :eek: eg the Bible to be the literal and Inerrant Word of God? :eek:

To blow my own trumpet a bit: experience suggests I am rather more than averagely intelligent, so I have reasonable confidence that my search for truth will lead me in an above averagely accurate direction.

[quote]LOL, surely if the passage seems to contain ideas that run counter to church doctrine, it must have been meant figuratively!!

...He has merely codified the practice of divining the "real meaning" intuitively, note that he takes for granted that the "doctrine" he refers to is Truth, and so anything in the bible that contradicts that "must" have been allegorical.<hr></blockquote> ;) Why do you think I quoted it? :D

[quote]This doesn't say anything, it is indeed "the writer's real intent" that everyone is trying to divine intuitively! These men are alleged to have been divinely inspired, so the question is rather critical, don't you think?<hr></blockquote>I'm not exactly a big fan of huge amounts of divine inspiration, so I don't bother getting wound up about every single ambiguous word like some do. Rather I use the idea that Christianity is generally accurate and the writers generally knew what they were talking about and hence try to solve specific problems via the application of general themes not individual verses. It's the spirit of the thing not the letter that matters ;) ie it's back to Augustine's notion that we need to know what sound doctrine is before we can start interpreting obscure passages.

[quote]Remove the cart from in front of your horse, determine if the religion is true rather than skipping to how the religion is true.<hr></blockquote>Well the truth of Christianity is obvious something that must be accepted or rejected prior to involving in any sophisticated interpretation. Personally I see a number of cumulatively good reasons to believe that a God with pretty similar properties as generally understood by the Christian God exists. And my critical evalution of other Christians reported experiences combined with my own feelings and analysis of Christianity's moral teachings leads me to believe that the Christian faith is the most true representation of God and his workings.

[quote]You have decided that the bible contains the Truth before you even look at it, it has always been a matter of discovering how it is true, skipping the natural first step of determining if it is true.<hr></blockquote>? I'm not a presuppositionalist who decides the Bible to be the Inerrant word of God before they read any of it! My idea that the bible is generally true stems from that it contains the beliefs of the early Christian believers who, I am lead to believe, were generally accurate in their beliefs.

[quote]There has to be something else Tercel, we can see how intuition has failed countless billions of believers! Your own "understanding" of Christian theology is coloured by your own biases because of your reliance on intuition, surely you realise that it wouldn't be prudent to rely on a tool which you know has failed the vast majority of humanity throughout time as the rock to build your own house upon!<hr></blockquote>Well I am more intelligent and better educated than probably well over 99.999% of those believers, and I can learn from their thoughts, agreements and disagrements.

[quote]<strong>Er, don't you mean allegorically there not literally?</strong>

No. The medieval Christians thought that the stories of Noah and Jonah were literally true. It used to be thought that disease and insanity were caused by demons, the stars were holes in the "fabric" of the sky between heaven and Earth, Heaven could be reached if you built a tall enough tower, etc<hr></blockquote>Oh, okay - I thought you were referring to the earlier Christian writers (pre 500AD) who as a general rule took things less literally than the vast majority would take them today.
I suspect the Medieval masses' thoughts were probably due more to a lack of education than anything else. -Assuming you are actually correct about that, 'cos I understood that in medieval times the popular model of interpreting scripture was to understand it in "Four Senses" - that every passage had four valid interpretations - literal, anagogical, allegorical, tropological.

[Bible Humper]

[quote] Well, unfortunately beyond my own reasoning abilities and intuition I don't really have any means of working out what is true. <hr></blockquote>

Well, reason doesn't enter the picture because you can only apply the latter to religion, ignoring the former. By adopting a supernatural explanation as an answer, you have abandoned reason in exchange for intuition for this question.

There is no way, if you allow for supernature, that your reason can be used to conclude that Jesus was not a sorcerer pretending to be a deity, a psionic causing onlookers to hallucinate, Loki playing a joke on man, etc, etc, etc. You have "intuitively" decided that he was indeed who he allegedly said he was. You have also "intuitively" decided that Mohammad was not who he allegedly said he was.

[quote] Unless you're suggesting I presuppose things eg the Bible to be the literal and Inerrant Word of God? <hr></blockquote>

So if your intuition is an insufficient tool to use to answer the question of whether or not Yahweh exists, the only alternative is presuming that the bible is literal truth? This is what I'm talking about, the question asking if Yahweh is real is skipped, and you go straight to the question how Yahweh is real.

[quote]To blow my own trumpet a bit: experience suggests I am rather more than averagely intelligent, so I have reasonable confidence that my search for truth will lead me in an above averagely accurate direction. <hr></blockquote>

This seems reasonable until you acknowledge that there are people more intelligent than either of us who believe in other religions, or no religion at all, as well as your own.

It seems incredible, does it not, that religion is the one and only subject that has tons of intelligent people absolutely convinced that their own conclusions are true, and everyone else is dead wrong! The closest parallels in science can be found between advocates of certain hypotheses and theories, but religion is not seen as a mere hypothesis!

Why is this so? Because religious beliefs don't follow the usual procedure, the answer is given first and then it your task to figure out how to obfuscate the question enough to fit. A powerful emotional investment is nurtured in the answer so that it retains it's position outside of the believer's critical scrutiny.

Having observed that there are intelligent people of all religions, you have to acknowledge that being intelligent is not nearly enough to protect us from believing false religions.

[quote] Why do you think I quoted it? <hr></blockquote>

You find that compelling? How can you naysay anyone, much less literalists and Amos, if you think that it is reasonable to decide how to interpret scripture based on what would be required in order to make it "say" something that agrees with your own doctrine?

This is also rather circular, your christian doctrine is supposed to come from scripture, but you interpret what scripture "really means" by figuring out a way to bring it's message in line with your doctrine!

[quote] I'm not exactly a big fan of huge amounts of divine inspiration, so I don't bother getting wound up about every single ambiguous word like some do. <hr></blockquote>

Well, your intuition has led you to this, the intuition of Amos has led him to believe it is all inspired but symbolic, the intuition of the literalist has led him to believe that it is all true, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

[quote]Rather I use the idea that Christianity is generally accurate and the writers generally knew what they were talking about and hence try to solve specific problems via the application of general themes not individual verses. <hr></blockquote>

Well, instead of "using the idea" that Christianity is generally accurate, why not "ask the question" of whether Christianity is generally accurate, or even at all accurate?

You can see that intuition has failed trillions of others on this point, it would be foolish to blindly trust your own!

[quote]It's the spirit of the thing not the letter that matters ie it's back to Augustine's notion that we need to know what sound doctrine is before we can start interpreting obscure passages. <hr></blockquote>

We discover sound doctrine by reading scripture, to understand what we read, though, we need to know sound doctrine, we gain sound doctrine from reading scripture, to understand what we read in scripture we need to know sound doctrine, we gain sound doctrine from reading scripture........

[quote] Well the truth of Christianity is obvious something that must be accepted or rejected prior to involving in any sophisticated interpretation. <hr></blockquote>

I don't think that you can appreciate the true importance of what you just said, how can you accept the truth of something before you even know how it's supposed to be interpreted??? :confused:

[quote] Personally I see a number of cumulatively good reasons to believe that a God with pretty similar properties as generally understood by the Christian God exists. <hr></blockquote>

Dude, it's damn hot in hell, share this proof with us!!!!

[quote] And my critical evalution of other Christians reported experiences combined with my own feelings and analysis of Christianity's moral teachings leads me to believe that the Christian faith is the most true representation of God and his workings. <hr></blockquote>

I would like to hear what you found different between the experiences of Christians, Muslems, and Hindus that you perceived that the experiences of the believers in the deity you worship were credible whereas all the rest were not.

It's notable that the Moslems find stories of Moslem miracles credible but the Christian stories to be "tall tales" by credulous believers, and Christians find the reverse true. I hate to say it, but the only determinant seems to be bias.

[quote] Oh, okay - I thought you were referring to the earlier Christian writers (pre 500AD) who as a general rule took things less literally than the vast majority would take them today.
I suspect the Medieval masses' thoughts were probably due more to a lack of education than anything else. -Assuming you are actually correct about that, 'cos I understood that in medieval times the popular model of interpreting scripture was to understand it in "Four Senses" - that every passage had four valid interpretations - literal, anagogical, allegorical, tropological. <hr></blockquote>

Did you see my earlier thread regarding the fact that the early Christians believed in a wand wielding Jesus?

What are your thoughts on that, seeing as you, and indeed all Christians, concede prodigious amounts of the benefit of the doubt towards the credibility of the early Christians in order to justify being Christians in the first place?

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

[Tercel]

[quote]Originally posted by Bible Humper:
<strong>Well, unfortunately beyond my own reasoning abilities and intuition I don't really have any means of working out what is true.</strong>

Well, reason doesn't enter the picture because you can only apply the latter to religion, ignoring the former.<hr></blockquote> :rolleyes: I'm afraid I do not agree...

[quote]There is no way, if you allow for supernature, that your reason can be used to conclude that Jesus was not a sorcerer pretending to be a deity, a psionic causing onlookers to hallucinate, Loki playing a joke on man, etc, etc, etc.<hr></blockquote>So you think that it is the fact that I "allow for supernature" causes all these difficulties. What pray tell is your solution to being afflicted with these difficulties yourself? Perhaps you simply discount supernatural explanations and therefore resolve these difficulties by what is an arbitrary decision on your part? And now, you're accusing me that my belief that Jesus was not a sorcerer or Loki etc is bad because it's an arbitrary decision based on my own intuition. Well isn't that just the pot calling the kettle black?

Anyway, that's not how it works, the extraneous hypotheses are simply removed -as always- by the application of Occam's Razor. The simplest solution to the problem as it presents itself should be taken as a working hypothesis: complex hoaxes, conspiracy theories etc which involve non face-value interpretation of the evidence are be discounted until reason to seriously consider their possibility arises. This basic principle of reason is applied day in, day out in our own lives and the suggestion that as soon as we get to the supernatural our reasoning falls apart is absurd.
Or perhaps you think the police when investigating an obvious case where all the witnesses and evidence agrees should not be able to form any definite hypothesis because there will always be an infinite number of hypotheses that fit the evidence - eg there is an international conspiracy of the form X which is causing persons Y to lie because Z and the rest of the witnesses are saying A happened when B really happened because of C and the evidence was tampered with by a fellow officer who's involved in another conspiracy D and there isn't any evidence to suggest any of this to be true but that's because there's a cover up by E etc. Or perhaps you'd agree that instead the face value explanation is better than suspecting everyone of conspiracy and lying etc without any hint of evidence to suggest that?

Come on, you use your basic reasoning skills to strip non-face value hypotheses every day in order to stop yourself sinking into epistemological quicksand. Please allow me the same courtesy for the supernatural, since there is nothing about the supernatural as opposed to the natural which has any effect on this basic principle of reasoning.

[quote]So if your intuition is an insufficient tool to use to answer the question of whether or not Yahweh exists, the only alternative is presuming that the bible is literal truth? This is what I'm talking about, the question asking if Yahweh is real is skipped, and you go straight to the question how Yahweh is real.<hr></blockquote>I don't simply assume God is real, if that is what you are accusing me of here. I'm saying: You can either assume that God exists or not and be a presuppositionalist (whether that be as an atheist or theist) or you can try to use your own reasoning abilities (intuition included) to determine the truth.
I do the second, is that a problem?

[quote]Having observed that there are intelligent people of all religions, you have to acknowledge that being intelligent is not nearly enough to protect us from believing false religions.<hr></blockquote>Certainly. However I am in the habit of believing the things I see to be evidenced as opposed to simply throwing up my hands and saying "it's all hopeless! How can little I succeed in finding truth where others have failed?".

On the other hand, the situation is not as bad as you suggest. For while "intelligent" people may differ in opinion - whatever exactly defines "intelligent". Those people (past and present) who have earned my respect as wise, clear, sensible, brilliant people have been vastly disproportionately Christians.

[quote]You find that compelling? How can you naysay anyone, much less literalists and Amos, if you think that it is reasonable to decide how to interpret scripture based on what would be required in order to make it "say" something that agrees with your own doctrine?
This is also rather circular, your christian doctrine is supposed to come from scripture, but you interpret what scripture "really means" by figuring out a way to bring it's message in line with your doctrine!<hr></blockquote>It's rather an oversimplification to suggest that "christian doctrine is supposed to come from scripture". If you look at it like that, then your system falls prey to some problematic circular logic in the form that Christians wrote and selected scripture. Scripture is hardly an external standard from which we can somehow pull True Doctrine from. But rather a product of the Church. The Christians who wrote the scripture had to know doctrine to write it, the ones who selected what was and wasn't scripture had to know doctrine to discern what contained "Truth" and what did not.
My interpreting it is line with doctrine seems to me no different.

[quote]Well, instead of "using the idea" that Christianity is generally accurate, why not "ask the question" of whether Christianity is generally accurate, or even at all accurate?<hr></blockquote>Very amusing... :D

For goodness sake, please stop telling me to question my beliefs! I'm a damn hyper-skeptical liberal - I've questioned my own beliefs about five times a day since when I was about seven and wondered whether I could prove or disprove the hyptheses that 1. other people were self-aware and 2. that they existed in reality as opposed to merely in my perception of them.
I said I "used" the idea that Christianity is generally accurate without mentioning "questioned" simply because the latter goes without saying.

[quote]We discover sound doctrine by reading scripture, to understand what we read, though, we need to know sound doctrine, we gain sound doctrine from reading scripture, to understand what we read in scripture we need to know sound doctrine, we gain sound doctrine from reading scripture........<hr></blockquote>Well done. :p
You're basically right though (even if you were poking fun at it!) that understanding is best gained in a cumulative processs of learning new truths and applying what has been learnt to better improve your knowledge of those truths and to learn new ones. In science, being the primary example of this methodology, the source of information for this model is the theoretical models, practical experiments, and reasoning. Whereas in theology the sources for input into this cumulative model include natural revelation, scripture, church teachings, widespread moral teachings, special revelation and reasoning.

[quote]I don't think that you can appreciate the true importance of what you just said, how can you accept the truth of something before you even know how it's supposed to be interpreted???<hr></blockquote>Because on a cumulative spiral-type model of increasing understanding as outlined above it is necessary to determine the truth value of a proposition prior to re-entering it into the system to gain further insight.
eg. I have to convince you that God exists before we can use that information to try to understand God's motives for doing X. (The exception being if you are alledging a contradiction in my beliefs since the basis of contradiction is to start by assuming true one of the contrary beliefs)

[quote]<strong>Personally I see a number of cumulatively good reasons to believe that a God with pretty similar properties as generally understood by the Christian God exists.</strong>

Dude, it's damn hot in hell, share this proof with us!!!!<hr></blockquote>What makes you think I believe you're going to hell? I'm a liberal, remember?
It's not a proof either. It is a number of considerations when taken cumulatively suggest to me the truth of the proposition of God's existence. These are things I have spent a few years looking at and it would probably take well in excess of 100,000 words to discuss fully my understanding of them even if it could be put entirely into words, for experience suggests I am not the best at conveying complex points simply. And there are people who I've discussed some considerations with who saw no value in them since they did not view the world in the same way I do. And to that end perhaps it is best to start by asking you a few questions related to a few of the more popular ideas of how God's existence can be shown (since I am far more likely to get you to believe God exists by allowing you to construct your own arguments within your own premises than try and force-fit one coming from my worldview):
1. What do you think it means for something to "exist"?
2. What does it mean for something to cause something else or for it to be the reason why X obtains and not Y?
3. If we trace the causal chain backwards is it legitimate to to have an infinite chain with no final explanation but with everything depending on something else backwards ad infinitum?
4. And if so where does the principle that it is necessary for things to have causes fit into this system?
5. And if it is not possible to have a infinite causal regress, then if something could be said to be causally "first" then what properties might that thing have? If there is no thing which actually exists but everything potentially does so, then which potential should be actualised and why one as opposed to another similar?
6. Call this reality A where A is everything causally connected to this moment. Why is it that A obtains and not B -some other possible series of events? Do all possible realities exist - why? And if the why involves causal connections then how has it not merely subsumed the all possible realities within A? Or is there some greater power that selects which one is to exist? And how does this not make the power part of A? Or does reality A exist necessarily - and what makes it necessary?
7. Matter appears to conform to describable "laws" of activity. eg F=MA, the Schrodinger Eqn, perhaps even one day a Grand Theory of Everything. What is the relation between matter and those laws that describe it? Is it possible to have matter without the laws? What is the likely ontological status of these laws and of matter?
8. What is the nature of awareness/consciousness and how does this compare to matter? Is there any fundamental distinction to be made between that which is aware and that which is not? Can awareness be explained completely as an illusion or as an emergent property of matter?
9. What propositions do you have absolute certainty are true? That you exist? That you are aware? That an external world exists? That matter exists? etc (any others?). To what extent is it reasonable to assume the existence of something non-certain that is significantly different in nature from the known certains and proceed to attempt to explain the certains in terms to the non-certain? What effect does this consideration have on the intrinsic reasonableness of naturalism and supernaturalism?
10. Do you agree or disagree that your actions and beliefs are determined along the lines of the idea that what you do you do because you see it as being the course of action that is ultimately likely to be most beneficial to you. (ie a course of action giving the highest expected value of the resultant state of affairs, judged from your point of view) -Consider especially unprovable beliefs such as the existence of an external world, the validity of memory etc. Is this criteria a reasonable one, or why not? If so, are there any ways of applying it to the question of God's existence or that of the supernatural?

[quote]I would like to hear what you found different between the experiences of Christians, Muslems, and Hindus that you perceived that the experiences of the believers in the deity you worship were credible whereas all the rest were not.<hr></blockquote>Of those who experiences I have heard, I simply found the Christian ones more convincing. Certainly I have heard many many more Christian ones, so this is not exactly the most unbiased of criteria. :p
I do not deny that it is possible for Moslems and Hindus to have religious experiences since I understand God to be God of everyone not just Christians. -I simply have not heard any convincing non-Christian religious experiences.

[quote]It's notable that the Moslems find stories of Moslem miracles credible but the Christian stories to be "tall tales" by credulous believers, and Christians find the reverse true. I hate to say it, but the only determinant seems to be bias.<hr></blockquote>Quite possibly. Though even if I was raised in a Moslim country I find it unlikely that I would be one, since much of what I reject in the fundamentalist Christian theology seems to be even more prominant in Islam and much of what I like about Christianity is missing in Islam.

[quote]Did you see my earlier thread regarding the fact that the early Christians believed in a wand wielding Jesus?<hr></blockquote>No. I may have skipped over it unconsciously since Rodahi used to keep going on about Jesus as a magician and rather dulled my interest in discusing the matter.

[quote]What are your thoughts on that, seeing as you, and indeed all Christians, concede prodigious amounts of the benefit of the doubt towards the credibility of the early Christians in order to justify being Christians in the first place?<hr></blockquote>My thoughts are: 1. What exactly is your hypothesis and 2. What exactly do you intend use it to argue against? I'll have a look for the thread...

[Bible Humper]

Oh, thanks for responding Tercel!

I wasn't expecting an answer to my post, so I wasn't paying attention.

BC&A isn't a place I explore too often, since I didn't grow up Xian and so haven't studied the bible to the depth needed to follow much of what goes on here. ;)

I'll answer tomorrow, it's too late to go through it all and give a good answer. See ya.

[Frivolous]

I am still waiting for your response. Or maybe you do not have one.

[Tercel]

How can you be waiting for a response, never mind "still" waiting when you have not yet posted in this thread?

[Amos]

[quote]Originally posted by Tercel:
<strong>Amos is crazy. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well thanks!

Amos holds that the bible is all metaphor except where it tells the reader that it is not. One such place is in John 6:55 where Jesus tell us that "my body is real food and my blood is real drink."

Now be honest, do you think that the above is a metaphor and the bible is wrong here or what? Don't forget here that I hold that the bible is inerrant and can defend the above passage.

What I am really trying to tell you is that you've got everyhting backwards. You read literal where you should not and you read metaphor where it is indicated that you should take the words as fact.

[_Naturalist_]

Well it's impossible to believe the story about Noah to be a true account of something that did happen, for many many reasons. It's just a story.

[Doctor X]

My Children:

Fix your codes!

These posts make my eyeballs bleed!

Did Noah Exist?

No.

However the immortal Summerian paradigm who explains to Gilgamesh why he can never be immortal did/does. Rumor has it he currently resides in Compton. . . .

--J.D.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Doctor X
My Children:

Fix your codes!

These posts make my eyeballs bleed!
--J.D.

The bad codes are because this thread is a resurrected thread from before the transfer to (vBulletin?).

[Doctor X]

Some things should never be resurrected.

--J.D.

[Toto]

Indeed, some things should never be resurrected.

Our current policy is that all Flood threads are drop kicked over to Evo-Cre. Anyone with anything to say about the Flood may visit there. But I will not transfer this, I will just close it.