Originally posted by googlefudgeSo, if I'm reading you right, you don't have a response for any of the questions posited.
Yeah, I was thinking that. No magic in the bible... seriously???? 😕
That's the kind of thing that makes me want to quote Inigo Montoya
I don't think that word [magic] means what he thinks it means...
I'm still readjusting from thinking I was talking to someone who was living in
approximately the same universe I was and had a similar grasp ...[text shortened]... having long breaks, I forget who's who.
However if anyone else feels like giving it a shot...
You cannot name the science you claim to rely on which informs you of the origin of life.
Or, for that matter, any of the other challenges put forth.
Pity your bravado fails your reach.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCreating man out of thin air is not magic?
I can only assume that you didn't read the entire post.
A creature with the gift of vocalization is decidedly not within the group normally associated with fairy tales.
The creation of man (previously non-existent) has nothing to do with magic, nor does the man himself qualify as a magical creature, nor the woman.
You might be able to make a case for angels, but it's a stretch to put them in the same realm.
Creating a woman from a rib is not magic?
Talking animals are not associated with fairy-tales?
Angels?
If you define magic to not include biblical supernatural events then you
are correct - there is no magic in the bible by definition
If however you step outside your religion and look in you will find plenty
of magic in Genesis and perhaps understand why those not of your faith
would consider it akin to a fairy-tale.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo you are not reading me right.
So, if I'm reading you right, you don't have a response for any of the questions posited.
You cannot name the science you claim to rely on which informs you of the origin of life.
Or, for that matter, any of the other challenges put forth.
Pity your bravado fails your reach.
Although you are living up nicely to the stereotypical view I had of you by posting
exactly the post I was expecting you to post, 'misinterpreting me' in exactly the
way I thought you would.
What I have realised is that we lack the shared framework for my answers to mean
the same thing to you as they do to me.
I could answer these questions but we would first have to go back and build that
framework, so that I understood you and you understood me.
And that is more work than I am up for right now.
We don't even agree on fundamentals like what constitutes evidence or how science works.
Which makes simply answering your 'questions' very hard if not impossible.
Of course the fact that this conversation is exceedingly antagonistic makes it even harder,
while simultaneously making the idea of attempting to continue it less attractive.
If you want to claim that as a victory, go ahead, I really couldn't give a damn.
But even you should be able to see that we have some pretty fundamental disagreements here
that kinda get in the way of answering the questions you ask.
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'm giving you low-hanging fruit right here, and you're not willing to take it off, toss it in the air and pummel it into the cheap seats?
No you are not reading me right.
Although you are living up nicely to the stereotypical view I had of you by posting
exactly the post I was expecting you to post, 'misinterpreting me' in exactly the
way I thought you would.
What I have realised is that we lack the shared framework for my answers to mean
the same thing to you as they do to me. ...[text shortened]... y fundamental disagreements here
that kinda get in the way of answering the questions you ask.
Seriously?
Let's narrow it down to one issue and one issue only.
You claim to rely on what some scientist or group of scientists have told you is the true account of how life came to be.
I ask you one question: what is that science?
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59I've posited previously how there are 'seemingly' magical elements to the story, but there is a decisive difference between magical elements and an actual fairy tale.
Creating man out of thin air is not magic?
Creating a woman from a rib is not magic?
Talking animals are not associated with fairy-tales?
Angels?
If you define magic to not include biblical supernatural events then you
are correct - there is no magic in the bible by definition
If however you step outside your religion and look in you wi ...[text shortened]... sis and perhaps understand why those not of your faith
would consider it akin to a fairy-tale.
Googlefudge likened the story with a specific genre, which it clearly is not. If you're not familiar with the elements of a fairy tale, feel free to look it up yourself and clear up the confusion.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTell me where I just claimed anything even remotely like what you
I'm giving you low-hanging fruit right here, and you're not willing to take it off, toss it in the air and pummel it into the cheap seats?
Seriously?
Let's narrow it down to one issue and one issue only.
You claim to rely on what some scientist or group of scientists have told you is the true account of how life came to be.
I ask you one question: what is that science?
just attributed to me and I'll answer it.
(hint. I haven't made such a claim, and wouldn't make such a claim.
And the fact that you think I have demonstrates the size of the gulf
in understanding between us.)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOh good grief.
I've posited previously how there are 'seemingly' magical elements to the story, but there is a decisive difference between magical elements and an actual fairy tale.
Googlefudge likened the story with a specific genre, which it clearly is not. If you're not familiar with the elements of a fairy tale, feel free to look it up yourself and clear up the confusion.
I was using the phrase colloquially.
My point was not that the bible is a member of the particular literary set of fairy tales
(although it might qualify, I don't have a precise definition of what does or does not
constitute a fairy tale to test it with... and don't care right now anyhow)
My point was that it's a work of fiction, featuring fantastical and magical creatures.
(a piece of bad fiction in my view from an aesthetic standpoint)
And arguing over the precise meaning of fairy tale misses the point entirely.
I wasn't being that precise.
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI would say that the Biblical texts are largely mythological/symbolical (as well as poetic; even when the mythological/poetic/etc. form might incorporate some factual references), that they are intended as such and ought to be read as such, that myth and poetry and allegory and such are valid literary forms for expressing all sorts of aspects and understandings of the human existential condition, and that to take them literally/historically/factually is as wrongheaded as to criticize them for not being literal/historical/factual.
Oh good grief.
I was using the phrase colloquially.
My point was not that the bible is a member of the particular literary set of fairy tales
(although it might qualify, I don't have a precise definition of what does or does not
constitute a fairy tale to test it with... and don't care right now anyhow)
My point was that it's a work of ficti ...[text shortened]... over the precise meaning of fairy tale misses the point entirely.
I wasn't being that precise.
One of my favorite examples (from one of my favorite poets, Dylan Thomas):
“The force that through the green fuse drives the flower drives my green age . . .”
Imagine two “Thomas literalists” arguing: one who thinks that Thomas’ metaphors are literally true; the other who thinks that Thomas was daft enough to believe that his metaphors were literally true, and so is worthy of just contempt.
__________________________________________________
NOTE: In the face of some more technical understandings of “myth”, I would just say that we’re talking about story and poetry.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by vistesdHmmm...
I would say that the Biblical texts are largely mythological/symbolical (as well as poetic; even when the mythological/poetic/etc. form might incorporate some factual references), that they are intended as such and ought to be read as such, that myth and poetry and allegory and such are valid literary forms for expressing all sorts of aspects and understandi ...[text shortened]... cal understandings of “myth”, I would just say that we’re talking about story and poetry.
I am not sure I AM "criticize[ing] them [the bible] for not being literal/historical/factual."
I would tend to hold that if there really was a being of the kind of power and intellect
ascribed to the bible god who created the entire universe and actually cared about us
then any book written by, or inspired by, that being would not be so inconsistent, self
contradictory, and would be so accurate, predictive, useful, ect that it would be
near universally acknowledged as true by anyone and everyone that read it.
The bible isn't any of those things, and I generally regard it as a recruiting tool FOR
atheism, given the number of stories of people who stopped being Christians because
they actually sat down and read the bible closely.
In particular it is the repulsive 'morality' in the bible that really clinches it.
However that isn't the fault of the bible itself, or of the people writing it.
They were not inspired by god, they were just people, and they didn't have the benefit
of several thousand years of technological and moral progress that we have today.
As a history it suffers from being a combination of propaganda piece and a collection of
mythological stories and poetry/symbolism which makes it an unreliable source for what
was actually going on at the time. But is nevertheless interesting for showing what a certain
subset of people were thinking back then.
My main complaint I direct actually at the bible and it's writers is that to me it's BAD poetry
and lousy stories. Aesthetically it doesn't do it for me at all.
No, my problem is with present day people who think that the bible has something useful
or interesting to say on the subject of present day morality. (and of course anyone who thinks
it was actually written or inspired by an actual god and/or do take it literally)
Apart from the fact that much of the bibles 'morality' is truly repulsive, morality cannot
stem from a god even if they did exist.
This was nailed with the Euthyphro dilemma.
To believe that what is good and right is good and right because a god commands that it be so
is to allow for ANYTHING to be considered good based on the whims of that god.
As there are (many) things I cannot and will not accept as ever being moral: I cannot accept
that what is good can be dictated by a god. (and it should be noted that when it's possible,
and it is, to objectively demonstrate that some actions in a given situation are provably worse
than other actions from a moral standpoint. You are faced with the situation that to accept god
as the source of morality you have to allow that god to decree moral acts that can be proven
to be bad.)
The upshot of this is that the bible is useless as a moral guide.
Now that's not to say that everything in the bible is bad, it isn't.
But rather than wasting time on debating which bits of the bible come up to scratch or not I
think it is vastly more productive to throw the whole thing away and simply discuss morality
without reference to a collection of out of context stories written by other people long ago.
I like the example of the modern day arguments in the USA about carrying/owning guns, and gun
control laws.
Every debate on the topic gets bogged down in interpreting the words of people who lived in
a different age, and who are now long dead.
What they 'intended' back then is largely irrelevant now because the world we live in and the
guns we have are so different. And beyond their imaginings 200 years ago.
10 guys with automatic rifles could almost wipe out an entire army from the period.
What these old dead men wanted is not relevant to what is the best solution for the present day.
And similarly, what people 2000+ years ago thought about morality is not relevant to determining
what is or is not right and good in this day and age with our modern knowledge and technology.
We have questions today that would never, and indeed could never have occurred to the men who
wrote the bible.
I complain that the bible isn't literal/historical/factual to people who are attempting to use it as such.
Not because I expect it to be those things, but because it isn't and was never supposed to be those things.
And it's not that I don't think that I don't think that myth and poetry and allegory are valid literary forms for
understanding and expressing elements of the human condition...
It's that I think the bible does it really badly.
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeTell me where I just claimed anything even remotely like what you
Tell me where I just claimed anything even remotely like what you
just attributed to me and I'll answer it.
(hint. I haven't made such a claim, and wouldn't make such a claim.
And the fact that you think I have demonstrates the size of the gulf
in understanding between us.)
just attributed to me and I'll answer it.
How's this:
However If you consider the bible story of creation as evidence then we are not going to agree as I accept science and you are accepting nonsense.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Nov 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYeah...
Tell me where I just claimed anything even remotely like what you
just attributed to me and I'll answer it.
How's this:
However If you consider the bible story of creation as evidence then we are not going to agree as I accept science and you are accepting nonsense.
And how does that get morphed into me allegedly claiming I have
"The true account of how life came to be"?
Originally posted by googlefudgeThis is filled with so much gibberish and bone-headed thinking, it doesn't warrant a response to the myriad points (and that's being generous) it pretends to raise. So let's just focus on one of the errors.
Hmmm...
I am not sure I AM "criticize[ing] them [the bible] for not being literal/historical/factual."
I would tend to hold that if there really was a being of the kind of power and intellect
ascribed to the bible god who created the entire universe and actually cared about us
then any book written by, or inspired by, that being would no ...[text shortened]... pressing elements of the human condition...
It's that I think the bible does it really badly.
The rant regarding the alleged uselessness of ancient boundaries reveals the reach of your ignorance relative to a healthy respect for both history and authority. To claim that the Bill of Rights of 1791--- and specifically, the Second Amendment--- is today irrelevant by virtue of 223 years of separation is the nadir of understanding history or authority.
At what point did it become irrelevant, exactly? According to your standards, as soon as the writers were dead. So, in 1792 (when George Mason died), the bill was half-way irrelevant and then 44 years later, commencing with the death of James Madison in 1836, the good people of the then-60 year old republic ought to have simply thrown that useless piece of paper away and scratched out any and all laws and/or court room decisions based upon their influence.
Why?
Because the bill's authors were dead, of course!
Somehow, the folks back then didn't see it thusly.
For whatever reason, they recognized principles in play that elude you.
Principles related to both history and authority.
Proverbs 22:28 wasn't written as a simple melodic device: its wisdom is timeless and ought to be heeded.
Your call, either way.
Originally posted by googlefudgeLet's give it a look.
Yeah...
And how does that get morphed into me allegedly claiming I have
"The true account of how life came to be"?
1. You rightfully state how I view the Genesis narrative as the account for the origin of life.
2. In rejection of that account (you see where you call it "nonsense" there in your statement?), you claim to rely on science for your perspective.
Ergo, either you don't really rely on science for your understanding of how life came to be, or you've been caught in another contradiction.