Catch 22 of the Bible

[Syne]

Christian morality is the result of fixed rules. So there is a difference between it and atheist morality.

But you said:

Who says that there must be uniform agreement on any literary work?

If there is no uniform agreement on a literary work, then there can be no objective or fixed rules.

False dilemma, as there can always be some agreement even if there is no universal agreement. Christian morality does not differ significantly among various Christians, although doctrine and priorities often do. And right before that quote, I said:

Can people twist it to justify anything they want? Yes, but people can do that with anything.​

This is true of the law, and especially true of atheists "making their own choices based on intuition, empathy, and experience".

Some people interpret Jesus' teachings as kind and cooperative. Others use the same book to justify the belief in hell and demons.

How are these at odds?

Enlightenment doesn't mean you are a god. This atheist also agrees that some of the sayings attributed to Jesus are the mark of an enlightened person.

That depends on what you think the aim of enlightenment is.

 

[spidergoat]

The odds of all three being forgeries is low.

But none are contemporary. They could have very well only reported what Christians were saying at the time about Jesus. I generally accept that Jesus was a real person crucified by the Romans, but that still doesn't prove anything about his alleged supernatural nature. I too could write a book including contemporary references and it can still be a work of fiction.

 

[spidergoat]

False dilemma, as there can always be some agreement even if there is no universal agreement. Christian morality does not differ significantly among various Christians, although doctrine and priorities often do.

There are basic differences between the Old and New testaments which are not trivial. The Old Testament tells you to kill your own children under certain circumstances, the new one says let he who is without sin to cast the first stone.

 

[billvon]

But we know and anticipate that the Constitution is open to interpretation.

As is the Bible. Hence the intensive study that some people put into that interpretation.

But Christians often boast that Christianity is superior because it's an objective and fixed guide to morality.

And Americans boast that the Constitution is superior because it's so stable and it grants so many rights. Are they wrong? It's not a question of wrong or right; it's a question of what their opinion on the topic is.

But none are contemporary.

?? So? There are no contemporary accounts of Augustus Caesar, Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great; they did in fact exist as well, even if those accounts were often exaggerated.

I generally accept that Jesus was a real person crucified by the Romans, but that still doesn't prove anything about his alleged supernatural nature. I too could write a book including contemporary references and it can still be a work of fiction.

Yes, you could. But if you wrote a book about Alexander the Great and called it fiction, Alexander the Great would not also suddenly become fictional.

There are basic differences between the Old and New testaments which are not trivial. The Old Testament tells you to kill your own children under certain circumstances, the new one says let he who is without sin to cast the first stone.

And the Constitution tells you that you have to return escaped slaves. That's not trivial either.

 

[spidergoat]

As is the Bible. Hence the intensive study that some people put into that interpretation.

Which seems to me to reveal the fact that the Bible was written by a collection of human beings with different opinions.

And Americans boast that the Constitution is superior because it's so stable and it grants so many rights. Are they wrong? It's not a question of wrong or right; it's a question of what their opinion on the topic is.

But we don't boast that the Constitution is superior because it is a perfect objective guide to human behavior. That's why I (and the OP) object to about the Bible.

?? So? There are no contemporary accounts of Augustus Caesar, Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great; they did in fact exist as well, even if those accounts were often exaggerated.

That simply isn't true.

Yes, you could. But if you wrote a book about Alexander the Great and called it fiction, Alexander the Great would not also suddenly become fictional.

The issue isn't if Jesus was real, but if Jesus was a god or something like that capable of subverting the laws of nature, able to come back from the dead, etc... Also that such things as parting the Red Sea were true. There is just no evidence that the Bible is true, and much evidence that it isn't. Parts of it are certainly true, that certain cities existed, the Red Sea exists, Jewish people existed. It's the supernatural parts that make it special.

And the Constitution tells you that you have to return escaped slaves. That's not trivial either.

No it doesn't, because later amendments forbid slavery. Unlike the Bible where Jesus said he didn't come to change the laws but to fulfill them.

 

[billvon]

Which seems to me to reveal the fact that the Bible was written by a collection of human beings with different opinions.

And translated by people with different views of what it is.

But we don't boast that the Constitution is superior because it is a perfect objective guide to human behavior.

Right. And most Christians don't boast the the Bible is superior because it is a perfect objective guide to human behavior. Indeed, one of the central tenets of Christianity is that people are imperfect and unpredictable, and that it's hard to be any kind of "perfect."

That simply isn't true.

What simply isn't true? That they existed? That accounts of their lives were often exaggerated? Or that there are no contemporary accounts?

The issue isn't if Jesus was real, but if Jesus was a god or something like that capable of subverting the laws of nature, able to come back from the dead, etc... Also that such things as parting the Red Sea were true. There is just no evidence that the Bible is true, and much evidence that it isn't. Parts of it are certainly true . . .

Exactly. Parts are certainly true, and many people gain a lot of insight and comfort from those parts. It does not need to be true in its entirety to have parts of it be valuable.

 

[spidergoat]

It isn't true that there are no contemporary accounts of those people. There were.

And Christians do boast exactly that the Bible is superior in that it's a perfect and objective guide to moral behavior.

If the Bible is even partially wrong, then it's entire origin as the word of god comes into doubt.

 

[billvon]

And Christians do boast exactly that the Bible is superior in that it's a perfect and objective guide to moral behavior.

Most don't.

Again, many American boast that the Constitution is superior and that it is a perfect guide to government, and the ultimate guarantor of our rights. Are they right?

If the Bible is even partially wrong, then it's entire origin as the word of god comes into doubt.

We have gone round and round on this. Your insistence on invalidating the whole based on an error in a part is fine if you apply such principles to the rest of your life. Most people do not, but you are certainly free to do so.

However, if you are OK with errors in the Principia, Constitution etc and feel those documents are still valid despite their errors, but feel that any such error in a religious text renders it invalid, you are operating under a double standard.

 

[Syne]

There are basic differences between the Old and New testaments which are not trivial. The Old Testament tells you to kill your own children under certain circumstances, the new one says let he who is without sin to cast the first stone.

I have already addressed that in this thread:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. -Matthew 7:12​

The difference is only one of going from children needing to be told to keep out of the street to them developing the maturity and common sense to understand why they should do so without anyone enforcing it.

 

[spidergoat]

Again, many American boast that the Constitution is superior and that it is a perfect guide to government, and the ultimate guarantor of our rights. Are they right?

No.

We have gone round and round on this. Your insistence on invalidating the whole based on an error in a part is fine if you apply such principles to the rest of your life. Most people do not, but you are certainly free to do so.

However, if you are OK with errors in the Principia, Constitution etc and feel those documents are still valid despite their errors, but feel that any such error in a religious text renders it invalid, you are operating under a double standard.

It's only because the standards ARE different. Your God is infallible. Otherwise, he's not worth worshiping. The book represents his word. If you don't think so, that's fine, but I can't address every variation of religious thought.

 

[Syne]

...God is infallible. Otherwise, he's not worth worshiping. The book represents his word.

No one can deny that it was men who penned the bible. It would be overly optimistic, to say the least, to assume that all these men were perfect conduits.

If you don't think so, that's fine, but I can't address every variation of religious thought.

That is a cop-out, as there are are really only three variations, at a maximum. Biblical inerrancy and infallibility (both of which often equated) and this:

There is only one instance in the Bible where the phrase "the Word of God" refers to something "written". The reference is to the Decalogue.... The idea of the word of God is more that God is encountered in scripture, than that every line of scripture is a statement made by God. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy#Meaning_of_the_.22Word_of_God.22​

So you cannot necessarily equate the fallibility of god with the fallibility of scripture, unless of course you are one of the people who claim they are equivalent. But you would have to belief in god for that to be the case. So your argument seems designed to address only the most easily criticized and studiously avoid everything else.

 

[Photizo]

I generally accept that Jesus was a real person crucified...

Duly noted.

 

[R1D2]

The bible was written in several languages.

The bible though is filled with clues or promises. And some answers, and hope. As Romans 15:4 says "Everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope."

We have many different Christian sects. Each looks at the bible. And each has a opinion and a point of view. But each Christian's can draw hope, answers, and promises from the words written. For instance you may find scripture that pertains to Jesus , God, heaven, depression, divorce, drugs, abuse, faith, love and so forth.

 

[billvon]

No.

Agreed! But that does not mean the Constitution is useless.

It's only because the standards ARE different. Your God is infallible. Otherwise, he's not worth worshiping.

OK. You can believe that if you so choose. I don't - but to each their own.

The book represents his word. If you don't think so, that's fine, but I can't address every variation of religious thought.

That's the beauty of it. You don't have to. You only have to decide for YOURSELF if you want to believe whatever religious maxims you choose.