The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#1  Postby CharlieM » Nov 26, 2013 6:23 pm


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
This topic has been split from here
.



ADParker wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
JimFit wrote:Because the Ecosystem is so perfect fine tuned

Fine-tuned for what? Humans? Certainly not as we can't live in most parts of the world.
What is it fine-tuned for?

Black holes.



IMO Richard Carrier is someone who is inclined to come to premature judgements. For instance he said that as a child he read the Bible but:
...with the other childish things I put away as I approached my teen years, the Good Book was among them.

When I get time I'll make some arguments about things he says in the video. You are welcome to rebut my arguments, or you can just let them stand, I don't mind either way. No doubt others will chip in if they feel inclined.
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#2  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 26, 2013 7:13 pm

CharlieM wrote:
IMO Richard Carrier is someone who is inclined to come to premature judgements. For instance he said that as a child he read the Bible but:
...with the other childish things I put away as I approached my teen years, the Good Book was among them.

I fail to see how this proves he makes premature judgements. One doesn't need to be an adult to realise the bible is anything more than a storybook and that's putting it mildly.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30590
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#3  Postby ADParker » Nov 26, 2013 9:21 pm

CharlieM wrote:IMO Richard Carrier is someone who is inclined to come to premature judgements. For instance he said that as a child he read the Bible but:
...with the other childish things I put away as I approached my teen years, the Good Book was among them.

So he claims to have read the bible, and stopped doing so as a teen. And your point? :dunno:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 48
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#4  Postby CharlieM » Nov 26, 2013 10:21 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
IMO Richard Carrier is someone who is inclined to come to premature judgements. For instance he said that as a child he read the Bible but:
...with the other childish things I put away as I approached my teen years, the Good Book was among them.

I fail to see how this proves he makes premature judgements.


Of course it doesn't prove it, but, to me its an indication of it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:One doesn't need to be an adult to realise the bible is anything more than a storybook and that's putting it mildly.


A body of work written over centuries, full of poetry and inspirational prose, recording the cultural heritage of the Jewish people, forever quoted from and containing sayings that most of us have used sometime or other, and telling stories of a moral nature, can hardly be described as not much more than a sorybook.

Here is what some atheists have said about it:

Mark Twain:
It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies


Christopher Hitchens:
Though I am sometimes reluctant to admit it, there really is something 'timeless' in the Tyndale/King James synthesis.. For generations, it provided a common stock of references and allusions, rivaled only by Shakespeare in this respect.. It resounded in the minds and memories of literate people, as well as of those who acquired it only by listening.


Richard Dawkins:
The King James Bible of 1611 - the Authorised Version - includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Songs, and the sublime Ecclesiastes (which I am told is pretty good in the original Hebrew too). But the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture.
He then goes on to make an extensive list of phrases from the Bible in common use.

Love it or hate it, its much more than a storybook.
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#5  Postby sennekuyl » Nov 26, 2013 11:09 pm

I agree. When you don't have an agenda, you can see both good and bad in various ... treasured ... scriptures.
Defining Australians:
When returning home from overseas, you expect to be brutally strip-searched by Customs – just in case you're trying to sneak in fruit.
sennekuyl
 
Posts: 2936
Age: 42
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#6  Postby tolman » Nov 27, 2013 2:38 am

CharlieM wrote:A body of work written over centuries, full of poetry and inspirational prose, recording the cultural heritage of the Jewish people, forever quoted from and containing sayings that most of us have used sometime or other, and telling stories of a moral nature, can hardly be described as not much more than a storybook.

Do you think story books can't be well-written?

Why should an individual who doesn't particularly care about the poetry of the various translations not just cast it aside?

While it might contain some cultural heritage, much of that is self-serving and of dubious historical value.
And not really related to my culture.
Why should I care any more about Jewish creation myths or Jewish land-ownership-myths than African or Indian or Japanese or Native American ones?

There are moral stories in the bible. There are immoral stories in it, many of which seem to be presented as if they were perfectly OK.

It seems essentially worthless as a moral guide, since even people who claim to follow it effectively pick and choose which bits of it to believe and emphasise based on their own pre-existing ideas, whether they admit to doing that or just lie and pretend that they don't.
Personally, I'd prefer that people didn't try and hide their own moral decisions behind one or more alleged gods, since that just seems to be an easy way to avoid really thinking.

As for language, various phrases people use came from Juvenal, but people quite clearly don't need to read Juvenal in order to use the phrases.
All phrases ultimately come from one or more humans - why should everyone have to care about the details of their origins?
I certainly have better things to do, and I'm sure many other people do as well.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#7  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 27, 2013 9:10 am

tolman wrote:
CharlieM wrote:A body of work written over centuries, full of poetry and inspirational prose, recording the cultural heritage of the Jewish people, forever quoted from and containing sayings that most of us have used sometime or other, and telling stories of a moral nature, can hardly be described as not much more than a storybook.

Do you think story books can't be well-written?

Why should an individual who doesn't particularly care about the poetry of the various translations not just cast it aside?

While it might contain some cultural heritage, much of that is self-serving and of dubious historical value.
And not really related to my culture.
Why should I care any more about Jewish creation myths or Jewish land-ownership-myths than African or Indian or Japanese or Native American ones?

There are moral stories in the bible. There are immoral stories in it, many of which seem to be presented as if they were perfectly OK.

It seems essentially worthless as a moral guide, since even people who claim to follow it effectively pick and choose which bits of it to believe and emphasise based on their own pre-existing ideas, whether they admit to doing that or just lie and pretend that they don't.
Personally, I'd prefer that people didn't try and hide their own moral decisions behind one or more alleged gods, since that just seems to be an easy way to avoid really thinking.

As for language, various phrases people use came from Juvenal, but people quite clearly don't need to read Juvenal in order to use the phrases.
All phrases ultimately come from one or more humans - why should everyone have to care about the details of their origins?
I certainly have better things to do, and I'm sure many other people do as well.

Was going to respond to this myself, but tolman beat me to it.
Let me just add that the moral lessons in the bible are by no means unique.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30590
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#8  Postby CharlieM » Nov 27, 2013 2:03 pm

tolman wrote:
CharlieM wrote:A body of work written over centuries, full of poetry and inspirational prose, recording the cultural heritage of the Jewish people, forever quoted from and containing sayings that most of us have used sometime or other, and telling stories of a moral nature, can hardly be described as not much more than a storybook.

Do you think story books can't be well-written?


Well written or not, which books of the Bible do you consider to be storybooks? Even if you consider all of them to be story books, 66(protestant) or 73(Catholic) are much more than a story book.

tolman wrote:Why should an individual who doesn't particularly care about the poetry of the various translations not just cast it aside?


There is no reason why. People should be free to read or ignore literature at their own discretion.

tolman wrote:While it might contain some cultural heritage, much of that is self-serving and of dubious historical value.
And not really related to my culture.
Why should I care any more about Jewish creation myths or Jewish land-ownership-myths than African or Indian or Japanese or Native American ones?


You shouldn't care if you don't feel like caring. But does your lack of interest make any of these subjects "childish"? When I was at school I was put right of Shakespeare. Even at that time I knew that my dislike was not so much due to Shakespeare, but due to my ability to understand his writings. If I wanted to blame anyone other than myself it would have to be my English teachers and not Shakespeare. I now appreciate the wisdom in Shakespeare's writings although there is much of it I still don't understand.

tolman wrote:There are moral stories in the bible. There are immoral stories in it, many of which seem to be presented as if they were perfectly OK.


And do you think that immoral stories are necessarily childish?

tolman wrote:It seems essentially worthless as a moral guide, since even people who claim to follow it effectively pick and choose which bits of it to believe and emphasise based on their own pre-existing ideas, whether they admit to doing that or just lie and pretend that they don't.
Personally, I'd prefer that people didn't try and hide their own moral decisions behind one or more alleged gods, since that just seems to be an easy way to avoid really thinking.


Well you're with Paul who said of those who didn't follow the Jewish faith, they "are a law unto themselves". In other words follow your conscience. We know when we are doing right or wrong.

tolman wrote:As for language, various phrases people use came from Juvenal, but people quite clearly don't need to read Juvenal in order to use the phrases.
All phrases ultimately come from one or more humans - why should everyone have to care about the details of their origins?
I certainly have better things to do, and I'm sure many other people do as well.


Again people who have no inerest in Juvenal would not tend to call his writings childish. I don't have anything against the lack of interest, its the judgement of the writings that I see as premature. Without interest there can be no understanding, and without understanding there can be no accurate judgement.
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#9  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 27, 2013 2:12 pm

CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:
CharlieM wrote:A body of work written over centuries, full of poetry and inspirational prose, recording the cultural heritage of the Jewish people, forever quoted from and containing sayings that most of us have used sometime or other, and telling stories of a moral nature, can hardly be described as not much more than a storybook.

Do you think story books can't be well-written?


Well written or not, which books of the Bible do you consider to be storybooks? Even if you consider all of them to be story books, 66(protestant) or 73(Catholic) are much more than a story book.

If semantics is all you've got to argue you've really got nothing to stand on.

CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:Why should an individual who doesn't particularly care about the poetry of the various translations not just cast it aside?


There is no reason why. People should be free to read or ignore literature at their own discretion.

Then you admit your criticism was unwarranted?

CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:While it might contain some cultural heritage, much of that is self-serving and of dubious historical value.
And not really related to my culture.
Why should I care any more about Jewish creation myths or Jewish land-ownership-myths than African or Indian or Japanese or Native American ones?


You shouldn't care if you don't feel like caring. But does your lack of interest make any of these subjects "childish"?

Stories about a god who kills children because their parents don't believe in him? Yes that's pretty childish behaviour.

CharlieM wrote:When I was at school I was put right of Shakespeare. Even at that time I knew that my dislike was not so much due to Shakespeare, but due to my ability to understand his writings.

Let me stop you right there.
We understand the stories in the bible just fine, Craig does to probably.
There are no clothes on the emperor.


CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:There are moral stories in the bible. There are immoral stories in it, many of which seem to be presented as if they were perfectly OK.


And do you think that immoral stories are necessarily childish?

Gods who throw temper tantrums because someone doesn't kowtow to them? Yes, that is rather childish.

CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:It seems essentially worthless as a moral guide, since even people who claim to follow it effectively pick and choose which bits of it to believe and emphasise based on their own pre-existing ideas, whether they admit to doing that or just lie and pretend that they don't.
Personally, I'd prefer that people didn't try and hide their own moral decisions behind one or more alleged gods, since that just seems to be an easy way to avoid really thinking.


Well you're with Paul who said of those who didn't follow the Jewish faith, they "are a law unto themselves". In other words follow your conscience. We know when we are doing right or wrong.

So you admit that the moral value of the bible is neither imperative nor unique?

CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:As for language, various phrases people use came from Juvenal, but people quite clearly don't need to read Juvenal in order to use the phrases.
All phrases ultimately come from one or more humans - why should everyone have to care about the details of their origins?
I certainly have better things to do, and I'm sure many other people do as well.


Again people who have no inerest in Juvenal would not tend to call his writings childish.

They would if they found certain actions therein to be childish.

CharlieM wrote:I don't have anything against the lack of interest, its the judgement of the writings that I see as premature. Without interest there can be no understanding, and without understanding there can be no accurate judgement.

Maybe you should endavor to ask Carrier why he finds the bible childish, before you prematurely draw conclusions...
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30590
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#10  Postby tolman » Nov 27, 2013 2:36 pm

CharlieM wrote:Well written or not, which books of the Bible do you consider to be storybooks? Even if you consider all of them to be story books, 66(protestant) or 73(Catholic) are much more than a story book.

Do you really consider it relevant that chapters of a book are referred to as 'books'?
Seems like pedantry to me.

CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:While it might contain some cultural heritage, much of that is self-serving and of dubious historical value.
And not really related to my culture.
Why should I care any more about Jewish creation myths or Jewish land-ownership-myths than African or Indian or Japanese or Native American ones?


You shouldn't care if you don't feel like caring. But does your lack of interest make any of these subjects "childish"?

No, my lack of interest doesn't 'make' any subject anything.
If I considered something good or bad or fascinating or boring or adult or childish, my attention would depend on those assessments, not the other way around.

Similarly, I assume that someone who had been made to read the bible as a child and who decided not to bother reading it any more as an adult likely wouldn't be declaring the book childish because of their lack of interest, but would have a lack of interest because they saw little content in the book relevant to their life as an adult.

CharlieM wrote:When I was at school I was put right off Shakespeare. Even at that time I knew that my dislike was not so much due to Shakespeare, but due to my ability to understand his writings. If I wanted to blame anyone other than myself it would have to be my English teachers and not Shakespeare. I now appreciate the wisdom in Shakespeare's writings although there is much of it I still don't understand.

Possibly if people were faced with teachers and/or parents demanding that they believed the stories Shakespeare wrote were all definitively correct, more people would grow up seeing Shakespeare as some childish thing to be put to one side.

CharlieM wrote:And do you think that immoral stories are necessarily childish?

No. I think that a book which has immoral actions passing as moral doesn't qualify to be a moral guide in the way many believers would claim it did.
If people are able to look at the tales and work out the good from bad for themselves and remember the tales as illustrations of good and bad morality, then it is no more a guide to morality than a newspaper full of stories of good and bad behaviour is.

CharlieM wrote:Again people who have no interest in Juvenal would not tend to call his writings childish.

As above, if people had something forced upon them while children with a demand they saw it as Perfect Truth, then once they come to see the flaws in it as they grow up, they are likely to see it (and the people who promoted it) as more being childish than they might have appeared with a different presentation. That's one of the downsides of attempted indoctrination.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#11  Postby CharlieM » Nov 27, 2013 3:33 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:
CharlieM wrote:A body of work written over centuries, full of poetry and inspirational prose, recording the cultural heritage of the Jewish people, forever quoted from and containing sayings that most of us have used sometime or other, and telling stories of a moral nature, can hardly be described as not much more than a storybook.

Do you think story books can't be well-written?


Well written or not, which books of the Bible do you consider to be storybooks? Even if you consider all of them to be story books, 66(protestant) or 73(Catholic) are much more than a story book.

If semantics is all you've got to argue you've really got nothing to stand on.


I've got much more than that.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:Why should an individual who doesn't particularly care about the poetry of the various translations not just cast it aside?


There is no reason why. People should be free to read or ignore literature at their own discretion.

Then you admit your criticism was unwarranted?


No. You obviously haven't read further into my post. Of if you have you haven't taken in what I said.


Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:While it might contain some cultural heritage, much of that is self-serving and of dubious historical value.
And not really related to my culture.
Why should I care any more about Jewish creation myths or Jewish land-ownership-myths than African or Indian or Japanese or Native American ones?


You shouldn't care if you don't feel like caring. But does your lack of interest make any of these subjects "childish"?

Stories about a god who kills children because their parents don't believe in him? Yes that's pretty childish behaviour.


You think killing is childish behaviour? You must have a very low opinion of children. I would say that adults are far more likely to engage in killing than children.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:When I was at school I was put right of Shakespeare. Even at that time I knew that my dislike was not so much due to Shakespeare, but due to my ability to understand his writings.

Let me stop you right there.
We understand the stories in the bible just fine, Craig does to probably.
There are no clothes on the emperor.


I don't see any evidence that you understand the stories. And who is Craig?


Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:There are moral stories in the bible. There are immoral stories in it, many of which seem to be presented as if they were perfectly OK.


And do you think that immoral stories are necessarily childish?

Gods who throw temper tantrums because someone doesn't kowtow to them? Yes, that is rather childish.


So its not the Bible that's childish but God. You are accusing a being that you don't believe in to be childish.


Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:It seems essentially worthless as a moral guide, since even people who claim to follow it effectively pick and choose which bits of it to believe and emphasise based on their own pre-existing ideas, whether they admit to doing that or just lie and pretend that they don't.
Personally, I'd prefer that people didn't try and hide their own moral decisions behind one or more alleged gods, since that just seems to be an easy way to avoid really thinking.


Well you're with Paul who said of those who didn't follow the Jewish faith, they "are a law unto themselves". In other words follow your conscience. We know when we are doing right or wrong.

So you admit that the moral value of the bible is neither imperative nor unique?


Where or when did I say it was?


Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:As for language, various phrases people use came from Juvenal, but people quite clearly don't need to read Juvenal in order to use the phrases.
All phrases ultimately come from one or more humans - why should everyone have to care about the details of their origins?
I certainly have better things to do, and I'm sure many other people do as well.


Again people who have no inerest in Juvenal would not tend to call his writings childish.

They would if they found certain actions therein to be childish.


Then they would have moved from a position of disinterest to one of interest.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:I don't have anything against the lack of interest, its the judgement of the writings that I see as premature. Without interest there can be no understanding, and without understanding there can be no accurate judgement.

Maybe you should endavor to ask Carrier why he finds the bible childish, before you prematurely draw conclusions...


Well from the video he shows that he misrepresents the Bible. He says that if the cosmos was arranged according to the Bible and Paul's understanding of it then it would be 6000 to 10 000 years old. Where in any of Paul's writings or in the Bible does it say this? (I'll get back to his video later)
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#12  Postby tolman » Nov 27, 2013 8:01 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Gods who throw temper tantrums because someone doesn't kowtow to them? Yes, that is rather childish.

So its not the Bible that's childish but God. You are accusing a being that you don't believe in to be childish.

He's presumably allowed to give his opinion* about the personalities of other fictional characters.
Why not this one?

(*Which is, of course, effectively an opinion about the nature of the character and the story, if the story takes the character seriously.)
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#13  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 27, 2013 9:28 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:
Do you think story books can't be well-written?


Well written or not, which books of the Bible do you consider to be storybooks? Even if you consider all of them to be story books, 66(protestant) or 73(Catholic) are much more than a story book.

If semantics is all you've got to argue you've really got nothing to stand on.


I've got much more than that.

Then why argue semantics?

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:Why should an individual who doesn't particularly care about the poetry of the various translations not just cast it aside?


There is no reason why. People should be free to read or ignore literature at their own discretion.

Then you admit your criticism was unwarranted?


No. You obviously haven't read further into my post. Of if you have you haven't taken in what I said.

You just said that people can read or ignore literature at their own discretion?
Why can't they label it at their own discretion?


CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:While it might contain some cultural heritage, much of that is self-serving and of dubious historical value.
And not really related to my culture.
Why should I care any more about Jewish creation myths or Jewish land-ownership-myths than African or Indian or Japanese or Native American ones?


You shouldn't care if you don't feel like caring. But does your lack of interest make any of these subjects "childish"?

Stories about a god who kills children because their parents don't believe in him? Yes that's pretty childish behaviour.


You think killing is childish behaviour?

No, as I explained later, the act of throwing a temper tantrum.
Children might not kill other humans but they do throw their toys around or kick and punch when they don't get what they want.
Pretty much what your god does according to the bible.
CharlieM wrote: You must have a very low opinion of children. I would say that adults are far more likely to engage in killing than children.

Silly straw-man is silly.

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:When I was at school I was put right of Shakespeare. Even at that time I knew that my dislike was not so much due to Shakespeare, but due to my ability to understand his writings.

Let me stop you right there.
We understand the stories in the bible just fine, Craig does to probably.
There are no clothes on the emperor.


I don't see any evidence that you understand the stories.

I don't see any evidence you do.
Seriously what is this? Highschool arguing?
You're the one insinuating without any basis that we don't understand the bible.
CharlieM wrote:And who is Craig?

I meant Carrier I mixed him up with WLC who is the topic of another thread.


CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:There are moral stories in the bible. There are immoral stories in it, many of which seem to be presented as if they were perfectly OK.


And do you think that immoral stories are necessarily childish?

Gods who throw temper tantrums because someone doesn't kowtow to them? Yes, that is rather childish.


So its not the Bible that's childish but God.

No, the characters portrayed in the bible are, especially God who's supposed to be the examplar of virtue and moral values.
CharlieM wrote:You are accusing a being that you don't believe in to be childish.

You continue to either misunderstand what I'm saying or deliberately twisting my words into straw-man.
Does my characterisation of Harry Potter as brat mean I believe he's real? :nono:


CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:It seems essentially worthless as a moral guide, since even people who claim to follow it effectively pick and choose which bits of it to believe and emphasise based on their own pre-existing ideas, whether they admit to doing that or just lie and pretend that they don't.
Personally, I'd prefer that people didn't try and hide their own moral decisions behind one or more alleged gods, since that just seems to be an easy way to avoid really thinking.


Well you're with Paul who said of those who didn't follow the Jewish faith, they "are a law unto themselves". In other words follow your conscience. We know when we are doing right or wrong.

So you admit that the moral value of the bible is neither imperative nor unique?


Where or when did I say it was?

You just said that we know when we are doing right or wrong without having to follow a religion.
In other words we don't need the moral lessons of the bible.


CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:As for language, various phrases people use came from Juvenal, but people quite clearly don't need to read Juvenal in order to use the phrases.
All phrases ultimately come from one or more humans - why should everyone have to care about the details of their origins?
I certainly have better things to do, and I'm sure many other people do as well.


Again people who have no inerest in Juvenal would not tend to call his writings childish.

They would if they found certain actions therein to be childish.


Then they would have moved from a position of disinterest to one of interest.

Nonsense. I lose interest in stories which are chidlish, I don't become interested.

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:I don't have anything against the lack of interest, its the judgement of the writings that I see as premature. Without interest there can be no understanding, and without understanding there can be no accurate judgement.

Maybe you should endavor to ask Carrier why he finds the bible childish, before you prematurely draw conclusions...


Well from the video he shows that he misrepresents the Bible. He says that if the cosmos was arranged according to the Bible and Paul's understanding of it then it would be 6000 to 10 000 years old. Where in any of Paul's writings or in the Bible does it say this? (I'll get back to his video later)

So you don't know what parts of Paul's supposed preadhings he's basing his estimates on, but you still claim he's misrepresenting him? Still sounds premature.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30590
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#14  Postby CharlieM » Nov 28, 2013 12:19 pm

tolman wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Gods who throw temper tantrums because someone doesn't kowtow to them? Yes, that is rather childish.

So its not the Bible that's childish but God. You are accusing a being that you don't believe in to be childish.

He's presumably allowed to give his opinion* about the personalities of other fictional characters.
Why not this one?

(*Which is, of course, effectively an opinion about the nature of the character and the story, if the story takes the character seriously.)


Yes, you have a point, of course he is allowed to give his opinion. But from his opinion, my opinion is that his idea of the Being in question, is of an old grey-bearded man sitting in the clouds causing death and destruction. That is a child's eye view of the God of the Old Testament, which, unfortunately, many adults still hold.

Read Ezeikel. He tells of his visions in which this Being appears. And who is this Being? It is the same Being who in the Bhagavad Gita says: " I AM the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings." This Being is the Ego, the true Self. Ezeikels visions were pictures of the Ego coming to birth in humans, self-consciousness, the "I AM" which brings with it all the death and destruction featured in the Book of Ezeikel. This is true evolution in action. And Christ is perfect Ego, the pinnacle that we should all be aiming for. But as Matthew has him saying: "Think not that I AM come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword". If we are to have true Self-consciousness, then we must be given the freedom to achieve this out of our own being even though this freedom brings with it the mayhem we have witnessed throughout history.

And if you think that Ezeikel's visions were just dreams and so less real than normal life, there are others who have had a hint of this state, which is more an expansion of consciousness rather than a diminishing of it.

During all this, in cultivating the mental life that Taoism taught, I had powerful mystical visions, which only confirmed further that I was on the right track. These ranged from the the simple to the fantastic. The simplest and most common was that clarity of an almost drug-like wonder, perceiving everything striking the senses as one unified whole. It is hard to describe this. Normally, your attention is focused, on something you are looking at or listening to, or in a semi-dream-state of reverie, but with a medatative sense of attention this focus and dreaminess vanishes and you are immersed in a total, holistic sense of the real. It is both magnificent and calming. It humbles you, and brings you to the realization of how beautiful simply living is, and how trivial all your worries and difficulties are. Profound insights about the world would strike me whenever in such a state, leading far more readily and powerfully to an understanding of myself and the world than studying or reasoning ever did.

The most fantastic experience I had was like that times ten. It happened at sea, well past midnight on the flight deck of a cutter, in international waters two hundred miles from the nearest land. Sleep deprivation affected my consciousness like a New Age shaman. I had not slept in over 36 hours, thanks to a common misfurtune of overlapping duty schedules and emergency rescue operations. For hours we had been practicing helicopter landing and refuelling drills and at long last the chopper was away and everything was calm. The ship was rocking slowly in a gentle, black sea, and I was alone beneath the
starriest of skies that most people have never seen. I fell so deeply into the clear, total immersion in the real that I left my body, and my soul expanded to the size of the universe, so that I could at one thought perceive, almost 'feel', everything that existed in perfect and total clarity. It was like a Vulcan Mind Meld with God.

Naturally, words cannot do justice to something like this. It cannot really be described, only experienced, or hinted at. What did I see? A beautiful, vast, harmonious and wonderful universe all at peace with the Tao. There was plenty of life scattered like tiny seeds everywhere, but no supernatural beings, no gods or demons or souls floating about, no heaven or hell. Just a perfect, complete universe, with no need for anything more. The experience was absolutely real to me. There was nothing about it that would suggest it was a dream or a mere flight of imagination. And it was magnificent.

But I had never stopped my private readings in the sciences, and it did not take long for me to realize that everything I had experienced through Taoism had a natural explanation.


He must have been expecting to see an old grey-bearded man in his vision and was disappointed when he didn't show up.
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#15  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 28, 2013 12:50 pm

CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Gods who throw temper tantrums because someone doesn't kowtow to them? Yes, that is rather childish.

So its not the Bible that's childish but God. You are accusing a being that you don't believe in to be childish.

He's presumably allowed to give his opinion* about the personalities of other fictional characters.
Why not this one?

(*Which is, of course, effectively an opinion about the nature of the character and the story, if the story takes the character seriously.)


Yes, you have a point, of course he is allowed to give his opinion. But from his opinion, my opinion is that his idea of the Being in question, is of an old grey-bearded man sitting in the clouds causing death and destruction.

That's an opinion completely without basis. It's also wrong.
I merely described some of his actions as described in the bible. I made no claims to his appearance or location.
So I ask you to stop straw-manning me.

CharlieM wrote:That is a child's eye view of the God of the Old Testament, which, unfortunately, many adults still hold.

It's also a complete fabrication on your part.


CharlieM wrote:Read Ezeikel. He tells of his visions in which this Being appears. And who is this Being? It is the same Being who in the Bhagavad Gita says: " I AM the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings."

Utter nonsense.
God is called Jaweh of Jehovah, never one of the Hindu names. Not to mention that Kirshna is completely different from the Abrahamic god and proscribes different rules.
This silly attempt at equivocating religions won't fly here, where most people are well aware of the differences.


CharlieM wrote: This Being is the Ego, the true Self. Ezeikels visions were pictures of the Ego coming to birth in humans, self-consciousness, the "I AM" which brings with it all the death and destruction featured in the Book of Ezeikel. This is true evolution in action.

No, it's pure preachy gibberish.
What is the Ego?

CharlieM wrote: And Christ is perfect Ego,

What is perfect ego?
CharlieM wrote:the pinnacle that we should all be aiming for. But as Matthew has him saying: "Think not that I AM come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword".

Indeed, not peace but violence.
Such a lovely moral lesson.

CharlieM wrote:If we are to have true Self-consciousness,

Again, what is true Self-conciousness?
Chopra-speek might work on believers, it won't fool anyone here.
CharlieM wrote:then we must be given the freedom to achieve this out of our own being even though this freedom brings with it the mayhem we have witnessed throughout history.

This is a non-sequitur.
Why is violence a necesarry part of existence? Your gibberish above does not adress it, it's pure handwaving with Chopra-style words and non-sequiturs.

CharlieM wrote:And if you think that Ezeikel's visions were just dreams and so less real than normal life, there are others who have had a hint of this state, which is more an expansion of consciousness rather than a diminishing of it.

Appeals to personal anecdotes are still fallacious arguments no matter what the anecdote is or who had the experience.

CharlieM wrote:
<snip> more disengenuous conflation of religions <snip>

I fail to see what this silly equivocation and preaching has to with the subject matter we've been discussing.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30590
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#16  Postby CharlieM » Nov 28, 2013 1:50 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
So its not the Bible that's childish but God. You are accusing a being that you don't believe in to be childish.

He's presumably allowed to give his opinion* about the personalities of other fictional characters.
Why not this one?

(*Which is, of course, effectively an opinion about the nature of the character and the story, if the story takes the character seriously.)


Yes, you have a point, of course he is allowed to give his opinion. But from his opinion, my opinion is that his idea of the Being in question, is of an old grey-bearded man sitting in the clouds causing death and destruction.

That's an opinion completely without basis. It's also wrong.
I merely described some of his actions as described in the bible. I made no claims to his appearance or location.
So I ask you to stop straw-manning me.


I am merely stating my opinion of the impression you give me.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:That is a child's eye view of the God of the Old Testament, which, unfortunately, many adults still hold.

It's also a complete fabrication on your part.


Maybe you could give us an idea of your impression of the God worshipped by Christians so that I can see how you imagine Him to be.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Read Ezeikel. He tells of his visions in which this Being appears. And who is this Being? It is the same Being who in the Bhagavad Gita says: " I AM the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings."

Utter nonsense.
God is called Jaweh of Jehovah, never one of the Hindu names. Not to mention that Kirshna is completely different from the Abrahamic god and proscribes different rules.
This silly attempt at equivocating religions won't fly here, where most people are well aware of the differences.


You do know that these ancient texts were written by human beings and not Jehovah or Krishna personally? The accounts and descriptions given in these texts are taken from a personal point of view. I'm sure you've heard of the blind men and the elephant, but if you haven't, google it.

You Know that the Tetragrammaton is the unutterable name of God. Why is it unutterable? Because it is the "I AM". And "I" is a designation that can only be spoken by one individual in relation to themselves and to no other. And if YHWH is supposed to be the Being who made all that we see, why does it say in Genesis, "Let us make man in our image"?


Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote: This Being is the Ego, the true Self. Ezeikels visions were pictures of the Ego coming to birth in humans, self-consciousness, the "I AM" which brings with it all the death and destruction featured in the Book of Ezeikel. This is true evolution in action.

No, it's pure preachy gibberish.
What is the Ego?


Your ego is what was, what is and what is to come in you. It is your sense of self that persists from when you first remember as a child until the end of your life. Beginning, middle and end.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote: And Christ is perfect Ego,

What is perfect ego?
CharlieM wrote:the pinnacle that we should all be aiming for. But as Matthew has him saying: "Think not that I AM come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword".

Indeed, not peace but violence.
Such a lovely moral lesson.


As Jesus said there will always be wars, its the way of the world. That does not mean we should condone them.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:If we are to have true Self-consciousness,

Again, what is true Self-conciousness?
Chopra-speek might work on believers, it won't fool anyone here.


Which believers would that be?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:then we must be given the freedom to achieve this out of our own being even though this freedom brings with it the mayhem we have witnessed throughout history.

This is a non-sequitur.
Why is violence a necesarry part of existence? Your gibberish above does not adress it, it's pure handwaving with Chopra-style words and non-sequiturs.


It comes with giving people free reign to do what they want. Violence is the cost of freedom.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:And if you think that Ezeikel's visions were just dreams and so less real than normal life, there are others who have had a hint of this state, which is more an expansion of consciousness rather than a diminishing of it.

Appeals to personal anecdotes are still fallacious arguments no matter what the anecdote is or who had the experience.


Do you not think that Carrier's experiences were real? Was it self-deception, lying or what?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
<snip> more disengenuous conflation of religions <snip>

I fail to see what this silly equivocation and preaching has to with the subject matter we've been discussing.


No preaching, just giving my opinion like everyone else.
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#17  Postby tolman » Nov 28, 2013 1:53 pm

CharlieM wrote:Yes, you have a point, of course he is allowed to give his opinion. But from his opinion, my opinion is that his idea of the Being in question, is of an old grey-bearded man sitting in the clouds causing death and destruction. That is a child's eye view of the God of the Old Testament, which, unfortunately, many adults still hold.

Which again would seem to be the fault of people trying to indoctrinate children.
If indoctrination with simplistic tales doesn't take, it can be tricky to try and later say 'that was all a load of bollocks, what it's really like is this'.

Or, indeed, the fault of the various manufacturers of Christianity building on humans created on god's image by specifically adding a human-god to the story.
Or talk of Jesus sitting on the right hand side of God in heaven, humanoid angels, etc.

CharlieM wrote:Read Ezeikel. He tells of his visions in which this Being appears. And who is this Being? It is the same Being who in the Bhagavad Gita says: " I AM the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings." This Being is the Ego, the true Self. Ezeikels visions were pictures of the Ego coming to birth in humans, self-consciousness, the "I AM" which brings with it all the death and destruction featured in the Book of Ezeikel. This is true evolution in action. And Christ is perfect Ego, the pinnacle that we should all be aiming for. But as Matthew has him saying: "Think not that I AM come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword". If we are to have true Self-consciousness, then we must be given the freedom to achieve this out of our own being even though this freedom brings with it the mayhem we have witnessed throughout history.

And if you think that Ezeikel's visions were just dreams and so less real than normal life, there are...


I'm reminded of Huxley's Grey Eminence on mysticism.
Mystical states do seem fairly similar between different brands of religion/spirituality, even if something that few people genuinely have if unprompted by biological or pharmacological disturbance.

Personally, I think I would find the baggage of a religion like Christianity more likely to be a hindrance than a help if I was in pursuit of that kind of enlightenment, but then Huxley reckoned that was the case for many Christians - having far too much stuff to think about could seriously get in the way, and one might argue that memorable writing such as in the KJV may not exactly be a help there.

Interesting you mention Taoism - to the limited extent I know much about it (there was an excellent set of comic books on Chinese history and spirituality around in the 90s which had quite a few books on various Taoist figures), I'd see the apparent minimalism and vagueness of Taoism rather more appealing.

But if by whatever means I did have a 'spiritual experience', [at least afterwards] I'd be aware that it was something happening inside my own head, with explanations based on psychology rather than divinity.
Last edited by tolman on Nov 28, 2013 11:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#18  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 28, 2013 2:07 pm

First of all, mods, can this please be moved to it's own seperate thread as this discussion has become completely off-topic.

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
tolman wrote:
He's presumably allowed to give his opinion* about the personalities of other fictional characters.
Why not this one?

(*Which is, of course, effectively an opinion about the nature of the character and the story, if the story takes the character seriously.)


Yes, you have a point, of course he is allowed to give his opinion. But from his opinion, my opinion is that his idea of the Being in question, is of an old grey-bearded man sitting in the clouds causing death and destruction.

That's an opinion completely without basis. It's also wrong.
I merely described some of his actions as described in the bible. I made no claims to his appearance or location.
So I ask you to stop straw-manning me.


I am merely stating my opinion of the impression you give me.

You're not, you're inferring things without basis.
I said nothing about the possible appearance of teh abrahamic god, so your 'opinion' that I must think it's a grey-beard in the clouds is completely without basis and therefore a straw-man.

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:That is a child's eye view of the God of the Old Testament, which, unfortunately, many adults still hold.

It's also a complete fabrication on your part.


Maybe you could give us an idea of your impression of the God worshipped by Christians so that I can see how you imagine Him to be.

I see no reason to, this is a silly red-herring.
I described some of his action as they are portrayed in the bible, which is why I find the abrahamic god as depicted in the bible to be childish.
More-over this all started with your insinuation that we don't understand the bible.
So it's actually your burden of proof to show that we don't.
Erecting straw-men won't get you there.

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Read Ezeikel. He tells of his visions in which this Being appears. And who is this Being? It is the same Being who in the Bhagavad Gita says: " I AM the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings."

Utter nonsense.
God is called Jaweh of Jehovah, never one of the Hindu names. Not to mention that Kirshna is completely different from the Abrahamic god and proscribes different rules.
This silly attempt at equivocating religions won't fly here, where most people are well aware of the differences.


You do know that these ancient texts were written by human beings and not Jehovah or Krishna personally?

Yes I do. Again, where are you drawing these conclusions from?

CharlieM wrote:The accounts and descriptions given in these texts are taken from a personal point of view.

This only further discredits the idea that the bible contains imperative moral lessons and insights.
CharlieM wrote:I'm sure you've heard of the blind men and the elephant, but if you haven't, google it.

I fail to see what this has to do with the bible.

CharlieM wrote:You Know that the Tetragrammaton is the unutterable name of God.

I know that's what some people claim. Other people claim there are multiple gods, not just one and they have utterable names.

CharlieM wrote:Why is it unutterable? Because it is the "I AM". And "I" is a designation that can only be spoken by one individual in relation to themselves and to no other.

Utter nonsense.
CharlieM wrote:And if YHWH

:lol:
Really? YHWH? you seriously think it will matter if you type it this way or as Yaweh?

CharlieM wrote: is supposed to be the Being who made all that we see, why does it say in Genesis, "Let us make man in our image"?

Legolas, Lord of the Rings, Two Towers 2:12
"They're taking the hobbits to Isengard!"


Accept Legolas as your one Savior, or you shall burn in Mordor. For one does not simply walk into there.



CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote: This Being is the Ego, the true Self. Ezeikels visions were pictures of the Ego coming to birth in humans, self-consciousness, the "I AM" which brings with it all the death and destruction featured in the Book of Ezeikel. This is true evolution in action.

No, it's pure preachy gibberish.
What is the Ego?


Your ego is what was, what is and what is to come in you.

You know this how? I'm asking for knowledge, i.o.w. evidence, not what you believe based on claims.

CharlieM wrote:It is your sense of self that persists from when you first remember as a child until the end of your life. Beginning, middle and end.

That's called ego, not perfect ego or Ego and doesn't require the existence of any god.

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:the pinnacle that we should all be aiming for. But as Matthew has him saying: "Think not that I AM come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword".

Indeed, not peace but violence.
Such a lovely moral lesson.


As Jesus said there will always be wars, its the way of the world.

How do you know this? Why is this the case?
CharlieM wrote:That does not mean we should condone them.

Why did god create violence in the first place, or evil for that matter?

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:If we are to have true Self-consciousness,

Again, what is true Self-conciousness?
Chopra-speek might work on believers, it won't fool anyone here.


Which believers would that be?

People who buy that gibberish, be they Christians, Hindus or New-Age wooists.

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:then we must be given the freedom to achieve this out of our own being even though this freedom brings with it the mayhem we have witnessed throughout history.

This is a non-sequitur.
Why is violence a necesarry part of existence? Your gibberish above does not adress it, it's pure handwaving with Chopra-style words and non-sequiturs.


It comes with giving people free reign to do what they want.

Nonsense, you haven't established how free will requires the existence of violence. This yet another blind assertion.
CharlieM wrote:Violence is the cost of freedom.

Vacuous statement is vacuous.

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:And if you think that Ezeikel's visions were just dreams and so less real than normal life, there are others who have had a hint of this state, which is more an expansion of consciousness rather than a diminishing of it.

Appeals to personal anecdotes are still fallacious arguments no matter what the anecdote is or who had the experience.


Do you not think that Carrier's experiences were real? Was it self-deception, lying or what?

What specific experiences are you talking about?

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
<snip> more disengenuous conflation of religions <snip>

I fail to see what this silly equivocation and preaching has to with the subject matter we've been discussing.


No preaching, just giving my opinion like everyone else.

It's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, it's simple exposition on religious claims and an attempt to equivocate several religions into one and the same.

You also failed to answer this question:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote: And Christ is perfect Ego,

What is perfect ego?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30590
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#19  Postby campermon » Nov 28, 2013 9:15 pm


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
This topic has been split from here.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17260
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#20  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 28, 2013 10:31 pm

:cheers:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30590
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest