RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:19 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:22 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476
Okay, prof, go ahead and show me the archeological proof that God stopped the world from rotating. :lol: :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:24 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11770
Location: Sunny South Florida
Moved goalposts. Never said everything in the Bible can be proved archaeologically. Especially not nonsense like that. There is also zero proof of Jesus' miracles, too. When people walk on water, they usually are using flotation devices. :D

In fact, argued myself that everything up until the Book of Kings lacks corroboration. Unfortunately, that includes just about all of Torah "history" including the Exodus.

We can find many of the Israelite kings mentioned in Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian accounts. There is some corroboration of their existence from nearby peoples.

There is archaeological evidence of Israelite habitation in what is today Israel from 1000 BCE, including excavations/digs from the City of David. Sorry, but Kathleen Kenyon was wrong.

That's what can be proved.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:31 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476
Moved goalposts. Never said everything in the Bible can be proved archaeologically. Especially not nonsense like that.

In fact, argued myself that everything up until the Book of Kings lacks corroboration.

We can find many of the Israelite kings mentioned in Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian accounts. There is some corroboration of their existence from nearby peoples.

There is archaeological evidence of Israelite habitation in what is today Israel from 1000 BCE, including excavations/digs from the City of David.

That's what can be proved.

Just kidding, Prof. But the reality is, it's all made up, and there's no proof of any of it. Sure, the areas was inhabited. That doesn't mean that the Bible is real. There was no Garden of Eden, no talking snake. Not even any Jesus.

Why doesn't Viewer explain the talking snake to me. In REAL terms, not in "faith" terms. He'll take the "allegory" card.

I mean, the truth is, evolution itself disproves the Bible completely. That's why they are so against science, because they KNOW it disproves the Bible. Viewer, do you believe in evolution AND the Bible? Yes or no?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11770
Location: Sunny South Florida
That doesn't mean that the Bible is real.


Depends on what you mean. Homer's Odyssey is not "real" in the sense that All the Money in the World is. It's made up. Mythological.

Are some of the islands on that voyage there in the Mediterranean. Well, yep. No cyclops found, though. :D Was there a Trojan War? Well, it's interesting - no, said many archaeologists - until Heinrich Schliemann dug up the city of Troy and showed the evidence of war damage.

Homer may have mythologized that war, but it looks the Greeks and Trojans definitely fought one.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476

Depends on what you mean. Homer's Odyssey is not "real" in the sense that All the Money in the World is. It's made up. Mythological.

Are some of the islands on that voyage there in the Mediterranean. Well, yep. No cyclops found, though. :D Was there a Trojan War? Well, it's interesting - no, said many archaeologists - until Heinrich Schliemann dug up the city of Troy and showed the evidence of war damage.

I won't use weasel words. I mean "REAL" to mean it all happened exactly as is written.

Which is what most evangelicals believe. And to those who don't believe it's all real - then why would you base anything upon it? Especially laws!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11770
Location: Sunny South Florida
I won't use weasel words. I mean "REAL" to mean it all happened exactly as is written.


That's a tough standard, even for things many scholars consider attempts at history/nonfiction.

I mean, just look what's walking around in Herodotus, and they call him the father of history.

By that standard, we could wipe out Josephus, most accounts of the Crusades, and heck, even some "nonfiction" biography written about recent historical figures. And today we've got youtube!

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:44 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476

That's a tough standard, even for things many scholars consider attempts at history/nonfiction.

I mean, just look what's walking around in Herodotus, and they call him the father of history.

By that standard, we could wipe out Josephus, most accounts of the Crusades, and heck, even some "nonfiction" biography written about recent historical figures. And today we've got youtube!

Okay, let's just start with God stopping the world. Considering that, because of the things that would occur if it really happened, would you say the evidence is that it didn't?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11770
Location: Sunny South Florida
Ummm, if you go back to one of my earlier posts, and I'm not talking about just above, I already said the claim in the Book of Joshua that the Israelites blew down Jericho's walls with horns or that Joshua stopped the sun in the sky during the battle are definitely nonsense.

If you need, I'll also show you why the accounts of Noah's Ark are nonsensical. I've talked about that, too. So is the story of the Tower of Babel. Taken literally, it is ridiculous.

BTW, Moses did not part the Red Sea, nor were the Israelites led by a pillar of fire.

I could keep going. I think almost all of the "miracles" in both Testaments never happened. But I'm in good company - so did Thomas Jefferson, which is why he took them all out in the Jefferson Bible.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:50 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476
Ummm, if you go back to one of my earlier posts, and I'm not talking about just above, I already said the claim in the Book of Joshua that the Israelites blew down Jericho's walls with horns or that Joshua stopped the sun in the sky during the battle are definitely nonsense.

If you need, I'll also show you why the accounts of Noah's Ark are nonsensical. I've talked about that, too. So is the story of the Tower of Babel. Taken literally, it is ridiculous.

BTW, Moses did not part the Red Sea, nor were the Israelites led by a pillar of fire.

I could keep going. I think almost all of the "miracles" in both Testaments never happened. But I'm in good company - so did Thomas Jefferson, which is why he took them all out in the Jefferson Bible.

Of course, we are in agreement. My argument was never with you, you've stated before you don't believe it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:16 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1087
Just kidding, Prof. But the reality is, it's all made up, and there's no proof of any of it. Sure, the areas was inhabited. That doesn't mean that the Bible is real. There was no Garden of Eden, no talking snake. Not even any Jesus.

Why doesn't Viewer explain the talking snake to me. In REAL terms, not in "faith" terms. He'll take the "allegory" card.

I mean, the truth is, evolution itself disproves the Bible completely. That's why they are so against science, because they KNOW it disproves the Bible. Viewer, do you believe in evolution AND the Bible? Yes or no?
Yes, I "believe in" science (well not really believe in as a faith, but accept it as do most educated people), and for the most part, I don't think it conflicts with with the Bible. Certainly evolution doesn't. First off, the Bible is not a comprehensive history or science book. But that aside, in a general sense, the story of creation isn't far from an evolutionary story. And, before you ask, no I don't think the world is 5778 years old.

Science explains how things work...not why.

Re "allegory," we read a lot of things allegorically or poetically. Sometimes its clear what it means, sometimes its not. In the Bible, for example, the Song of Songs looks like love poems between two people...its not. "An eye for an eye," is not a call for vengeance, in fact exactly the opposite. President Obama talked of drawing "a red line" regarding Syrian using poison gas. Of course no one was going to Syria with a bucket of paint. A poet might describe a king issuing an order to kill people as "a drop of ink killed millions.' A drop of ink didnt kill anyone. No "shot was heard around the world," yet the American Revolution did have a worldwide impact.

Again, I couldn't care less what you believe or not. Heck, no one ere has an idea of what I believe in this regard. But what I dislike is bigotry, evangelism, condesension and insults.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:27 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476
Yes, I "believe in" science (well not really believe in as a faith, but accept it as do most educated people), and for the most part, I don't think it conflicts with with the Bible. Certainly evolution doesn't. First off, the Bible is not a comprehensive history or science book. But that aside, in a general sense, the story of creation isn't far from an evolutionary story. And, before you ask, no I don't think the world is 5778 years old.

Science explains how things work...not why.

Re "allegory," we read a lot of things allegorically or poetically. Sometimes its clear what it means, sometimes its not. In the Bible, for example, the Song of Songs looks like love poems between two people...its not. "An eye for an eye," is not a call for vengeance, in fact exactly the opposite. President Obama talked of drawing "a red line" regarding Syrian using poison gas. Of course no one was going to Syria with a bucket of paint. A poet might describe a king issuing an order to kill people as "a drop of ink killed millions.' A drop of ink didnt kill anyone. No "shot was heard around the world," yet the American Revolution did have a worldwide impact.

Again, I couldn't care less what you believe or not. Heck, no one ere has an idea of what I believe in this regard. But what I dislike is bigotry, evangelism, condesension and insults.

Sooooo... the Bible is truth. Except when it's not. But even then, it is truth!

Please, explain how God stopped the earth.

And it's not about belief, Viewer. It's about FACT. I'll handle it fact and reality-based, any day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11770
Location: Sunny South Florida
The eye for an eye story is a classic example of fundamentalists taking things too literally ... or too surface value.

Many take it to be a command for blood vengeance.

It's not. Believe it or not, it's really an argument for proportionate justice, not the kind of disproportionate justice you can find argued for in Hammurabi's Code.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_a ... al_justice

I certainly agree with you, Viewer, that literalist readings of a lot of passages are not only wrong, and fail to understand what may be allegorical, but worse yet, often seem to perhaps not grasp that the way most people originally understood the passage was as allegorical. Fundamentalism/literalism might just be a modern 20th century error, a misguided concreteness.

In Aesop's Fox and the Grapes, is the point of the story to convince you that foxes talk (did Aesop really believe that - or his readers/hearers?) --- or something else?

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:46 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1087
The eye for an eye story is a classic example of fundamentalists taking things too literally ... or too surface value.
Yep. And not just fundamentalists taking things too literally. We also see anti's misunderstanding (sometimes knowingly, sometimes not) to make a point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:48 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476
Yep. And not just fundamentalists taking things too literally. We also see anti's misunderstanding (sometimes knowingly, sometimes not) to make a point.

Since this is likely a veiled accusation of me, explain where I go so wrong. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:00 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476
Oh, and Viewer, a couple of more questions. Do you believe in the talking snake, and do you believe God sent bears to kill children for making fun of a bald guy?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:47 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1087
Since this is likely a veiled accusation of me, explain where I go so wrong. ;)
No Union, its not all about you. Its a classic example misused, as Prof pointed out, by fundamentalists. Its also classically used by even 'liberal' Christians to show that the "New Testimate" is good, while the "Old Testimate" (which themselves are offensive terms) is cruel. And, you've probably heard the meme (again based on misunderstanding) that "an eye for a eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us all blind and toothless."

That aside, I've already explained where I believe you you are incorrect in your fundamentalist/supposedly literalist approach. In the meantime you're only reading, at best a translation/interpretation of what was written. I suspect your reading of commentaries, etc is minimal. I suspect that your reading of other, related text, is minimal. And for some reason, you think that the approach and mindset you're imposing on people is the only one.

Would it make sense to be certain that you, who claims to be a union leader are in the Jimmy Hoffa, Teamster vein? (I can tell you a lot of us who were with the UFW, don't have good feelings toward Teamster corruption.) We don't. We recognize the benefit of unions, while still opposing the problematic aspects. (And yet, really we know nothing about you.....you may be working for the positive or not. I'll assume the best, until I have reason otherwise.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:32 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476
Ah, so since I don’t read the scriptures in the original languages, I have no right to ask any questions?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:55 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1087
Ah, so since I don’t read the scriptures in the original languages, I have no right to ask any questions?
What you don't have the right to do is to claim you have the definitive knowledge of it. And what you do have the right to do, but is offensive, is to demean people who have a different belief system/perspective than your own.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:36 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476
What you don't have the right to do is to claim you have the definitive knowledge of it. And what you do have the right to do, but is offensive, is to demean people who have a different belief system/perspective than your own.

I don't mean to demean you. I am simply asking questions, why won't you answer them?

One thing about my views and beliefs, I never have a problem answering questions.

As for the old vs. new testament - As Christopher Hitchens points out, the new t is far worse. In the old testament, when you died, you died. It wasn't until Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild that we got hell - an eternal burning for anyone with the temerity not to beg forgiveness and accept Jesus on blind faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11770
Location: Sunny South Florida
I can only answer that I don't believe in talking snakes, and I think the Garden of Eden is an allegory.

I also don't believe in talking foxes, and I think Aesop's fables are also allegories.

Now, I get why people treat the two things differently. There are no preachers out there saying you will be damned to hell if you don't accept that it's literally true foxes regularly talk with people about grapes on the vine.

Kinda odd to hang your eternal fate on nonsense. But them's the stakes.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:54 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476
Kinda odd to hang your eternal fate on nonsense.


Wow, the best sentence ever written on religion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:20 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11770
Location: Sunny South Florida
As I said, I don't believe in hell.

But I do run into campus preachers. Last one that came here, I said, "So, there's this Being that loves me. It shows its love by damning me to hell for masturbating. OK, masturbating, and then refusing to accept the one and only form of salvation from hell I've been offered. In the exact way with the exact formula you've just described. All those who sin, regardless of the severity of the sin, and who die unsaved, even if they never knew that Being offered only one form of salvation according to one formula, are going to Hell.'

I looked at him and said, "You worship an asshole". And I wasn't even talking about Trump. And left.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:25 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36476
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11770
Location: Sunny South Florida
It's a good point, but Hitch is clearly not understanding that the point of the Binding of Isaac story is that Yhvh doesn't want people to sacrifice their children to Him.

Just rams. :D

Unless he's talking about that NT story where a Being of infinite love shows it by having His Son die on the Cross. I definitely agree that's also some tough love. :D

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group