Well, that assumption is open to interpretion. (hehe) But an assumption all the same.
(Freud?..)
[quote True, but you’re also interpreting. The Bible does use the phrase “corners of the Earth.” And for that matter, the Earth isn’t a circle. Circles are two-dimensional.[/quote]
shhheeeeeshhh I’m not arguing that the bible asserts that the earth is a globe. I am saying that there is no biblical cites that assert the earth is flat; and, to the extent the poplulation labored under this false knowldege it was the religious leaders, and their false interpretations, that fostered that error.
As to the “corners of the earth” a cite would be helpful. Nonetheless, it will require the same mental gymnastics to use that phrase to assert the bible says the earth is flat. Further, the phrase is in common use even today. Should I infer that every time the person who uses it is laboring under the belief the world is flat?
I don’t want to highjack the thread either, but it is interesting how theists who quote IS 40:22 leave out the last bit about drawing the sky over the world like a tent. or whatever it says)
The fact is, this cosmological view was passed down from Sumerian/Babylonian beliefs. The Sumerians and Babylonians did think the world was flat and covered by a dome. These beliefs were passed down throughout the Middle East. The S/B’s beleived that the earth was a circular disk with a tin roof overhead to separate the water in the sky from the earth. (Sound familiar?)
Raindog is correct though in that the Bible does not explicitly state what the earth looks like. It is implied in several verses, including IS 40:22 and many others, that the earth matches the S/B cosmology.
As for corners of the earth and sunsets/sunrises.es these phrases are in use still today. They have made their way into our languages due to our ancient ancestors views of the world they lived in.
Revelations 7:1 says “And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.”
I agree. I was just contradicting/adding to your comment. While the Bible doesn’t comment on the topic directly, I don’t think that means it can’t leave you with an incorrect impression. Unless you’re blaming the people who wrote the thing in the first place.
Gee, I think the phrase is in common use because it’s in the Bible.
However the population came to this incorrect belief, whether that be theologians misinterpretating the bible’s words, or whether it’s from the Babylonians, my point, then and now, is that the bible makes no such assertion. Period.
In that effort I ommitted nothing that would have added or detracted from that simple point. I’ll underline it for emphasis: I do not assert that the bible offers conclusive commentary on the issue at hand. But the burden is on the poster who asserts that the bible was wrong (and I’ve heard it more than once) and that we’re now somehow liberated from the faulty teachings of the bible. The true source of the error, and where culpability lies, are those** theolgians** who took those verses and interpreted them to mean something it clearly didn’t.
Fair enough. I apologize if it sounded like I was accusing you of being less than honest in that ommission. I don’t think that at all, I just said it was interesting.
I’m not sure how you can say that the verses ‘clearly didn’t’ mean what the translators wrote. How do you arrive at the conclusion of what the original authors original intent was? I’m sorry if I’m phrasing this badly, I’m just curious how the bible can be read so that the phrases clearly didn’t mean what the translators wrote.
My own point of view is that there is no way to know what the original intent was of the people who wrote all those phrases about corners, domes and circles and seeing all nations of the world from a mountain etc. I have a feeling, however, that there is a very good reason those phrases are there. That being, the authors really did view the world that way.
And yes, this is getting farther afield. Maybe it deserves its own thread.
Back on topic, no I don’t think it’s a delusion, as far as questioning sanity goes. I think it is human nature to have these beliefs. It is comforting, and so on.
I’ll let you get away with that if you don’t say misinterpreting. The interpretation is out of line with the facts as we know them; it is not out of line with the Bible.
I don’t think you can say that’s something it “clearly didn’t” mean. Either the Bible makes no clear commentary on the subject, or it makes a clear commentary that can be interpreted consistently with the rest of the text. You’re saying that it’s the first (no clear commentary), and I agree with you- but then you’re holding “the theologians” to the standard of the second.
Raindog, the language about the earth being a “circle” probably more accurately reflects the Mesopotamian cosmology of the earth as a round flat disc than as a sphere. This is especially true n light of the fact that it follows the Mesoptamian model with regards to the three tiered universe and the description of a domed sky.
As to the OP, I don’t think that theists can all be classified monolithically as to why they believe as they do (an obvious point, I know, bu the OP is phrased in such a way as to make it a binary question- “Are theists deluded or not?”- when the answer is not as simple as a yes or a no).
Individual theists believe as theydo for any number of reasons. *Some of them are probably deluded as to certain specific beliefs. Many- maybe-the majority- simply are enculturated or indoctrinated into a religious tradition, are comfortable with it and simply never think to question it very deeply. I think an awful lot of people sort of think that “God” is more fuzzy, abstract and broad than what their nomonal doctrine may be but they also have an affection for their personal tradition and stick with for reasons other than specific dogma. My wife, for instance was raised in the RCC and remains with it even though she doesn’t necessarily think everything in the doctrine is literally true, or that people necessarily need to be Catholic, or even Christian, to be “saved.” She just find things about it that are comforting, familiar and helpful. It’s been my experience from talking to people and reading a lot about the subject that my wife is far from alone in this. More than a few Christians, when pressed, will say that they believe in a “God,” but that they don’t necessarily buy the whole Christian story as literal hitory but that they read the Bible allegorically, looking for moral lessons raher than journalism.
There is also a large class of individuals who come to their faith via strong personal experiences. Sometimes in the form of visions or voices, sometims dreams, sometimes simply an inuitive (and usually very hard to communicate to others) sense of presense. You just know. You can’t prove it, you can’t make anyone else feel it with you, but it was just there, you felt somebody with you.
I don’t dismiss these experiences as delusional (and I daw a distinction between psychotic or schizophrenic experinces and religious experiences). I think they happen, they happen often and they can be transformative. What they mean, I don’t know. My presumption absent any other evidence is that they are physiological in nature but that they could have some other, more transcedent significance that I’m unaware of. It is these experiences which cause me to identify myself as agnostic rather than a full on atheist. It’s just a little reserve I keep for myself that maybe I don’t know everything.
So no, I don’t think people of faith or either stupid or deluded (at least not because they believe in something.) Some of the most brilliant and fascinating people in history have been theists.
Not a chance. It’s only “not out of line with the Bible” if one takes the position that the bible makes no clear comment on the matter. On that we would appear to agree. If that was the universal opinion this is all moot and rather inane. However the poster inferred, and many others here have said directly,* in the affirmative*, that the bible states clearly that the world is flat. In that context it is entirely reasonable that the person making the assertion back it up with cites. I am simply pointing out that the texts used to make the silly assertion that the bible says the earth is flat are misinterpretating the texts in question. The burden is on the person making the claim. I am quite content to accept the bible on it’s face; and that it makes no conclusive comment on the matter, and certainly doesn’t say the earth is flat.
No I’m not. I’m holding any theolgian to the same standard. (Even though they’ve been dead for 600 years…) It is the exact same standard that I’ve used in all of the discussions that I’ve been in here that relate to the bible. If an assertion is made, I would simply like cites to support the claim.
As to whetherI (as if somehow I am the final word on such matters…) am able to say the true ‘meaning’ of any text, I would add BrianJ3’s comments to the mix: BrianJ3 said:
I think both of your comments are pertinent and worth scrutiny. Words are tricky things. I’m of the belief that they have no meaning, and meaning is “conferred” to them by the reader. And so it is particularly difficult at times to determine the intent, and meaning, of some texts. (particularly when they are 2000 years old, in a differnt language, culture etc etc) As to one’s view on these matters, one polar extreme is to take a narrow view and to say that my view is the only correct one, and I am the arbiter of the author’s intent. The other extreme is to say that all of it is essentially unknowable—that no interpretation is qualitatively better than any other. Further, intent (truth?..) cannot be discerned so one explanation is as good, objectively, as any other. That view, in my experience, is widely held here. (or variations of it)
I don’t subscribe to either belief. Rather, I am of the opinion that to correctly discern a given text (or dogma…) one must make the mental, intellectual and spiritual investment and **read **the bible. Dozens of time here I have seen posters make assertions with the absoutely flimsiest of knowledge. Among the many, one that sticks out is a poster that asserted that “Paul was against sex-all sex.” A cursory reading of the posters cites reveal anything but that.
IMO, it is entirely possible to correctly discern a writer’s intent if one takes the time to understand the text. That involves understanding the writer and his background, the culture, the audience he was writing to, the issues at hand, the context and the laws or extenuating circumstances. If God does indeed exist, then approaching this from a purely intellectual or academic perspective is likely to lead one to entirely different conclusions as to the texts. Faith, which often seems to be a dirty word here, would seem to be a requirement in God’s scheme of things.
My personal belief is fairly simple. I let the author speak for himself. I endeavor to read the bible regularly and have for many years. And so I’m acquainted with the author, context and background of most writings. I believe that the bible has clarity, purpose and unparalled wisdom. And by taking the time—by making the investment----it is certainly possible to correctly discern almost all texts. Many of the posters here who have made biblical claims were woefully ignorant of the bible and simply googled it up.
The question is whether the bible says the earth is flat. It clearly does not say that anywhere. To accept that it does, one has to “impute” such meaning from the available text. The more you have to “impute”, essentially putting words in the author’s mouth that he didn’t put to paper, the more dubious I become. I’m certainly competent enough as a student to understand nuances and to know when the author is making certain assumptions. (like the letters written to the congregations) But there is no reason to believe that the author intended to say that the earth was flat. There is nothing in the context, background, or circimstances that support that claim.
Hmm. Interesting question for the atheists, based on the remarks so far (and stuff I’ve read on similar threads): how many of you either think that anyone who believes in any supernatural or spiritual belief SHOULD be converted from their beliefs (even if you don’t think you should do it)?
Or, if the way that question is phrased is too “interfering,” put it this way: if presented with the opportunity to press a button that would instantly and painlessly (both physically and emotionally) wipe out all spiritual and supernatural belief, how many of you would push that button?
(Yes, there are ways to interpret that question in which it would be considered offensive to even think of doing so, but I’m having trouble coming up with one that’s in the spirit [heh] of what I want, so I hope you can answer my base question anyway.)
At parties, I used to come up with an odd question, poll everyone about it throughout the evening, and eventually announce my results without divulging who said what. Only once did it go poorly. The question was, “Suppose you could elect to die, knowing that because of your death everyone currently alive would instantly know what the truth about life-after-death and religion was. They wouldn’t know what you believed, because maybe you were wrong; they would know the truth. You, of course, would just die to go meet that fate head-on, so of course you’d find out (in a way). Would you do it?” I actually ended up in a physical confrontation over that one. I’m surprised the bite mark didn’t leave a scar. FYI, among my friends, only two said they would do it.
The Bible clearly does indicate a flat earth simply by it’s description of a three tiered universe. You have to understand that the Bible gives a description which is patenly consistent with the standard Middle eastern cosmology of a flat disc with “water below” (and how can water be “below” a spherical earth?) a domed sky with celestial bodies suspended from the dome, and water on top of the dome.
The flat earth is really the only plausible inference both interanlly as well as within the historical and cultural context the story was written in.
It seems to be upsetting to you that people (correctly) infer a flat earth cosmology for the Bible. Does it also bother you that the Bible explicitly claims that the sky is a sold dome or that the sun revolves around the earth? After a couple of huge errors like that, what’s a flat earth, give or take?
Quote:
Originally Posted by olanv
First and foremost, if I’m not clear in an instance where I intend to communicate an idea other than “not clear” – that is not “good”. It is not “good” that I had to be asked twice, because it suggests that I’m wasting time, and am delusional. If I try again, and it still remains unclear, I have wasted even more. If I get someone who agrees with me on what remains unclear to you, then I have started a religion… this is not “good”.
Zagadka, I think olanv was mimicking the holisic healer from the Sienfeld episode where Kramer talks George into going to see this guy for tonsilitis. George, of course, would do anything to save money on the hospital bill.
Press a theist and you’ll find non-corporeal being as the “go-to” when questions start to dig into the belief system. What you think about what schizophrenia, phychosis, interesting, brilliant – is or isn’t, could be biased from the same thinking that has the concept of non-corporeal being validating given purposes. Theisms and deisms both have beliefs including a living non corporeal being and omni-states imbued of this being. These are oxymorons or impossibilities. There are some people trying to solve problems of life and death, and it can be bothersome, to say the least, that entire segments of the population have opted to dump topics relating to birth and intent to “someone out there”, and as a result, not even be aware that they spend all of their time attacking those who try to do something on this planet, because all the “junk” they horde, from gossips to gold, makes them feel good. The topic of religosity extends far beyond the scope of deism… it extends to any purpose for moving that is associated with no accountabiltiy, ambiguity. That’s fine for fraud and self delusion, but who seriously wants that to be their goal here? Some lays out a few rules of inhernt purpose, and the religous begin whining and screaming about how hard it is! Yes, that’s why it’s WORK. Which begs the question, “Why are you here?”.
Yes, accountability is hard work. The rules laid out in the inherency thread I started constitute extremely hard work. It makes what most people call “hard work” and “accountability” laughable (I’m keeping this because I worked hard and have been accountable and played by the rules, or because I can… blah, blah). Run your purpose against those inherency test conditions just to get a sense of how little work people DO in this life, and how much of what people call work or reward, is precisely the opposite. Part of the reason I placed the first inherency rule in there, was to give a clear indication of whether or not your own deity would pass this test on earths population. And, if your deity doesn’t have an inherent purpose, then why are you worshiping it?
Occam’s Razor would suggest the writers of those particular chapters of the bible, who lived during a time when it was a common belief that the world was flat, understood the world to be flat, and described it accordingly.
Your account supposes that the Bible writers had some degree of insight not recorded in any historical source, for some reason never clearly informed anyone of this insight even in the course of their text describing the creation and form of the world and instead used language common to those who understood the world to be a flat disc. Then it becomes all the fault of contemporary readers of these texts that they misunderstood things by reading them in the obvious way since there is no suggestion that they should not. Thus, in order to render the original writers inerrant, must all history and common sense be twisted upon its head.
That strikes me as a bit silly. It makes a lot more sense that the writers of Genesis held the common understanding of their time, thus used the common language to describe it. Not exactly a big deal.
I accepted god also for a good twenty years of my life. Everyone seemed to believe it, my friends and I all went to Hebrew school, my parents and their parents believed it, the president believed it, the papers believed it. The filtered versions of the Bible had no contradictions. Only when I actually read the Bible, all the way through, and read commentary on the origin of the Bible did it become obvious what was going on.
Now I did have one advantage - we got taught that the majority of people believed incorrectly. But that was not a majority of my friends, so I, at least, never made the obvious connection.
I was thinking of Saudi Arabia where atheism, I believe, is a capital crime. It’s not in the US, but check out the polls about how many people would vote for an atheist for president.
I shall leave aside the quibbles, about how I know this, or how it could be the real deal.
Talk about a witness! Can I get an AMEN?
Yes, I would give my life to bring the message of truth to all mankind.
Oh, wait a minute. That’s what I am supposed to be doing now! Only I don’t get the short cut route to God’s house as part of the deal. I get the long way, living my life as a testament. Much harder deal. But, the journey becomes the destination.
On the subject of the OP, yes, I am a Christian, and I have suffered from delusions.
And to those of you who have read the Bible, and decided it was a geography text, well . . . whatever. (I think you missed some stuff, though.)
FYI, among my friends, only two said they would do it.