The fact that there really was a Troy, or even a Trojan War, has nothing to do with the historicity of Zeus and Athena, or even Hector and Paris.
Besides, you really have no right to talk about rationality when your only standard of proof is the miraculous claims of a book that gets mundane things wrong. Just admit it’s a matter of faith to you, and be content with that. You only make yourself sound ridiculous if you try to claim that you are using logic.
“no catholic is a literalist?” say rather some passages in the bible appear unequivocal and absolute while others are either ambiguous or allegorical.
For thousands of years, the first book of Genesis was obviously meant to be taken literally. That was not just the opinion of uneducated peasants, it was the opinion of the most learned theologians in Christendom, and you were in danger of being burned as a heretic for opposing that opinion.
Today, most educated Christians (I hope) consider it metaphoric.
So what makes you so sure that you can distinguish the parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken literally?
Ah. Well, there you go.
Tris
They are only “lies” if you assume that they are intended to be read as newspaper-like accounts.
This assumption, interestingly, is shared by simplistic biblical literalists and by some critics of religion (including, apparently, you). These two groups also seem to share the assumption that the bible can only be of significance if it was directly written by God. A curious alliance, in some ways.
Ignorant bronze-age men couldn’t write. and they certainly couldn’t compose poetry, fable or philosophy. It might be more accurate to say that the bible is what you would expect cultured bronze-age men and women to write.
Well spotted, brocks. In amy text, some things may be historically true and other things may not be. Good work! I have great hopes that you will master critical thinking yet.
Oh, well, two steps forward, one step back, I suppose. Your argument rests on the premise that my “only standard of proof is the miraculous claims of a book that gets mundane things wrong”, a premise which is (a) false, (b) completely unsupported by any evidence, and (b) refuted by some of what I have written in this thread.
But keep trying! You show promise. And if you can master the elements of logic yourself you’ll have some much-needed credibility when you question the logic of others.
Lobohan didn’t write illiterate Bronze Age men. I took him (her? ah, nobody cares) to mean Bronze Age men who were ignorant of science and the nature of the universe. In other words, all of them.
Moses, if he existed, was surely quite intelligent, but in terms of his scientific knowledge he was behind the average 6th grader today. Virtually everything he believed about the nature of the world was crap, though he probably had the color of the sky right.
Fair enough. Which would mean that people with access to better scientific knowledge would not treat the bible as an authority on scientific matters. Which we don’t. Which is rational. Which rather refutes the point that Lobohan was trying to make.
If an omniscient an omnibenevolent God tells me something I would assume it would be true. Remember, Christians are assuming God is omniscient, he would only incorporate incorrect information on purpose.
Nonsense. If the bible is randomly correct, then it is of little value as a guide to living.
They were certainly ignorant. They thought the sky was a stone dome that held water back. They thought you could induce a sickness in a cheating woman by making her drink altar dust. They thought that Pi was 3. They were loaded with parasites, they stank, they died young and they made their women leave the village when menstruating.
Of course they were ignorant. That doesn’t mean they were stupid. It means they didn’t know much of anything at all compared to you or any modern first world adult. Listening to this group for advice on how to live your life is laughable.
It’s unclear from his phrasing whether “like most Christians do” refers to non-literalists or literalists.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
From a non-literal POV it is a ancient parable that can be applied to humanity in any stage, it is timeless wisdom.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that a bit pre-emptive? We haven’t lived for all time yet. As time has gone on, some advice, such as on treatment of slaves or servants, has become irrelevent. The progress of technology and science also means that some ideas which may at one point have applied may no longer be of any use. It may well be, to be fair, that in the future this advice may again become useful; but to say it’s timeless based on almost 2000 years strikes me as premature. That’s not even half of current recorded history, let alone non-recorded parts.
Seems little bit hypocritical to make a post devoted solely to pointing out how you were right, after that first post. 
Honestly, it’s like talking to a brick wall.
We’ve covered this point before, Lobohan. You share an assumption with simplistic biblical literalists that the bible is essentially a supernatural newspaper of record published by an omniscient God for the purpose of conveying information to humanity.
I know (I think) why simplistic biblical literalists assume this, but I don’t know why you do. And I haven’t the remotest idea why you could possibly expect me to.
If it’s randomly correct as to matters of science and historical fact it’s of little value as a guide to living?
In heaven’s name, why?
If they were ignorant of matters of science and medicine, they can have had no useful or valid insights into matters of ethics, human relationships, community, the meaning of suffering, the concept of justice, questions of transcendence? Of what it might mean to live well or live badly? Only “modern first world adults” can have anything to say on these topics that could possibly be of benefit to us? I’ll bear that in mind the next time I pick up Aristotle’s Ethics.
You’re going to have to fill in some of the gaps in that argument before you can expect anyone to take it seriously.
So you don’t think the bible is divinely inspired? Well that makes you an oddball when it comes to Christians. Divine inspiration isn’t the same thing as literally true, but don’t you expect that some of the information an omnipotent God wanted to get in there would be correct?
If the bible has no reliable supernatural mandate, it is simply a bunch of shit that primitive men wrote. If that’s the case, who gives a fuck?
Because we’ve likely learned more about how to live quality lives since they did. They were working under a huge number of misconceptions and prejudices. They thought raping and slavery was cool. They weren’t good people by first world modern standards.
So following their dictates is essentially throwing away millennia of cultural advancement. Not a sound idea.
They had no insight that you don’t have. And they in fact, were prejudiced, frightened people and thought a lot of evil stuff was great. They hated women and saw homosexuals as monstrous. They had a system of religion-based lynching and would murder with sickening abandon.
If you go to those people for advice, you aren’t making a very rational decision.
If you think the bible is a good idea as a guide to living, I don’t expect I have a rational argument that could work on you.
I didn’t say that. I said that I saw no reason to take it as a supernatural newspaper-of-record published by God.
My position is mainstream. It’s the simplistic literalist Christians who are oddballs.
Well, some of it, as I pointed out, is correct. But, as I said that the beginning, I’m not really interested in that. I don’t look to the bible for “correct information” on matters of science or history, and I don’t see that accepting the bible as divinely inspired implies that I should. And I still don’t see why you expect me to. It seems to be just an article of faith with you that divine inspiration must be connected with scientific or historical truth. I’m afraid I don’t share your faith.
Leaving aside the bible, lets take it as granted that every other pre-modern work has no reliable supernatural mandate and is therefore “simply a bunch of shit that primitive men wrote”. Does that mean no pre-modern work can have any meaning, significance or value? This is an extraordinarily smug and small-minded outlook; there’s an implicit assumption that the time and the culture in which you and I happen to find ourselves is the summit of human intellectual and moral achievement, and that other cultures from other times can have nothing to teach us.
That’s right. We’ve learned how to build atom bombs and detonate them over cities of millions. We’ve learned how to commit genocide on an industrial scale. We’ve learned how to conduct wars which, in the twentieth century, have killed more people than all other wars in the entirety of history beforehand. And we didn’t rely on simple population growth to achieve this. No! We’ve developed techniques of warfare which ensure that there is a greater proportion of noncombatants among the victims of war than ever before. We’ve devised and implemented a system of international trade which provides a small proportion of the world’s population with unimaginable excess resources while millions starve. And we may be in danger of destroying the habitability of the only planet we’ve got. That’s what it means to be “good people by first world modern standards”.
Our scientific, technical and intellectual achievements are certainly formidable, but common observation gives us no ground at all for that we are more morally or emotionally developed than other societies in other times. Our moral deficits may be different from theirs, but they are certainly not lesser.
So we either “don’t give a fuck” about the bible or we “follow its dictates”? Can you say “false dichotomy”?
They certainly had insights that you don’t have, if you think that our scientific and technical expertise is remotely relevant to the question of whether we are “good people”, and if you think that being “good people by first world modern standards” is the pinnacle of human moral achievement.
Who said anything about “advice”? But, leaving that aside, your reasons for dismissing whatever insights their story has to offer don’t strike me as terribly rational either
That could be read two ways! 
One thing to be clear on: literal truth is not the only kind of truth. That is, there are other ways that something can convey Truth or be meaningful other than by being taken literally. The parables that Jesus told are an example: if you’re just hearing them at a literal level, you’re missing the point.
On the contrary: if you do take this story as literal fact, and nothing more, what’s the point? A couple of people ate a piece of fruit that they weren’t supposed to eat—if that’s all there is to it, so what? But if there’s something deeper going on underneath the surface, or if the fruit has some symbolic significance or allegorical meaning, that’s when things have the potential to matter.
ETA: How would you take something like a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” literally? What would it even mean at a literal level?
With regard to the Adam and Eve story, it’s one I’ve never gotten a completely satisfactory explanation of, in the sense that now I’m sure I know exactly what it means, and certainly not in the sense that I’ve drained it dry and there’s nothing new to discover. But I do keep finding new insights, new things to ponder and chew on and wonder at. It provides me with more questions than answers—but is that a bad thing? We’ve even had some good, insightful discussions about it here; see, for instance How were Adam & Eve supposed to know it was wrong to eat the fruit?
Well, taking it literally, I suppose I would take from it the lesson that when God tells you not to do something, he’s pretty serious about that. And that God is not only willing to punish the perpetrators of a crime, but the descendants of the perpetrators. If true, pretty important lessons, really.
I’m really not a fan of the notion of truth as seperated from facts. Certainly, you can find truth in fiction. But the fiction needs to be logical, the facts imagined but translatable. An analogy (or a parable) can only contain truth when there is some grain of fact in there, because they can only be applied to factual situations. Nothing can be true that isn’t, somewhere in there, at least partially factual, if it has any worth.
[quote=“brocks, post:23, topic:597941”]
For thousands of years, the first book of Genesis was obviously meant to be taken literally. That was not just the opinion of uneducated peasants, it was the opinion of the most learned theologians in Christendom, and you were in danger of being burned as a heretic for opposing that opinion./QUOTE]
Really?
Augustine of Hippo, the Doctor of the Church, the guy who came up with the idea of Original Sin, the guy who is on the short list of “the most learned theologians in Christendom”, wrote about how only ignorant people interpreted Genesis literally, and that claiming that Genesis is literal just makes Christians look bad in front of people who know anything about science or the natural world. Guy didn’t get burned as a heretic either. Died of disease in the middle of a Vandal invasion.
I think the literal truth of the Bible is missing the point. While I do believe that, for the most part, the parts that are myth and the parts that are intended to be literal history are fairly clearly distinct. Instead, I think it’s a way of communicating ideas to a people that may not be able to understand it in a more direct way.
For example, I’m a Christian and I accept evolution and so, clearly, I don’t think the creation story is anything other than a story intended to express that God is the creator. Imagine a young child asking where babies come from, no reasonable parent is going to talk about the anatomy of sex, fetal development, and birth, they’ll probably instead talk about the parts that the child will understand, that both parents were involved, love, and maybe some silly thing about a special hug or a wish or a stork or whatever. How could people thousands of years ago have possibly understood how evolution works when we’ve only really come to understand it relatively recently?
My thoughts on it are that it is referencing early stages of human development where we were beginning to form society, culture, language, and technology and we were starting to understand morality and our own mortality. I think a lot of the earliest parts of Genesis are grappling with a lot of those basic problems that I might expect a very primitive culture to be dealing with. And, in fact, it’s important to understand these things because knowing where we’ve been helps us figure out where we should go.
What is the purpose of any parable? They’re ways of teaching that illustrates the point in a more accessible manner. Jesus himself often taught in parables. Is it not reasonable that, if one accepts that he is the son of God and he teaches that way that maybe God himself might teach us similarly through the Bible as a whole? And it’s not like parables are unique to Christianity either.
And there are some cases of fiction, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the historical parts involve some level of exaggeration. But I also think that’s part of the natural evolution of these stories as they’re told or written down for posterity. Hell, I imagine even many of my own life experiences about which I often tell stories, that my own recollection is at least a little exaggerated at this point. But I also don’t think that that has a whole lot of bearing on the value of the story being told. Take David and Goliath for instance, assuming for a moment that its intended to be historical and not allegorical for the sake of my point, Goliath doesn’t need to be 10’ tall for a young David beating a large man to be something impressive enough that people might take note.
Either way, I do think there’s plenty of to be taken from a number of the Biblical stories and, even if they were all likely to be false, it doesn’t make those lessons less valuable.
Well, no, even if you assume that the story of Adam and Eve is a complete fiction from beginning to end - and I do - it’s still possible to derive truths, and significant truths, from it. Such as, if an authority figure (why assume God only represents God?) tells you not to do something, there may be consequences to doing it. Or an owner/maker of a thing (God created the apple tree, didn’t he?) has a legitimate authority over it that others lack. Or that if you infringe moral norms, the consequences may harm not only you but those close to you (and therefore that you have a responsibility to them).
Or take the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. Apart from the fact that George Washington is a historical character, it’s fiction from beginning to end. In fact, it’s more untrue than if it involved an imaginary character, because if it involved an imaginary character we could take it as a pure fable. But, as it is, there is a sense in which it “tells a lie” about George Washington.
And yet the story is remembered and repeated. Why? Because those who cherish it understand at some level that it’s not a really story about George Washington, but about the American character. The qualities and attitudes that the child Washington displays in this fiction are an analogy for the qualities which, in their national myth, Americans attribute to themselves as a nation, and which they consider themselves to have displayed in the revolutionary war, a formative national experience.
Now, you could obviously argue about whether the American national character does indeed embody the personal autonomy of action and commitment to truth which the child Washington displays in the story, or whether or how those characteristics are manifested. But what you can’t deny is that the story is meaningful and has a significance that goes beyond the question of whether George Washington ever actually cut down a cherry tree with his little axe, and so (even if only in a small way) is worth reflecting upon. And if we dismiss the story because it’s “not true” we miss all that.
Well it begs the question, no?..how is this in anyway different than not answering at all.
To my untrained ears/eyes it sounds like white noise