More Stupid Religion Bollocks!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't understand this idea (on the extremes of both sides) that if the Bible isn't meant to be read as literal, factual truth than it shouldn't be read at all. Kind of misses the point of the scriptures being about the relationship of man and God, written by men as trying to encapsulate their experiences and thus full of their own biases and exaggerations (even though they were divinely inspired).

[Jon Miller]

My rephrasing of your statement makes more sense then your original. It certainly is more rational.

Genesis 1 and 2 describe, each in their own way, the creation of Earth, life and mankind. The two are incompatible. I understand you try to distille some meta-story out of them to make sense of them. But Genesis 1 doesn't mention (let alone describes) the relation between humans and god, Genesis 2 does (partially). That theme is not the binding element between the two.

The Book is about man's relationship with God. Both Genesis 1 and 2 have stories in which man is created by God (as is the rest of the what exists). It also shows a God that creates things to have order. Very different than the chaos that was central to a lot of other creation stories. Additionally, both describe the world the world as being good. Additionally, they both describe a Creator God, Creator being a crucial aspect of God.

The two are not incompatible at all. The only things that may be incompatible (and actually, many translations aren't very incompatible and there are many interpretations which are not incompatible) are inconsequential... details of the creation.

It took me just a few minutes to sketch many many many shared elements of God's relationship with man that are found in Genesis 1 and 2. I didn't need to think about Genesis 1 and 2 in relationship to the rest of the Bible, which gives many many more. Really, those stories, are central to the themes found in the Bible.

If you are going to think or talk about religion, you should really take a few minutes to think.

JM

[Jon Miller]

No way! Newton never intended to write poetry nor did Darwin ever intended to write a book on morals! What a piss-poor argument do you present for the dogmatists.

And the Bible was never meant to be a scientific description of how our world came to be.

JM

[Elok]

Then why quote from it?

Because it's a religious scripture, not a textbook. No version of Christianity that I know of believes that The Last Judgment will consist of Jesus asking us where the burning bush was or the three largest towns in Israel during the reign of Solomon. Those aren't important.

Then came the Enlightenment, and people tried to apply scientific rigor to received religious texts based on a number of ancient, frequently-transcribed manuscripts. Naturally, they were found wanting.

Off course, since they wanted to stick to dogma and their outdated ways.

The 'they' in this case refers to the texts, subjected to an irrelevant analysis they were never intended to withstand, much like:

The error of many religious people was to act defensive about this instead of pointing out, with equal validity, that Isaac Newton's works make crappy poetry and The Origin of Species is a poor source of moral guidance.

No way! Newton never intended to write poetry nor did Darwin ever intended to write a book on morals! What a piss-poor argument do you present for the dogmatists.

Yes, Newton wasn't poetry, Darwin wasn't a moralist, and the Bible, while it has many books with many purposes, is not intended to be a scientific treatise. The dimensions of the cauldron in Kings, or wherever that oft-cited bit is, are not intended to teach people about the value of pi, which is good since the unit of measurement is the extremely-inaccurate cubit. And the pile of textual irregularities accumulated as an inevitable result of differing traditions, frequent translations and the passage of time are unfortunate but not exactly crippling if you have the sense to treat it as a received text with problems and work within those limitations. The idea of biblical literalism is an obnoxious historical novelty.

[Elok]

I don't understand this idea (on the extremes of both sides) that if the Bible isn't meant to be read as literal, factual truth than it shouldn't be read at all. Kind of misses the point of the scriptures being about the relationship of man and God, written by men as trying to encapsulate their experiences and thus full of their own biases and exaggerations (even though they were divinely inspired).

[Jon Miller]

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Ending of the previous account.

Adam and Eve

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

There is one of the important differences here. As previously stated, the important part is that God created man and man came from the earth. How is this not a crucial part of the relationship between God and man? Note that this is the same as in Genesis 1. Also, like in Genesis 1, man is of special importance here.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
The above is not discussing the same thing as Genesis 1. Well, mostly, it relates and is in agreement with “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” found in Genesis 1.
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Also is orthogonal to Genesis 1. Is important, but isn't 'contradictory and inconsistent'.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Still part of 'it was good' theme. Isn't 'contradictory and inconsistent'.
G
So it isn't at all the case that Genesis 2 and 1 are contradictory and inconsistent. Rather it is that a couple verses of Genesis 2 are contradictory and inconsistent (in some translations/interpretations, but we will ignore that) (verses 5-7). And the inconsistent and contradictory part of these verses, is the order of creation. Which has entirely unimportant to even the beliefs that the Bible literalists have. So yeah, do you really think your complaints here are rational? That the two stories are crucially and inherently and in the most important ways inconsistent and contradictory?

JM

[C0ckney]

In my experience, there are better things to look at in Botafogo than religious books

seriously, this bookshop is amazing. it's by the estaco cinema if you get a chance to take a look.

and elok, i actually think you're wrong in that people really did believe in the literal word of the bible in olden times. people, and not just simple peasants but, learned people too, firmly believed in magic and miracles and people based their religious belief on these miracles, on the supernatural, the big man in the sky, if you like. the analysis of the bible done during the enlightenment was a reaction to that. an attempt to apply scientific principles to the old and new testament, and this analysis was often used to reject the Christian religion as mere superstition.

this only really changed in the 19th century when people like thomas arnold, hennel, strauss and feuerbach, instead of trying to claim that the bible was literal truth by coming up with fantastical 'scientific' explanations for biblical events, looked at the issue in a different way. they instead looked for religious truth inside of ourselves, trying to set aside the 'essence' of Christianity from its miraculous foundations. this (and obviously, what i have written is a very crude and incomplete analysis) put religion on a much firmer foundation and was a rebuttal of the dismissal of religion by some 18th century thinkers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The idea of biblical literalism is an obnoxious historical novelty.

Most definitely. Too many people believe that Biblical fundamentalism was around from the beginning, instead of something that really arose a few hundred years ago in response to modernity, and its (IMO silly) claims that every single question of life can be explained through reason/science. The Bible was intended to be read as a story of the relationship between man and God. The Old Testament about God's relationship with His chose people of Isreal. The New Testament is about God's fulfillment of promises to Isreal and the intent for those promises to be spread throughout Creation. It was never intended to explain everything or describe science, history, etc., in factual detail

[Nikolai]

So true.

[Imran Siddiqui]

i actually think you're wrong in that people really did believe in the literal word of the bible in olden times. people, and not just simple peasants but, learned people too, firmly believed in magic and miracles and people based their religious belief on these miracles, on the supernatural, the big man in the sky, if you like. the analysis of the bible done during the enlightenment was a reaction to that. an attempt to apply scientific principles to the old and new testament, and this analysis was often used to reject the Christian religion as mere superstition.

Recall that none other than St. Augustine, one of the greatest thinkers in Church history said if our intepretation of scripture and science conflict, we should go back and reinterpret scripture (because they can't and should not conflict and Christians clinging to an interpretation of scripture in the face of science look like fools).

[Elok]

C0ckney, Christianity without miracles, the supernatural, etc. is like a sandwich without bread. If you do what Jefferson did and excise the miraculous from the story of Christ, you wind up with a "religious truth inside of ourselves" devoid of authority or meaning. Jesus is transformed from the Son of God into a traveling motivational speaker. That God is real and present, and sent His son--with power--to bring us home, is the central truth of the faith. By literal truth I didn't refer to believing in the power of God to work miracles, but to the idea that if the Bible says Ashbagephat begat Azubabel in one part, and that Azubabel begat Ashbagephat in another, both must be completely correct. Or that "He has set the earth on its foundations so that it shall not be moved" cannot mean anything but geocentrism.

[C0ckney]

elok, that's certainly one view, and i'm not surprised that you hold it. however that's not what i was talking about in my post.

[Elok]

Then what were you talking about? Post #97 seems to imply that "taking the bible literally" is equal to "believing God exists in the first place." Whereas the context of the discussion was miscellaneous textual errata of the type Germanos brought up. Am I misreading you?

[C0ckney]

it was really about the intellectual foundations on which the Christian religion rests, and how they changed over the course of time. it was responding to what you said in post number 86.

i read my post again and i can see how what i said may have been a little unclear.

[Robert]

And Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are in direct contradiction to each other. Face it: the Bible is one of the most inconsistent pieces of fiction ever written.

Reading literature may be a tad bit too difficult for you. Maybe you'd better go back to comics or something

Gen1 and Gen2 are two completely different kinds of tellings. One is about creation, the other one about man, it's fall and it's relation to nature. Both are written by different people in different times, different audiences and different purposes.

The redactor, who wasn't crazy of course, placed them after each other. Not of course b/c he wasn't aware that they 'contradict'. But b/c he knew all of that and also knew that 'contradiction' wasn't even a subject, because both stories weren't even supposed to follow up on eachother or something.

Naming the Bible "the most inconsistent pieces of fiction ever written." is most probably the dumbest thing someone can say about literature. First of all because apparently you aren't even aware that the Bible consists of 66 different books, written in different times, different authors, different audiences, different styles, different languages, etc. etc.

Further it shows that you're ignorant of ancient telling styles. Ignorant about the fact that in opposite to today, chronology, inner-consistence and historical facts weren't an issue. Back then the story was told to bring a message across.

Like with the different birth-stories of Jesus.
They all have different protagonists. "IT CONTRACTICS" some redneck will say. But as a matter of fact it didn't matter to the authors to tell WHO actually went to the grave. They want to bring a message across. Ie.: he was first found by WOMEN! (=unimportant people for those times). Or the message is: "Mary didn't even recognize him" or the message is: "He foretold his resurrection but still they don't believe it"

Same with Gen1 and Gen2.
Two completely different kinds of stories.
Saying that they contradict shows that you're on the same level as any fundi christian who takes them literally.

One can be an atheist and still have great respect for the books of the Bible. It's a unique collection of books from ancient times with very very very well written parts.
One could even say that it's the greatest piece of literature available, especially if you take into account the long period in which it was written and edited, the different people that contributed, etc. etc.

Oh it contradicts.... oh well......
LOL