|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 10/22/2002 : 13:37:59 [Permalink]
|
Dancer, I've just been looking at the web site you left the URL for and it's pretty silly.
Yes Caiaphis and Pilate were actual people.
But the House of Peter is a traditional site with nothing there to tie it to the first Pope if he was an historic person.
James' box --if authentic--proves only that names that were thought to be common at the time actually were.
Jesus boat--shows only that there were fishing boats on a big lake full of fish.
What are they trying to pull?
Why when we are talking specifically talking about the NT do you bring up the holy books of other religions?
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2002 : 13:46:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
OK. lets try this a different way. ... The posts I made to Slater were to provide sections of the Bible where historical accounts of battles occurred.
Therefore?
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
I think the whole problem is Bible Inerrancy advocates.
If you believe the Creation Story, the Flood, the Exodus, the receipt of the Decalog, the destruction of the Canaanites et. al, the United Monarchy, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and most of the stuff in between to be errant, I totally agree with you. Personally, "I think the whole problem is" theism.
[Edited to correct formating error - RD]
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 10/23/2002 06:51:18 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2002 : 14:02:23 [Permalink]
|
Your reference to the Wizard of Oz is being interpreted by me as an equivalence to the Bible. This I feel is flawed as the Wizard of Oz is fiction and the Bible is a religious text with some historical accounts making it a work of non-fiction. Like all works of non-fiction, it has factual sections and erroneous sections.
I think his Oz reference is right on the money.
It is set, in the beginning at least, in an historic setting with some checkable references to geography and severe weather conditions. Then it tells a story about an overland journy with magical elements--same as the NT. The minor checkable references do not make the Oz books non-fiction. In one Dorothy is in the San Francisco earthquake, falls into a fissure and is able to get back to Oz underground. The earthquake of 1906 is very much a historic event but the book is shown through it's elements of fantasy to be pure fiction. The exact same holds true for the NT. Claims that it is a "religious text" have no bearing whatsoever on it being non-fiction.
The posts I made to Slater were to provide sections of the Bible where historical accounts of battles occurred. Granted, they were in the OT and not in the NT. It was answering a question and not meant to have an effect on the flow of the conversation.
Since it was an answer to a question that I didn't ask it could easily be interpreted as a strawman.
I do not recall any passage where the Bible calls itself the inerrant word of God. I believe that is a doctorine of the Church.
I do not recall any passages either. Nor is that doctrine of the Roman Catholic (historic Christian) Church. It is however the main claim of faith of American Fundamentalists since the 1880's and they are the only Christians who seem to want to participate on these boards.
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 11:47:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
OK. lets try this a different way. ... The posts I made to Slater were to provide sections of the Bible where historical accounts of battles occurred.
Therefore?
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
I think the whole problem is Bible Inerrancy advocates.
If you believe the Creation Story, the Flood, the Exodus, the receipt of the Decalog, the destruction of the Canaanites et. al, the United Monarchy, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and most of the stuff in between to be errant, I totally agree with you. Personally, "I think the whole problem is" theism.
[Edited to correct formating error - RD]
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 10/23/2002 06:51:18
I've tried several times to explain my answer to Slater to be trying to refocus the question on the entire Bible instead of just the NT.
Since I have yet to explain it in a way that you will accept, I give up.
Your backhanded slap at theology is duely noted.
If you want any sort of respect for your own views of philosiphy, you have to stop making such insulting references to theology. I don't make such references to atheism. I seperate the actions of the practioner of a philosiphy from that philosiphy.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 11:59:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dancer, I've just been looking at the web site you left the URL for and it's pretty silly.
Yes Caiaphis and Pilate were actual people.
But the House of Peter is a traditional site with nothing there to tie it to the first Pope if he was an historic person.
James' box --if authentic--proves only that names that were thought to be common at the time actually were.
Jesus boat--shows only that there were fishing boats on a big lake full of fish.
What are they trying to pull?
Why when we are talking specifically talking about the NT do you bring up the holy books of other religions?
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled
I took the quote of "If it is telling authentic history then the rest of the bible is lying." as applying to the whole Bible, not just the NT. It would be like critiquing the Wizard of Oz based only on the last five chapters.
Religious documents have a two-fold purpose. First is to instruct their practioners in the way of the faith. Second is to provide some history to the events around them which they felt significant at the time of the writing of the document. In this case, it makes it a work of non-fiction. As all historical accounts go, there must be independant verification through other documents or archeology to support that history.
Offhandedly dismissing the document as a piece of fluff with no historical context what-so-ever is premature. The Wizard of Oz was made to entertain. The Bible was not.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 12:30:29 [Permalink]
|
Valiant, the Wizard of Oz also had some serious themes running in the background as a lot of literature does. Doesn't this then put it on a par with the Bible?
I really don't think that was a backhanded slap at theology. The Bible is very specific in its claims and you said what you thought the "whole problem" is. Reasonable Doubt has an idea on that as well. Just because it doesn't go well with your does not make it a backhanded slap. Frankly, I agree with RD on this.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 12:38:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
I've tried several times to explain my answer to Slater to be trying to refocus the question on the entire Bible instead of just the NT.
Why do you find the need to do so. While Slater and I often disagree, I've never seen him deny the maltifaceted character of the Tanach. Be it intentional or not, your efforts to "refocus" serve only to construct a strawman argument, e.g., Acts is not fiction because Numbers mentions Jericho.
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
Since I have yet to explain it in a way that you will accept, I give up.
Again, you have explained what you were attempting to do. You have yet to explain its relevance.
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
Your backhanded slap at theology is duely noted.
I thought I was being quite forthright.
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
If you want any sort of respect for your own views of philosiphy, you have to stop making such insulting references to theology. I don't make such references to atheism.
Three quick points: - I neither require nor covet your respect.
- Theism, in my opinion, is worthy of insult.
- Please feel free to make whatever reference about atheism that you feel capable of defending.
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
I seperate the actions of the practioner of a philosiphy from that philosiphy.
So do I. I believe that many ethical, well intentioned, and intelligent people are theists. I have no problem acknowledging their attributes while rejecting theism as a fundamentally bankrupt philosophy.
Now, which of your historic "nuggets" do you find worthy of focus, and might they include such things as a World Flood or the Exodus?
========
Edited to add: Villa Park? Take that son of yours our to Morton Arboretum this weekend. It should be beautiful!
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 10/23/2002 13:27:00 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 13:26:34 [Permalink]
|
I took the quote of "If it is telling authentic history then the rest of the bible is lying." as applying to the whole Bible, not just the NT.
This entire thread is devoted to the claims of historicity for the Book of Acts. Whether or not Luke, or rather his friend Theophilus, was recording fact or fiction. References were being made to different versions of the same story told elsewhere in the NT.
If you want to compare Acts with the OT you have to get to the very basics. One book says that the Jewish race is the chosen people of god the other says that the Jews murdered god and are damned.
It would be like critiquing the Wizard of Oz based only on the last five chapters.
No, not at all. It would be like critiquing the Wizard of Oz only by using Aesops fables
In this case, it makes it a work of non-fiction. As all historical accounts go, there must be independant verification through other documents or archeology to support that history.
That's nonsense.
Offhandedly dismissing the document as a piece of fluff with no historical context what-so-ever is premature.
Two thousand years can hardly be called premature.
The Wizard of Oz was made to entertain. The Bible was not.
Oz was written to bring its author profit. The bible was written with the same end in mind.
The big difference is that L. Frank Baum never had anyone burned at the stake because they didn't believe in the Tin Man's sacred heart. You need theism to make fantasy/fiction deadly. Without theism it's just fun.
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2002 : 15:59:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Second is to provide some history to the events around them which they felt significant at the time of the writing of the document. In this case, it makes it a work of non-fiction.
If this were true, there would be no such literary category as Historical Fiction.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 10:54:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Valiant, the Wizard of Oz also had some serious themes running in the background as a lot of literature does. Doesn't this then put it on a par with the Bible?
I really don't think that was a backhanded slap at theology. The Bible is very specific in its claims and you said what you thought the "whole problem" is. Reasonable Doubt has an idea on that as well. Just because it doesn't go well with your does not make it a backhanded slap. Frankly, I agree with RD on this.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
@tomic,
It is the historical context of the Bible which sets it apart from other works. I tend to keep religious texts completely seperate from fiction. Those texts are a how-to for a philosiphy and have some historical reference to further modify the philisophical themes. It is for that reason that I classify them as non-fiction.
The backhanded slap at theology was his statement, "Personally, "I think the whole problem is 'theism'." He further states "I believe that many ethical, well intentioned, and intelligent people are theists. I have no problem acknowledging their attributes while rejecting theism as a fundamentally bankrupt philosophy."
I will give him the benefit of this week being particularly stressful for me and I may be a tad over-sensitive. I was cautioning that he was appearing to have no respect for the practioners by insulting the philosiphy. This is no way to convince others of a point.
If I went a little far afield in my analysis of the subject, then I appologize. I will no longer persue this thread.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 11:19:37 [Permalink]
|
And what is it about the philosophy of theism--as opposed to any number of other philosophies we could name--that automatically makes it deserving of respect?
What makes it above honest opinions that it is detrimental to people and the planet in general? Why shouldn't these opinions be aired, in your point of view?
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 12:08:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is the historical context of the Bible which sets it apart from other works. I tend to keep religious texts completely seperate from fiction. Those texts are a how-to for a philosiphy and have some historical reference to further modify the philisophical themes. It is for that reason that I classify them as non-fiction.
Have you ever read the Dune series by Frank Herbert? Herbert created an intricate world with an entire history and the novel was chock full of philosophy. The trouble is, none of the history was true past about the 1970s. I think your argument would require moving Dune to non-fiction.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 12:18:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
It is the historical context of the Bible which sets it apart from other works.
It is, likewise, the historical context of War and Peace that sets it apart from other works.
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
It is the historical context of the Bible which sets it apart from other works. I tend to keep religious texts completely seperate from fiction. Those texts are a how-to for a philosiphy and have some historical reference to further modify the philisophical themes. It is for that reason that I classify them as non-fiction.
In what way, relevant to this thread, does any OT "historical reference ... further modify the philisophical themes".
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
The backhanded slap at theology was his statement, "Personally, "I think the whole problem is 'theism'."
Personally, I think the whole problem is theism. Absent that, I find the folk lore, folk history, and poetry of the Tanach quite interesting.
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
I will give him the benefit of this week being particularly stressful for me ...
That is entirely unnecessary, but I do, nevertheless, hope things improve for you.
quote:
Valiant Dancer wrote:
If I went a little far afield in my analysis of the subject, then I appologize. I will no longer persue this thread.
An alternative to avoiding the thread might be to address the topic. If you wish to pursue the OT/Tanach as history, I encourage you to start a new thread. Be forwarned, however, that you may discover far less history than you expect, and I would strongly suggest that you first familiarize yourself with the works of folks like Mazar, Dever, Finkelstein/Silberman, and R. E. Friedman.
With regards to this thread, it is simply absurd to think that Acts could or should be analyzed in the context of Genesis or Numbers. The relationship between the so-called Old and New Testaments is one of usurpation, not one of organic growth. Better to start with something like Kirby's excellent site: Acts of the Apostles.
=====
On an entirely different and far less relevant topic, let me note that I am horrible at spelling and, if anything, worse at typing. It is with this in mind that I would encourage you to consider taking more care in the spelling of such frequently used words as "philosophy"..
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 10/24/2002 16:18:22 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 12:30:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The relationship between the so-called Old and New testaments is one of usurption, not one of organic growth.
Excellent. Much better than I've ever phrased it. Do you mind if I borrow that line?
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 14:39:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater wrote:
quote:
The relationship between the so-called Old and New testaments is one of usurption, not one of organic growth.
Excellent. Much better than I've ever phrased it. Do you mind if I borrow that line?
Thanks, but I should have written "usurpation". Feel free to use it as corrected.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
