Existence of God (split from old thread)

[timtofly]

I'm hardly the one putting thoughts into the minds of the ancients. I'm giving them credit for imagination and creativity. It's quite easy to invent a religion or mythos. L. Ron Hubbard did it with Scientology. Mormonism is a made-up religion, invented by some guy back in the early 1800s. When Frank Herbert wrote Dune in the early 1960s, he was asked if he was trying to invent a new religion. Since one of Herbert's major themes in Dune was that of using religion to manipulate the masses and another was "beware of the charismatic leader, as even the most benign can become corrupted", Herbert was horrified at the notion that anyone would think he was trying to create a religion around that novel.


My "notion" of history is based on years of study of classical history, cultural anthropology, archaeology, and common sense.

If thousands of cultures are going to claim that the universe was created by someone and you hold that it's an objective fact that the universe was created by some divine whatever, then why don't all these agree in the details? They can't all be true, so it's more likely that none of them are true and humans in these cultures are simply inventing their own explanations for the questions they can't otherwise answer because they have no data or standard method of figuring things out.


Thank you, but I was making the point that some people claim that God literally wrote the Bible. Forget about the idea that God inspired Moses to write the Ten Commandments on the stone tablets; these people believe that God himself did it, like Charlton Heston's movie was a documentary instead of a Hollywood movie with amazing cinematography (for that time)

Modern cinema is hardly an authority of modern times, much less ancient.

The Bible does not even address Judaism and is not about the religion we currently call Christianity. It was about normal humans and the experiences they had.

And we cannot even be sure that it was passed down orally, even though it was commanded to memorize it. They were memorizing what had been written out.

It was clear that copying the given word on scrolls was a very integral part of keeping those experiences from anything more than actual experiences.

Most religions start out with people writing stuff down. That is not my point. There is still no proof that these people were starting a religion. The claimed they were being governed by an entity that was there.

That God is no longer around is not proof such an entity was not at one point. Nor does it limit a future revelation. That people refuse to see God as being the source and sustainer of the material makeup of the universe is what makes that willingness a choice and the mystery of the spiritual aspect of reality.

The point that God is not around is in the mind, not the physical reality we choose as all there is. But it is not the mind that creates reality or even the imaginary. The mind is just our view of reality, not the creator of reality. A blind person has lost one means of experiencing reality. A closed mind is the same, and limits what we choose or dismiss as real.

 

[onejayhawk]

It doesn't say that about itself

Please expand. The text is theopneustos.

How can it be useful in training for righteousness? It spreads a great number of libelous statements about God. People who use the Bible to gain insight into righteousness very quickly fall into the trap the rabbi warned about. A house built upon sand cannot weather a storm. How's it useful for reproof?

Since you just used it for reproof, I will take that as granted. The rabbi also said that one commandment is above all the others. That is the instruction in righteousness. The rest is history and amplification of the basic principle.

People cling to the Bible when they have to choose between it and God. Not always. But often enough that I'd say that the Bible itself isn't really pulling its weight on that front.

Point? You usually write more clearly than this.

J

 

[Berzerker]

It hasn't definitively answered the chemical origin of life.

so why is your account decent or perfectly scientific?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Modern cinema is hardly an authority of modern times, much less ancient.

That's exactly my point. I've encountered people online who act as though Charlton Heston's movie was really the way it literally happened. Explain to them that it's just a movie, and they come back with "Why do you hate God?" and other nonsense.

The Bible does not even address Judaism and is not about the religion we currently call Christianity. It was about normal humans and the experiences they had.

Yeah, because normal people get spoken to by burning bushes every day. Totally normal.

And we cannot even be sure that it was passed down orally, even though it was commanded to memorize it. They were memorizing what had been written out.

It was clear that copying the given word on scrolls was a very integral part of keeping those experiences from anything more than actual experiences.

Most religions start out with people writing stuff down. That is not my point. There is still no proof that these people were starting a religion. The claimed they were being governed by an entity that was there.

Backwards, as usual. As for no proof of starting a religion, recall that I mentioned L. Ron Hubbard. He was having money problems, so he started a religion. One of the most famous current Scientologists is actor Tom Cruise.

Most people were illiterate in ancient times. The aristocracy, priests, and merchants were usually the ones who had some degree of literacy... if they were men. Most men back then didn't see any point in teaching women to read.

The usual sequence is stories, oral tradition, writing, formalizing what's been written, then dogma that may or may not be put into law that if people don't accept it, they're in trouble - with consequences ranging from raised eyebrows, up to and including execution.

That God is no longer around is not proof such an entity was not at one point. Nor does it limit a future revelation. That people refuse to see God as being the source and sustainer of the material makeup of the universe is what makes that willingness a choice and the mystery of the spiritual aspect of reality.

Here's something to ponder. Did it ever occur that there were atheists back then, too? Granted, most people likely believed in whatever god(s) or goddess(es) their society had. But skepticism and reason aren't only aspects of modern life.

 

[Akka]

Are you referring to this?

'One or more of those elements' isn't everything...and for the sake of this discussion, water is inanimate.

If elements that allows life are considered "animate", it still completely ignore the actual meaning of "animate" to shoehorn the definition into a predetermined "conclusion", and it still includes about everything in the universe (our life needs water, actually, so I don't see how you can segregate it from being "animate" except because it's a known part and you seem to restrict your definition to unknown parts).

 

[Farm Boy]

People cling to the Bible when they have to choose between it and God.

That doesn't seem like a "but for." Failure to rise will find a rationalization.

 

[El_Machinae]

Please expand. The text is theopneustos.

It's a fairly big leap to say that sentence is referring to the Bible. The Bible was yet to be compiled. We don't know who wrote that text, or what he was referring to. A plain reading suggests that he's thinking of texts that have already been written. Heck, a few sentences up, he even refers to Jannes and Jambres, a set of scripture that aren't even in the Bible!

You've gone to assume that the text is both referring to itself and to the eventual Bible. The Scripture is absolutely riddled with warnings of false prophecies. To twist 2 Timothy into a prophecy is a terrific jump. And it certainly has caused many, many people to believe false things about God.

The rabbi also said that one commandment is above all the others.

Yes, he's quoted as saying that. And then we have to decide whether he's referring to the Biblical God or the real one, or whether the authors of the Gospels twisted his words to confuse the two. Some of the most egregious libel against God is contained in the Bible. In fact, I cannot think of a book that has more singularly caused more people to believe false things about God than the Bible. If we think Jesus meant the Abrahamic God, then it's an amazingly large moral error. People who use the Bible as a clue to God really make some very big mistakes.

 

[timtofly]

Backwards, as usual.

Most people were illiterate in ancient times. The aristocracy, priests, and merchants were usually the ones who had some degree of literacy... if they were men. Most men back then didn't see any point in teaching women to read.

The usual sequence is stories, oral tradition, writing, formalizing what's been written, then dogma that may or may not be put into law that if people don't accept it, they're in trouble - with consequences ranging from raised eyebrows, up to and including execution.


Here's something to ponder. Did it ever occur that there were atheists back then, too? Granted, most people likely believed in whatever god(s) or goddess(es) their society had. But skepticism and reason aren't only aspects of modern life.

Except for the point that the first 5 books contain an elaborate societal structure as it's main theme. I am not the one limiting the range of capable thought processes and reasoning. The accusation is that someone made it all up, instead of real humans experiencing real life. The whole point is that God no longer interacts in the same manner.

Yes, he's quoted as saying that. And then we have to decide whether he's referring to the Biblical God or the real one, or whether the authors of the Gospels twisted his words to confuse the two. Some of the most egregious libel against God is contained in the Bible. In fact, I cannot think of a book that has more singularly caused more people to believe false things about God than the Bible. If we think Jesus meant the Abrahamic God, then it's an amazingly large moral error. People who use the Bible as a clue to God really make some very big mistakes.

There is only a single God mentioned in the Bible as a whole. That was and still is the point of canonicity. The point of the Bible being God's Word is the fact that the Bible is the only physical aspect of God we have. There is also no dificulty in translating the Bible into all languages, and we still have as close to the original languages as any text remaining today, other than what we find in stone tablets and hieroglyphs. The point that it was published and distributed on a large scale, is because it was not private property, but belonged to humanity as a whole.

There was even extra-biblical scholars who recognized the import of the Hebrew text, way before the advent of the New Testament. Nor did the ongoing fued between Jews and Christianity change what was the text or meaning of both OT and NT.

The Bible remained intact despite two different religions using it as a basis, nor did they alter it to fit their dogma or belief systems.

 

[onejayhawk]

That's not quite true. The Bible mentions many gods. Even men are gods. Otherwise, A great King above all gods" makes no sense.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Except for the point that the first 5 books contain an elaborate societal structure as it's main theme. I am not the one limiting the range of capable thought processes and reasoning. The accusation is that someone made it all up, instead of real humans experiencing real life. The whole point is that God no longer interacts in the same manner.

Do you ever really think about what I've posted? It doesn't seem so.

I saw a TV documentary about the bible about 10 years ago (approximately), and the scholars on that program said that the people mentioned in the first 5 books (ie. the patriarchs and their descendents) were not real people - that these were stories meant as lessons, not as literal history of people who had really lived.

That's basically in agreement with the cultural anthropology view that the stories in the bible (and other religious texts) were invented by humans.

As for God not interacting the same way now, did it never occur to you that nowadays, people are a lot harder to fool with so-called "miracles"? They really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find a reason to give sainthood to the most recent Pope and Mother Teresa - who was anything but saintly.

There is also no dificulty in translating the Bible into all languages, and we still have as close to the original languages as any text remaining today, other than what we find in stone tablets and hieroglyphs. The point that it was published and distributed on a large scale, is because it was not private property, but belonged to humanity as a whole.

Yeah, the lolcat version is cute; improperly translated, as there's a lot of l33t-speek in there instead of proper lolspeak, but it'll do. At least it has cute cat pictures in it.

As for the bible belonging to humanity as a whole... cool. So I should be able to go into any library or bookstore and walk off with a copy without paying, because it belongs to me?

The Bible remained intact despite two different religions using it as a basis, nor did they alter it to fit their dogma or belief systems.

The bible is one of the most-altered books in the history of the existence of books.

 

[timtofly]

Do you ever really think about what I've posted? It doesn't seem so.

I saw a TV documentary about the bible about 10 years ago (approximately), and the scholars on that program said that the people mentioned in the first 5 books (ie. the patriarchs and their descendents) were not real people - that these were stories meant as lessons, not as literal history of people who had really lived.

That's basically in agreement with the cultural anthropology view that the stories in the bible (and other religious texts) were invented by humans.

As for God not interacting the same way now, did it never occur to you that nowadays, people are a lot harder to fool with so-called "miracles"? They really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find a reason to give sainthood to the most recent Pope and Mother Teresa - who was anything but saintly.



Yeah, the lolcat version is cute; improperly translated, as there's a lot of l33t-speek in there instead of proper lolspeak, but it'll do. At least it has cute cat pictures in it.

As for the bible belonging to humanity as a whole... cool. So I should be able to go into any library or bookstore and walk off with a copy without paying, because it belongs to me?




The bible is one of the most-altered books in the history of the existence of books.

You do have to pay for most alterations.

 

[onejayhawk]

The bible is one of the most-altered books in the history of the existence of books.

The Book of Mormon would disagree.

In general, this is not supported by facts. Comparing the Greek translation, the Septuagint, to the Hebrew texts of the early roman period shows good continuity. Jewish copies centuries apart are almost letter perfect. If anything, the New Testament is more reliable. The persecution drove copies into hiding. There are well over 2000 documents from the first three centuries. Older than 400 BCE things get more difficult. Still, the Bible is the most reliably documented text of antiquity.

J

 

[Lexicus]

The Book of Mormon would disagree.

LOL

This seriously is among the funnier things I've read in a while.

In general, this is not supported by facts.

In general, it is clearly supported by facts. It almost has to be true just because of the longevity of the Bible and the fact that it's been subject to political contention for much of its history.

 

[Berzerker]

If elements that allows life are considered "animate", it still completely ignore the actual meaning of "animate" to shoehorn the definition into a predetermined "conclusion", and it still includes about everything in the universe (our life needs water, actually, so I don't see how you can segregate it from being "animate" except because it's a known part and you seem to restrict your definition to unknown parts).

I didn't mention elements that allow life. Here's what I said, again:

But mixing it (h2o) with other elements under the right circumstances might produce life, so either the inanimate gave rise to the animate or the animate was present somehow in one or more of those elements.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You do have to pay for most alterations.

We're talking about a book, not something I'd buy in a clothing store. Since the very first edition of the bible isn't something I'd be able to get my hands on without a time machine, your comment makes no sense.

The Book of Mormon would disagree.

In general, this is not supported by facts. Comparing the Greek translation, the Septuagint, to the Hebrew texts of the early roman period shows good continuity. Jewish copies centuries apart are almost letter perfect. If anything, the New Testament is more reliable. The persecution drove copies into hiding. There are well over 2000 documents from the first three centuries. Older than 400 BCE things get more difficult. Still, the Bible is the most reliably documented text of antiquity.

J

Why?

I'm not only talking about copy errors. I'm talking about groups of people having a meeting, deciding what books to leave in and which to leave out. I'm talking about various editions that use different words and phrases that do have an effect on how people read and understand specific chapters and verses.

"Word of God", my <whatever>.

More like "Word of Politicians", deciding what they wanted the people to believe. Note that I use the word "politicians" to include high-ranking church authorities.

 

[timtofly]

We're talking about a book, not something I'd buy in a clothing store. Since the very first edition of the bible isn't something I'd be able to get my hands on without a time machine, your comment makes no sense.


Why?

I'm not only talking about copy errors. I'm talking about groups of people having a meeting, deciding what books to leave in and which to leave out. I'm talking about various editions that use different words and phrases that do have an effect on how people read and understand specific chapters and verses.

"Word of God", my <whatever>.

More like "Word of Politicians", deciding what they wanted the people to believe. Note that I use the word "politicians" to include high-ranking church authorities.

Actually the high ranking church authorities used the scholars of the day, and left it up to them to decide, but you are still missing the point thus what I am writing is not making any sense. Come up with any excuse to reason why you think the Bible has changed in 2500 years for the OT, and 1800 years for the NT, and that is just what they are, excuses. Humans have changed since then in certain aspects, but point out where they changed the Bible from the beginning writings. Of course there are thousands of alterations, but they have not changed the original. First you say they made up all the stories, and then you claim we do not even have the original stories. What sense do these excuses make?

 

[Berzerker]

some of the alterations happened long before the Bible was compiled

For example, Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt. The Sumerian word for salt also means vapor. She was vaporized and its possible her image was transposed to nearby rock.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Actually the high ranking church authorities used the scholars of the day, and left it up to them to decide, but you are still missing the point thus what I am writing is not making any sense. Come up with any excuse to reason why you think the Bible has changed in 2500 years for the OT, and 1800 years for the NT, and that is just what they are, excuses. Humans have changed since then in certain aspects, but point out where they changed the Bible from the beginning writings. Of course there are thousands of alterations, but they have not changed the original. First you say they made up all the stories, and then you claim we do not even have the original stories. What sense do these excuses make?

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

The original stories were made up and told in oral form. Spoken. The written versions - plural - came later. Since humans don't have perfect memories (okay, some have eidetic memories, but that's not what I'm talking about), there is no way in hell that the bible on my bookshelf is the same as the bible that was originally hand-written and copied (and copied and copied and copied) over 2000 years ago.

Are you going to say that absolutely every edition of the bible that has ever come along is identical to the first edition? Wow, I didn't know lolspeak and l33t-speek were around that long ago!

@Berzerker: Can we please not go back to your creative notions of how chemistry and physics work? Vaporized does not mean turned into rock.

 

[Berzerker]

Can we please not go back to your creative notions of how chemistry and physics work? Vaporized does not mean turned into rock.

I said she was vaporized and its possible her image was transposed to nearby rock

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Good question, do you have a good answer?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I said she was vaporized and its possible her image was transposed to nearby rock

Evidence, please. You have some really creative notions about this, so I'm sure you'll understand my skepticism.

Or you could just bump your old thread. I'm sure it's still around somewhere.

Good question, do you have a good answer?

I addressed that to timtofly, who has yet to reply.