Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Let's be biblically literary

Let's be biblically literary
Dever coined the phrase Syro-Palestinian Archaeology.  I suppose thinking that it is best to leave the fairy tales out of the discussion.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Bucky Ball
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-15-2019, 09:24 PM)Cavebear Wrote: Let's consider titles.  How does one get called a "Biblical Archaeologist".  One gets it by studying the christian bible for evidence.

Nope. I mean, I suppose one COULD. But it is just ascertaining whether and to what extent Biblical events and persons actually existed and can be verified. In some cases, as Bucky pointed out, it has resulted in the Biblical narrative being invalidated. In a few respects, confirmed; in quite a few, shown to be true but embellished or conflated.

For example, Pontius Pilate was in fact in power around the time that Jesus is alleged to have lived, and this is independently verified from secular sources such as an ancient stele referencing him. This in no way verifies the existence of Jesus as an historical person or the founder of Christianity, much less his divinity. This in no way verifies that Jesus and Pilate ever interacted, either in the manner specified in the gospels, or otherwise (no more than the fact that London is a real place mentioned in the Harry Potter novels, makes those novels works of historical fact).

A "Biblical archaeologist" inherently is nothing more than an archaeologist with an interest in Biblical events and places and the geography and time thereof. While it's possible to start with the hypothesis that the Bible narrative is essentially true, it is also possible to start out with the opposite assumption or with a neutral position. In any event, by this time in history, certain things like the historicity of Moses or the Egyptian captivity are so widely regarded as fabricated persons / events, that no one could gain entry to or be taken seriously as an archaeologist, if they proclaimed otherwise. Even the historicity of Jesus, while still a majority opinion, is not regarded as proven beyond doubt.

(09-15-2019, 09:24 PM)Cavebear Wrote: "Sumerian" or "Egyptian" or "Greek" is a place, not a belief.

Try replacing "Biblical" with "Mithrandic" and you might see what I mean.
One could certainly be an archaeologist specializing in the Mithraism and the culture and rituals influenced thereby, without being a Mithraist.

Biblical refers to a book that is the urtext of the Abrahamic religions, but also to an epoch in a particular Middle East location.

Archaeological specialties are not just about locations, but about things (tree rings, pollen, tools, ceramics), cultures and civilizations (SumerIAN, EgyptIAN, and Greek, or any other).

Archaeology of religion studies religion and ritual of past human history from a material perspective. Biblical archaeology would be one sub-specialty within that. It is just another way to subdivide culture and civilization studies.

If I were into such things I would be acknowledging the significance and importance of religion and ritual in human communities -- in this case the Abrahamic monotheisms -- but that would not mean I would have any particular beliefs concerning them.

Look, I am not defending religion, but it is hardly just, or even mostly, the religious who study religion in any credible, scientific way. Archaeology is a social science, not a belief system or an apologetic for one.
The following 2 users Like mordant's post:
  • grympy, Inkubus
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-15-2019, 09:24 PM)Cavebear Wrote: Let's consider titles.  How does one get called a "Biblical Archaeologist".  One gets it by studying the christian bible for evidence.  

Nope. For the most part, they study the ancient Near East and sites that may relate to the Hebrew texts. Your prejudice does not change reality. 

Quote:If not, then one is simply an "archaeologist".   So, a "biblical archaeologist" is by definition "biblical" in orientation.  I have no use for such religious -searchers.

How you define it and what you have use for is irrelevant. They get to call themselves whatever they want, they are NOT religious and in fact your definition has been demonstrated to be wrong. 

Quote:Try replacing "Biblical" with "Mithrandic" and you might see what I mean.

False analogy. There are Biblical texts. That's a FACT, not a belief. They talk about (supposed) "events" in a (supposed) context. The study of those texts and stories is in no way (of necessity) religious in nature. Half of my professors in Ancient Near Eastern cultures were (we thought) atheists. It was the Biblical Archaeology Review which presented, over the years, much of the evidence that debunks the historicity of the OT and NT.

The study of Mithraism in Comparative Mythology is in no way a religious endeavor.

There are however a few religious crazy people who DO promote the false concept that archaeology supports the historicity and authenticity of the Bible. They have been proven wrong, time and again, and are, in general, a small subset of archaeologists, (if they even ARE real archaeologists).
The following 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • grympy, Inkubus, mordant
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
Levy and Freedman here note that Albright was committed to a picture of biblical literalism which was supported mainly by his personal standing in the field he helped create.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/albright5.shtml

Quote:Albright’s scholarly authority in ancient Near Eastern studies was so profound that the intellectual paradigm that he helped create, biblical archaeology rooted in a fairly literal interpretation of the history embedded in the Old Testament, was unchallenged during his lifetime. While archaeology in the English-speaking world—primarily the United States and the United Kingdom—was undergoing a major paradigm shift in the 1960s with the birth of the new archaeology, archaeologists working in Syro-Palestine insulated themselves from this fundamental intellectual change. This was due in great part to Albright’s authority based on the way he single-handedly shaped the archaeology of the Bible lands during his long career. It was only long after Albright’s death that scholars began to challenge the paradigm he established, with forays into processual, and then post-processual archaeology.


In truth, Albright was an example of the old scientific dictum " science advances one funeral at a time."
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-15-2019, 10:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(09-15-2019, 09:24 PM)Cavebear Wrote: Let's consider titles.  How does one get called a "Biblical Archaeologist".  One gets it by studying the christian bible for evidence.  

Nope. For the most part, they study the ancient Near East and sites that may relate to the Hebrew texts. Your prejudice does not change reality. 

Quote:If not, then one is simply an "archaeologist".   So, a "biblical archaeologist" is by definition "biblical" in orientation.  I have no use for such religious -searchers.

How you define it and what you have use for is irrelevant. They get to call themselves whatever they want, they are NOT religious and in fact your definition has been demonstrated to be wrong. 

Quote:Try replacing "Biblical" with "Mithrandic" and you might see what I mean.

False analogy. There are Biblical texts. That's a FACT, not a belief. They talk about (supposed) "events" in a (supposed) context. The study of those texts and stories is in no way (of necessity) religious in nature. Half of my professors in Ancient Near Eastern cultures were (we thought) atheists. It was the Biblical Archaeology Review which presented, over the years, much of the evidence that debunks the historicity of the OT and NT.

The study of Mithraism in Comparative Mythology is in no way a religious endeavor.

There are however a few religious crazy people who DO promote the false concept that archaeology supports the historicity and authenticity of the Bible. They have been proven wrong, time and again, and are, in general, a small subset of archaeologists, (if they even ARE real archaeologists).
I just believe in one less deity than most people.
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
Deleted for more consideration...
I just believe in one less deity than most people.
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-15-2019, 10:13 PM)Cavebear Wrote: So, have you been a theist all your life, or is this new realization?

I was a theist until I was in about 3rd Grade. 
I have been a non-believer ever since. 
I am an igtheist, as there is no coherent definition of a "god" that merits any time or attention. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Apparently you have a fairly closed mind, and VERY simplistic uneducated idea of the state of academia and science.
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-15-2019, 10:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: There are however a few religious crazy people who DO promote the false concept that archaeology supports the historicity and authenticity of the Bible. They have been proven wrong, time and again, and are, in general, a small subset of archaeologists, (if they even ARE real archaeologists).

In my experience and observation such people are generally not what they claim to be (or more often, are implied to be). For example, the "scientists" often cited as subscribing to creationism are mostly technologists or, when they ARE actual scientists, are speaking outside their area of training and expertise (the very definition of the "appeal to authority" fallacy).

For example the young earth creationists often spout (pun very much intended) a hypothesis concerning the Flood that attempts to explain the Biblical assertion that "the great fountains of the deep were broken up" as a partial source for the epic amounts of water that would be needed to flood the entire planet. This theory is advanced, not by a geologist or meteorologist or paleontologist, but by a mechanical engineer. The "paper" he wrote has been published in exactly zero peer-reviewed scientific journals.

They also have a theory that the mountains weren't as high a few thousand years ago and that there has been a massive amount of gradually decelerating uplift and tectonic shifting that has produced the modern Himalayas and so forth. I am not sure whose fever dream THAT was but I can guarantee you it wasn't anyone remotely trained or qualified to speak to it. There is no one with scientific credibility who thinks that the Himalayas grew at thousands of feet per year conveniently just after the Flood and then settled into its current stable state. There are plenty of people with scientific credibility who can demonstrate multiple reasons why that is not even possible.

They also have been of late advancing the notion, not just of a young earth, but of a young universe. They have a hilarious running commentary on data coming in from flybys of Pluto, asteroids, and comets, with inane comments like "there are hardly any craters on Pluto, so it must be just thousands of years old" and NONE of those are coming from astronomers or anyone qualified in these matters, and in fact, no one who even has a cursory familiarity with the matter, who had read anything AT ALL about it, would think such a thing. 100% of this bullshit is coming from the 2 or 3 people behind Answers in Genesis and similar websites, who are not scientists, or even theologians. They are just presuppositionalist religious crackpots and conspiracy theorists.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • grympy
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-15-2019, 10:11 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(09-15-2019, 10:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: [quote="Cavebear" pid='146845' dateline='1568582650']
Let's consider titles.  How does one get called a "Biblical Archaeologist".  One gets it by studying the christian bible for evidence.  

Nope. For the most part, they study the ancient Near East and sites that may relate to the Hebrew texts. Your prejudice does not change reality. 

Quote:If not, then one is simply an "archaeologist".   So, a "biblical archaeologist" is by definition "biblical" in orientation.  I have no use for such religious -searchers.

How you define it and what you have use for is irrelevant. They get to call themselves whatever they want, they are NOT religious and in fact your definition has been demonstrated to be wrong. 

Quote:Try replacing "Biblical" with "Mithrandic" and you might see what I mean.

False analogy. There are Biblical texts. That's a FACT, not a belief. They talk about (supposed) "events" in a (supposed) context. The study of those texts and stories is in no way (of necessity) religious in nature. Half of my professors in Ancient Near Eastern cultures were (we thought) atheists. It was the Biblical Archaeology Review which presented, over the years, much of the evidence that debunks the historicity of the OT and NT.

The study of Mithraism in Comparative Mythology is in no way a religious endeavor.

There are however a few religious crazy people who DO promote the false concept that archaeology supports the historicity and authenticity of the Bible. They have been proven wrong, time and again, and are, in general, a small subset of archaeologists, (if they even ARE real archaeologists).

Are we arguing oranges and apples?  You said, at the end "There are however a few religious crazy people who DO promote the false concept that archaeology supports the historicity and authenticity of the Bible. They have been proven wrong, time and again, and are, in general, a small subset of archaeologists, (if they even ARE real archaeologists).

That is not what I understood you to be saying previously.  Those are the very people I have been refering to  (OK, my high school English teacher would demand I say "to whom I was referring"...  with double rs

Our definitions about "biblical archaeologists" are different.  I'm right, of course, but at least I understand where we differ.
I just believe in one less deity than most people.
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-15-2019, 07:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: It was archaeologists digging in the Near East, looking to substantiate the literal OT who largely debunked it.
They called themselves "Biblical archaeologists".

It was 100 + mainline academics ("Biblical scholars"), who, in 1953 said about the gospels "these texts cannot be accepted, in detail, as they stand".
If all you know about is Fundy literalism, you don't know (as Ehrman said) what is being taught in mainline centers of scholarship.

Thanks Bucky. 

As it turns out, I come from the Catholic Tradition, and was reading Aquinas at 16.  As a Catholic , I was always dismissive of  literalists .At first just because they were are all going to hell. (according to the good nuns)   Later, from around age 12, I was taught that the New Testament is parable and allegory, not meant BY GOD to be taken literally.  (EG Catholics haven no problem with Evolution)  

It was when I was  studying at university and deconstructed various mythologies ,that I realised the New  Testament is also mythology.  That it MAY contain some truth  but over all is not reliable as reported history.  I reached that conclusion independently of Biblical scholars and it was shared by my secular humanist professor.  I considered that opinion valid then and still do. 

 Over the years, have also had some  'robust'  discussions with a couple of priests trained in theology and apologetics. I have never met more intellectually devious people. Today I'm less tactful, more likely to invite such people 'put up or shut up'



I remember  reading there is some dispute over the implications of the Tel Dan Stele . Not sure who it was  (Finkelstein?) who says David was at  best a tribal  chief . That of course means no  King David, no Jewish empire and no Solomon .  Seems about right. That kind of thing is common when myths are deconstructed.  

I've also read some of Finkelstein and Siberman's " The BiBle Unearthed"   Currently rereading "Did God Have a wife?"  (Dever)   because I got some of this book confused with "The Bible Unearthed" --short answer; Yes, her name was Asherah and she was part of the Canaanite pantheon. So much for Judaism being monotheistic from the start.   

I've read "Lost  Christianities"  and   "Misquoting Jesus" by Erhmnan  and enjoyed them. Currently have started "Did Jesus Exist?"  and have been disappointed so far.  Right at the beginning he tries to shift  the burden of proof away from those making the claim by stating it has already been met by the great many  scholars  who claim Jesus exists.   So far the content is weak. I won't buy any more of his books .(this one was given to me, and now  I understand why) 

I am a continuing to enjoy A N Wilson's "Paul'; The Mind Of The Apostle ". Of course he's a revisionist  and popular writer{was well as a scholar] so not accepted by real biblical a scholars . 

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
PS Little Rant: couldn't find my copy of "Did God Have A Wife". So, I bought it in ebook form from Amazon ,only a few dollars.  I was expecting to download an Ebook or PDF, But noooo, fucking Amazon make me use 'Kindle Cloud Reader' instead of just adding it to my tablet library.  That kind of Hobson's choice makes me livid  . First and last thing I  from Amazon. Fuck 'em!
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-15-2019, 10:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(09-15-2019, 10:13 PM)Cavebear Wrote: So, have you been a theist all your life, or is this new realization?

I was a theist until I was in about 3rd Grade. 
I have been a non-believer ever since. 
I am an igtheist, as there is no coherent definition of a "god" that merits any time or attention. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Apparently you have a fairly closed mind, and VERY simplistic uneducated idea of the state of academia and science.
I just believe in one less deity than most people.
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
Edit
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
Damn, I thought I deleted that as unworthy of posting. As it was.

On the other hand, I'll be glad to get into an discussion in a few days. Because quite frankly, its 1936 hours here and the last time I saw the bed was 40 hours ago.

Feel free to tear me up while I'm gone; I won't mind. It will be a few days. I have a home/lawn/garden to manage and a cat to bring to the Vet after I get up Monday.
I just believe in one less deity than most people.
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-15-2019, 10:24 PM)mordant Wrote:
(09-15-2019, 10:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: There are however a few religious crazy people who DO promote the false concept that archaeology supports the historicity and authenticity of the Bible. They have been proven wrong, time and again, and are, in general, a small subset of archaeologists, (if they even ARE real archaeologists).

In my experience and observation such people are generally not what they claim to be (or more often, are implied to be). For example, the "scientists" often cited as subscribing to creationism are mostly technologists or, when they ARE actual scientists, are speaking outside their area of training and expertise (the very definition of the "appeal to authority" fallacy).

For example the young earth creationists often spout (pun very much intended) a hypothesis concerning the Flood that attempts to explain the Biblical assertion that "the great fountains of the deep were broken up" as a partial source for the epic amounts of water that would be needed to flood the entire planet. This theory is advanced, not by a geologist or meteorologist or paleontologist, but by a mechanical engineer. The "paper" he wrote has been published in exactly zero peer-reviewed scientific journals.

They also have a theory that the mountains weren't as high a few thousand years ago and that there has been a massive amount of gradually decelerating uplift and tectonic shifting that has produced the modern Himalayas and so forth. I am not sure whose fever dream THAT was but I can guarantee you it wasn't anyone remotely trained or qualified to speak to it. There is no one with scientific credibility who thinks that the Himalayas grew at thousands of feet per year conveniently just after the Flood and then settled into its current stable state. There are plenty of people with scientific credibility who can demonstrate multiple reasons why that is not even possible.

They also have been of late advancing the notion, not just of a young earth, but of a young universe. They have a hilarious running commentary on data coming in from flybys of Pluto, asteroids, and comets, with inane comments like "there are hardly any craters on Pluto, so it must be just thousands of years old" and NONE of those are coming from astronomers or anyone qualified in these matters, and in fact, no one who even has a cursory familiarity with the matter, who had read anything AT ALL about it, would think such a thing. 100% of this bullshit is coming from the 2 or 3 people behind Answers in Genesis and similar websites, who are not scientists, or even theologians. They are just presuppositionalist religious crackpots and conspiracy theorists.

 Oh indeedly  doodly,  it's true enough that many mountains were once  much higher. South Australia's My Lofty Ranges were MUCH higher---several billion years ago .They are much lower than say the Himalayas  because they are far older.  The Himalayas  are quite young, only about 50 million years old.

  Literalists never seem to address the notion that if the ocean covered the earth, it would become desalinated and all  the fish would die.

People interested in mythology have long been aware that many cultures have flood myths (for different periods) . A simple explanation might be that  up to a few hundred years ago, the average person had no idea  of the sizeof the earth. Most did not travel more than 20 miles from the place of their birth.  I understand this is still the case for many Americans.

 A flood might cover all that they could see from the top of a nearby hill or mountain. It would be perfectly reasonable for such people  to think the whole world was flooded. 

That's perfectly fine if one is living in a pre scientific ,pre industrial  age, before even  universal education.  But today , I find such people downright offensive, especially  when they get in my face . My solution has been the same for over 50 years; I avoid such people , and do not allow  them in my life.

Q:  Grympy, do you have a lot of friends? 

A Why no, I do not. Why do you ask? Please do not conflate  solitude with loneliness.
The following 2 users Like grympy's post:
  • Minimalist, mordant
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-15-2019, 10:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(09-15-2019, 10:13 PM)Cavebear Wrote: So, have you been a theist all your life, or is this new realization?

I was a theist until I was in about 3rd Grade. 
I have been a non-believer ever since. 
I am an igtheist, as there is no coherent definition of a "god" that merits any time or attention. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Apparently you have a fairly closed mind, and VERY simplistic uneducated idea of the state of academia and science.

Is a 'hard atheist'  a person who says things like "I KNOW there is no god"  "I believe there is no god" or  simply "there is no god" ?

If so, I've heard about about such people, ,but have never actually met one. Truly . 

There are problems with such a position for me . To say: "I know there is no god" is to conflate  belief with knowledge. They are not the same ;knowledge can be proved.  The same cannot always  be said of belief , especially in the area of metaphysics.   Such a claim is faith based, just like any religious belief.

All of the statements I've attributed to the hard atheist are positive claims. They attract the burden of proof.  That's were it gets tricky. To the best of my knowledge the existence of god is an unfalsifiable claim . IE [so far]    it cannot be proved or disproved . (se Russell's Teapot)

As I said, I'm a bit confused. I've probably gotten muddled again
The following 1 user Likes grympy's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-16-2019, 12:21 AM)grympy Wrote:
(09-15-2019, 10:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(09-15-2019, 10:13 PM)Cavebear Wrote: So, have you been a theist all your life, or is this new realization?

I was a theist until I was in about 3rd Grade. 
I have been a non-believer ever since. 
I am an igtheist, as there is no coherent definition of a "god" that merits any time or attention. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Apparently you have a fairly closed mind, and VERY simplistic uneducated idea of the state of academia and science.

 I'm a bit confused again.  Is a 'hard atheist'  a person who says things like "I KNOW there is no god"  "I believe there is no god" or  simply "there is no god" ?

If so, I've heard about about such people, ,but have never actually met one. Truly . 

There are problems with such a position for me . To say: "I know there is no god" is to conflate  belief with knowledge. They are not the same ;knowledge can be proved.  The same can not always  be said of belief , especially in the area of metaphysics.  

All of the statements I've attributed to the hard atheist are positive claims. They attract the burden of proof.  That's were it gets tricky. To the best of my knowledge the existence of god is an unfalsifiable claim . IE [so far]    it cannot be proved or disproved . (se Russell's Teapot)


I am personally convinced that there is no deity of any sort.  I'm not claiming  I can prove that, nor should anyone agree with me about it on my on my authority. 

I might quickly offer the idea that no deity would act as most people think their's does, but that would just be arguing about the details of a deity and by definition, one would be logically incomprehensible.

Again quickly, I will suggest one is just not necessary.  Mostly, there is no positive evidence for thee claim.  

Enjoy...
  Be back in a week.
I just believe in one less deity than most people.
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • mordant
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-15-2019, 02:53 AM)grympy Wrote: Thanks. I'm also reading some very different takes on Paul, his life and Epistles ,in AN Wilson's revisionist biography.  Of course you need to understand  Wilson is just your run of the mill  university trained  scholar.  He isn't actually a trained biblical scholar, so need not be afforded any credibility.  Deadpan Coffee Drinker

Surprisingly (?) Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?"  is most insistent that  anyone  daring to comment on the history of Christianity be a trained biblical  scholar. 

I probably won't bother posting the different ideas about Paul and his life,  which are  fascinating , and which seem reasonable and able and scholarly to me.    It's really not worth the candle .Instead of a  reasoned discussion ,I'm more likely  to  be told I'm confused or just  ignorant .  I can't handle the bun fights you and a couple of others seem to enjoy.   I become quite upset with myself if I lose control to the point that I start saying unkind things  to people I don't know over such trivial  matters .

I am writing a historical fiction piece regarding Paul, though he is not the main character. The time period will be when he spent those two years in jail in Caesarea. The main character, who was alive and around the area when "Jesus supposedly lived", learns of Paul being in jail and his beliefs. The main character decides to visit Paul and end up learning that Paul is merely a deluded individual who completely concocted Jesus from his warped imagination. The main character keeps this information to himself, however. It was going to be a novel, but I have decided to turn it into a short story instead.
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
Quote:Literalists never seem to address the notion that if the ocean covered the earth, it would become desalinated and all  the fish would die.


Literalists find it easier to ignore facts than address them.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • grympy
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-16-2019, 12:44 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(09-15-2019, 02:53 AM)grympy Wrote: Thanks. I'm also reading some very different takes on Paul, his life and Epistles ,in AN Wilson's revisionist biography.  Of course you need to understand  Wilson is just your run of the mill  university trained  scholar.  He isn't actually a trained biblical scholar, so need not be afforded any credibility.  Deadpan Coffee Drinker

Surprisingly (?) Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?"  is most insistent that  anyone  daring to comment on the history of Christianity be a trained biblical  scholar. 

I probably won't bother posting the different ideas about Paul and his life,  which are  fascinating , and which seem reasonable and able and scholarly to me.    It's really not worth the candle .Instead of a  reasoned discussion ,I'm more likely  to  be told I'm confused or just  ignorant .  I can't handle the bun fights you and a couple of others seem to enjoy.   I become quite upset with myself if I lose control to the point that I start saying unkind things  to people I don't know over such trivial  matters .

I am writing a historical fiction piece regarding Paul, though he is not the main character. The time period will be when he spent those two years in jail in Caesarea. The main character, who was alive and around the area when "Jesus supposedly lived", learns of Paul being in jail and his beliefs. The main character decides to visit Paul and end up learning that Paul is merely a deluded individual who completely concocted Jesus from his warped imagination. The main character keeps this information to himself, however. It was going to be a novel, but I have decided to turn it into a short story instead.

 Fascinating. I wish you well.

Since you seem interested in fiction with a religious theme, I recommend "Judas, My Brother" by Frank Yerby .

 A fascinating man, worth a book by himself. . An African American, born in Augusta,  Georgia  in 1916,  he wrote a lot about the antebellum south. All his books have an 'attitude'. Because his photo was never published  with his books, I only discovered  he was black in 1990. Explained a lot to me.  Although I've read most of his books, "Judas,My Brother "is my favourite.

" Judas, My Brother: The Story of the Thirteenth Disciple is a 1968 historical novel by Frank Yerby. The novel provides a narrative attempting a demythologized account of the events surrounding the life of Jesus and the origin of Christianity. "

The wiki article is quite interesting 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas,_My_Brother


From memory, I think Frank did some research. I have no idea how thorough he was.

Although out of print, I found it in hard cover, second hand on Ebay (including pp)  Perhaps more attractive, it is available free to borrow for 14 days from The Internet Archive, a site well worth exploring .

https://archive.org/details/judasmybrother00yerb
The following 1 user Likes grympy's post:
  • mordant
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
(09-16-2019, 02:04 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Literalists never seem to address the notion that if the ocean covered the earth, it would become desalinated and all  the fish would die.


Literalists find it easier to ignore facts than address them.

I really avoid even trying to have a discussion with such people ; they are impervious to reason and fact.  Plus, to be able to hold such a position without having their heads exploding they need to have some industrial strength doublethink*.  I think that in part is why so many of them  seem quite deranged.

Although not a requirement,  purblind ignorance and stupidity seem to be a distinct advantage.   Angel

*I think pithier than 'cognitive dissonance'
Reply

Let's be biblically literary
Quote:I really avoid even trying to have a discussion with such people ; they are impervious to reason and fact.

I know what you mean but Atheist sites seem to attract them and they need to be smacked down.  If you approach it with the right attitude it is fun.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • mordant
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)