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
Why I choose Bible scripture over others
#1

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
Quote: Anyway, you're among the rare who developed a belief in a god after having not believed and I (and possibly others) would be interested in what took you there.  My partner's son, in his 50s, and pretty much an atheist, had a stroke in his shower when alone at home and, semi-paralyzed, was only by fortunate circumstance able to get to a phone and dial 911.  His narrow escape convinced him some higher power was looking out for him and that he now owed god his worship and he became a Jehovah's Witness.

Do you have a similar story or did your belief take shape after deliberate study, or something else?

This should probably be best answered by starting a thread for it, rather than here in the introductions.

This is an appreciated quote from the introduction section. I hope it's okay to do this (transfer quotes from other threads to another) as it helps me in case I want to refer back to it. If not, I'll stop.

I was 21, and circumstances had me move in with a buddy I grew up with who became a Christian, and his Christian roommates. I had absolutely no interest in Christianity, and my roommates knew it, and were pretty cool about not coming on strong about it. Never went to church with them. I think I stepped into a church once when I was in high school. And I think it was just the cafeteria or conference room.

One day, when I was alone, I found myself thinking about Christianity. I actually tried to think my way out of the religion having any validity. However, I couldn't think my way out of it. So I ended up hiking up a hill I often jogged up, and when I got to the top I basically prayed. And this lead to seeing a vision, a bright light in the shape of a man I understood to be Jesus.

So my conversion was not a result of having a traumatic experience, or reading the Bible on my own as I didn't have any interest. I just basically started from what I knew through a general knowledge of the Gospel message.

Quote:As for scripture, at least some time should be spent explaining why your chosen scripture is any more believable (or worthy of study) than all the other 'scriptures' around.

Another appreciated quote from the same thread.

So as a starter, finding that Jesus is a real deity, that is...God, that would be the starting point. And then from there reading and researching scripture (including the references to scriptures deemed as evil by a number), researching other religions, etc. has only reinforced my belief. And of course there's the day-to-day experiences including attempting to run from Jesus/Christianity/fellowship with other believers, and not being able to. And when I mean run away, I mean from other believers, meaning completely alone.

Why am I so sure the vision I had was Jesus I encountered that day?

Humans have this uncanny ability to introduce themselves in such a way that I never question their reality. Any new person I meet, I never find myself thinking maybe they are not real, or even someone other than who they claim to be. So a creator, who as claimed in scripture created us humans in His image should be able to (for lack of a better term) introduce Himself in such a way that there's no question of His reality just like the person I met at Starbucks.

Could I be/have been wrong the whole time thinking I encountered Jesus? Sure! I could be a part of some alien experiment, and dreaming all this up, including posting in this forum. But I'm not going to not post in this forum because there's a possibility this forum is not actually here. The improbability outweighs the possibility. And it's the same principle with my relationship to Jesus/the Bible/Christianity.

What about people of other faiths and their experiences?

I can't ultimately answer for them, but if anyone believes in another god, or god of another faith, I'll listen, and we can compare notes. I do think that sometimes some people get the wrong idea that all faiths are the same. I don't think this the case. I've never read the Quran, but I've looked into the subject of relationship between Allah and man, and have seen very little reference to personal relationship. I won't say none, but very little. And I think it's generally understood, even among Muslims, that there's actually not really a personal relationship between man, or Muslims and Allah. Except maybe someone in a high position in the Islamic religion. And that generally Muslims are compelled to follow the teachings of the prophet Mohammed as a mediary between them and Allah. But I'm not an expert on Islam, so someone may very well school me on this.

What about that popular deity figure often referred to in these type of discussions: Zeus? Well, if anyone claims to have had a similar or comparable experience with said deity, I'm all ears.

So these are some reasons I personally believe the Bible scriptures, and in preference to scriptures of other faiths. I can't of course think for others, and wouldn't want to. I'm a firm believer in free-thought. I think some people assume free-thought will always result in non-belief/faith. I don't think that at all.
Reply
#2

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 10:03 AM)Camaro Dude Wrote: This is an appreciated quote from the introduction section. I hope it's okay to do this (transfer quotes from other threads to another) as it helps me in case I want to refer back to it. If not, I'll stop.

It's cool to start threads about things brought up in intro. But, transferring quotes from thread to thread in other sections is not so cool, we want to avoid stalking others through various topics. Let's keep each topic to itself. Thanks.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
Reply
#3

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
There's a general line of argument, popularized by G.E. Moore, which states that while we can doubt things, like the hand in front of my face, or that I'm not a brain in a vat, the self evidence of these perceptions is its own testament, and if skeptical doubts are to undermine our belief in these things, then they must overcome the self evidence of these things by coming up with adequate justification for our skepticism. This essentially reverses the burden of proof from what is normally assumed. Normally, one faces no burden in doubting a claim, as the burden lies on the claimant. But according to this line of argument, the self evidence itself is evidence which must be overcome, lest the doubt be rejected as unreasonable. I don't know that I agree with this line of reasoning, though it shares some elements with the modern pragmatism approach of saying that we really can believe our eyes, that seeing is believing. Under such a theory, visions themselves take on heightened value in any evaluation of religious claims whereas under ordinary skepticism they do not.

I'm skeptical of Moore's line of thinking itself, but it certainly appeals to some deep seated intuitions. The person who thinks that they're dreaming and not awake certainly is thinking outside the boundaries of what we consider reasonable and therefore would need to justify their belief that they are only dreaming, if only to themselves. At the same time, it's certainly an unexpected counter thrust for the skeptic to be put on the defensive. I'm unconvinced, but many philosophers find that this argument has merit, and so perhaps it's just a bit above my paygrade.

My big issue with any vision would be how did you confirm what you saw. A vision is as likely if not moreso simply soliciting ideas that we had prior to the experience. Thus if a person growing up in a Christian culture sees a glowing, numinous shape in the form of a man, the figure of Jesus comes to mind. On the other hand, someone who has grown up in India may be more likely to think they've seen Krishna. So, obviously the majority of the work is being done by what is already present in our minds, most of which did not have such self evident qualities, and it is only our prior ideas and concepts which are being primed by the visual stimulus. Indeed, why believe that it's a religious figure at all? Perhaps numinous shapes are a natural phenomenon, and like unidentified flying objects, we thrust our own preconceptions and beliefs about aliens and ufos upon them, when the stimulus might ultimately prove to be something not so otherworldly.

The Stoics had a concept in their epistemology of the phantasia katalepsis, being a perception that in its presentation to the mind, makes it clear that the thing is real and cannot be doubted. This idea was no doubt strengthened by theories of perception of the time which said that visual perception occurred as a result of a power or force being projected from the object or thing toward our visual apparatus, and it was this 'force' of sorts which was causing the perception and its qualities. As such, it makes sense to believe that if the perception is extraordinarily intense, then that's the result of extraordinarily intense force terminating from the object itself. Therefore, if an object emanates a visual force then it's reasonable to presume an extraordinariness of the object, and accept it as undeniable based upon the properties of the object itself which allow such powerful emanations. Of course, now we know that perception doesn't work that way. But in a sense, intuitive understandings of perception still animate our beliefs about the relationship between perceived and perceiver, in spite of our knowing better. Thus the phantasia kataleptica has an appeal which other forgotten kruft from ancient philosophies does not.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 5 users Like Dānu's post:
  • OakTree500, Thumpalumpacus, mordant, epronovost, Rhythmcs
Reply
#4

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 10:03 AM)Camaro Dude Wrote: What about that popular deity figure often referred to in these type of discussions: Zeus? Well, if anyone claims to have had a similar or comparable experience with said deity, I'm all ears.

So just picking this part out in relation to pretty much everything else - people, all throughout history, say they have seen their deity of choice/an angel [and not the biblically accurate kind, which is odd when you think about it]/a ghost/bigfoot etc etc - Are these people telling the truth? Maybe, maybe not. Do they believe what they saw is true? Again, maybe...maybe not.

Would it be "possible" that whatever you saw, no matter if actually real or just in the mind, was a composite of many different things which include, but are not limited to, ideas you've been bombarded with your entire life [consciously or not] which you already put into "first place". For Example: you didn't see Zeus.......but why? Most likely because your country of origin is Christian in nature [as in it's larger religious base]. For example: I'm from the UK which has a history with Christianity - people here say "Jesus Christ" or "oh god" when something goes wrong. It's pretty much engrained into us at this point that "god" is THE religion - but we know thats not true. We don't go around say "oh Allah damnit" [which I'm not even sure other places would do, its just an example] but when people say they've seen things its through the lenses of their social surroundings. Had you have been brought up in a different environment, I personally think you would have seen something/someone else.

The point of all of this is: for ALL claims of religion [past or present] they all have a few things in common - lack of evidence and VERY devoted followers. So devoted that they teach their kids this stuff and it just becomes "tradition" and nobody questions the status quo of just 'how it is'.

I'm not trying to dunk on you at all; funnily enough my parents are very religious yet I am not - so I respect what you believe, [and here it comes] BUT I cannot live in a world of 'visions' or 'supernatural' because it just doesnt exist. Was there a "Jesus the actual man", possibly - IF there was, do I think he was the ACTUAL son of some deity and had magic powers? Fuck no, because that's literally insane. Was this Jesus a good guy? It definitely seems like it, and many more Christians should take his [alleged] example on how to act. But is it more likely that "jesus" the character everybody praises is in fact an amalgamation of several different people/stories from that area [like many of the other stories in the bible]  I think so yes. 

Is there a problem taking the [of what there is] positives from religion? No - in fact, I think some people need it for some reason, but does that mean we should just blindly accept things to be true because of one experience that you cannot explain? No, and you really shouldn't either - yes, you saw something. But did you? What colour was jesus? Was he the man in all the western paintings? or was he a brown man........because he would be, being from that area of the world. Why did only YOU see him? There is a lot to unpack as to why it could be litterally many other things except for "a vision".
The following 3 users Like OakTree500's post:
  • jerry mcmasters, adey67, Aroura
Reply
#5

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
" And this lead to seeing a vision, a bright light in the shape of a man I understood to be Jesus."

So you saw a light that was in the shape of a man. How do you know it was Jesus, specifically? To me, just sounds like you saw a light shaped like a man. Nothing miraculous about that, clouds can do the same thing. Seems like you're making a huge assumption with the whole Jesus part.
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” -Carl Sagan.
The following 9 users Like GenesisNemesis's post:
  • Szuchow, Deesse23, jerry mcmasters, Dom, Thumpalumpacus, adey67, Chas, Aroura, c172
Reply
#6

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
OP, what other supernatural things do you believe?
[Image: M-Spr20-Weapons-FEATURED-1-1200x350-c-default.jpg]
Reply
#7

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
I find it puzzling that some people find enough inspiration in the Bible to end up devoting their lives to what I see as delusion and superstition. All I can assume is that they have never read the Bible in its entirety. There are plenty of chapters and passages that should make any reasonable person pause and think, "Hey, wait a minute!" One of the biggest reasons I was on my way to becoming an atheist was reading the Bible.

During the mid-1980's, when I was a chapter officer in American Atheists, I wrote the following paragraph for a newsletter article I was working on:

"Of course, it’s easy for us with our 21st Century, materialistic minds to dismiss the Bible as a load of rubbish. But in the actual analysis, that is exactly what the Bible turns out to be---a load of rubbish! It is a book of nonsensical, fantastic stories about talking animals, talking bushes, mythical creatures, people rising from the dead, magic and pseudo-history. It is the creation of ignorant, fallible men, reflecting the prejudices, superstitions, bad theology and fears of the times in which it was written. It promotes slavery, ethnic cleansing, race prejudice, wars of conquest, the subjugation of women, child abuse and genital mutilation. It promotes the worship and celebration of a god who is little more than an egotistical, homicidal, fear-mongering tyrant. It is a book which any reasonable, intellectually honest, and intelligent person should heartily dismiss as bad fiction."

I found the Book of Job especially shocking and disgusting when I was in Catholic school. There are, of course, many passages in the Bible which inspire people to do good. This is the inevitable result of so any writers contributing to it. But there are also many passages which inspire people to do evil. I have argued this fact to many evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses who have tried to convince me that the Bible is a good book which will guide its readers along a moral path. It's no surprise that I seldom hear from them again after our first encounter. Such is their determination to believe at all costs.
“I expect to pass this way but once; any good therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now. Let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.” (Etienne De Grellet)
The following 5 users Like Gwaithmir's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Szuchow, mordant, Chas, Aroura
Reply
#8

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
So basically you landed on the Bible and Jesus as your explanation, as they were the only ones you had,
and what you actually know about either is slim to nothing.
Sounds like you wanted to fit in with your friends, and wanted to rationalize it.
Why would Jesus show himself to you, and not bother to first go cure some babies of their cancers ?
Consider
Test
The following 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Szuchow, mordant, Gwaithmir, adey67, Chas, Aroura
Reply
#9

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
Any kind of perceptual anomaly should be questioned.  Did you repeat the circumstances? Sunlight conditions. Physical effects of exertion.  Is there a blood sugar issue?

You seem to have treated the experience like you would a Rorschach Test. You put your own meaning on  ambiguous stimuli. Some people's revelatory experience includes verbal content. It appears yours did not. Do you see the impact of role modelling / subtle peer pressure that your roommates had on you?

Do you think others should put any confidence in your experience and your interpretation?
The following 2 users Like Vorpal's post:
  • mordant, adey67
Reply
#10

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
I've seen a lot of shit too, and then the 'shrooms wore off. I'm suspicious of just any ole vision that pops up and says, "Hey, Darrell, it's me, Jesus." On the other hand, I'm fine with the ineffable, and fine with not having to pigeonhole any experience I have as being this or that Mt Sinai moment.

I'm better off shutting up, getting out of my own way, and letting things happen, rather than defining these sensations and feelings as this or that deity, or magick, or what-have-you.
On hiatus.
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • polymath257, Camaro Dude
Reply
#11

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
Must be nice being so special that son of almighty god appears to you. One does wonder what kind of great destiny awaits you? Paul did some serious shit after his vision.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
The following 3 users Like Szuchow's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Thumpalumpacus, Aroura
Reply
#12

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
"I'm Jesus, this is my brother Jesus, and this is my other brother Jesus."
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#13

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 10:51 AM)Dom Wrote: ... But, transferring quotes from thread to thread in other sections is not so cool ...

Gotta disagree, Dom.  The original location of a quote is irrelevant; its meaning is what matters, and if something said in some other thread has meaning elsewhere, it'd be silly to not quote it just because it was said elsewhere.  Your injunction against it would be approximately equivalent to never quoting from books because the present writing isn't in that book.

Anyway, I explicitly stated answering my question should take place in another thread - which he started, and starting it without the quote would leave out essential context.
The following 4 users Like airportkid's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, mordant, adey67, Aroura
Reply
#14

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 06:07 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(11-25-2022, 10:51 AM)Dom Wrote: ... But, transferring quotes from thread to thread in other sections is not so cool ...

Gotta disagree, Dom.  The original location of a quote is irrelevant; its meaning is what matters, and if something said in some other thread has meaning elsewhere, it'd be silly to not quote it just because it was said elsewhere.  Your injunction against it would be approximately equivalent to never quoting from books because the present writing isn't in that book.

Anyway, I explicitly stated answering my question should take place in another thread - which he started, and starting it without the quote would leave out essential context.

What happens is that people stalk members they don't like from thread to thread and persecute them. That is what is not allowed, a thread about chocolate is not the same as a thread about politics, and statements made in one have no place in the other. 

That is the situation where things from previous threads are brought up most often. Probably there should be a rule about stalking throughout threads to persecute. But if we made a rule for everything that gets abused, we'd never get anyone to read through a book of rules.

Rule of thumb: Don't drag statements made elsewhere about a different topic into current threads. Go back and respond where the statement is taken from. Also, usually those type quotes are taken totally out of context, which isn't fair.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
Reply
#15

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
This isn't stalking, @Dom. This is someone answering an OT question in another thread by doing the right thing and giving the topic its own thread.
On hiatus.
The following 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • mordant, adey67, Cavebear, Aroura
Reply
#16

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
Whatever it is it appears that the OP hasn't done much in the way of critical reading of this bible stuff.  From Bart Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted."

Quote:A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided
by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expectation
of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass
them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for
them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their surprise
they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of
what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of
research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them 
irreconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the
first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did
not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were consid-
ered canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by
Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did
not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the

 6 jesus, interrupted

Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds
on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard
to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical
Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are
filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New
Testament contains historically unreliable information about the
life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament
are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers
claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.

Ehrman is a good place to start.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • polymath257, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#17

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 07:12 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: This isn't stalking, @Dom. This is someone answering an OT question in another thread by doing the right thing and giving the topic its own thread.

This thread, I encouraged him to do this. Not talking about this thread.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • skyking
Reply
#18

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 10:03 AM)Camaro Dude Wrote: This is an appreciated quote from the introduction section. I hope it's okay to do this (transfer quotes from other threads to another) as it helps me in case I want to refer back to it. If not, I'll stop.

I was 21, and circumstances had me move in with a buddy I grew up with who became a Christian, and his Christian roommates. I had absolutely no interest in Christianity, and my roommates knew it, and were pretty cool about not coming on strong about it. Never went to church with them. I think I stepped into a church once when I was in high school. And I think it was just the cafeteria or conference room.

One day, when I was alone, I found myself thinking about Christianity. I actually tried to think my way out of the religion having any validity. However, I couldn't think my way out of it. So I ended up hiking up a hill I often jogged up, and when I got to the top I basically prayed. And this lead to seeing a vision, a bright light in the shape of a man I understood to be Jesus.


So my conversion was not a result of having a traumatic experience, or reading the Bible on my own as I didn't have any interest. I just basically started from what I knew through a general knowledge of the Gospel message.

So, you were trying to think your way out of it while not knowing anything about it, had an experience that you interpreted to be about it, again with no knowledge of any details? You saw a bright light in the shape of a man and interpreted it as being Jesus.

That sounds like an incredibly shallow way to go about things.

What, specifically, did you think about when you were trying to think your way out of it having validity? What did you even know about it to think it had any validity at all? At most, it sounds like you heard some discussions by people who believed that you didn't really listen to and weren't interested in. So you were basically ignorant.

Why did you start to pray? Why would you think that would give any way to determine validity?

And what sort of bright light? Why did you interpret it as Jesus? Why not Buddha? Or Krishna? Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Quote:Another appreciated quote from the same thread.

So as a starter, finding that Jesus is a real deity, that is...God, that would be the starting point.

And how was that determined other than having a questionable experience that you interpreted as being Jesus and of being God? Are you sure nobody spiked your drink with psychedelics?

Quote:And then from there reading and researching scripture (including the references to scriptures deemed as evil by a number), researching other religions, etc. has only reinforced my belief. And of course there's the day-to-day experiences including attempting to run from Jesus/Christianity/fellowship with other believers, and not being able to. And when I mean run away, I mean from other believers, meaning completely alone.

OK, what aspects of scripture reinforced your belief? Was it the horrid nature of the OT deity? Or the strange views of Paul in the NT?

What do you mean that you attempted to run? I suspect it wasn't literally running, as opposed to deciding to try to avoid them. And how does your failure on this convince you of the truth of the beliefs?

Quote:Why am I so sure the vision I had was Jesus I encountered that day?

Humans have this uncanny ability to introduce themselves in such a way that I never question their reality. Any new person I meet, I never find myself thinking maybe they are not real, or even someone other than who they claim to be. So a creator, who as claimed in scripture created us humans in His image should be able to (for lack of a better term) introduce Himself in such a way that there's no question of His reality just like the person I met at Starbucks.

OK, but remember that you were ignorant at the time (you were, right?). You had no way to know if it was Jesus or just some delusion.

Quote:Could I be/have been wrong the whole time thinking I encountered Jesus? Sure! I could be a part of some alien experiment, and dreaming all this up, including posting in this forum. But I'm not going to not post in this forum because there's a possibility this forum is not actually here. The improbability outweighs the possibility. And it's the same principle with my relationship to Jesus/the Bible/Christianity.

Or, again, it could be that someone dosed your drink and you were tripping. Psychedelics have this sort of effect (including auras).

it looks to me that you spent no time trying to find other interpretations of your experience.

Quote:What about people of other faiths and their experiences?

I can't ultimately answer for them, but if anyone believes in another god, or god of another faith, I'll listen, and we can compare notes. I do think that sometimes some people get the wrong idea that all faiths are the same. I don't think this the case. I've never read the Quran, but I've looked into the subject of relationship between Allah and man, and have seen very little reference to personal relationship. I won't say none, but very little. And I think it's generally understood, even among Muslims, that there's actually not really a personal relationship between man, or Muslims and Allah. Except maybe someone in a high position in the Islamic religion. And that generally Muslims are compelled to follow the teachings of the prophet Mohammed as a mediary between them and Allah. But I'm not an expert on Islam, so someone may very well school me on this.

What about that popular deity figure often referred to in these type of discussions: Zeus? Well, if anyone claims to have had a similar or comparable experience with said deity, I'm all ears.

So these are some reasons I personally believe the Bible scriptures, and in preference to scriptures of other faiths. I can't of course think for others, and wouldn't want to. I'm a firm believer in free-thought. I think some people assume free-thought will always result in non-belief/faith. I don't think that at all.

Your description actually shows very little thought at all. Now, that may simply be the natural trimming involved in telling a story, but I have other reasons to question whether you really did due diligence in this investigation.
The following 4 users Like polymath257's post:
  • Szuchow, Thumpalumpacus, GenesisNemesis, adey67
Reply
#19

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 07:19 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Whatever it is it appears that the OP hasn't done much in the way of critical reading of this bible stuff.  From Bart Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted."

Quote:A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided
by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expectation
of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass
them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for
them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their surprise
they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of
what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of
research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them 
irreconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the
first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did
not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were consid-
ered canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by
Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did
not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the

 6 jesus, interrupted

Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds
on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard
to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical
Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are
filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New
Testament contains historically unreliable information about the
life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament
are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers
claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.

Ehrman is a good place to start.

The Exodus absolutely did not happen, historically, (as you well know).
As the best of the Israeli archaeologists discusses, (Finkelstein et all), Egypt's control of the Levant included what became ancient Israel. They had military outposts there, and there are extant communications between the outpost commanders and Egypt. No one would "flee" from one place Egypt controlled to another their military already controlled. We know there was continuous Semitic settlement of the Levant, and no major "influx" as described in the Bible. Almost all of the OT has been debunked, historically.
Test
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Gwaithmir, Cavebear
Reply
#20

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 10:51 AM)Dom Wrote:
(11-25-2022, 10:03 AM)Camaro Dude Wrote: This is an appreciated quote from the introduction section. I hope it's okay to do this (transfer quotes from other threads to another) as it helps me in case I want to refer back to it. If not, I'll stop.

It's cool to start threads about things brought up in intro. But, transferring quotes from thread to thread in other sections is not so cool, we want to avoid stalking others through various topics. Let's keep each topic to itself. Thanks.
No problem at all!
Reply
#21

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
The praying part gives me pause. How does someone who is not a Christian pray? Was it started with "Dear God...," or "Dear Father..." or "Dear Jesus...?" Was a sign asked for? Was anything asked for? Who exactly was prayed too?
Formerly WiCharlie Sun
Reply
#22

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 10:03 AM)Camaro Dude Wrote: One day, when I was alone, I found myself thinking about Christianity. I actually tried to think my way out of the religion having any validity. However, I couldn't think my way out of it. So I ended up hiking up a hill I often jogged up, and when I got to the top I basically prayed. And this lead to seeing a vision, a bright light in the shape of a man I understood to be Jesus.
I have noticed that some people are far more apt to have subjective experiences of various kinds, including visions, than others -- and with varying degrees of realism and coherence. Have you ever had such experiences before or since, or was this a singular experience? I have noted that when people share encounters with god, the encounters tend to be difficult to reproduce, although this is not uniformly so.

As a person who has literally never had any such experience, even in extremis, I can only say that personal subjective experiences that people relate always seem to be non-veridical and are certainly of no use to anyone but, arguably, the experiencer.

If I were to have had an experience like this I would find it interesting but inconclusive.

I have had no trouble "thinking my way out of religion having any validity" but then I had to have enough experiences in life of Christianity's teachings being invalid to be open to consider why that would be.
Reply
#23

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 11:56 AM)Dānu Wrote: There's a general line of argument, popularized by G.E. Moore, which states that while we can doubt things, like the hand in front of my face, or that I'm not a brain in a vat, the self evidence of these perceptions is its own testament, and if skeptical doubts are to undermine our belief in these things, then they must overcome the self evidence of these things by coming up with adequate justification for our skepticism.  This essentially reverses the burden of proof from what is normally assumed.  Normally, one faces no burden in doubting a claim, as the burden lies on the claimant.  But according to this line of argument, the self evidence itself is evidence which must be overcome, lest the doubt be rejected as unreasonable.  I don't know that I agree with this line of reasoning, though it shares some elements with the modern pragmatism approach of saying that we really can believe our eyes, that seeing is believing.  Under such a theory, visions themselves take on heightened value in any evaluation of religious claims whereas under ordinary skepticism they do not.

I'm skeptical of Moore's line of thinking itself, but it certainly appeals to some deep seated intuitions.  The person who thinks that they're dreaming and not awake certainly is thinking outside the boundaries of what we consider reasonable and therefore would need to justify their belief that they are only dreaming, if only to themselves.  At the same time, it's certainly an unexpected counter thrust for the skeptic to be put on the defensive.  I'm unconvinced, but many philosophers find that this argument has merit, and so perhaps it's just a bit above my paygrade.

My big issue with any vision would be how did you confirm what you saw.  A vision is as likely if not moreso simply soliciting ideas that we had prior to the experience.  Thus if a person growing up in a Christian culture sees a glowing, numinous shape in the form of a man, the figure of Jesus comes to mind.  On the other hand, someone who has grown up in India may be more likely to think they've seen Krishna.  So, obviously the majority of the work is being done by what is already present in our minds, most of which did not have such self evident qualities, and it is only our prior ideas and concepts which are being primed by the visual stimulus.  Indeed, why believe that it's a religious figure at all?  Perhaps numinous shapes are a natural phenomenon, and like unidentified flying objects, we thrust our own preconceptions and beliefs about aliens and ufos upon them, when the stimulus might ultimately prove to be something not so otherworldly.

The Stoics had a concept in their epistemology of the phantasia katalepsis, being a perception that in its presentation to the mind, makes it clear that the thing is real and cannot be doubted.  This idea was no doubt strengthened by theories of perception of the time which said that visual perception occurred as a result of a power or force being projected from the object or thing toward our visual apparatus, and it was this 'force' of sorts which was causing the perception and its qualities.  As such, it makes sense to believe that if the perception is extraordinarily intense, then that's the result of extraordinarily intense force terminating from the object itself.  Therefore, if an object emanates a visual force then it's reasonable to presume an extraordinariness of the object, and accept it as undeniable based upon the properties of the object itself which allow such powerful emanations.  Of course, now we know that perception doesn't work that way.  But in a sense, intuitive understandings of perception still animate our beliefs about the relationship between perceived and perceiver, in spite of our knowing better.  Thus the phantasia kataleptica has an appeal which other forgotten kruft from ancient philosophies does not.
Well said.

The idea of humans embracing a religious concept of any sort based on their cultural location is logical. It actually seems the theme for various White Nationalist movements.

At one time I believed that if one is an American, they're most likely to become a Christian. If from, say China, a Buddhist, if from Saudi Arabia, a Muslim, etc. I even explained this to a Christian person who witnessed to me in High School.

The problem however with the vision I had in relation to religious/cultural influence was that it happened in Berkeley, CA. And near Telegraph Avenue. There's a saying that every cult and religion is practiced within a 40 mile radius of Berkeley. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what they say. If you walk along Telegraph Avenue counting religious icons you see in store windows and sold by street vendors, about 99% of it will probably be Eastern Religion related. (Maybe 100% now due to the closing of a Christian bookstore).

I grew up in an atheist family. I only saw Christian icons when visiting grand parents. In the home I grew up in we had a small Buddhist statue in the backyard. We had an ethereal looking picture of George Harrison which I think visually emphasized his spiritual belief. I think that if I were to choose a religion based on personal preference, it would probably be Buddhism. Eastern religions in general have been sort of made compatible with the drug culture in the western world. But I would just have been a nominal Buddhist at best.

So in the context of not ruling out any possibilities, I would say that although I can't say impossible, it would be very unlikely that the vision was influenced by Christianity.

And assigning specific religions to specific nations is pretty hard to due nowadays unless the nation is a State religion, or is a theocracy. There are probably more Christians in China now than, say, Buddhists. I'm not sure if that's what the stats reveal, but many Christians in China are underground, and thus would be unaccounted for.
Reply
#24

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 11:30 PM)Camaro Dude Wrote: The problem however with the vision I had in relation to religious/cultural influence was that it happened in Berkeley, CA. And near Telegraph Avenue. There's a saying that every cult and religion is practiced within a 40 mile radius of Berkeley. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what they say. If you walk along Telegraph Avenue counting religious icons you see in store windows and sold by street vendors, about 99% of it will probably be Eastern Religion related. (Maybe 100% now due to the closing of a Christian bookstore).

I grew up in an atheist family. I only saw Christian icons when visiting grand parents. In the home I grew up in we had a small Buddhist statue in the backyard. We had an ethereal looking picture of George Harrison which I think visually emphasized his spiritual belief. I think that if I were to choose a religion based on personal preference, it would probably be Buddhism. Eastern religions in general have been sort of made compatible with the drug culture in the western world. But I would just have been a nominal Buddhist at best.

So in the context of not ruling out any possibilities, I would say that although I can't say impossible, it would be very unlikely that the vision was influenced by Christianity.

And assigning specific religions to specific nations is pretty hard to due nowadays unless the nation is a State religion, or is a theocracy. There are probably more Christians in China now than, say, Buddhists. I'm not sure if that's what the stats reveal, but many Christians in China are underground, and thus would be unaccounted for.
I get what you're saying. My wife grew up in Berkeley and I have visited Telegraph Avenue. So I have some concept of the eclectic atmosphere you are describing.

However Berkeley is still in 'Murica and Christianity is still the dominant religion and permeates everything, even on Telegraph Avenue. If you turn on the TV in Berkeley you get the same programming I get here in upstate New York. Sure Berkeley is in many important ways a cultural outlier and far more open to eastern thinking, but its outlier status is still in the context of Christian hegemony. And you still had Christian roomies influencing your thinking.

So even if you grew up and lived in Berkeley all your life, I don't find this a persuasive argument.
The following 8 users Like mordant's post:
  • jerry mcmasters, rocinantexyz, julep, epronovost, Thumpalumpacus, Szuchow, isbelldl, Aroura
Reply
#25

Why I choose Bible scripture over others
(11-25-2022, 11:30 PM)Camaro Dude Wrote:
(11-25-2022, 11:56 AM)Dānu Wrote: There's a general line of argument, popularized by G.E. Moore, which states that while we can doubt things, like the hand in front of my face, or that I'm not a brain in a vat, the self evidence of these perceptions is its own testament, and if skeptical doubts are to undermine our belief in these things, then they must overcome the self evidence of these things by coming up with adequate justification for our skepticism.  This essentially reverses the burden of proof from what is normally assumed.  Normally, one faces no burden in doubting a claim, as the burden lies on the claimant.  But according to this line of argument, the self evidence itself is evidence which must be overcome, lest the doubt be rejected as unreasonable.  I don't know that I agree with this line of reasoning, though it shares some elements with the modern pragmatism approach of saying that we really can believe our eyes, that seeing is believing.  Under such a theory, visions themselves take on heightened value in any evaluation of religious claims whereas under ordinary skepticism they do not.

I'm skeptical of Moore's line of thinking itself, but it certainly appeals to some deep seated intuitions.  The person who thinks that they're dreaming and not awake certainly is thinking outside the boundaries of what we consider reasonable and therefore would need to justify their belief that they are only dreaming, if only to themselves.  At the same time, it's certainly an unexpected counter thrust for the skeptic to be put on the defensive.  I'm unconvinced, but many philosophers find that this argument has merit, and so perhaps it's just a bit above my paygrade.

My big issue with any vision would be how did you confirm what you saw.  A vision is as likely if not moreso simply soliciting ideas that we had prior to the experience.  Thus if a person growing up in a Christian culture sees a glowing, numinous shape in the form of a man, the figure of Jesus comes to mind.  On the other hand, someone who has grown up in India may be more likely to think they've seen Krishna.  So, obviously the majority of the work is being done by what is already present in our minds, most of which did not have such self evident qualities, and it is only our prior ideas and concepts which are being primed by the visual stimulus.  Indeed, why believe that it's a religious figure at all?  Perhaps numinous shapes are a natural phenomenon, and like unidentified flying objects, we thrust our own preconceptions and beliefs about aliens and ufos upon them, when the stimulus might ultimately prove to be something not so otherworldly.

The Stoics had a concept in their epistemology of the phantasia katalepsis, being a perception that in its presentation to the mind, makes it clear that the thing is real and cannot be doubted.  This idea was no doubt strengthened by theories of perception of the time which said that visual perception occurred as a result of a power or force being projected from the object or thing toward our visual apparatus, and it was this 'force' of sorts which was causing the perception and its qualities.  As such, it makes sense to believe that if the perception is extraordinarily intense, then that's the result of extraordinarily intense force terminating from the object itself.  Therefore, if an object emanates a visual force then it's reasonable to presume an extraordinariness of the object, and accept it as undeniable based upon the properties of the object itself which allow such powerful emanations.  Of course, now we know that perception doesn't work that way.  But in a sense, intuitive understandings of perception still animate our beliefs about the relationship between perceived and perceiver, in spite of our knowing better.  Thus the phantasia kataleptica has an appeal which other forgotten kruft from ancient philosophies does not.
Well said.

The idea of humans embracing a religious concept of any sort based on their cultural location is logical. It actually seems the theme for various White Nationalist movements.

At one time I believed that if one is an American, they're most likely to become a Christian. If from, say China, a Buddhist, if from Saudi Arabia, a Muslim, etc. I even explained this to a Christian person who witnessed to me in High School.

The problem however with the vision I had in relation to religious/cultural influence was that it happened in Berkeley, CA. And near Telegraph Avenue. There's a saying that every cult and religion is practiced within a 40 mile radius of Berkeley. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's what they say. If you walk along Telegraph Avenue counting religious icons you see in store windows and sold by street vendors, about 99% of it will probably be Eastern Religion related. (Maybe 100% now due to the closing of a Christian bookstore).

I grew up in an atheist family. I only saw Christian icons when visiting grand parents. In the home I grew up in we had a small Buddhist statue in the backyard. We had an ethereal looking picture of George Harrison which I think visually emphasized his spiritual belief. I think that if I were to choose a religion based on personal preference, it would probably be Buddhism. Eastern religions in general have been sort of made compatible with the drug culture in the western world. But I would just have been a nominal Buddhist at best.

So in the context of not ruling out any possibilities, I would say that although I can't say impossible, it would be very unlikely that the vision was influenced by Christianity.

And assigning specific religions to specific nations is pretty hard to due nowadays unless the nation is a State religion, or is a theocracy. There are probably more Christians in China now than, say, Buddhists. I'm not sure if that's what the stats reveal, but many Christians in China are underground, and thus would be unaccounted for.

You're confusing personal context with cultural context. You don't need to be a consumer of a particular cultural idiom to be aware of and influenced by one. For example, even people who were never religious will use the expressions "Thank God," "Goddamn!" and "Jesus H. Christ." I suspect you're committing various errors of thought in your evaluations, but enough said about that; we can only work with what we have.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)