Why I DON'T choose biblical scripture over others...

[Aractus]

Given the OP in the other thread never engaged with me - AMA here.

I am as minimalist as you can get without being a conspiracy-theorist mythicist.

So to put that into perspective I think the New Testament Gospels are the same level of literature as Genesis and many other books. That's to say while there may be some historical memory, but you can not strain out history from spiritual-theological story tales.

Jesus of Nazareth was a real guy alright, but he was weird even to his contemporaries. Leaving that aside though his beliefs about his god do not at all line up with what Christians today believe about the supposedly same deity. Specifically, Yahweh is a land-based deity. He is a Canaanite god. That's where he belongs, that's where his people are etc it seems incredible to me that people take a Canaanite deity and try to make him so much larger. Like that he is a god in Australia. REALLY? We have plenty of deities that the native population has worshipped for up to 60,000 years and you expect us to be impressed by a 3,000-4,000 year old foreign god?!

The narrative in the Gospel of Mark is based on the Greek classical literature. No if's, but's, maybes: it is. All the other canonical gospels, yes including John, are based on Mark.

[Gwaithmir]

I prefer The Silmarillion. 

[no one]

Religious text is nonsensical drivel, written by scientifically inept bozos.

Hoomans are frightened little creatures, with arrogance to match. Creation of the big boo boo fixer was inevitable.

[TinyDave]

Religious text is nonsensical drivel, written by scientifically inept bozos.

Hoomans are frightened little creatures, with  arrogance to match. Creation of the big boo boo fixer was inevitable.

Frightened by what?

[no one]

The everythings.

But most of all, that they don't mean anything.

[TinyDave]

The everythings.

But most of all, that they don't mean anything.

Oblivion then.

[GenesisNemesis]

Religious text is nonsensical drivel, written by scientifically inept bozos.

Hoomans are frightened little creatures, with  arrogance to match. Creation of the big boo boo fixer was inevitable.

Frightened by what?

Death. That's why the concept of the afterlife was invented.

[no one]

Not oblivion. Just the fact that they are not special. In any way, shape, or form.

[Minimalist]

I am as minimalist as you can get

Pardon?

[TinyDave]

Frightened by what?

Death. That's why the concept of the afterlife was invented.

I am more frightened by the concept that a god would grant us existence and then threaten to take it away unless we pledge literally undying allegiance to it.

[TinyDave]

Not oblivion. Just the fact that they are not special. In any way, shape, or form.

That's what tiktok is for isn't it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't believe biblical scripture (it's not a matter of choice with me, it's my compulsion to ask questions and seek rational answers) is because the Bible is clearly chockablock full of bullshit, to which I'm allergic.

[Aractus]

I don't believe biblical scripture (it's not a matter of choice with me, it's my compulsion to ask questions and seek rational answers) is because the Bible is clearly chockablock full of bullshit, to which I'm allergic.

Spiritual storytelling isn't the same as bullshit. The authors of the gospels are not trying to hoodwink their readers into believing they are literal history or anything of the kind. Luke even starts his gospel specifically by stating this to his elite associate Theophilus (and this remains true even if Theophilus is a fictional recipient which he may be), but translators have obscured this. Luke begins by saying “I am writing this for you most excellent Theophilus so that you may know reassurance about what you believe” (or ... what you have been taught) essentially. Yet most translators make it seem as if Luke is claiming to be writing a structured orderly account meant to be read literally.


Other cultures do similar things: Judaism obviously has Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Job, and many other stories that convey their spiritual convictions, the Aborigines have their Dreamtime stories that function pretty much the same way in terms of containing social, cultural and spiritual history and meaning (not literal history). We don't call those bullshit either, so it'd be unfair to Christians to label the gospels “bullshit” when it's clearly not the case that they were written to be BS - they were not. Mark begins his gospels with Jesus being baptised by John and he ends with baptismal imagery: that certainly conveys something about Baptism that goes beyond “bullshit”, but at the same time it says nothing about literal history.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't believe biblical scripture (it's not a matter of choice with me, it's my compulsion to ask questions and seek rational answers) is because the Bible is clearly chockablock full of bullshit, to which I'm allergic.

Spiritual storytelling isn't the same as bullshit. The authors of the gospels are not trying to hoodwink their readers into believing they are literal history or anything of the kind. Luke even starts his gospel specifically by stating this to his elite associate Theophilus (and this remains true even if Theophilus is a fictional recipient which he may be), but translators have obscured this. Luke begins by saying “I am writing this for you most excellent Theophilus so that you may know reassurance about what you believe” (or ... what you have been taught) essentially. Yet most translators make it seem as if Luke is claiming to be writing a structured orderly account meant to be read literally.


Other cultures do similar things: Judaism obviously has Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Job, and many other stories that convey their spiritual convictions, the Aborigines have their Dreamtime stories that function pretty much the same way in terms of containing social, cultural and spiritual history and meaning (not literal history). We don't call those bullshit either, so it'd be unfair to Christians to label the gospels “bullshit” when it's clearly not the case that they were written to be BS - they were not. Mark begins his gospels with Jesus being baptised by John and he ends with baptismal imagery: that certainly conveys something about Baptism that goes beyond “bullshit”, but at the same time it says nothing about literal history.

Hey, if it's to your taste, lap it up. You do you. It's bullshit and I have little taste for it.

[Camaro Dude]

Given the OP in the other thread never engaged with me - AMA here.

I am as minimalist as you can get without being a conspiracy-theorist mythicist.

So to put that into perspective I think the New Testament Gospels are the same level of literature as Genesis and many other books. That's to say while there may be some historical memory, but you can not strain out history from spiritual-theological story tales.

Jesus of Nazareth was a real guy alright, but he was weird even to his contemporaries. Leaving that aside though his beliefs about his god do not at all line up with what Christians today believe about the supposedly same deity. Specifically, Yahweh is a land-based deity. He is a Canaanite god. That's where he belongs, that's where his people are etc it seems incredible to me that people take a Canaanite deity and try to make him so much larger. Like that he is a god in Australia. REALLY? We have plenty of deities that the native population has worshipped for up to 60,000 years and you expect us to be impressed by a 3,000-4,000 year old foreign god?!

The narrative in the Gospel of Mark is based on the Greek classical literature. No if's, but's, maybes: it is. All the other canonical gospels, yes including John, are based on Mark.

I think your belief is very interesting, but just one of a number of interesting thoughts displayed in this forum. Most of the proposed scenarios I've seen however would be challenged if the individual is faced with actually encountering God. I personally think that includes your proposal in this thread.

As an example, a term I see used here at times called confirmation bias. I believe it's been used to suggest believing in a god/deity that matches the individuals preferences. The irony is I absolutely believe this. I do think people do just that. I worked with a person who confessed to liking the idea of us all being a part of God (meaning possibly we are all God), so he chose to embrace that concept. And his conversation often included ideas of all of us vibing together. A great concert to him was not just listening to great musicianship, but everyone in the audience grooving together as one. When I go to a concert, I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks. But for some reason that God-concept he has gives him some sort of satisfaction. The deists seem to do the same thing in their promoting a more convenient concept of a creator. But just because confirmation bias may exist in terms of a god-belief concept doesn't mean an actual God that we have nothing to do with in terms of His creation doesn't exist.

One of those universal questions; is Genesis literal or symbolic? I think it's neither. Or maybe more appropriately, both. Any 2 of us could have a conversation using literal, symbolic or figurative speech in one sentence. I think the Genesis account happened, so is literal in one sense, but symbolic or figurative speech are included. I think that Satan tempted Eve, but not in the form of a literal snake. Not a dragon, or a long reptile that once had legs as depicted in ancient art. I see no reason to believe an actual snake/reptile had anything to do with the incident other than being used as a description of the real deceiver.

I think the Tower of Babel was a real incident that happened over a period of time instead of a story, or some kind of poem. But I think the idea of reaching the heavens was simply hyperbole. The idea not being any different than a big city's race to build the tallest skyscraper (with the exception of D.C. and Kyoto).

If you had an undeniable direct encounter with God, there are 2 possibilities that come to mind in regards to your view of Yahweh being a stolen deity from Canaan. One is you would either have to rethink (or change) your position. Or become like one of those giant computers in sci-fi shows that are mistook for a god, become a leader of a primitive alien race, and are force fed false information by Captain Kirk, etc., causing it to repeat the words that does not compute, and end up exploding. I think this the same with any other thought including science, where either a (for a lack of a better term) divine encounter with God might cause a change of thought or rethinking one's position, or a total meltdown causing steam to come out of ones pours.

[airportkid]

... If you had an undeniable direct encounter with God ...

How could you tell?

It's a pertinent question because innumerable people around the world and across history have believed, and do believe, (and will believe) that some experience was a direct encounter with a god, yet no two of these encounters are the same, every one is unique, yet many (if not most) encompass features directly contradictory to others in a manner that makes all of them being authentic impossible.

How would you identify the genuine, and differentiate it from the deluded, hallucinatory, mentally defective or just sheer ignorance?

You would have to make the absurd supposition that your present fund of all that you know at this time is enough, that there's no new knowledge you haven't learned yet that would have any bearing on the matter.  That's beyond the reach of every human that's ever lived or ever will live.  Our brains are a trifling 3 pounds of neurons with about 100 years of functionality, entrapping us in a permanent state of ignorance about 99.999999999% of all there is to know that does matter.  You think a package like that can tell a real god from a delusion?  How?

[Aractus]

One of those universal questions; is Genesis literal or symbolic? I think it's neither. Or maybe more appropriately, both. Any 2 of us could have a conversation using literal, symbolic or figurative speech in one sentence. I think the Genesis account happened, so is literal in one sense, but symbolic or figurative speech are included. I think that Satan tempted Eve, but not in the form of a literal snake. Not a dragon, or a long reptile that once had legs as depicted in ancient art. I see no reason to believe an actual snake/reptile had anything to do with the incident other than being used as a description of the real deceiver.

You do realise that there a two distinctly different creation stories right? and a bit later on two distinctly different Flood stories written by the same two authors as the creation stories?

I think the Tower of Babel was a real incident that happened over a period of time instead of a story, or some kind of poem. But I think the idea of reaching the heavens was simply hyperbole. The idea not being any different than a big city's race to build the tallest skyscraper (with the exception of D.C. and Kyoto).

How do you explain that the absolute oldest part of the Bible is 1,000 BCE and if we're being VERY generous we can push back Yahweh worship another thousand years to 2,000 BCE? We have deities here that are 60,000 years old: sixty thousand years old. Yahweh can't compete with that.

If you had an undeniable direct encounter with God, there are 2 possibilities that come to mind in regards to your view of Yahweh being a stolen deity from Canaan. One is you would either have to rethink (or change) your position. Or become like one of those giant computers in sci-fi shows that are mistook for a god, become a leader of a primitive alien race, and are force fed false information by Captain Kirk, etc., causing it to repeat the words that does not compute, and end up exploding. I think this the same with any other thought including science, where either a (for a lack of a better term) divine encounter with God might cause a change of thought or rethinking one's position, or a total meltdown causing steam to come out of ones pours.

Um no, if I had an undeniable encounter with God I would not think it's someone else's deity from the other side of the globe. Israelites didn't just worship Yahweh, they worshipped El, Baal, and many other deities before ultimately deciding to just worship what they saw as the greatest one. So a direct encounter with Yahweh would not discredit the existence of El or any other god.

I'm not all that sceptical that Yahweh exists. To me it doesn't matter. What I am very sceptical about is that he's one of a kind and if he exists there are no other gods. That I find illogical. Either he exists and so do many other gods, or he doesn't and neither do (at least) most other gods.

[Aractus]

How could you tell?

It's a pertinent question because innumerable people around the world and across history have believed, and do believe, (and will believe) that some experience was a direct encounter with a god, yet no two of these encounters are the same, every one is unique, yet many (if not most) encompass features directly contradictory to others in a manner that makes all of them being authentic impossible.

Yeah they're called theophanies, and encounters with the risen Jesus are called Christophanies, and encounters with the blessed Virgin Mary are called Marian apparitions.

Nobody doubts the reality of them, not even Paul's Christophany, they just doubt attributing them to supernatural causes when we have naturalistic explanations. Paul is fairly clear in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 that his christophany is equal to that of the disciples and the other apostles. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists like to claim this is a creed, but it's not it's just an early tradition Paul is sharing with the Corinthians. How did Paul see the risen Christ? Well how was he prophesying as a part of being an apostle?! It was his job to do that stuff, so one way or another it happened. Deliberate manipulation of ASC seems likely but is not the only explanation available.

[Bucky Ball]

One of those universal questions; is Genesis literal or symbolic?

Actually it's not. Anyone who knows about ancient Near Eastern literature, or studied it, knows it is neither.
It's certainly not "literal", in any way. That is totally impossible. Light is created BEFORE the origins of light (stars).

It's "mythology" as the pre-eminent German Christian scholar, Rudolph Bultmann wrote about in "Jesus Christ and Mythology". "Myth" was how the ancients transmitted their wisdom and their "truths". That doesn't sit well with modern literalist fundies.
The Hebrews took their mythologies from various surrounding cultures, including the Babylonians. No one actually knew for sure where Yahweh came
from until the Royal Library of Ashurbanipal was discovered in the late 1800's and they talked about the question.
Ancient mythology was "syncretic", across many cultures. "The amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought."
There are many examples of syncretic amalgamation in Genesis.

"Enki, the (supreme and Water-god, and God of wisdom), impregnates his half-sister, Nin-Hursang. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninhursag . Enki wants a boy, but gets a girl. Then he impregnates the daughter, who also has a daughter. Nin-Hursang decides to stop all this immoral stuff by sowing eight poisonous plants in the garden. Enki eats the plants, and becomes ill. One of the sick organs is his rib. Nin-ti is created to heal Enki. Her name means, "she who makes live". Nin-ti means the same thing as the Hebrew word for "Eve". Nin-ti, is usually translated as the "lady of the rib". "Ti" means "to make live". Note : "Eve" is translated from the Hebrew chavvaòh , for lifegiver, as in "the mother of all living." Its root, Chaya, means "serpent" in Aramaic. Eve and serpent are taken to be synonymous. Thus a "pun" is set up in the Hebrew, (which was used later.)

From the Babylonians also comes the legend of of Adapa. The son of the God of Wisdom (Ea, also called Enki), broke the wing of the Storm bird, who had attacked him in what is today, the Persian Gulf. Ea summons Adapa, and warned him about his behavior, and told him he would be offered food and drink which would be deadly, and he must refuse it. When Anu, (one of the council of three highest gods), found out about the disclosure, attempted to foil Ea, by offering Adapa the bread of life, and the water of life, instead. He, Adapa, refused, and Anu sent him to earth as a mortal.

In the myth of Gilgamesh and the Serpent, Gilgamesh heard about a plant that held the secret to immortality. By much effort, he pulled it up from the bottom of the ocean. On the way back to his people, he set the plant aside at a spring where he stopped to take a bath. A serpent came up from the water and grabbed the plant. As it returned to the water, it shed its skin. In so doing, the serpent robbed humans of the potential for rejuvenation and acquired an ability to renew itself by shedding its skin.

So we have poisonous plants, ribs, Eve, death by eating stuff, bread of heaven, water of life, plants which offer immortality, and snakes which bring about death, and most important, Chaos and Order." (my paper "Salvation - Mythic Origins).

There is no understanding the texts that ended up *combined* and put into a collection (the Bible) without understanding the details of ancient Near Eastern history and Comparative MYTHOLOGY, and under who's tutelage or which faction (geographical) of priests the texts were both written and combined. It's not exactly a good subject for amateurs.

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html
There are a number of diagrammatic tools which show visually the sources of the Pentateuch.
Here's one.
https://www.brianarthurbrown.com/files/A...ateuch.pdf

The problem with all "visions" and near-death and "religious" experiences, is we never learn anything new.
What happened is always described in normal human language(s), they always *see* and talk to people in environments they already know about, always hear music, (normally Western music with known harmonies and structure) etc etc etc. We never learn anything "startling" or new. God is boring. Then there is the problem that science has studied susceptibility and religious experience. See "Hypnotic Susceptibility and Religious Experience", (Gibbons). And those studies are revealing.

[Camaro Dude]

... If you had an undeniable direct encounter with God ...

How could you tell?

It's a pertinent question because innumerable people around the world and across history have believed, and do believe, (and will believe) that some experience was a direct encounter with a god, yet no two of these encounters are the same, every one is unique, yet many (if not most) encompass features directly contradictory to others in a manner that makes all of them being authentic impossible.

How would you identify the genuine, and differentiate it from the deluded, hallucinatory, mentally defective or just sheer ignorance?

You would have to make the absurd supposition that your present fund of all that you know at this time is enough, that there's no new knowledge you haven't learned yet that would have any bearing on the matter.  That's beyond the reach of every human that's ever lived or ever will live.  Our brains are a trifling 3 pounds of neurons with about 100 years of functionality, entrapping us in a permanent state of ignorance about 99.999999999% of all there is to know that does matter.  You think a package like that can tell a real god from a delusion?  How?

I understand that not all encounters are the same. Some Christians for instance claim no experience whatsoever. All that would mean to me is that God uses different methods of communicating with individuals. Are you talking about gods from different religions? If so, what specific experiences are you referring to?

And I agree, my feeble brain would not be able to distinguish what/who is the right God. The ability is in the creator who has the ability to make his identity clear to the feeble brain of a human. Without that, I wouldn't know God from Adam.

[no one]

Why is a god needed for anything?

[Camaro Dude]

You do realise that there a two distinctly different creation stories right? and a bit later on two distinctly different Flood stories written by the same two authors as the creation stories?

I realize there's a claim to two distinct creation stories. The issue being the Hebrew language being limited as far as describing an event in the past tense. This is why certain Bible translations included the word had to describe an event that happened prior to another past event.

How do you explain that the absolute oldest part of the Bible is 1,000 BCE and if we're being VERY generous we can push back Yahweh worship another thousand years to 2,000 BCE? We have deities here that are 60,000 years old: sixty thousand years old. Yahweh can't compete with that.

I don't think Yahweh's existence began when He was first placed into written form. If Yahweh is fiction, then yes, that would be a problem. He would be similar to Sherlock Holmes who didn't exist until around the 1880s. I certainly wouldn't claim SH was the first detective.

Um no, if I had an undeniable encounter with God I would not think it's someone else's deity from the other side of the globe. Israelites didn't just worship Yahweh, they worshipped El, Baal, and many other deities before ultimately deciding to just worship what they saw as the greatest one. So a direct encounter with Yahweh would not discredit the existence of El or any other god.

Why would you feel you would have a say on who God is?

I suppose if God sort of generically provided you with an experience without identifying Himself, you would have freedom to draw whatever conclusion you like. But if God identified himself as Yahweh to you, that could be a big problem wouldn't you think?

I'm not all that sceptical that Yahweh exists. To me it doesn't matter. What I am very sceptical about is that he's one of a kind and if he exists there are no other gods. That I find illogical. Either he exists and so do many other gods, or he doesn't and neither do (at least) most other gods.

What do you mean by gods/other gods? Some people seem to think Jimi Hendrix was/is a god.

And of course there is a distinction in numerous religions between a god/deity and a creator.

[Minimalist]

Because too many humans are just scared little shits who need to know that they have a big brother watching over them.

[Camaro Dude]

How could you tell?

It's a pertinent question because innumerable people around the world and across history have believed, and do believe, (and will believe) that some experience was a direct encounter with a god, yet no two of these encounters are the same, every one is unique, yet many (if not most) encompass features directly contradictory to others in a manner that makes all of them being authentic impossible.

Yeah they're called theophanies, and encounters with the risen Jesus are called Christophanies, and encounters with the blessed Virgin Mary are called Marian apparitions.

Nobody doubts the reality of them, not even Paul's Christophany, they just doubt attributing them to supernatural causes when we have naturalistic explanations. Paul is fairly clear in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 that his christophany is equal to that of the disciples and the other apostles. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists like to claim this is a creed, but it's not it's just an early tradition Paul is sharing with the Corinthians. How did Paul see the risen Christ? Well how was he prophesying as a part of being an apostle?! It was his job to do that stuff, so one way or another it happened. Deliberate manipulation of ASC seems likely but is not the only explanation available.

What would you consider to be a supernatural cause? Why, for instance would the idea of extraterrestrials who had evolved over time creating our universe, or life on our planet through panspermia be more plausible than a higher power in a spiritual dimension creating us ex-nihilo, or any other way we might consider supernatural?

Wouldn't what's considered supernatural be relative?

[Camaro Dude]

How could you tell?

It's a pertinent question because innumerable people around the world and across history have believed, and do believe, (and will believe) that some experience was a direct encounter with a god, yet no two of these encounters are the same, every one is unique, yet many (if not most) encompass features directly contradictory to others in a manner that makes all of them being authentic impossible.

Yeah they're called theophanies, and encounters with the risen Jesus are called Christophanies, and encounters with the blessed Virgin Mary are called Marian apparitions.

Nobody doubts the reality of them, not even Paul's Christophany, they just doubt attributing them to supernatural causes when we have naturalistic explanations. Paul is fairly clear in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 that his christophany is equal to that of the disciples and the other apostles. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists like to claim this is a creed, but it's not it's just an early tradition Paul is sharing with the Corinthians. How did Paul see the risen Christ? Well how was he prophesying as a part of being an apostle?! It was his job to do that stuff, so one way or another it happened. Deliberate manipulation of ASC seems likely but is not the only explanation available.

What would you consider to be a supernatural cause? Why, for instance would the idea of extraterrestrials who had evolved over time creating our universe, or life on our planet through panspermia be more plausible than a higher power in a spiritual dimension creating us ex-nihilo, or any other way we might consider supernatural?

Wouldn't what's considered supernatural be relative?