Science vs. Faith

[_beefcalf]

What makes you think I've never read any books on the topic we are all here to discuss?

If you think I've dropped the ball on a specific criticism I've made, please, please point it out to me. Simply posting that I need to read more books is not helping me.

You really want to get into that with me?

I could start here.

Yes, please start.

[_Hoops]

Wow!

This thread seems to have recently taken a sharp and direct turn to bizarro-land!

(BTW- can you really get a prostate massage?)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Have you ever been to a Protestant church on the liberal side of the scale? Where've you been?

[_Some Schmo]

You really want to get into that with me?

LOL... wow.

Nobody could rub Stak's prostate even if they wanted to. His own fingers are already hogging all the access.

[_Stormy Waters]

It’s all one big fairy tale, so allow me to tell you what the Bible says and what exactly it means, even though I don’t know the first thing about the language it was written in, it’s cultural context, or how it was preserved. Since I went to LDS Sunday school for 25 years, I feel confident my surface knowledge of the KJV allows me to override any kind of scholarship that’s out there, since I’ve excused myself from any burden to actually bother to learn about something.

Since I'm the OP of the threads
Bible study and
Questions about the God of the Old Testament.
I figure this comment if not directed at me, "applies" to me.

First off I would just like to point out, whose fault is it that I can't read these books in their original language? It's God's fault if you believe the Bible. (Is the Tower of Babel story still taken literally, or is there enough evidence that believers have 'reinterpreted' it to be figurative?)

So did God not command his people to kill all every man, woman, child, and infant of the Amalekites? Is this genocide a mistranslation?
Did God not kill of the Fistborn of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh to the first born at the mill? Is the morality of killing them understood in the cultural context?
Did God not kill the child of David and Bathsheba to punish them for their affair? Is this explained by how the Bible was preserved?
Is it a mistake that the first four commandments given by God all focus on how we should worship him? Did I misunderstand that?
Is all that stuff about circumcision a mistake? It should be fixed. Having God care about whether or not we cut skin off of our penises seems a little silly.

Wow, if those are all mistakes, you Christians should really work on clearing them up. People might read the Bible and come to the wrong conclusions.

Is this English translation so terribly mangled that I shouldn't make any judgements based on it?

I have no doubt that I've made mistakes in my understanding of the Bible due to translation, and cultural differences. Like anyone who reads the Bible. But if God really did kill children to get his point across. Even if such a being does exist, I don't want to worship him.

ETA:
I do want to learn more about the Bible and it's history. Maybe I'll find that the translation has been terribly mangled, and that the God who inspired this book isn't the genocidal ego-maniac presented in the current english versions.

[_beefcalf]

"Good is Good and Evil's Bad, and kids get killed when God gets mad"

[_Aristotle Smith]

First off I would just like to point out, whose fault is it that I can't read these books in their original language?

Yours. Learn Ancient Hebrew and Greek.

It's God's fault if you believe the Bible. (Is the Tower of Babel story still taken literally, or is there enough evidence that believers have 'reinterpreted' it to be figurative?)

Not only is it mean to not be taken literally, the Bible itself gives ample clues that you are not to take it literally. Here's a little exercise. Read Genesis 10 and take notes about all of the different languages and ethnic groups it mentions. Now read Genesis 11, the Tower of Babel story. Next, since Genesis 11 comes after Genesis 10, and since Genesis 10 already mentions dozens of languages, what can one conclude about Genesis 11? An obvious conclusion seems to be that Genesis 11 was not meant to be the end all and be all of how language developed. Now you will protest, Why do these stories seem to conflict? Answer: read up on the Documentary Hypothesis.

So did God not command his people to kill all every man, woman, child, and infant of the Amalekites? Is this genocide a mistranslation?

No, it's not a mistranslation, and there is also good archaeological evidence that it never happened. Question: What, you mean the Bible might get historical facts wrong? Answer: Yes, it can. And yes, it can still serve as the basis of belief in a supremely good Being.

Did God not kill of the Fistborn of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh to the first born at the mill? Is the morality of killing them understood in the cultural context?

No, I also think there is good archaeological evidence to doubt this story as well.

Did God not kill the child of David and Bathsheba to punish them for their affair? Is this explained by how the Bible was preserved?

Babies died much more frequently back then. But, here is one of the great genius moments of the ancient Hebrew mind, namely the idea that our actions vis-a-vis our fellow human beings is what pisses off God, not forgetting the morning incense offering. Even more genius was in figuring out that ethical norms apply just as much to kings as they do to commoners. Did they misinterpret the death as a punishment? Possibly. Just remember the ethical norms you use to critique ancient Hebrews was developed largely by ancient Hebrews. Translation: don't crap on your own doormat.

Is it a mistake that the first four commandments given by God all focus on how we should worship him? Did I misunderstand that?

No and no. If there is a supreme Being in the universe, who arranged the natural and moral laws of the universe, why would you not want to worship him? And wouldn't that worship merely be an expression of gratitude through living that law?

Is all that stuff about circumcision a mistake? It should be fixed. Having God care about whether or not we cut skin off of our penises seems a little silly.

It was fixed for gentiles, read Paul.

Is this English translation so terribly mangled that I shouldn't make any judgements based on it?

It never ceases to amaze me that people that ostensibly no longer believe in the LDS church continue to make assertions that only an LDS believer would make. This isn't an issue of "as far as it is translated correctly."

[_Stormy Waters]

First off I would just like to point out, whose fault is it that I can't read these books in their original language?

Yours. Learn Ancient Hebrew and Greek.

Why not have all of us speak one language? So we can hear God's word in our own tongue. If I'm going to be judged by these words, I don't see any value in making me read them second hand.

It's God's fault if you believe the Bible. (Is the Tower of Babel story still taken literally, or is there enough evidence that believers have 'reinterpreted' it to be figurative?)

Not only is it mean to not be taken literally, the Bible itself gives ample clues that you are not to take it literally. Here's a little exercise. Read Genesis 10 and take notes about all of the different languages and ethnic groups it mentions. Now read Genesis 11, the Tower of Babel story. Next, since Genesis 11 comes after Genesis 10, and since Genesis 10 already mentions dozens of languages, what can one conclude about Genesis 11? An obvious conclusion seems to be that Genesis 11 was not meant to be the end all and be all of how language developed. Now you will protest, Why do these stories seem to conflict? Answer: read up on the Documentary Hypothesis.

The Documentary hypothesis is interesting, but it certainly isn't faith promoting.

So did God not command his people to kill all every man, woman, child, and infant of the Amalekites? Is this genocide a mistranslation?

No, it's not a mistranslation, and there is also good archaeological evidence that it never happened. Question: What, you mean the Bible might get historical facts wrong? Answer: Yes, it can. And yes, it can still serve as the basis of belief in a supremely good Being.

Did God not kill of the Fistborn of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh to the first born at the mill? Is the morality of killing them understood in the cultural context?

No, I also think there is good archaeological evidence to doubt this story as well.

So if these stories aren't true, why are they included? Yes I know figurative stories have value, but figurative stories where genocide is commanded?

Did God not kill the child of David and Bathsheba to punish them for their affair? Is this explained by how the Bible was preserved?

Babies died much more frequently back then. But, here is one of the great genius moments of the ancient Hebrew mind, namely the idea that our actions vis-à-vis our fellow human beings is what pisses off God, not forgetting the morning incense offering. Even more genius was in figuring out that ethical norms apply just as much to kings as they do to commoners. Did they misinterpret the death as a punishment? Possibly. Just remember the ethical norms you use to critique ancient Hebrews was developed largely by ancient Hebrews. Translation: don't s*** on your own doormat.

Is it a mistake that the first four commandments given by God all focus on how we should worship him? Did I misunderstand that?

No and no. If there is a supreme Being in the universe, who arranged the natural and moral laws of the universe, why would you not want to worship him? And wouldn't that worship merely be an expression of gratitude through living that law?

My Question is why God wants us our adoration. Why is it so important to him?

Is all that stuff about circumcision a mistake? It should be fixed. Having God care about whether or not we cut skin off of our penises seems a little silly.

It was fixed for gentiles, read Paul.

So was it important to God before Paul fixed it?

Is this English translation so terribly mangled that I shouldn't make any judgements based on it?

It never ceases to amaze me that people that ostensibly no longer believe in the LDS church continue to make assertions that only an LDS believer would make. This isn't an issue of "as far as it is translated correctly."

Stak seems to mocking us who have only read the Bible in english. If the English translation is decent then why can't I make judgements based on it? If it is not, then it really needs to be fixed.

[_Samantabhadra]

Stak seems to mocking us who have only read the Bible in english. If the English translation is decent then why can't I make judgements based on it? If it is not, then it really needs to be fixed.

It's not quite the same thing, but I have translated texts from Tibetan, and aided in the editing process of the same. Just because I might believe that a translation that I have written or edited is "decent" does not make reading my English translation any kind of substitute for learning Tibetan and reading the text yourself. You seem to be missing Aristotle's point, which is that reading a text in the original language and reading it in translation are never commensurable, even if the translation can be quite helpful in some circumstances.

[_Hoops]

Not only is it mean to not be taken literally, the Bible itself gives ample clues that you are not to take it literally. Here's a little exercise. Read Genesis 10 and take notes about all of the different languages and ethnic groups it mentions. Now read Genesis 11, the Tower of Babel story. Next, since Genesis 11 comes after Genesis 10, and since Genesis 10 already mentions dozens of languages, what can one conclude about Genesis 11? An obvious conclusion seems to be that Genesis 11 was not meant to be the end all and be all of how language developed. Now you will protest, Why do these stories seem to conflict? Answer: read up on the Documentary Hypothesis.

I know this isn't the point of the thread, so disregard if you wish.
Isn't there a better explanation? That the event(s) in Gen 10 do not necessarily occur before Gen 11? Which would be consistent with how Gen 1and2 are presented? (simplified, I know, but I'm sure you know the argument)

[_Stormy Waters]

Stak seems to mocking us who have only read the Bible in english. If the English translation is decent then why can't I make judgements based on it? If it is not, then it really needs to be fixed.

It's not quite the same thing, but I have translated texts from Tibetan, and aided in the editing process of the same. Just because I might believe that a translation that I have written or edited is "decent" does not make reading my English translation any kind of substitute for learning Tibetan and reading the text yourself. You seem to be missing Aristotle's point, which is that reading a text in the original language and reading it in translation are never commensurable, even if the translation can be quite helpful in some circumstances.

I speak two languages well enough to know that things are lost in translation. But still, if the translation is well done, then we should be able to make judgements based on it. If stories above are correctly translated, then why can't I say that I find them objectionable? But If we are not allowed to make any negative judgements about the text based on the translation, then why should we be allowed to make positive judgements based on the translation?