Misuse of "Scripture"

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

richardMdBorn wrote:
Roger Morrison wrote:


Makes sense to me. Do you think Job was a historical person, as many do? I'm trying to get a handle on how you seperate the genre. Personally I would not group Job with Psalms or Proverbs, as you appear to do??

Are we getting to the point of agreeing to disagree, agreeably :-) ???? Warm regards, Roger
Hi Roger,
I think that the issue of whether or not miracles occurred is much more important than the argument about the historicity of Job. What are your major objections to miracles?
[/quote]

Hi Richard, actually i think it quite important to know the historicity/reality of Job. Countless people over centuries found justification of suffering, personal and otherwise, by relating to Job's ordeals. And many still do, as i'm sure you have heard over your life time as well. That this drama was a supposed competition between "God" and Satan, makes it even more important to 'know-the-truth' of this legend.

Job's whole story seems crammed full of "miracles" as understood generally. Don't you agree? Or, do you define "miracles" differently than most? Maybe it is important that You define the term "miracle" as you understand/believe it, for both our benefits. Please do so.

My major objection(s) is the mythology tends to take people outside of reality. This tends to create false-faith in imagined conditions and powers too often leading to hope, that too often is little less than denial of reality. At its worse in circumvents ways and means that MIGHT effectively remedy whatever the "miracle" is supposed to be applied to...

I think it deceptive to look at ancient beliefs in "spiritual" matters--found in the bible--today, as having any more credibility than did medicine men and shamen of the past.

To me, "miracles" suggest exceptions to Universal laws, known or otherwise. IF/WHEN otherwise, then we have the starting point of duplication/repetition that expands understanding of the science upon which the "miracle" was based. When there is not a repetition, such as continuously stopping the sun; parting waters; walking on water; raising the DEAD, not simply bring back to consiousness; whithering and restoring a limb with a word; imaculate conception/virgin birth et al...

Then, not meaning to be trite, we are living in the realm of fantacy and, "Yes Elizabeth, there is a Santa Claus, a tooth fairy, leprechauns, and a "God" who responds to rituals, flattery and gifts." Believe it at your peril or pleasure for your own reason and purpose. Just keep in mind (y)our dependency on the sciences and advancing knowledge. I think that's what "God" is depending on... Warm regards, Roger
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Interesting Analysis Leaving Some Questions

Post by _JAK »

Roger,
A very interesting and comprehensive discussion and analysis. While you have asked Richard for clarification and rightly so, I should like you to address an implicit claim of your own in the last paragraph to Richard.

Roger states:
Then, not meaning to be trite, we are living in the realm of fantacy (fantasy) and, "Yes Elizabeth, there is a Santa Claus, a tooth fairy, leprechauns, and a "God" who responds to rituals, flattery and gifts." Believe it at your peril or pleasure for your own reason and purpose. Just keep in mind (y)our dependency on the sciences and advancing knowledge. I think that's what "God" is depending on...


In your last sentence you assume God and further characterize this entity as “depending on...”

What’s your basis for the assumption and further the notion that this entity “is depending on...”?

What was this entity "depending on..." before the evolution of humans on this 4.5 billion year-old planet?

In what way do the “the sciences and advancing knowledge” rely on any God myth?

JAK
Last edited by Guest on Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Post by _richardMdBorn »

Hi Roger,

i don't have much time this week fro discussions:
My major objection(s) is the mythology tends to take people outside of reality. This tends to create false-faith in imagined conditions and powers too often leading to hope, that too often is little less than denial of reality.
I obviously disagree. If miracles are imagined conditions, then I have no desire to believe in them. I believe that they occurred in history.
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Reliability Dilemma

Post by _JAK »

richardMdBorn wrote:Hi Roger,

I don't have much time this week fro discussions:
My major objection(s) is the mythology tends to take people outside of reality. This tends to create false-faith in imagined conditions and powers too often leading to hope, that too often is little less than denial of reality.
I obviously disagree. If miracles are imagined conditions, then I have no desire to believe in them. I believe that they occurred in history.


Hi Richard,

Richard,

If your claim were true, it make your God whimsical, playing favorites, and essentially possessed by what we would consider human emotions.

And the Bible offers much mythology that God also orchestrated genocide against those whom God did not favor or hated.

Hence, Christian mythology invents God in the portrait of humans -- favors some, not others.

I notice that you used the past tense in your argument.

Richard stated:
I obviously disagree. If miracles are imagined conditions, then I have no desire to believe in them. I believe that they occurred in history.
(bold for emphasis)

I notice you have no response to the analysis of the record keeping of history. The farther back in time, the less reliable any record tends to be. The invention of religious myths does not constitute history.

I submit you are speaking through your indoctrination. Had you been born Muslim, you would be as much a believer in that mythology as you are in the one you are.

Historically, evidence strongly supports that miracles were stories invented to sell a religion.

The first canonization of what are now 66 books was of 39 books regarded as the Jewish Bible. Those books are common to the Jewish religion and Christianity.

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testament canons contain books not found in the Jewish Bible.

See:
Canonization of the Old Testament and New Testament

After reading this link, you can see that there have been various. In addition, there have been many translations under the auspices of various emperors, kings, and popes.

This many Families of Christian denominations in North America demonstrate a fractured Christianity in which wide-spread contradictions and more documented contradictions have been identified.

So, Richard, what you believe is a product of a particular indoctrination (perhaps along with your own interpretative twists).

If the case for miracles (supernatural suspension of natural law) could be made, it would negate science. That is, if a whimsical God could over-write physics (examples Roger gave you), science would be unreliable. However, it is claim of miracles which is unreliable.

Well, I understand why you cannot respond to any of my posts, Richard. But, you are most welcome from my perspective to quote me accurately -- not a paraphrase -- and address my comments to you.

JAK
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

JAK, thanks for the compliment--and spelling corrections :-) Your question re my post, i'm inbold:

Roger states:
Then, not meaning to be trite, we are living in the realm of fantacy (fantasy) and, "Yes Elizabeth, there is a Santa Claus, a tooth fairy, leprechauns, and a "God" who responds to rituals, flattery and gifts." Believe it at your peril or pleasure for your own reason and purpose. Just keep in mind (y)our dependency on the sciences and advancing knowledge. I think that's what "God" is depending on...

In your last sentence you assume God and further characterize this entity as “depending on...”

RM: I'm exercising some literary licence here. Note i put "God" in quotation marks. Rightly, or wrongly to set this "God" apart from the general interpretation of the imagined denominational biblical God. Again, right or wrong what i'm referring to by that god term is Universal truth upon which all progress in science, and understanding of "Its" law(s) is based. "Its" metaphorically "God" and vice-versa.

Further, in this suggestion, i'm personifying "Universal truth" for those who have difficulty with abstracts. Whether this helps or hinders understanding???


What’s your basis for the assumption and further the notion that this entity “is depending on...”?

RM: "...this entity..." is best understood as evolution--in this case, of humanity--that "is dependent on" the human species probing the world and universe for facts to Trump fantasy and unjustfied traditions. My "basis" is personal, creative genius initiating sensible doctrine to replace nonsencical doctine--BIG :-)

What was this entity "depending on..." before the evolution of humans on this 4.5 billion year-old planet?

RM: I don't really know... Maybe in premortal times not much but photosynthesis??? Just guessing...

In what way do the “the sciences and advancing knowledge” rely on any God myth?

RM: THEY don't. But as yet many folks in their states of transition/evolution are not quite ready to totally jettison the "God myth"...


Personally, while i have abandoned the ancient, perpetuated god-myth, i increasingly think (feel?) gratitude for "LIFE" in general, and for mine in particular. When i snuggle down for my nightly sleep it is with an increasing sense of appreciation. I might even smilingly, audibly articulate it into the Universe. When i proceed to eat it is with amazement of, and gratitude for, the process that is about to begin of the transfer of energy that sustains me... Like "WOW!!"

The latter happens whether i'm a believer in anything or totally ignorant of everything... Cuz the Universe ("God" :-) is no respector of persons. As an enlightened one taught 2,000+/- years ago...


It's late at night, and i'm at my best in early morning... Warm regards, Roger

Edited this AM to correct some boo-boos, and to add the last two paragraphs for clarification. At least that is my intent??? ;-) RM
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Roger’s comments: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:45 pm

Post by _JAK »

Hi Roger,

Thanks for the clarification. It was excellent. In speaking with subscribers to some/any religious mythology, I often have said: "your God" or just “God” using italics as indicator that my reference is to their previous implication or direct statement regarding a narrow, religious claim in the use of that term.

It’s really much as you intended by using quotation marks.

Just a couple of points in your fine explanation of your use of language.

Roger stated:
Again, right or wrong what I'm referring to by that god term is Universal truth upon which all progress in science, and understanding of "Its" law(s) is based.


If you’re speaking to one who is clearly immersed in a religious doctrine, I think any reference using the word god or God is problematic without a stated intention. In addition, most who adhere to a religious mythology don’t describe it as compatible with science as you or I might understand it.

For example, there are people who say directly or indirectly that they accept science. Yet, as they claim belief in their religious views, they speak of “miracles” which, upon close look, deny science. You mentioned several examples to Richard which are Christian doctrine and which, if factual, render science false.

These same people use prayer with the intent to manipulate their God to “act” in ways favorable to them. It’s often very personal. But we see this in politicians who end speeches with: “God Bless America.” For example, We don’t hear a politician say God bless Iran or God bless Africa, etc. G.W. Bush has closed with: “May God continue to bless the United States of America.” So he and others are using God for political purpose. Who can speak up and challenge that speech conclusion who is an American? It curries favor with the religious right and identifies Bush with God and God with America.

In no respect is such reference intended to refer to “Universal truth.” Politicians and religious leaders don’t refer to God and intend what you may by “Universal truth.” They refer to the God entity within the context of their own narrow religious view.

Therefore, I think it misleading to use the term as you might use it. In virtually everyone’s mind, God has a connotation far short of “Universal truth.” But I accept your intent by use of quotation marks. I’m skeptical that other readers (absent the careful explanation you have given) would comprehend that.
------------------
I also understand your comment next, but think listeners/readers are unlikely to understand.

Roger stated:
Further, in this suggestion, I'm personifying "Universal truth" for those who have difficulty with abstracts. Whether this helps or hinders understanding???


You may be (personifying). But it’s also misleading in that whatever you might consider “Universal truth” to be, it’s not person. That they have “difficulty with abstracts” is not a justification for avoiding them. However, in defense of what you do, “those” may talk to/with you and not talk with you if you make transparent your real position(s).
------------------
(JAK previously:
In what way do the “the sciences and advancing knowledge” rely on any God myth?)

Roger stated:
THEY don't. But as yet many folks in their states of transition/evolution are not quite ready to totally jettison the "God myth"...


Not only is that correct, the religious organizations (many) and the politicians (many) intend to make use of religion as long as they can. That’s long beyond our lifetime.

Continued mistreatment of the planet by increased population and all that contributes to the destruction of the planet’s capacity to support human life is likely hasten the earth’s deterioration for that support.

A large number of people today would pray for earth while conducting themselves in ways that damage earth. Particularly that is likely to be the case when there is near universal recognition about rising sea levels and rising temperatures globally.

The evolution of religious mythologies has been relatively slow. We can document that with evidence easily accessed. The Roman Catholic Church officially prohibits family planning which involves artificial contraception. Yet, we know that reliable family-size planning can be accomplished as people use medical science in birth control.

Evolution (change) in thinking requires accurate information. God myths don’t provide it. Worse, God myths impede acquisition of accurate information. Recognition that the earth is a sphere (round), not flat took many, many years from the time the most accurately informed individuals really knew that fact.

Roger stated:
When I proceed to eat it is with amazement of, and gratitude for, the process that is about to begin of the transfer of energy that sustains me... Like "WOW!!"


What you don’t mention seems of greater significance than what you do.

Poverty Levels in the US

Hunger and World Poverty

Global

The Threat of Global Poverty

And an excerpt:
Today, more than half the world's population lives on less than $2 per day, and almost 1.1 billion people live in extreme poverty, defined as less than $1 per day. The costs of global poverty are multiple. Poverty prevents poor countries from devoting sufficient resources to detect and contain deadly disease. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), low- and middle-income countries suffer 90 percent of the world's disease burden but account for only 11 percent of its health care spending. Poverty also dramatically increases the risk of civil conflict. A recent study by the UK's Department for International Development showed that a country at $250 GDP per capita has on average a 15 percent risk of internal conflict over five years, while a country at $5,000 per capita has a risk of less than 1 percent. War zones provide ideal operational environs for international outlaws.
--------------------

What we have or don’t have is a result of propinquity and proxemics.

Again, my compliments for your response which addressed issues and questions which I raised.

JAK
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Hi JAK, I was hi-jacked :-) ... Had a detailed response and it was stolen by the "System" of this waterways library :-( ... Will be home this evening... Thanks for your compliment. Warm regards, Roger
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Re: Reliability Dilemma

Post by _richardMdBorn »

JAK wrote:
richardMdBorn wrote:Hi Roger,

I don't have much time this week fro discussions:
My major objection(s) is the mythology tends to take people outside of reality. This tends to create false-faith in imagined conditions and powers too often leading to hope, that too often is little less than denial of reality.
I obviously disagree. If miracles are imagined conditions, then I have no desire to believe in them. I believe that they occurred in history.


Hi Richard,

Richard,

If your claim were true, it make your God whimsical, playing favorites, and essentially possessed by what we would consider human emotions.

And the Bible offers much mythology that God also orchestrated genocide against those whom God did not favor or hated.

Hence, Christian mythology invents God in the portrait of humans -- favors some, not others.

I notice that you used the past tense in your argument.

Richard stated:
I obviously disagree. If miracles are imagined conditions, then I have no desire to believe in them. I believe that they occurred in history.
(bold for emphasis)

I notice you have no response to the analysis of the record keeping of history.
I was responding to Roger. I will read your posts when I have time (haven't read the last couple of them). At the moment, I'm more interested in the World Chess Championship.
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

From Home-base...

Post by _Roger Morrison »

JAK, i'll respond in bold. First, thanks for the sites at the end of your post. My letter to Canada's PM is ready to be sent. Also, i'm entered to receive information relative to world poverty AND its ramifications... You said:


If you’re speaking to one who is clearly immersed in a religious doctrine, I think any reference using the word god or God is problematic without a stated intention. In addition, most who adhere to a religious mythology don’t describe it as compatible with science as you or I might understand it.

RM: Possibly problematic... However, i think the objections of such folks are more conditioned reflexs than a conscious dismissal of science as their benefactor.

For example, there are people who say directly or indirectly that they accept science. Yet, as they claim belief in their religious views, they speak of “miracles” which, upon close look, deny science. You mentioned several examples to Richard which are Christian doctrine and which, if factual, render science false.

RM: I find it hard to imagine any belief "...rendering science false." :-) That folks believe in "miracles" is a 'teaching' or an 'indoctrination' that is difficult to be dissuaded of by 'reason'. Generally speaking they knee-jerk to a defensive stance and resist the suggestion of being wrong--a most natural human trait.

These same people use prayer with the intent to manipulate their God to “act” in ways favorable to them. It’s often very personal. But we see this in politicians who end speeches with: “God Bless America.” For example, We don’t hear a politician say God bless Iran or God bless Africa, etc. G.W. Bush has closed with: “May God continue to bless the United States of America.” So he and others are using God for political purpose. Who can speak up and challenge that speech conclusion who is an American? It curries favor with the religious right and identifies Bush with God and God with America.

RM: Too true. However, in reality it is a smoke screen behind which politicos do tricks to advance their agenda. A guise that i think is wearing a bit thin with thinking educated folks...not all educated folks are thinkers, some are simply 'rememberers'... And yes there are uneducated thinkers as well who just seem by nature to be smart... As evolution is slooowwww and education to the masses is a relatively new social advancement it will take time for its fruit to bear fruit to bear fruit>>>>>>>>>> But it is happening as the sites you listed indicate.

In no respect is such reference intended to refer to “Universal truth.” Politicians and religious leaders don’t refer to God and intend what you may by “Universal truth.” They refer to the God entity within the context of their own narrow religious view.

RM: Possibly... But, "what is 'their intention," might well be asked. From a strictly pragmatically negative point, with the exception of initiators who might be altruistic, the 'following-leaders' will go with the new-current; that's where their rewards will be secured. Referring to the God entity is the smart thing for them to do. As long as it's popular. Trend propells more than we might want to admit. Peer influence. Not all bad stuff. Leads to smoke-free-zones and anti-poverty advocates...

Therefore, I think it misleading to use the term as you might use it. In virtually everyone’s mind, God has a connotation far short of “Universal truth.” But I accept your intent by use of quotation marks. I’m skeptical that other readers (absent the careful explanation you have given) would comprehend that.

RM: Could it as well be considered "leading"? By that i mean from an old paradigm to a new one? Which i think is the objective: To change from biblical misinformed influence on the human mosaic to rational enlightened approachs to awareness of service to Humanity being more important than serving an imagined Deity. The challenge is how best to do that?

JAK, you might have immediate objections to me referencing the teachings of Jesus, the philosopher, not the divine. In his teachings he consistantly admonished his hearers to be friends with ALL; to not make enemies; work to establish peace, provide for the needy--as you do; share, not hoard, resources, etc >>>>>>> I resectfully suggest within the two conflicting camps, generalized as "Believers" vs "Non-believers" we might share more "beliefs" than traditionally realized.

So, it is in our common ground that seeds can be planted to bear good fruit. I don't think that ground is discovered in battles. I think consistant exposure softens resistance to contrary opinins. This was a point made in your ref to "proprinquicity" (sp?) if i recall correctly??? By association of "God" with Universal Truth--over time the connection will first be understood--then in more time be accepted as a norm. There after terminology will be of no-matter-of-importance as energies join to remedy the challenges you so correctly bring to attention. Thank You for doing so... Truth will eventually prevail.



At times like this i wish i keyed at more than 20 words a minute...LOL!! I gotta run, and will probably not get back to this for several days. Warm regards, Roger
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Post by _richardMdBorn »

JAK , my comments are in bold.

Richard,

If your claim were true, it make your God whimsical, playing favorites, and essentially possessed by what we would consider human emotions.

And the Bible offers much mythology that God also orchestrated genocide against those whom God did not favor or hated.

Hence, Christian mythology invents God in the portrait of humans -- favors some, not others.

I notice that you used the past tense in your argument.

I was writing about biblical miracles. Which tense should I use instead of the past tense.

Richard stated:
I obviously disagree. If miracles are imagined conditions, then I have no desire to believe in them. I believe that they occurred in history.
(bold for emphasis)

I notice you have no response to the analysis of the record keeping of history.
That assumes that I’m following your posts. Now that I have some time, I've read through all of them on this thread and I don't see anything new. It's a standard argument against miracles. You don't think that Luke wrote the stories until long after the events and hence is unreliable. Let us assume that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. Would you believe in an account written by Luke in 34 AD?
The farther back in time, the less reliable any record tends to be. The invention of religious myths does not constitute history.

I submit you are speaking through your indoctrination. Had you been born Muslim, you would be as much a believer in that mythology as you are in the one you are.
And you are writing strict objective truth? Your own presuppositions have no effect on your reasoning. I congratulate you for being immune to indoctrination .

case for miracles (supernatural suspension of natural law) could be made, it would negate science. That is, if a whimsical God could over-write physics (examples Roger gave you), science would be unreliable. However, it is claim of miracles which is unreliable.
That is an interpretation of science which Newton would not recognize. Where does your authority to pronounce what is and is not science come from?
Post Reply