Why isn't the Bible a primary source?

Technarch
Posts: 127
Joined: 2007-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Why isn't the Bible a primary source?

When researching, one relies on reliable sources that are peer reviewed, and cites those sources as support.  Christians often do this with the Bible, treating it as a reliable source that has been "peer reviewed" by its authors.  The Bible is viewed as the truth and the guide to reality, thus quoting from it is like a scientist quoting from a scientific journal.  The difference is that the scientific journal can be criticized, reviewed further, and even refuted at some point.  The Bible is not refuted as it requires its followers to maintain the Bible as a source of truth.  If the Bible had plenty of outside sources to support its miracles and events then it would be credible.   Christians see the Bible as truth and treat it as truth, so when someone says "you can't just use the bible as a source" the answer is "but that is my source, because it has the truth."  By believing in it as the truth, and by not allowing any change or refutation to take place, the Bible is always seen as truth whether it is or not.  Saying "stop using the bible as a source and use something else as a source" cannot be done, because Christianity is based on the Bible, not a system of academic peer review.  The Bible fails for its lack of external support, so it relies solely on internal support.  This is the same as any book that claims itself to be true regardless of any journal or review, whether it be pseudoscience, holocaust denial, conspiracy theory, or Scientology.                


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Your typical American Christian tends towards being an atheist. 

  

   That's very interesting FCH.    In your experience does this tendency exist before or after the homosexual,  ooops, I mean the Christian.... undergoes reparative therapy ?  Perhaps we atheists should start our own version of Exodus International. ?      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International

  I hung on to my faith as long as I could until I finally gave in, now I'm god/God/G-d free...and I no longer experience those troubling theistic urges.

LOL!

I mean, it's not funny if that's what you actually went through, and you certainly have my sympathies if you did and the responsible parties should be sued, arrested, defrocked, stripped of their license, or whatever can be done so they don't harm anyone else.

No, it's based on discussing Christianity with other Christians when I was still a Christian.  But also, it's based on my observation that the further Christians get away from fundamentalist denominations, the less likely they are to believe that the Christian bible is literally true, and the more likely they are to believe it's some kind of symbolic morality tale that's a "really good idea".  We had a pastor when I was a teen who practically came out and admitted he was an Atheist.  This was in a Presbyterian church -- which is far from a Fundy denomination.  This concept -- Christian Atheism -- would be one way of formalizing the belief set.

My response to the Christian Atheist is "Who ever said G-d is supposed to be tinkering with the Universe on a daily basis in the first place?"  Theologically, Christian Atheism is more properly a discovery that the G-d of Abraham isn't puppet-master-god and that the "life purpose" of those who believe in G-d is to actively engage the world and correct the world's problems, rather than expect G-d to do it for us, and then blaming G-d when WE fail to perform our tasks.

Within Judaism, the question of Atheists who exist within a theistic structure -- Jewish Atheists -- has long been one that's not evoked nearly as much controversy as would, say, Christian Atheists in a less liberal tradition.  In responding to Jewish Atheists, the expression "I don't believe in the G-d you don't believe in either" would sum up the feelings of many.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3566
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Within

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

Within Judaism, the question of Atheists who exist within a theistic structure -- Jewish Atheists -- has long been one that's not evoked nearly as much controversy as would, say, Christian Atheists in a less liberal tradition.  In responding to Jewish Atheists, the expression "I don't believe in the G-d you don't believe in either" would sum up the feelings of many.

  Jewish atheism would be a perfect fit for my Aunt.  She is an ethnic Jew who abhors theism itself.  I don't know to what extent, if any, that she still acknowledges her religious heritage.  She's very liberal politically, she met my uncle back in the 60's when they were both members of VISTA.  Needless to say that she is sympathetic to my lack of belief.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

FurryHatCerder wrote:

When you've established that it's a Science manual -- and you and the rest of your posse still have yet to even start with that little exercise -- then we'll discuss it as though it's a Science manual, though if you =do= manage to somehow prove (which you can't) that it's a Science manual, we'll then progress to the "it's a JEWISH Science manual" stage at which point you're still screwed on account of ... not a Jew!

So, it does not claim to contain truths about the world?

Didn't say that.  I said it doesn't claim to be a Science manual.

BobSpence1 wrote:
OR does it not contain anything which even implies or assumes anything about the physical nature of the Universe? Or of the benefits or problems of various foods? Or any comments on the causes and recommended responses to diseases?

You mean, "Don't eat shrimp because they are filthy bottom feeders and you might get sick"?  No, it doesn't say anything like that.

But it does say "whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye shall not eat; it is unclean unto you", which is what I was referring to, and you know it.

In A similar vein, it says:

"Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the rock-badger, because they chew the cud but part not the hoof, they are unclean unto you;"

The hare and the rock-badger don't 'chew the cud'. This could have been checked if it was that important, altho we know why they made that assumption from casual observation.

In either case, the prohibition is not soundly based on actual evidence that there was some solid practical reason that eating such animals was more likely to cause problems than others not fitting those criteria. I suspect the 'yuck factor' was a significant element in many cases, esp in the "chewing the cud" thing.

And of course all that Genesis crap is there, with all its erroneous claims.

So, I presume that when you say "it doesn't claim to be a Science Manual", that is your way of conceding that it does have such errors in its assumptions about many aspects of life and reality, but none that 'really' matter. Except that many of its prohibitions and prescriptions are at least partly based on its 'scientfic', ie FACTUAL, errors.

Of course, the fact that is not remotely accurate about many things we now know with the help of science, is a damn good reason to believe its recommendations are mostly based on primitive superstitions and very casual observation and false assumptions about, for example, what is likely to lead to food being bad for you.

So if it can get that stuff wrong, what is your justification for taking the other stuff as more than the potentially mistaken opinions of just another bunch of people? What were their qualifications?

There is plenty of literature around these days which contains far better advice on pretty much every aspect of life, far more soundly based. NOT "Science Manuals", but based on scientifically-established information, not primitive superstitions and ancient errors.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:But it does

BobSpence1 wrote:

But it does say "whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye shall not eat; it is unclean unto you", which is what I was referring to, and you know it.

"Unclean" doesn't mean "yucky".  It also doesn't mean "gonna make you sick", "there's a scientific reason not to eat it", or anything else that could even REMOTELY be judged on an objective, scientific basis.

BobSpence1 wrote:
In A similar vein, it says:

"Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the rock-badger, because they chew the cud but part not the hoof, they are unclean unto you;"

The hare and the rock-badger don't 'chew the cud'. This could have been checked if it was that important, altho we know why they made that assumption from casual observation.

So perhaps "casual observation" is good enough?

Oh, right -- only advanced scientific knowledge is sufficient in the MODERN world.

In Europe, rabbis created a "fence" which prohibited mixing poultry and dairy, based on the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother's milk.  I guess you think rabbis are stupid people and believe that chickens give milk, rather than that rabbis were saying that "because people might get careless, it would be better to refrain from mixing chicken and milk."  Much like "Because people might get careless, we're going to lump all these other animals into the pile, so they don't have to have some kind of highly detailed list to carry around while wandering in the desert."

BobSpence1 wrote:
In either case, the prohibition is not soundly based on actual evidence that there was some solid practical reason that eating such animals was more likely to cause problems than others not fitting those criteria. I suspect the 'yuck factor' was a significant element in many cases, esp in the "chewing the cud" thing.

"Yuck factor"?  Which "yuck factor" would that be?  The one you invented yourself?  Because I've places where many of those foods are considered to be "good eatin'".  I think I may have eaten rabbit in the past (fairy sure I have), but I know for sure I've eaten alligator and quite a few other "yucky" animals.  I eat roast or BBQ goat as often as I can find it (but not so often that I get bored with it).  Goat is kosher, but probably considered "yucky", and I'd bet may would consider it "yuckier" than rabbit.

BobSpence1 wrote:
So, I presume that when you say "it doesn't claim to be a Science Manual", that is your way of conceding that it does have such errors in its assumptions about many aspects of life and reality, but none that 'really' matter. Except that many of its prohibitions and prescriptions are at least partly based on its 'scientfic', ie FACTUAL, errors.

No, I'm saying that you're a completely clueless non-Jew who's trying to co-opt Jewish texts and apply a non-Jewish understanding to them.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Of course, the fact that is not remotely accurate about many things we now know with the help of science, is a damn good reason to believe its recommendations are mostly based on primitive superstitions and very casual observation and false assumptions about, for example, what is likely to lead to food being bad for you.

You can keep pretending it says it's a Science manual, but you've not presented a single shred of evidence that it does.  Quick -- claimed scientific basis for not mixing wool and linen.  You're a smart guy with lots of Torah skills, how about you find the (non-existent) scientific basis for the prohibition against mixing wool and linen.

BobSpence1 wrote:
So if it can get that stuff wrong, what is your justification for taking the other stuff as more than the potentially mistaken opinions of just another bunch of people? What were their qualifications?

Which stuff wrong?  The stuff it isn't even claiming is based on  scientific facts?  Like, European rabbis and their "mistaken" belief that chickens give milk?

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is plenty of literature around these days which contains far better advice on pretty much every aspect of life, far more soundly based. NOT "Science Manuals", but based on scientifically-established information, not primitive superstitions and ancient errors.

Bob, it has become clear to me that your argument against the Torah is based on the mistaken belief that it is a Science manual of some sort.  Now that you have a member of the religion which "owns" the texts telling you that it's not a Science manual, all that's left for you to do is keep on lying and acting as though it is one.  That is perhaps one of the most dishonest of all types of arguments because it starts with an utterly false premise.  A false premise you keep being told is a false premise, but which you keep on using in spite of being informed it's a false premise.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is sure to get interesting.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

But it does say "whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye shall not eat; it is unclean unto you", which is what I was referring to, and you know it.

"Unclean" doesn't mean "yucky".  It also doesn't mean "gonna make you sick", "there's a scientific reason not to eat it", or anything else that could even REMOTELY be judged on an objective, scientific basis.

BobSpence1 wrote:
In A similar vein, it says:

"Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the rock-badger, because they chew the cud but part not the hoof, they are unclean unto you;"

The hare and the rock-badger don't 'chew the cud'. This could have been checked if it was that important, altho we know why they made that assumption from casual observation.

So perhaps "casual observation" is good enough?

Oh, right -- only advanced scientific knowledge is sufficient in the MODERN world.

In Europe, rabbis created a "fence" which prohibited mixing poultry and dairy, based on the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother's milk.  I guess you think rabbis are stupid people and believe that chickens give milk, rather than that rabbis were saying that "because people might get careless, it would be better to refrain from mixing chicken and milk."  Much like "Because people might get careless, we're going to lump all these other animals into the pile, so they don't have to have some kind of highly detailed list to carry around while wandering in the desert."

BobSpence1 wrote:
In either case, the prohibition is not soundly based on actual evidence that there was some solid practical reason that eating such animals was more likely to cause problems than others not fitting those criteria. I suspect the 'yuck factor' was a significant element in many cases, esp in the "chewing the cud" thing.

"Yuck factor"?  Which "yuck factor" would that be?  The one you invented yourself?  Because I've places where many of those foods are considered to be "good eatin'".  I think I may have eaten rabbit in the past (fairy sure I have), but I know for sure I've eaten alligator and quite a few other "yucky" animals.  I eat roast or BBQ goat as often as I can find it (but not so often that I get bored with it).  Goat is kosher, but probably considered "yucky", and I'd bet may would consider it "yuckier" than rabbit.

BobSpence1 wrote:
So, I presume that when you say "it doesn't claim to be a Science Manual", that is your way of conceding that it does have such errors in its assumptions about many aspects of life and reality, but none that 'really' matter. Except that many of its prohibitions and prescriptions are at least partly based on its 'scientfic', ie FACTUAL, errors.

No, I'm saying that you're a completely clueless non-Jew who's trying to co-opt Jewish texts and apply a non-Jewish understanding to them.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Of course, the fact that is not remotely accurate about many things we now know with the help of science, is a damn good reason to believe its recommendations are mostly based on primitive superstitions and very casual observation and false assumptions about, for example, what is likely to lead to food being bad for you.

You can keep pretending it says it's a Science manual, but you've not presented a single shred of evidence that it does.  Quick -- claimed scientific basis for not mixing wool and linen.  You're a smart guy with lots of Torah skills, how about you find the (non-existent) scientific basis for the prohibition against mixing wool and linen.

BobSpence1 wrote:
So if it can get that stuff wrong, what is your justification for taking the other stuff as more than the potentially mistaken opinions of just another bunch of people? What were their qualifications?

Which stuff wrong?  The stuff it isn't even claiming is based on  scientific facts?  Like, European rabbis and their "mistaken" belief that chickens give milk?

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is plenty of literature around these days which contains far better advice on pretty much every aspect of life, far more soundly based. NOT "Science Manuals", but based on scientifically-established information, not primitive superstitions and ancient errors.

Bob, it has become clear to me that your argument against the Torah is based on the mistaken belief that it is a Science manual of some sort.  Now that you have a member of the religion which "owns" the texts telling you that it's not a Science manual, all that's left for you to do is keep on lying and acting as though it is one.  That is perhaps one of the most dishonest of all types of arguments because it starts with an utterly false premise.  A false premise you keep being told is a false premise, but which you keep on using in spite of being informed it's a false premise.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

But it does say "whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye shall not eat; it is unclean unto you", which is what I was referring to, and you know it.

"Unclean" doesn't mean "yucky".  It also doesn't mean "gonna make you sick", "there's a scientific reason not to eat it", or anything else that could even REMOTELY be judged on an objective, scientific basis.

I notice you did not acknowledge your dishonest dodge in trying to say your stupid Book "didn't say anything like that". I suppose ignoring that part of any post which clearly shows you to have been wrong - it is a pattern in your responses.

I was suggesting a reason why they those primitives who came up with the superstitious notion of "unclean" were reacting so, probably unconsciously, to the thought of "vomiting'" partly digested food back into the mouth and then proceeding to chew on it.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
In A similar vein, it says:

"Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the rock-badger, because they chew the cud but part not the hoof, they are unclean unto you;"

The hare and the rock-badger don't 'chew the cud'. This could have been checked if it was that important, altho we know why they made that assumption from casual observation.

So perhaps "casual observation" is good enough?

Oh, right -- only advanced scientific knowledge is sufficient in the MODERN world.

All I am saying is that a little more careful observation, not remotely involving "advanced scientific knowledge", would have corrected their mistake.

Quote:

In Europe, rabbis created a "fence" which prohibited mixing poultry and dairy, based on the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother's milk.  I guess you think rabbis are stupid people and believe that chickens give milk, rather than that rabbis were saying that "because people might get careless, it would be better to refrain from mixing chicken and milk."  Much like "Because people might get careless, we're going to lump all these other animals into the pile, so they don't have to have some kind of highly detailed list to carry around while wandering in the desert."

Obviously rabbis are stupid people if they take this crap seriously.

But getting back to the topic, what kind of stupidity could lead to people accidently "cooking a kid in its mother's milk", just because there were chickens running around?? How the fuck does that make any sense?? At best you might accidently cook a chicken with a bit of goat's milk. If they actually did what you say, for that reason, then they absolutely were stupid.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
In either case, the prohibition is not soundly based on actual evidence that there was some solid practical reason that eating such animals was more likely to cause problems than others not fitting those criteria. I suspect the 'yuck factor' was a significant element in many cases, esp in the "chewing the cud" thing.

"Yuck factor"?  Which "yuck factor" would that be?  The one you invented yourself?  Because I've places where many of those foods are considered to be "good eatin'".  I think I may have eaten rabbit in the past (fairy sure I have), but I know for sure I've eaten alligator and quite a few other "yucky" animals.  I eat roast or BBQ goat as often as I can find it (but not so often that I get bored with it).  Goat is kosher, but probably considered "yucky", and I'd bet may would consider it "yuckier" than rabbit.

The one I described above, the idea of an animal chewing on regurgitated food. The remaining comments are irrelevant. I have eaten alligator and kangaroo and rabbit, and some antelopes - I think it was kudu.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
So, I presume that when you say "it doesn't claim to be a Science Manual", that is your way of conceding that it does have such errors in its assumptions about many aspects of life and reality, but none that 'really' matter. Except that many of its prohibitions and prescriptions are at least partly based on its 'scientfic', ie FACTUAL, errors.

No, I'm saying that you're a completely clueless non-Jew who's trying to co-opt Jewish texts and apply a non-Jewish understanding to them.

I almost can't believe you are so dense or stubborn as to persist with this "science manual" crap.

You are making it difficult for me to retain the general respect I have had for non-fundy Jews, if your attitude is a genuine reflection of a common outlook among them.

"Co-opt Jewish texts"?? Just because I quote them to point out they are basically the same as the Christian ones, who at least had the necessary shred  of intelligence and decency to sense that the OT had a lot of really questionable stuff in it, and make a token effort to play down its importance, rather than making up a whole lot of new shit to plaster over the crap.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Of course, the fact that is not remotely accurate about many things we now know with the help of science, is a damn good reason to believe its recommendations are mostly based on primitive superstitions and very casual observation and false assumptions about, for example, what is likely to lead to food being bad for you.

You can keep pretending it says it's a Science manual, but you've not presented a single shred of evidence that it does.  Quick -- claimed scientific basis for not mixing wool and linen.  You're a smart guy with lots of Torah skills, how about you find the (non-existent) scientific basis for the prohibition against mixing wool and linen.

You are the one yet to provide a shred of justification for ignoring its many factual inaccuracies.

And failing to acknowledge that things like prohibition on mixing fibres is based on nothing more than the same primitive "thinking" than any other "taboo" is usually based on.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
So if it can get that stuff wrong, what is your justification for taking the other stuff as more than the potentially mistaken opinions of just another bunch of people? What were their qualifications?

Which stuff wrong?  The stuff it isn't even claiming is based on  scientific facts?  Like, European rabbis and their "mistaken" belief that chickens give milk?

Pretty much everything  . 

Are you saying that rabbis actual believe chickens give milk? So you are admitting they actually were stupid? Even if they believed chickens gave milk, that still doesn't represent a risk of accidentally "boiling a kid in its mother's milk", unless they actually believed something like that chickens could give birth to baby goats.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is plenty of literature around these days which contains far better advice on pretty much every aspect of life, far more soundly based. NOT "Science Manuals", but based on scientifically-established information, not primitive superstitions and ancient errors.

Bob, it has become clear to me that your argument against the Torah is based on the mistaken belief that it is a Science manual of some sort.  Now that you have a member of the religion which "owns" the texts telling you that it's not a Science manual, all that's left for you to do is keep on lying and acting as though it is one.  That is perhaps one of the most dishonest of all types of arguments because it starts with an utterly false premise.  A false premise you keep being told is a false premise, but which you keep on using in spite of being informed it's a false premise.

Your refusal to acknowledge that it contains explicit factual errors that are are so fucking basic that they don't remotely require a science degree to detect, and your almost total inability to comprehend plain statements that offend your religion-warped sensibilities is actually sad.

That crazy stuff about mixing chickens and goats and trying to tie it to the prohibition about cooking a kid in its mother's milk is mind-boggling fucked-up. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

But it does say "whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye shall not eat; it is unclean unto you", which is what I was referring to, and you know it.

"Unclean" doesn't mean "yucky".  It also doesn't mean "gonna make you sick", "there's a scientific reason not to eat it", or anything else that could even REMOTELY be judged on an objective, scientific basis.

I notice you did not acknowledge your dishonest dodge in trying to say your stupid Book "didn't say anything like that". I suppose ignoring that part of any post which clearly shows you to have been wrong - it is a pattern in your responses.

I was suggesting a reason why they those primitives who came up with the superstitious notion of "unclean" were reacting so, probably unconsciously, to the thought of "vomiting'" partly digested food back into the mouth and then proceeding to chew on it.

Apparently you didn't or don't realize that ALL kosher mammals "vomit" partly digested food back into the mouth and then chew it all over again.  The difference between kosher mammals that "vomit" partly digested food back into their mouths, and unkosher mammals that also "vomit" partly digested food back into their mouths is that the unkosher ones don't have cloven hooves.  Maybe they had an unconscious revulsion to cloven hooves, because it can't have been to this "vomiting" thing on account of all kosher mammals do it.  Or maybe it's because all kosher mammal milk can be made into cheese and Jews like cheese.  That must be it.  It's a cheese thing --- Jews for Cheeses.

I don't expect you to admit being wrong about this "vomit is disgusting" thing, any more than you'll admit you made up this "It's a Science manual" thing.

The reason I didn't "acknowledge" "clean" versus "unclean" is because the words aren't "clean" and "unclean" in Hebrew.  This "clean" versus "unclean" thing is a problem with the English language.

BobSpence1 wrote:
"Co-opt Jewish texts"?? Just because I quote them to point out they are basically the same as the Christian ones, who at least had the necessary shred  of intelligence and decency to sense that the OT had a lot of really questionable stuff in it, and make a token effort to play down its importance, rather than making up a whole lot of new shit to plaster over the crap.

Do you know what "co-opt" means?  The Torah is the same words -- except for the intentional Christian mis-translations and mis-interpretations and mis-applications, etc., which is to say "not at all the same".

In Christianity, you punch a guy in the nose, tell Jesus you're sorry, you get off Scot-free and the guy still has a bloody nose.

In Judaism, you punch a guy in the nose, you have to go to the guy and make up for punching him in the nose.

In Atheism, you punch a guy in the nose and you do whatever you want, including punch him in the nose again because there is no established code of "right" or "wrong".

If you can't see the difference, then perhaps you are incapable of understanding anything at all about Judaism because you're so fixated on "vomit" you can't even get the "vomit" thing right.  When I look at the three examples I just gave, only one of those three requires people who punch other people in the nose to make up for the wrong they committed.  I'm going to put my money on Judaism.

So.  Chickens and Cows.

Would you rather live in a society where -

1). You punch a guy in the face, you have to make up for it.

2). Poor people get to glean your fields and your field workers can eat what they harvest.

3). You don't get to eat a bacon cheeseburger.

or one where -

1). You punch a guy in the face, he has to live with it.

2). Poor people get to go hungry and your field workers get to go hungry, too.

3). All the bacon cheeseburgers you can eat.

Pick one.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OK, I apologise, you can

OK, I apologise, you can only eat mammals that both chew the cud and have cloven hooves - gotcha. Anyone ever attempt to explain what is the basis of that particular superstition??

So obviously the 'yuck' factor is not involved. I will concede that - I was just speculating, before realizing it was this magic combination which is the thing.

It looks like at least some scholars see this specification as 'proof' of divine inspiration, because it seems there are only four animals in all the world that fit, although the camel hoof classification is not quite as clear, but it was decided that it wasn't a TRUE cloven hoof.

Seems to be just an almost 'arbitrary' rule, to help define the 'faith'.

IOW, maybe no practical reason at all. Interesting.

Apparently a quite tasty cheese can be made from camel's milk, despite it having the wrong kind of feet...

And there is a rare cheese made in the Italian province of Tuscany from pig's milk. Major part of the reason for its rarity seems to be the sheer difficulty of milking a pig.

"Chickens and Cows"? A kid is a baby goat.

But I see it is speculated that that  "Rabbinic Judaism developed the command into the cornerstone of dietary law and saw it as a prohibition of eating milk and meat products together - a meaning entirely extraneous to the text." I have had a friend put that idea to me, that there is some problem with mixing meat and dairy, but he put in some sort of health context, not religious, AFAIK. So the meme is out there.

One suggestion of the reason for the text is that it was because certain pagan rituals literally did cook a foetal or new-born goat in its mother's milk.

Quote:

Other reasons were also suggested for this prohibition. Ibn Ezra connects the law against boiling a kid in its mother's milk with the Torah's injunction against slaughtering a cow and her offspring on the same day (Leviticus 22:28) and the edict not to take a mother bird from the nest along with her eggs (Deuteronomy 22:6-7). For  Ibn  Ezra,  it was clear that all  three of  these mitzvot draw their inspiration from a single idea: to kill a mother and its offspring at the same time reflects a lack of sensitivity to life that is inexcusable.

All very interesting...

Seems to be mostly a matter of ritual, in the broadest sense, part of reinforcing the Jewish religious identity, to help distinguish them from all those pagans.

A pity you couldn't have been more honest and straight-forward with me, you seem to want to keep all this stuff a mystery, apparently so you can ridicule me for my ignorance. We could have had a more polite and fruitful discussion.

Still don't see where that crazy crap about separating chickens and cows came from, chickens don't seem to have anything to do with it. May look it up later, doesn't seem like you are able or willing to clarify what the hell you were talking about. It may well be be a good idea for various simple practical reasons.

As for Atheist and moral codes, good people of all beliefs are mostly good for the same reasons, our natural desire to get along with and support our social group, as all higher social animals do.

Religion is on of the most effective ways to pervert those instincts by introducing a whole bunch of primitive and ritualistic commandments and "thou shalt not"s. Not saying Judaism is too bad on that front, but religion is based on our moral instincts, rather than the reverse.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Seems to be

BobSpence1 wrote:

Seems to be mostly a matter of ritual, in the broadest sense, part of reinforcing the Jewish religious identity, to help distinguish them from all those pagans.

that's precisely what most bible scholars with no vested religious interest would say, including my jewish studies professor, who was an expert in hebrew and every other semitic language, as well as a practising reform jew.

she would also point out to everyone involved in this conversation--jew and gentile--that to uncritically confound the later rabbinic glosses with the original intention of the writers of the hebrew bible is monumentally fallacious.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:BobSpence1

iwbiek wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Seems to be mostly a matter of ritual, in the broadest sense, part of reinforcing the Jewish religious identity, to help distinguish them from all those pagans.

that's precisely what most bible scholars with no vested religious interest would say, including my jewish studies professor, who was an expert in hebrew and every other semitic language, as well as a practising reform jew.

she would also point out to everyone involved in this conversation--jew and gentile--that to uncritically confound the later rabbinic glosses with the original intention of the writers of the hebrew bible is monumentally fallacious.

Makes sense to me.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:OK, I

BobSpence1 wrote:

OK, I apologise, you can only eat mammals that both chew the cud and have cloven hooves - gotcha. Anyone ever attempt to explain what is the basis of that particular superstition??

Why? So people can start questioning whether it's really okay to have a cheeseburger, and if it's really okay to have a cheeseburger, perhaps it's also really okay to start doing all those other things that are forbidden?

No, you cannot have a cheeseburger and you cannot keep the poor from picking the leftovers in your fields.

BobSpence1 wrote:
So obviously the 'yuck' factor is not involved. I will concede that - I was just speculating, before realizing it was this magic combination which is the thing.

It looks like at least some scholars see this specification as 'proof' of divine inspiration, because it seems there are only four animals in all the world that fit, although the camel hoof classification is not quite as clear, but it was decided that it wasn't a TRUE cloven hoof.

Seems to be just an almost 'arbitrary' rule, to help define the 'faith'.

There are way more than four that fit it, and I've eaten many of them and they are delicious.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Apparently a quite tasty cheese can be made from camel's milk, despite it having the wrong kind of feet...

Okay, so of cows, goats, deer, sheep and camels, which has the greatest value as a pack animal?  Perhaps it has the right kind of feet -- to avoid being eaten, or its young deprived of nutrition, and instead used for carrying stuff.

BobSpence1 wrote:
A pity you couldn't have been more honest and straight-forward with me, you seem to want to keep all this stuff a mystery, apparently so you can ridicule me for my ignorance. We could have had a more polite and fruitful discussion.

Perhaps you could stop being so hostile?  It does take two to tango, you know.  And if you've not noticed, there are people I get along with apparently well enough that I've been granted honorary "not a Theist" status.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Still don't see where that crazy crap about separating chickens and cows came from, chickens don't seem to have anything to do with it. May look it up later, doesn't seem like you are able or willing to clarify what the hell you were talking about. It may well be be a good idea for various simple practical reasons.

It originated because the way meat was processed at the time it may have been difficult to impossible to distinguish the two, or to separate them.

BTW -- Sephardic Jews don't have that restriction.  I love me my Chicken Parmesan.  Yummy!

BobSpence1 wrote:
As for Atheist and moral codes, good people of all beliefs are mostly good for the same reasons, our natural desire to get along with and support our social group, as all higher social animals do.

Religion is on of the most effective ways to pervert those instincts by introducing a whole bunch of primitive and ritualistic commandments and "thou shalt not"s. Not saying Judaism is too bad on that front, but religion is based on our moral instincts, rather than the reverse.

Right, but putting the rules into a book is the only way to make sure they don't change so much, and once they are ina book people start attributing the rules in the book to some one or some thing.  Sort of like L Ron Hubbard.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

OK, I apologise, you can only eat mammals that both chew the cud and have cloven hooves - gotcha. Anyone ever attempt to explain what is the basis of that particular superstition??

Why? So people can start questioning whether it's really okay to have a cheeseburger, and if it's really okay to have a cheeseburger, perhaps it's also really okay to start doing all those other things that are forbidden?

No, you cannot have a cheeseburger and you cannot keep the poor from picking the leftovers in your fields.

So, just pulled out of their arse. (The cheeseburger rule, not the bit about the poor).

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
So obviously the 'yuck' factor is not involved. I will concede that - I was just speculating, before realizing it was this magic combination which is the thing.

It looks like at least some scholars see this specification as 'proof' of divine inspiration, because it seems there are only four animals in all the world that fit, although the camel hoof classification is not quite as clear, but it was decided that it wasn't a TRUE cloven hoof.

Seems to be just an almost 'arbitrary' rule, to help define the 'faith'.

There are way more than four that fit it, and I've eaten many of them and they are delicious.

I was just referring to what some silly rabbi said.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Apparently a quite tasty cheese can be made from camel's milk, despite it having the wrong kind of feet...

Okay, so of cows, goats, deer, sheep and camels, which has the greatest value as a pack animal?  Perhaps it has the right kind of feet -- to avoid being eaten, or its young deprived of nutrition, and instead used for carrying stuff.

BobSpence1 wrote:
A pity you couldn't have been more honest and straight-forward with me, you seem to want to keep all this stuff a mystery, apparently so you can ridicule me for my ignorance. We could have had a more polite and fruitful discussion.

Perhaps you could stop being so hostile?  It does take two to tango, you know.  And if you've not noticed, there are people I get along with apparently well enough that I've been granted honorary "not a Theist" status.

Who started with the "idiot" remarks?

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Still don't see where that crazy crap about separating chickens and cows came from, chickens don't seem to have anything to do with it. May look it up later, doesn't seem like you are able or willing to clarify what the hell you were talking about. It may well be be a good idea for various simple practical reasons.

It originated because the way meat was processed at the time it may have been difficult to impossible to distinguish the two, or to separate them.

Still got nothing to do with any prohibition about mixing dairy and meat, or boiling kids in milk.

Quote:

BTW -- Sephardic Jews don't have that restriction.  I love me my Chicken Parmesan.  Yummy!

BobSpence1 wrote:
As for Atheist and moral codes, good people of all beliefs are mostly good for the same reasons, our natural desire to get along with and support our social group, as all higher social animals do.

Religion is on of the most effective ways to pervert those instincts by introducing a whole bunch of primitive and ritualistic commandments and "thou shalt not"s. Not saying Judaism is too bad on that front, but religion is based on our moral instincts, rather than the reverse.

Right, but putting the rules into a book is the only way to make sure they don't change so much, and once they are ina book people start attributing the rules in the book to some one or some thing.  Sort of like L Ron Hubbard.

So you have just listed the negatives, that it is harder to update them to cope with changes in society, and you are stuck with the problems of 'black-letter' law in handling the less-than clear cut situations., and people losing sight of the idea of ethics as something you cultivate in people, rather than read out of a book.

L.Ron Hubbard's scam, 'Scientology', is indeed an example of what can go wrong with encouraging that approach to morality.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
FurryCat, I prefer this option

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Would you rather live in a society where -

1). You punch a guy in the face, you have to make up for it.

2). Poor people get to glean your fields and your field workers can eat what they harvest.

3). You don't get to eat a bacon cheeseburger.

or one where -

1). You punch a guy in the face, he has to live with it.

2). Poor people get to go hungry and your field workers get to go hungry, too.

3). All the bacon cheeseburgers you can eat.

Pick one.

 

1.) I Don't punch a guy in the face

2.) Poor people/workers get access to crops

3.) All the ice cream and chocolate I can eat.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Who started

BobSpence1 wrote:

Who started with the "idiot" remarks?

The answer is either you or Vastet.  The answer is most definitely NOT me.  And yes, I have gone back and reviewed the exchange between us.  At first you seemed to be a fairly reasonable sort of guy and then you laid into me about how stupid or whatever it was to write "G-d" instead of "God".

God God God God God God God.

Make you happy?

Maybe it's just your way of being and you don't think anything of it.  But it's very offensive and it's not leading to any good.  I've pointed it out several times to you and each time you make comments about "stupid rabbis" or whatever.  It's like you're constitutionally incapable of refraining from insulting people.

At any rate, this is pointless.  If you want to have cordial dialog, I'd suggest you be more like AtheistExtremist.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


HPconfused (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
English 101 teacher response to credibility of Bible

 That is simply hilarious and so true! I have students continually use different scriptures from the Bible for their Composition end of semester research papers on abortion (most recently) and the guy code/girl code (an analytical essay based on an essay from a class anthology). One student reiterated the truism of Adam and Eve without even saying it was from the Bible and the other used biblical verse to help her argument on abortion. Also, in my MLA handbook, there is an example of how to cite biblical scripture. I had others tell me that the Bible is common knowledge. 

This is where I am torn: I cannot of course project my beliefs on my students so I usually reply, "Consider it from other religious viewpoints not just Christianity"-that at least keeps them open-minded since this is a critical thinking class and not a world religions class. I am not a fan of organized religion, do not set foot in churches unless I have to,  and do not believe there is one Supreme Being. I do believe in angels but more of in a Universe sense rather than Biblical angels sense. I rebelled against organized religious at 19 years old; I am now 32. 

But, what is interesting is when one Googles, "credibility of the Bible" or "Is the Bible a scholarly source?", the myriad of answers baffles me. Of course, there are some search results clearly from religious websites and some from Atheist websites. But I cannot find any actual answers from the MLA or from secular universities. 

 

Anyway, it is late and my digression has come to an end....

 

Anonymous 


HPconfused
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
ENG 101 teacher's questions about credibility of the Bible

English 101 response to credibility of Bible That is simply hilarious and so true! I have students continually use Biblical scripture and stories from the Bible as research paper sources. I had one student discuss and try to argue homosexuality as a sin because of what the Bible and his religious teachings emphatically brainwash him to think. Let's think for a minute about the Holocaust and how it was not just persons of Jewish faith who were incinerated and gassed; it was homosexuals too, anyone presumably different. Back to my student who I will call Harold: I had a conference, not to change his beliefs, but to inform him it was an invalid argument. What other proof can you find, Harold? I have also had students research abortion and use Biblical scripture as source material. To which I respond, this cannot be part of your argument because it is from a Christianity standpoint not a theism standpoint or embracing other religious viewpoints. In my MLA style handbook, there is an example of how to cite Biblical scripture, which indicates in the world of MLA, citing Biblical scripture is acceptable. I have had others tell me the Bible is common knowledge, such as the story of Adam and Eve, without saying it is from the King James Version of the Bible. This is where I am torn: On the one hand, I am higher power confused and on the other hand, I believe there is SOMETHING, such as the universe that is bigger than me (All I think of there is the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon of Calvin and Hobbes standing in their backyard looking at the sky and making such a reference). So what do I tell my students? I tell them to “Consider all religious/spiritual viewpoints but realize religious argument/persuasion cannot be scholarly sources.” That, in the very least, keeps students open-minded and critical thinkers. I am not a fan of organized religion, rebelled against it in my late teens and am now 32 years old. I don’t set foot in a church unless I have to such as on the occasion of a wedding or funeral, more so out of respect for the people who are getting married and their wishes or for those who have perished. I do believe in angels, but only in a Universal sense, not in a Angel Gabriel visiting Joseph and Mary sense on Christmas Eve. But what is very interesting to me is when one Googles the Bible in terms of its credibility, there are a myriad of answers from the strictly Bible-thumper/Christian standpoints to the Militant Atheist standpoints. What do the scholars actually say? How are the secular universities viewing the credibility of the Bible? My digression has come to an end....so I will end with this quote: "Isn't it sad how some people's grip on their lives is so precarious that they'll embrace any preposterous delusion rather than face an occasional bleak truth?"--Calvin and Hobbes


aisling (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
copy cat savior? Nope.

Unfortunately for you false claim, based upon nothing more than internet rumors, there are NO original source documents that show or state that  any other "deity" was born of virgin, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, were dead for three days and were resurrected.  You demand that people do research, but obviously you have done absolutely none yourself, other than, perhaps, watching "Zeitgeist" on youtube. Hint:  That video cited flawed sources, which in turn also did not cite original source documentation, but only speculation.

Which original manuscripts or tablets can you cite to back up your erroneous claim? None.

Further, your claim of the links to the zodiac require huge leaps of inference, hence your conclusion is a logical fallacy.  No one would get "Sun" confused with "Son." Indeed, it is only in ENGLISH that the words sound the same, so such a conclusion has no relevance to original source material.

It's one thing to make a valid argument, but yours is not--it offers nothing at all in way of historical documentation.

 

 


aisling (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
none

The Bible actually DOES stand up to the standards of reliability and validity as applied to ancient documents.  Very little ancient history was written down in real time, or even very soon after.  Even the destruction of Pompeii was not written about until some 20 years after the fact, and that by an eyewitness.  Indeed, most ancient events and people, even important ones, were not written about in real time. So the fact that Jesus had someone writing about him, only 20 years after his death, who knew and named eyewitnesses does, at the very least, give credibility to the historical existence of Jesus.

Perhaps some research on the standard of validity and reliability of ancient documents would be in order. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@ aisling Every single

@ aisling

Every single thing you said is a lie, and has been proven a lie multiple thousands of times. Your brainwashed preaching will accomplish nothing here.

But because we respect (sometimes) and hope for (always) challenges, we don't censor people. So I've approved your comments and invite you to make an account so you can post without requiring prior approval. It only takes an email address and at most 5 minutes.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Give us a break, Aisling.

aisling wrote:

The Bible actually DOES stand up to the standards of reliability and validity as applied to ancient documents.  Very little ancient history was written down in real time, or even very soon after.  Even the destruction of Pompeii was not written about until some 20 years after the fact, and that by an eyewitness.  Indeed, most ancient events and people, even important ones, were not written about in real time. So the fact that Jesus had someone writing about him, only 20 years after his death, who knew and named eyewitnesses does, at the very least, give credibility to the historical existence of Jesus.

Perhaps some research on the standard of validity and reliability of ancient documents would be in order. 

 

You cannot apply the literary historical method to supernatural events so don't even try this on us. You can't compare the historical destruction of a town we go on to dig up and I go on to personally walk around in with the possible existence of a water-walking 'man' born of a virgin and possessed of the homoousios of a 'living god' who exists outside space time, is defined only by qualities without definitions and whose existence is proved only by our inability to disprove it. Then there are the core principles of source criticism to consider:

 

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[1]

Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased. 

- Wiki

 

So, we have the NT, a narrative whose origin cannot be known - only that it was written in a foreign land in foreign language. It was written long after the events it describes. It is not a primary source. If it was it would be written in Amaraic. It cannot claim to be an eye witness report. It implies it's author knew what jesus said to the devil when they were alone in the desert. It is clearly contrived. It is based on one document, and not clearly supported outside itself. It is motivated by bias. It has an interest in creating bias. Perhaps you could offer us some evidence that is not the doctrine of a very old cult. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck