This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The existence of the main characters would be a good start. Even if Dawkins grants Sacks all the details about the Red Sea and exodus from Egypt, it's still just an inspirational story. You can only get to the why when you introduce the creator.
He's really well spoken. The bit about Phineas Gage was interesting. I had never heard of him before.
I think the world is a much worse, much more conflicted place because of religion and bad actors in the name (or in some cases... under the fake guise of) religion.
Miracles that Jesus had performed being used as evidence of who he is is not the same as performing "signs" for the purpose of signaling who he is. I get that this is semantics, but these kinds of things are how you differentiate what the various authors are trying to tell us. They are using the same general story, and many of the same "pearls" to weave their narratives. But they are stringing the pearls differently to tell us what they think we should know about Jesus (and us). And if what they individually have to say isn't important, why are they all there? Church Fathers could have picked Matthew or Luke, even John and had an authoritative version rather than four different stories that contradict one another in various ways. They write about the contradictions, so they accepted them as the price to pay for the messages presented. So, the point is the narratives of the gospels don't fit together. The different messages and emphasis of the authors that wrote them might. They mostly do for me.
While I'm not fan of religious dogma, I do think the world benefits from a philosophy that promotes love, compassion, and happiness. That's why I've always been a fan of Buddhist teachings. It provides the philosophical stuff without the theology.
So, categorizing the story as either historical or not is a way to then determine whether or not we care about its "why" claims? If the conclusion is that it didn't happen, then we don't even entertain the "why" question? If the conclusion is something did happen, then we can discuss the "why"? I definitely concede the difficulty in historically and scientifically proving the existence of the creator God character. And I see why you'd say you don't care about the "why" of the Bible if the main character doesn't even exist. I think I'm starting to understand your point better.
I can't speak for Dawkins but I think I understand your point. Rather than me assume, though, can you state the point you and Sacks are making?
And other things besides religion are bad actors, too, right? The evil done by any bad actor is something we'd like to rid this world of, correct?
The short of it is: Science and religion (specifically Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible - I have zero opinion on any other religion) are not in conflict because they are not trying to accomplish the same things. And, many people have no idea how to read and interpret the Bible, yet that doesn't stop them from having very confident opinions about what it is saying.
I accept that. However, implicit in that is the importance of the literature you're using. Would Rabbi Sacks be arguing the same points about War and Peace? No. What's the difference? The existence of a God who's supposedly crafting our purpose and meaning. That's where the science is critical because without the deity then all you have are stories where the writers of the OT are no different than Tolstoy. I mean, if that's the conversation you want to have, one where we're just talking about writers of inspirational stories and what they mean, great. But I don't think that's what you or Rabbi Sacks are gunning for.
Yes and no. Yeah, I think it would be great if you or Dawkins were to someday believe something more like me or Sacks (which is what I assume you think we are gunning for). I'll admit that I think that would be awesome. But, I am also more than willing to meet you where you are on this. If someone wants to talk about the Bible and sees it as fiction, then let's talk about it as fiction. I think there's a ton of interesting stuff there. Yes, my claim is that it is more than that, but I can easily put that aside when talking about it with someone else.
Maybe. But why is the action/agency put on some other greater being in the sky or presence from 2k years ago vs what we see and hear and do every day.
No! John calls the miracles "signs", because the purpose is to demonstrate who Jesus is.
You seem to be making assumptions that similar events must have had similar purposes, and the reason they are presented differently is because of the human author's intent. That's not the only way to look at it. And maybe not even the most obvious way. It's helpful and handy to think of the author's perspective in understanding the message of each gospel, but I disagree that because different situations are presented differently that means that similar situations' contexts must be some evidence of contradiction. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say the bible "fits together as one book" - it's more of a library than a book. But it does tell a story and the Jesus of the gospels, like any other personality viewed through different relationships, can seem inconsistent. That doesn't mean it's a different person or that the stories are incorrect.No! John calls the miracles "signs", because the purpose is to demonstrate who Jesus is.
I'm saying this is Jesus' view of miracles performed as signs in Matthew-
39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
And this is Jesus in John
48 “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.”
The contrast also exists in the miracles themselves. The story of Jairus' daughter in Mark mirrors the story of Lazarous in John in many ways. One big difference is for Lazarous Jesus is delayed because he wanted to make a public spectacle of raising him from the dead. Where the daughter the delay just happens and the raising is done mostly in private. For John the point of the story was-
4 When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”In Mark the point was that Jesus healed the faithful. To the degree that it was a "sign" for Mark, it was a sign that Jesus' disciples were dense. Not able to get it. With a wink and a nod to the reader.
I do read Scripture Literally and it's clearly prophecy. There are literally well over 100 prophecies in the OT written of Christ that were fulfilled in Him that cannot be explained away.
So you think we (humanity) should be actively trying to make it better. That's another way you align with Christianity (and Judaism)! I totally get that this isn't what you see from many Christians and not what you hear from many pulpits, but the mission of God is one that partners with humans to make this world a better place. Granted, I think I'd say that the ultimate, final restoration is put on some greater being in the sky because we are limited in what we can accomplish , but the role of his people in the meantime is supposed to be doing our best to make things better.
I reject your presupposition that the bible is anything but a fictional book
An even easier explanation was that the gospels were written to show a fulfillment of prophecy independent of what actually happened. That conclusion doesn't require anything supernatural and aligns with the same human behaviors we see today.
I appreciate that religions do offer a solution to the pain and suffering of this life. While it's true that you don't need religion to be a moral person, there should be some overarching guide in our lives to motivate and teach us how to be better people and endure life's difficulties.
I understand the point you're trying to make but the past and present actions and outcomes of Christianity have never made the world a better place and the continued belief in fairy tale sky gods (across all religions) continues to only divide and spread hate, not love.
I'm not making that claim. I'm saying that Jesus in the synoptics refuses to perform miracles as a sign. In John, the entire purpose of performing miracles is to be signs. I'm okay with the claim that the miracles in the synoptic should be seen after the fact as signs, they just are not done for that purpose as stated by Jesus in the Matthew quote. As can be inferred from the "jump of the temple" temptation. In Mark, arguably miracles are also shown as signs for the reader but not for the disciples or anyone else in the scene with the exception of demons and a pagan or two as they at best show that everyone misses the signs.
My friend. Reading Christ into text where Christ is never mentioned, where a future messiah is not mentioned is by very definition "interpretation".
You've expanded the scope of this discussion quite a bit so I'm going to bow out of this point. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
This by the way is an example that demonstrates that our Gospel writers used the Greek Septuagint rather than a semitic (Hebrew, Aramac, etc.) translation of Jewish scripture.
Back to my original reply. This statement can only be at the aggregate, macro level. At the micro level Christianity have made individuals' worlds better all the time. I'm assuming you mean in net. That this good is more than offset by bad thus in net the world is worse off.
Joe is this not going to prove to be a good example.
Scroll down and you'll find a defense of her ministry section.
Have a great day, weekend! For those of us on the three-year church calendar tomorrow includes 1st Timothy 6:6-19 which is one of those uncanny ways that scripture tends to pop up in relevant ways. In this case in the context of the other conversation happening here about religion being the source of evil in the world. (I choose not to use tomorrow's wording.)
My point is not that Mother Teresa is as bad as her critics say, but that someone that is hostile to Christianity has plenty of sources to claim that Mother Teresa was "evil" and not "good". And that is why it is not a good example of good in the world.
Don't scroll too far, then you'll read about how she pushed for the reinstatement of Donald McGuire after he was accused of sexual abuse.
Thus proving that saints are not infallible.
youtu.be
That’s as convenient as the common “ god works in mysterious ways” answer for difficult or inexcusable questions. It’s the ultimate get out of jail free card.
I don't know if Joe wanted to continue this conversation so I'll go with that.
And then consider his indifference concerning all of these flaws in his creation until, give or take, six thousand years ago.
As you advance through the Bible from the earliest stories to the latest, God seems to grow up. Obviously, that makes no sense. But seems to me that God's people growing up and thus the understanding of God grows up makes sense to me. This interpretation doesn't need for God to actually exist as it works either way.
I don't think there is a rational, a logical answer to this. And I don't know why not.
As mentioned earlier, to me faith/belief and religion are separate things. I see much of the bible being people of faith trying to explain things they believe to know but don't grasp enough to actually explain. That lacking grasp is both of facts and of vocabulary. I think that in many ways that struggle to express their beliefs resonates with others in the same boat. I think where things start to go off the rails is when religion starts asserting "we can know" this or that which we can never really know. We can at best believe. And this insistence on being already right is what leads to all of the evils that leads some to finding nothing positive in religion. And I cannot argue against that. Too often I come all too close to agree with that.
Yes, archaeological finds have found that quite a few of the settings used in scripture that once were dismissed actually existed. Especially with writings that were contemporary. But we don't really need archaeological finds to see that fiction all of the time accurately describe contemporary settings, but that doesn't in any way at all support that the fiction is to be believed. I assume that Dan Brown describing various contemporary landmarks accurately doesn't have you believing the DaVinci Code?
It's not fiction, it's actual history.
I think you could say the same for the gospel reading this week - Luke 16:19-31. In this parable, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which is about as close as the Gospels are going to get to the "proof vs. faith" discussion. It ends with the following insight:
