Have you read the Bible?

[Frozenwolf150]

The current pope had this to say on creationism:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...snt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

The doctrine that God is the "creator" isn't incompatible with the Big Bang or theory of evolution. Different people I've spoken to even disagree on what it means to say that God is the creator. Some insist that God is hands-on, others like deists say that God set the ball rolling and does not interfere. Spinoza said that God is the process of "creation" immanent in nature, which some have interpreted to mean God is nature itself.

I never said that the Church has always held the same beliefs they have today. They are changing over time, albeit very slowly. The Church today certainly doesn't act the way it used to, and I don't hold people today accountable for the crimes their ancestors committed.

Also, not all Christians today are Biblical literalists. This is not how it was taught to me in Bible study when I attended Lutheran school. We were taught that the Bible is a collection of stories, to be compared to modern morality in order to learn particular lessons about life.

When it comes to religious atrocities and acts of terrorism, I think it's important to consider the social and political motivations behind them. Modern terrorists, for example, have a wide range of motivations, and use religion as a tool to justify their moral path after the fact. One cannot get one's morals from reading a book of scripture. Give a random child a Bible or Quran and they're not going to instantly become a devout worshiper or a violent extremist. They're more likely to get confused, or just extremely bored. Morals come from family, society, and the law of the land. Religion is just used to reinforce or justify what's already there.

 

[Leumas]

The current pope had this to say on creationism:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...snt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

The doctrine that God is the "creator" isn't incompatible with the Big Bang or theory of evolution. Different people I've spoken to even disagree on what it means to say that God is the creator. Some insist that God is hands-on, others like deists say that God set the ball rolling and does not interfere. Spinoza said that God is the process of "creation" immanent in nature, which some have interpreted to mean God is nature itself.
[snip]

The Pope must be quite confused..... but even then... that would make "HIS stance" to be "the very recent phenomenon" not the ancient and widely avowed and virtually unchallenged "creationism, specifically YEC, and Biblical literalism".

If the current Pope wishes to cite an Atheist's Philosophy good on him, but that makes him the "very recent phenomenon" not the other way round.

Pantheist, panentheist, or atheist?

Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" (Deus) to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...."[103] Thus, Spinoza's cool, indifferent God[104] is the antithesis to the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Spinoza's God is an “infinite intellect”, (Ethics 2p11c) all knowing, (2p3) and capable of loving both himself—and us, insofar as we are part of his perfection. (5p35c) And if the mark of a personal being is that it is one towards which we can entertain personal attitudes, then we should note too that Spinoza recommends amor intellectualist dei (the intellectual love of God) as the supreme good for man. (5p33) However, the matter is complex. Spinoza's God does not have free will (1p32c1), he does not have purposes or intentions (1apendix), and Spinoza insists that “neither intellect nor will pertain to the nature of God” (1p17s1). Moreover, while we may love God, we need to remember that God is really not the kind of being who could ever love us back. “He who loves God cannot strive that God should love him in return,” says Spinoza (5p19).

Steven Nadler suggests that settling the question of Spinoza's atheism or pantheism depends on an analysis of attitudes. If pantheism is associated with religiosity, then Spinoza is not a pantheist, since Spinoza believes that the proper stance to take towards God is not one of reverence or religious awe, but instead one of objective study and reason, since taking the religious stance would leave one open to the possibility of error and superstition
​

Expulsion from the Jewish community

On 27 July 1656, the Talmud Torah congregation of Amsterdam issued a writ of cherem (Hebrew: חרם, a kind of ban, shunning, ostracism, expulsion, or excommunication) against the 23-year-old Spinoza.[42] The following document translates the official record of the censure:[43]

The Lords of the ma'amad, having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Espinoza, have endeavored by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and born witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of the matter; and after all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honorable chachamin, they have decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel. By the decree of the angels, and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of all the Holy Congregation, in front of these holy Scrolls with the six-hundred-and-thirteen precepts which are written therein, with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho, with the curse with which Elisha cursed the boys, and with all the curses which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down, and cursed be he when he rises up; cursed be he when he goes out, and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him; the anger and wrath of the Lord will rage against this man, and bring upon him all the curses which are written in this book, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven, and the Lord will separate him to his injury from all the tribes of Israel with all the curses of the covenant, which are written in the Book of the Law. But you who cleave unto the Lord God are all alive this day. We order that no one should communicate with him orally or in writing, or show him any favor, or stay with him under the same roof, or within four ells of him, or read anything composed or written by him.​

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Why is that relevant? The pope didn't mention Spinoza and he's also not jewish, so what would a document drafted by a talmudic council say about Catholic doctrine?

 

[Leumas]

Why is that relevant? The pope didn't mention Spinoza and he's also not jewish, so what would a document drafted by a talmudic council say about Catholic doctrine?

The discussion is not Catholic doctrine nor even the Pope.... the discussion is the Bible and whether believing it to be the literal word of god is "a very recent phenomenon" or not.

I did not bother to read the cited article to see whether or not the Pope adheres to an Atheist's philosophy since it is utterly immaterial to the discussion ... whether he did or not (he did not) the outcome is exactly the same.... biblical non-literalism is the "very recent phenomenon" not the other way round.

I cited the decree of Cherem against Spinoza to show how Biblical literalism permeates almost every word in it... which shows that biblical literalism is not "a very recent phenomenon".

I also cited the bit about Spinoza being an atheist in response to the statement

Spinoza said that God is the process of "creation" immanent in nature, which some have interpreted to mean God is nature itself.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

In that case your post was a bit of a non sequitur to the one you quoted.

I agree that biblical literalism isn't a recent phenomenon. Neither is nonliteralism.
I think Craig B said it well here:

Yes, Leumas, you're right. What may be recent is the proclamation of "inerrancy" as a specific school of thought. Not because it was new, but because metaphorical and other non-literal interpretations of scriptures were gaining ground, and the old style of thinking had to be defined and codified. This had not been done prior to the Enlightenment, not because literalism was virtually unknown then ... but because it was virtually universal and almost unchallenged.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

It seems that "creationism" as a form of pseudo-science (creation science, or intelligent design) that is holding back scientific progress, specifically the school of thought that formed in response to Darwin's writings, is the recent phenomenon. The belief that God created the world is not. However, that belief has taken on so many different shapes and forms over the years. Also, even though there have always been scriptural literalists, there have also been people like Maimonedes who held that scripture need not be read literally. Obviously, until The Origin of Species came along, theistic creation would have been the predominant model.

Not to say that it was the only model out there. Philosophers as early as the ancient Greeks, like Anixamander of Miletus, or Empedocles, proposed early hypotheses that resemble the TOE. However, they lacked the tools and means to scientifically test or observe them.

Here's the history of the Church's stance on evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

 

[Leumas]

In that case your post was a bit of a non sequitur to the one you quoted.

Can you please define the term as you are using it here?

I agree that biblical literalism isn't a recent phenomenon. Neither is nonliteralism.
I think Craig B said it well here:

I agree... that is why I said

Indubitably my dear Craig .... well said!!

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Can you please define the term as you are using it here?

Frozenwolf posted information about the current stance of the Catholic church on evolution.
You responded to this by pointing out that 17th century Judaism had a more literal interpretation of the bible than Spinoza did. Your resonse is not connected to what you appeared to be responding to.

ETA: You were still responding to the assertion that biblical literalism is relatively recent phenomenon, but that wasn't clear to me from reading the post I referred to. It wasn't my goal to derail or obfuscate, I apologize if that's how it looked.
(By the way, the very existence if this cherem shows that non-literal interpretations aren't exactly a recent invention either )

 

[Leumas]

Frozenwolf posted information about the current stance of the Catholic church on evolution.
You responded to this by pointing out that 17th century Judaism had a more literal interpretation of the bible than Spinoza did. Your resonse is not connected to what you appeared to be responding to.

My and Frozenwolf's posts are part of an ongoing discussion that has been going on for 127 posts.... neither my post nor Frozenwolf's are stand alone posts without relation to previous points and assertions in all the preceding discussions.

I suggest you go back to this post and read from there onwards. I think you will see how it is quite sequitur to respond to a post that specifically mentions Spinoza in relationship to the ongoing topic of discussion by showing how he is an atheist rather than a metaphorical and allegorical interpreter of the bible and by showing how his views got him in trouble with the authorities because of their strict literalist understanding of the Bible?

I am sure you realize that in a discussion about the Bible and how recent or otherwise its interpreters are taking it literally or otherwise it would be quite sequitur to discuss the Jewish interpreters and not just the Catholic Church and Christianity.... after all they wrote most of the darned thing.

Also, if a post cites Spinoza in relation to the topic of biblical literalism and metaphorical and allegorical interpretations trying to assert that Spinoza was interpreting the bible metaphorically it is quite sequitur to cite some information about him being an atheist rather than a metaphorical interpreter of the bible.


ETA: in response to your ETA

ETA: You were still responding to the assertion that biblical literalism is relatively recent phenomenon, but that wasn't clear to me from reading the post I referred to. It wasn't my goal to derail or obfuscate, I apologize if that's how it looked.

 

[Leumas]

(By the way, the very existence if this cherem shows that non-literal interpretations aren't exactly a recent invention either )

Yes obviously... but accepting it and condoning it as a generally preferable "stance" was not.

Furthermore, it was mostly only the Authorities who were allowed to stretch the non-literalism, the laity were expected (upon penalty of death if they did not) to take even this Authoritarian non-literalism quite literally...

Moreover, I doubt any non-literalism stretched to the point of non-creationism.

Most of the arguments were about how exactly god created the universe not whether he did it.

But of course atheism is not a new phenomenon either.... but that is not the topic.... I don't think even the advocates of complete metaphorical and allegorical interpretations of the Bible would go as far as "metaphoricalizing"^TM God to the point of allegorical nonexistence... or would they?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I've read the thread, my comment was just about the relation between the quoted post and the response. That's why I apologised, my request for clarification about that was largely irrelevant to the discussion at large.
I still do not believe I was mistaken, but a meta discussion about the posts in this thread instead of the topic isn't very useful, so that's the last I'll say on that.

To answer the question from the OP: I couldn't get through the Bible, but I've skimmed it and read some bits. The Old Testament/Torah was too boring, archaic and gruesome for me, like a cross between the Saw franchise and the Silmarillion. The New Testament reads like a collection of conflicting fanfics followed by quibbling about who are the 'true followers' of Jesus in the Acts and Epistles and then a really trippy and cryptic indictment of the Roman occupation by some hallucinating guy in a cell.

 

[Leumas]

I've read the thread, my comment was just about the relation between the quoted post and the response. That's why I apologised, my request for clarification about that was largely irrelevant to the discussion at large.
I still do not believe I was mistaken, but a meta discussion about the posts in this thread instead of the topic isn't very useful, so that's the last I'll say on that.

To answer the question from the OP: I couldn't get through the Bible, but I've skimmed it and read some bits. The Old Testament/Torah was too boring, archaic and gruesome for me, like a cross between the Saw franchise and the Silmarillion. The New Testament reads like a collection of conflicting fanfics followed by quibbling about who are the 'true followers' of Jesus in the Acts and Epistles and then a really trippy and cryptic indictment of the Roman occupation by some hallucinating guy in a cell.

Yes thanks... I saw your ETA after I posted already... and I responded to it.

Also.... would you care to answer this question please

I always ask this question... you see a waitress gobbing in two bowls of soup and then goes to a table and gives them to two guys.... you go over to the table and inform them of the fact.....Who is less irrational and pathetic?

The one who believes that you are most likely right... looks at the bowl.... scoops out a few pieces of what he decides are the gob from among many pieces that are gob-like and then carries on to eat the rest of the bowl?​

Or

The one who does not believe a mere stranger because he knows the waitress well and is sure she would never gob in his soup and dismisses you for a liar and just carries on eating the entire bowl?​

 

[Porpoise of Life]

That's a very suggestive question, because the way you're framing it any disagreement with the 'you' in the scenario must be wilfull ignorance, so you've already provided us with the answer you want to hear.
Could you tell me what this is an analogy for? Then I'd be able to give a more meaningful answer than when I'm guessing at your meaning or when I'd just concede that in your construction the answer is right there in the question.

 

[Leumas]

That's a very suggestive question, because the way you're framing it any disagreement with the 'you' in the scenario must be wilfull ignorance, so you've already provided us with the answer you want to hear.

Could you tell me what this is an analogy for? Then I'd be able to give a more meaningful answer than when I'm guessing at your meaning or when I'd just concede that in your construction the answer is right there in the question.

Thanks very much.... I appreciate very much your response. It is quite sufficient as an answer... especially when the highlighted bits are considered.

 

[RickM]

I always ask this question... you see a waitress gobbing in two bowls of soup and then goes to a table and gives them to two guys.... you go over to the table and inform them of the fact.....Who is less irrational and pathetic?

The one who believes that you are most likely right... looks at the bowl.... scoops out a few pieces of what he decides are the gob from among many pieces that are gob-like and then carries on to eat the rest of the bowl?​

Or

The one who does not believe a mere stranger because he knows the waitress well and is sure she would never gob in his soup and dismisses you for a liar and just carries on eating the entire bowl?​

My guess would be the one doing the judging!

Sorry, I need to keep you animated. You’re providing a lot of good information.

 

[RickM]

Keep in mind, the 4 books of Maccabees (first two recognized by Catholicism and all 4 recognized by Eastern Orthodoxy) also have their basis in Jewish scripture. They are found in the Septuagint (LXX), which is a translation of the Hebrew Bible (at that time) into Greek by a council of 70 Jewish scholars back around the 3rd century BCE. This work was supposedly commissioned by the Greek King of Egypt, Ptolemy II, for the benefit of Koine Greek speaking Jews and the Library of Alexandria.

Over the next millennium, the authoritative books of Jewish scripture were widely debated and evolved into the current incarnation of the Hebrew Bible based primarily on the Masoretic texts of the 7th through 10th centuries CE. The Masoretes were Jewish Scholars settled in Jerusalem, Tiberias (Israel), and Babylonia (Iraq). If one compares the same scriptures translated into English from the various sources (Greek/Septuagint, Hebrew/Masoretic Texts, & Latin Vulgate) many variations can be found, presenting additional challenges for a present-day, English-speaking believer of an Abrahamic faith. Canonical versus non-canonical; inspired versus uninspired; the choices can be dizzying. The term “metaphorical” was debated a few posts earlier for its association to the Bible; maybe a better word would be “allegorical” as it pertains thereto. In other words, having hidden spiritual significance for a believer rather than the literal text, given all of the convolution and metamorphosis above.

The following article is an elaboration/augmentation of my earlier post above. Please note, it has a non-Protestant, Christian bias but is, otherwise, interesting food for thought for those who have read some version of a Bible.

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/

 

[RickM]

I find myself leaning toward Book of Maccabees as a quasi-historical text.

If Maccabees resonates with you, give the 3rd book of Maccabees below a try. It has only 7 chapters but I find its parallels to the holocaust profound, only here there is a happy ending. Unfortunately, it has remained relatively hidden from most of Judaism and Christianity for over a thousand years.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/rsva/3-maccabees/

 

[Leumas]

I wouldn't know.

What about people who don't think Jesus was a god, but read the bible as a collection of ancient writings that represent certain cultural/historical traditions from various times and places?

Some people are just interested in how ancient people saw the world and the evolution of the history of ideas.

Have a look at this

Here is a link to it:

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/234429-live-netanyahu-speaks-to-congress

I thought it was a good speech. I'll have to comment more when I have time, but I liked what he had to say overall.

I'm interested in what fellow ISFers thought of it.

and this

Watch what happens in minutes 7:00 to 8:30 of the video .... listen to it carefully!

I wonder if a president of Greece would get a standing ovation for telling the USA congress about how his ancient people were saved from the tyranny of King Minos and the terror of his Minotaur by the wiles of Princess Daedalus?

It is an amazing SHAME ON HUMANITY that fairy tales are taken as facts to be used in the 21^st century in a speech to rally the "elected" leaders of the most scientifically advanced and powerful nation in the world to use its military might to bomb other nations.... and it receives a standing ovation.

Also listen to what he says in minutes 3:30 to 4:00.... this is TRULY a notion that many Christian Americans believe.... PROMISED LAND... I wonder what the Native Americans might say to that???

 

[RickM]

Have a look at this


Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Here is a link to it:

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news...ks-to-congress

I thought it was a good speech. I'll have to comment more when I have time, but I liked what he had to say overall.

I'm interested in what fellow ISFers thought of it.

I originally thought Netanyahu's visit not a good idea, but after hearing his speech I now feel it something that had to be done. The Boston Globe reported, “I think this changes a lot,” said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington think tank. “You can see why the administration didn’t want him to speak.”

Elements of the proposal being negotiated by the UN Security Council and Iran have been widely publicized, and one needn't hear the speech to realize how naive the Obama administration and its allies appear in the concessions offered the renegade nation.

As it relates to your point, it is interesting to note how Israel, a country so steeped in religious history, can be more cognizant of “reality” and threats posed to world peace, than our own President, whose family history has more of a secular background, to include atheism on his father's part. Therefore, I had no problem with Netanyahu's five second reference to the Bible, which “may” have some basis in history.

From a Biblical perspective, if you review the 18 or so books/writings that were once considered authoritative Jewish scripture (Septuagint), one finds literature full of fantastical battlefield victories, along with stories of angels and dragons. As such, it is easy to see why Jewish scholars sought their removal over the centuries. Fully redacted by the 10th century CE, I am sure the Bible seemed more believable and literal at that point in history; however, a thousand more years of progress once again renders it fanciful. For believers like myself, all scripture is best viewed as “allegory” still offering a great deal of spiritual significance and guidance. Obviously, it is not suited for everyone.

 

[Dinwar]

It seems that "creationism" as a form of pseudo-science (creation science, or intelligent design) that is holding back scientific progress, specifically the school of thought that formed in response to Darwin's writings, is the recent phenomenon. The belief that God created the world is not. However, that belief has taken on so many different shapes and forms over the years. Also, even though there have always been scriptural literalists, there have also been people like Maimonedes who held that scripture need not be read literally. Obviously, until The Origin of Species came along, theistic creation would have been the predominant model.

This is very true. The dominant form of Creationism in the early days of geology was Catastraphism, the belief that the Earth was very, very old (some said infinitely old), and that it underwent a series of catastrophies, eliminating previous life (more or less; interpretations varied) and allowing a new Creation to form. There were even cartoons about it, some of which were pretty hillarious (for political cartoons, anyway). As I understand it, this was tied into the Bible by saying, in effect, "The Bible only includes the most recent few catastrophies--the Fall, the Flood, and so on. It's a book for moral instruction, not a history of the entire universe." Uniformitarianism sensu stricto was created as a counter to this (the Latin there is because two of the Uniformities--Rate and State--were quite suitably blown out of existence by the Alvarez Hypothesis, and Uniformitarianism sensu lato limits itself ot Process and Law). Gould wrote about the scientific Creationists in a few of his essays. There's a discussion "A Tale of Three Figures", or something like that (give me a break, my books are burried under swords and armor after a house purchase!), which discusses how scientific interpretations and figures interact, including several publications by Creationist paleontologists--and I mean honest-to-whatever Creationists that were honest-to-whatever paleontologists, widely respected among the paleontological community and following the guidelines of scientific thought and publication every bit as much as their peers. They backed the wrong horse; no shame in that in science. There was also an essay by Gould discussing a particular bivalve, a Trigonia, which the Creationists used as evidence of their prediction that life doesn't go extinct, but merely migrates to less-suitable habitat. This was towards the end of a rather heated debate in science in general about the possiblitiy of extinction (this was one of the drivers for the Lewis and Clark expidition), and range extensions were not well understood--but the irrefutable fact of the matter is that Creationists predicted that organisms we thought were extinct would be found in less-suiteable habitat, and then we found exactly that. The notion has since been very integral to our understanding of evolution, ironically; it's one of the concepts underpinning Punctuated Equlibrium when you get into the details.

It must also be noted that Darwin's work wasn't immediately accepted by everyone. Darwin's theory lacked a mechanism--Mendell tried, but it wasn't until de Vrise (one of the great unsung heroes of science, in my opinion) re-introduced the concept of genetics to the scientific community that Darwinian evolution could really be said to be a complete theory. Before that, the Creaitonists could justifiably say that neither offered an advantage over the other, as both lacked any demonstrable causal mechanism. Once de Vrise demonstrated genetics and Mendell's work was rediscovered, that obviously changed. The rise of abiogenesis as a serious research area put the final nail in the scientific Creationist coffin, but all the scientifically minded Creationists realized that it was a lost cause long before that.

The standard Skeptic (TM) view that Creationism has always been anti-scientific and anit-intellectual is flat-out wrong. Creationism was, at one time, a perfectly valid model for the origin of organisms, no less supported than any other. It's rather depressing. At one time, they were worthy adversaries; now, they're the rotten, hulking, moaning husks of that former glory. It's a dead theory, but some people continue to pour life into it.

What all of this means for this discussion is that without a deep understanding of the history of science--one that is not conveyed via a scientific education, and one that I've yet to encounter in a self-described Skeptic--one cannot fully evaluate the Church's stance on Creationism. The term has shifted meaning a great deal in the past two centuries, such that what someone was talking about even two generations ago may be nearly the opposite of what the same word means today.