Balancing Skepticism and Faith

[GDon]

GDon, that's not an explanation, it's a description of events.

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that"... I suspect the "also after that" was put in there by a later editor to explain the presence of giants after the Flood. (I'm a theist but not a Christian, and think the Bible is just a book.)

Since Gen 6 deals with the Flood, what do you think "and also after that" means in context? Surely it is reasonable to assume that it means "after the Flood"? What else could it mean?

 

[xterra]

Zivan was questioning how the giants survived the flood.


You are saying that they did, but you're not giving the explanation of their survival that she asked for.

 

[GDon]

Zivan was questioning how the giants survived the flood.

You are saying that they did, but you're not giving the explanation of their survival that she asked for.

Actually, it does:

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of the Elohim came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.​

Essentially, angels had sex with humans, both before and after the Flood, resulting in "mighty men". Think of what that explains for ancient Jewish thinkers: pagan demi-gods like Hercules and Achilles, as well as the giants that Moses' group encounters.

 

[Thor 2]

Just think if we could discover the remains of one of those giant/supermen. What we could learn from the DNA!

 

[xterra]

Actually, it does:

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of the Elohim came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.​

Essentially, angels had sex with humans, both before and after the Flood, resulting in "mighty men". Think of what that explains for ancient Jewish thinkers: pagan demi-gods like Hercules and Achilles, as well as the giants that Moses' group encounters.

Oh, I see. I missed that, and perhaps Zivan did also (but of course, I can't speak for her). You aren't saying that the giants who lived prior to the flood survived it, in the same sense that Noah and his family did, not to mention all the animals that crowded onto the ark, like reindeer and bison and yaks and platy(-puses?/-pi?).

You are saying that children of (presumably other) gods impregnated women, and that those offspring were giants, and presumably their descendants over time evolved to normal-sized humans.

So the pre-flood giants all died. Sorry for misunderstanding.

 

[Zivan]

Actually, it does:

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of the Elohim came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.​

Essentially, angels had sex with humans, both before and after the Flood, resulting in "mighty men". Think of what that explains for ancient Jewish thinkers: pagan demi-gods like Hercules and Achilles, as well as the giants that Moses' group encounters.

Thank you for clarifying GDon. I understand what you are saying now.

My original reaction was in response to your first post when you quoted from tractate Niddah which gives the story about Og surviving the Flood by hanging onto the ark which meant the Nephilim were not killed off by the Flood:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12573946&postcount=539

Now I understand you are saying they were killed in the Flood, but afterwards the sons of elohim started their sexcapades with the daughters of men, again, producing more Nephilim.

No wonder Noah got drunk.

 

[GDon]

Thank you for clarifying GDon. I understand what you are saying now.

My original reaction was in response to your first post when you quoted from tractate Niddah which gives the story about Og surviving the Flood by hanging onto the ark which meant the Nephilim were not killed off by the Flood:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12573946&postcount=539

Now I understand you are saying they were killed in the Flood, but afterwards the sons of elohim started their sexcapades with the daughters of men, again, producing more Nephilim.

To be clear, *I'm* not saying anything. The Bible is more cohesive than many give it credit for. I suspect that this is due to editting of stories over a millenia.

I remember the Talmud story of Og surviving by hanging onto the ark because of the ludicrous image it brings. But that is different to what the Bible seems to claim about the sons of the gods having sex with women to produce giants both before and after the flood. They are probably two different solutions to two ancient problems of "where did the giants come from?"

No wonder Noah got drunk.

 

[GDon]

Reading the whole Bible is a way to get a kick start into atheism. Dan Dennett, when delving into the reasons why clergy lost their faith, found many lost a lot in seminary after in depth study of scripture.

Yes, but this goes the other way also. For example, Josh McDowell, the writer of "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict":
https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198

Josh McDowell is a college profesor who started his original work "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" with the purpose of exposing Christianity as a "fraud". However, when he finished his work he found that Christianity was not fraudulant but was a factually based faith.​

There have been good and intelligent people who have converted to Islam after reading the Koran. I guess it is what you get out of it.

To rephrase something said about Trump: some people take the Bible seriously but not literally. Some people take the Bible literally but not seriously. Taking the Bible as symbolic and allegorical is something that has a history preceding Christianity. Taking the Bible literally is largely a *modern* dogma, brought about by the rise of Fundamentalism 100 years ago.

 

[David Mo]

Yes, but this goes the other way also. For example, Josh McDowell, the writer of "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict":
https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198

Josh McDowell is a college profesor who started his original work "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" with the purpose of exposing Christianity as a "fraud". However, when he finished his work he found that Christianity was not fraudulant but was a factually based faith.​

There have been good and intelligent people who have converted to Islam after reading the Koran. I guess it is what you get out of it.

To rephrase something said about Trump: some people take the Bible seriously but not literally. Some people take the Bible literally but not seriously. Taking the Bible as symbolic and allegorical is something that has a history preceding Christianity. Taking the Bible literally is largely a *modern* dogma, brought about by the rise of Fundamentalism 100 years ago.

Well, there are very particular atheists. If someone is converted in reading a collection of fairy tales it is that he had a previous necessity of conversion.

I doubt very much that the original reading of God commanding to kill the enemies of Israel or Jesus forgiving the adulter woman were "symbolic". Symbolic reading is an invent of intellectualized believers in front of the rational difficulties of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[attempt5001]

Yes, with considerable shuffling feet.

No doubt, but not much different than I've sometimes seen from young graduate students trying to defend their research to an expert (or even lay) audience with unforeseen questions.

I find it amazing also that the faithful give so little thought to this kind of detail.

Yes, I can definitely detect (and understand) the incredulity expressed (politely) in your posts. Perhaps because you have strong reasoning and communication skills along with a tendency to critically evaluate the world around you, you expect that of others as well. I think though that "the faithful" once again behave very much like most of the rest of the population, who for the most part, also often give little thought to pretty major things (e.g., political opinions, cultural norms, money and lifestyle habits etc.). I like the idea of encouraging people to self-evaluate in general, but I think it's reasonable that many will only do this to a small degree over their entire lives. I think it's a big part of why many people like the comfort of culture.

Reading the whole Bible is a way to get a kick start into atheism. Dan Dennett, when delving into the reasons why clergy lost their faith, found many lost a lot in seminary after in depth study of scripture.

Yes, I agree that can definitely be true, though as others have mentioned, I have also heard many examples going the other way as well, and by educated and intelligent people, which is interesting.

Yes, I suspect that is true in perhaps the majority of cases.

Although as you say, the notion of souls being doled out into babies would not be envisaged by many Christian Churches, I really can't see an alternative notion. This is one of those issues deftly shoved to one side, or even laughed off by dogma diddlers.

Something else confounding the the contemplation of souled creatures (us), versus the souless (everything else in the animal kingdom), are the studies of some animals displaying emotional attachment. We also have the reverse displayed, when we see some of us born into a vegetative state, and possibly more confounding still, when injury or illness renders someone so. What has happened to the soul?

I expect a lot of Christians would acknowledge that the idea of a soul is an attempt to describe something that is not really comprehensible; a notion by which to contemplate the question of what essence of one's character survives physical death. It's not really a concept that's amenable to literal follow up questions like "where did it come from?" etc. I think in a lot of ways, religion is an attempt to give literal and physical structure to concepts that are often not amenable thereto. I'm not quite ready to dismiss the concepts in their entirety, but I am appreciating more and more the shortfalls of the medium.

You've done well and perhaps you are falling out of that group.

Thanks Thor 2. Perhaps.

 

[attempt5001]

Just think if we could discover the remains of one of those giant/supermen. What we could learn from the DNA!

This one made me laugh.

 

[Thor 2]

Yes, but this goes the other way also. For example, Josh McDowell, the writer of "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict":
https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198

Josh McDowell is a college profesor who started his original work "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" with the purpose of exposing Christianity as a "fraud". However, when he finished his work he found that Christianity was not fraudulant but was a factually based faith.​

So many times I have heard this kind of argument.

The old "Well this guy thought like you do, but when he looked into it he found he was wrong." kind of thing. Doesn't fly very well GDon unless some stats are provided, showing more are swayed in favour than are swayed against.

I suppose I am guilty of the same to some extent by citing Dan Dennett's findings, although I do have the evidence of the decline in religiosity in the West to point to.

There have been good and intelligent people who have converted to Islam after reading the Koran. I guess it is what you get out of it.

There may be some but how "good or intelligent" is the question. Otherwise the same answer I gave above.

To rephrase something said about Trump: some people take the Bible seriously but not literally. Some people take the Bible literally but not seriously. Taking the Bible as symbolic and allegorical is something that has a history preceding Christianity. Taking the Bible literally is largely a *modern* dogma, brought about by the rise of Fundamentalism 100 years ago.

I have pondered this question before and although it would be difficult to measure, suggest that perhaps it was the "modern dogma" people who broke away from the fundamentalist folk. I would suggest that literal belief in young Earth, big flood, etc, was mainstream 100 plus years ago.

 

[kellyb]

Yes, but this goes the other way also. For example, Josh McDowell, the writer of "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict":
https://www.amazon.com/New-Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785242198

Josh McDowell is a college profesor who started his original work "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" with the purpose of exposing Christianity as a "fraud". However, when he finished his work he found that Christianity was not fraudulant but was a factually based faith.​

There have been good and intelligent people who have converted to Islam after reading the Koran. I guess it is what you get out of it.

To rephrase something said about Trump: some people take the Bible seriously but not literally. Some people take the Bible literally but not seriously. Taking the Bible as symbolic and allegorical is something that has a history preceding Christianity. Taking the Bible literally is largely a *modern* dogma, brought about by the rise of Fundamentalism 100 years ago.

McDowell was only a teenager when he hooked up with Campus Crusade for Christ International, so that's a pretty poorly worded bio.

He says:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060515112437/http://www.christianstoriesonline.com/josh_mcdowell.html

About that time, around the campus I noticed a small group of people ñ eight students and two faculty. There was something different about their lives. They seemed to have direction. They seemed to know where they were going, and that was very unusual. Further, they seemed to have a type of love that was manifested in the way they treated people. I had observed that most people talked a lot about love, but these people demonstrated something special in their
relationships with others. They had something I didn't have, so I made friends with them.

On December 19, 1959, at 8:30 p.m., during my second year at the university, I became a Christian. That night I prayed. I prayed four things in order to establish a relationship with God ñ a personal relationship with His Son, the personal, resurrected, living Christ. Over a period of time that relationship has turned my life around. First, I prayed, "Lord Jesus, thank You for dying on the cross for me." Second, I said, "I confess those things in my life that aren't pleasing to You and ask You to forgive me and cleanse me." The Bible says, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Third, I said, "Right now, in
the best way I know how, I open the door of my heart and life and trust You as my Savior and Lord. Take control of my life. Change me from the inside out. Make me the type of person You created me to be." The last thing I prayed was, "Thank You for coming into my life by faith."

He's not really a college professor, either.

 

[Thor 2]

McDowell was only a teenager when he hooked up with Campus Crusade for Christ International, so that's a pretty poorly worded bio.

He says:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060515112437/http://www.christianstoriesonline.com/josh_mcdowell.html





He's not really a college professor, either.

Ouch! A most resounding rebuttal kellyb.

 

[GDon]

The old "Well this guy thought like you do, but when he looked into it he found he was wrong." kind of thing. Doesn't fly very well GDon unless some stats are provided, showing more are swayed in favour than are swayed against.

??? What doesn't fly? I wasn't arguing anything other than "it happens". Remember, I regard the Bible as just a book. People have been converted reading the Koran, Buddhist texts, Dawkins, Ayn Rand, etc. It's said that intelligent people can more eloquently talk themselves into believing nonsense. So what if Christians become atheists after reading the Bible? That's my point.

I have pondered this question before and although it would be difficult to measure, suggest that perhaps it was the "modern dogma" people who broke away from the fundamentalist folk. I would suggest that literal belief in young Earth, big flood, etc, was mainstream 100 plus years ago.

No, that's simply wrong. It does seem to be "established history" on this site, and possibly unkillable here, but while you are entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

Fundamentalist dogma was NOT mainstream 100 years ago. A more liberal view towards the Bible was mainstream, even in evangelical circles; and then the Fundamentalists popped up due to the critiques of the Bible in mainstream circles in the late 19th Century. They thought the mainstream churches had gone too far. They grew in strength to either take over or split away from the mainstream.

The Fundamentalists lost some strength after the Scopes trial in the 1920s, but came roaring back in the 1950s after they started to get people into politics and the media.

There is a famous sermon preached in the 1920s by Bishop Harry Emerson Fosdick called "Shall the fundamentalists win?", where he highlighted the dangers of the new and growing Fundamentalist movement. I've given some snippets below, but the whole thing is worth a read:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/shall-the-fundamentalists-win/

We, however, face today a situation too similar and too urgent and too much in need of Gamaliel’s attitude to spend any time making guesses at supposititious history. Already all of us must have heard about the people who call themselves the Fundamentalists. Their apparent intention is to drive out of the evangelical churches men and women of liberal opinions...

It is interesting to note where the Fundamentalists are driving in their stakes to mark out the deadline of doctrine around the church, across which no one is to pass except on terms of agreement. They insist that we must all believe in the historicity of certain special miracles, preeminently the virgin birth of our Lord; that we must believe in a special theory of inspiration—that the original documents of the scripture, which of course we no longer possess, were inerrantly dictated to men a good deal as a man might dictate to a stenographer...

We may well begin with the vexed and mooted question of the virgin birth of our Lord. I know people in the Christian churches—ministers, missionaries, laymen, devoted lovers of the Lord and servants of the Gospel—who, alike as they are in their personal devotion to the Master, hold quite different points of view about a matter like the virgin birth. Here, for example, is one point of view: that the virgin birth is to be accepted as historical fact; it actually happened; there was no other way for a personality like the Master to come into this world except by a special biological miracle. That is one point of view, and many are the gracious and beautiful souls who hold it. But, side by side with them in the evangelical churches is a group of equally loyal and reverent people who would say that the virgin birth is not to be accepted as an historic fact. To believe in virgin birth as an explanation of great personality is one of the familiar ways in which the ancient world was accustomed to account for unusual superiority...

Consider another matter on which there is a sincere difference of opinion among evangelical Christians: the inspiration of the Bible. One point of view is that the original documents of the scripture were inerrantly dictated by God to men. Whether we deal with the story of creation or the list of the dukes of Edom or the narratives of Solomon’s reign or the Sermon on the Mount or the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, they all came in the same way and they all came as no other book ever came. They were inerrantly dictated; everything there—scientific opinions, medical theories, historical judgments, as well as spiritual insight—is infallible. That is one idea of the Bible’s inspiration. But side by side with those who hold it, lovers of the Book as much as they, are multitudes of people who never think about the Bible so. Indeed, that static and mechanical theory of inspiration seems to them a positive peril to the spiritual life...

In the evangelical churches today there are differing views of this matter. One view is that Christ is literally coming, externally on the clouds of heaven, to set up his kingdom here. I never heard that teaching in my youth at all...

... the Fundamentalists propose to drive out from the Christian churches all the consecrated souls who do not agree with their theory of inspiration. What immeasurable folly!

Well, they are not going to do it; certainly not in this vicinity. I do not even know in this congregation whether anybody has been tempted to be a Fundamentalist. Never in this church have I caught one accent of intolerance...​

You can criticize the Bible all you want. There is plenty to criticize. But in my very humble opinion you are pissing on the history of the development of humanity by rewriting its history as you and David Mo do.

If you believe that Fundamentalism was mainstream 100 plus years ago, I humbly ask you to back up that view.

 

[David Mo]

Fundamentalist dogma was NOT mainstream 100 years ago. A more liberal view towards the Bible was mainstream, even in evangelical circles; and then the Fundamentalists popped up due to the critiques of the Bible in mainstream circles in the late 19th Century. They thought the mainstream churches had gone too far. They grew in strength to either take over or split away from the mainstream.

The Fundamentalists lost some strength after the Scopes trial in the 1920s, but came roaring back in the 1950s after they started to get people into politics and the media.

I suppose that you are speaking of fundamentalism as the literal interpretation of the Bible with some symbolic additions introduced by the ecclesiastical hierarchies. Fundamentalism is also the strong belief that only the Bible so interpreted entails truth and that any other branch of knowledge is subordinated to it and should be rejected if clashes with it. I don't know how you can measure the progression of fundamentalism, but a simple look at the history shows that fundamentalism is the dominant stream in religions. It was the basis of the condemnations of Galileo or Darwin by dominant sectors of the Christian churches. It is the basis of Islam in practically all the Islamic countries. And Hinduism, Buddhism and so on.

Even in "modernized" churches, fundamentalism is the basis of moral exigences and it pretends to impose its dogmas in matters of sexuality, equality, family and others.

Very interesting the article by a fundamentalist, Gary Habermas, about consensus on Christ’s resurrection. A 75% of “historians” ant theologians believe that it was a historical fact. Is it not "fundamentalism"? See here: http://www.garyhabermas.com/article...-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

I don't always agree with Sam Harris but he is particulary clever here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zV3vIXZ-1Y

 

[Thor 2]

??? What doesn't fly? I wasn't arguing anything other than "it happens". Remember, I regard the Bible as just a book. People have been converted reading the Koran, Buddhist texts, Dawkins, Ayn Rand, etc. It's said that intelligent people can more eloquently talk themselves into believing nonsense. So what if Christians become atheists after reading the Bible? That's my point.

Saying things like "It's said" and "What if" are not good foundations for a convincing argument.

No, that's simply wrong. It does seem to be "established history" on this site, and possibly unkillable here, but while you are entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

Fundamentalist dogma was NOT mainstream 100 years ago. A more liberal view towards the Bible was mainstream, even in evangelical circles; and then the Fundamentalists popped up due to the critiques of the Bible in mainstream circles in the late 19th Century. They thought the mainstream churches had gone too far. They grew in strength to either take over or split away from the mainstream.

What David said above and also if we apply the method of "reductio ad absurdum" then can we assume the original faithful were not fundamentalists either? That is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

The Fundamentalists lost some strength .......

Snip

........

You can criticize the Bible all you want. There is plenty to criticize. But in my very humble opinion you are pissing on the history of the development of humanity by rewriting its history as you and David Mo do.

If you believe that Fundamentalism was mainstream 100 plus years ago, I humbly ask you to back up that view.

I did above by reducing the alternative to that of absurdity.

 

[GDon]

Saying things like "It's said" and "What if" are not good foundations for a convincing argument.

Could you remind me what my argument is, please? What am I trying to convince people of?

What David said above and also if we apply the method of "reductio ad absurdum" then can we assume the original faithful were not fundamentalists either? That is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

We can read Philo of Alexandria's views of the Hebrew Scriptures. He wrote around 50 CE. We can read Origen's views of the Bible. He wrote around 220 CE. Were they Fundamentalists?

We can read what Christian writers thought in the 19th C. We can trace the rise of Fundamentalism from the late 18th C, as disquiet grew about the direction of belief within the mainstream churches (Protestant and Catholic). We can see the "line in the sand" -- the declaration of the "5 Fundamentals" in the early 20th C, and the reaction within the mainstream churches to that challenge.

You seem to have a distorted view of history, and you seem to see my comments through that distorted lens. If you have facts about the development of Fundamentalism to support your claim, please bring them. Thanks.

 

[Thor 2]

Could you remind me what my argument is, please? What am I trying to convince people of?

Not a good look if you don't know what your own argument is but I will help you out.

You were suggesting that intelligent people can be persuaded into believing all kinds of woo by reading texts, with the implication I think, they are just as likely to be converted as the not so intelligent. "Intelligent people can more eloquently talk themselves into believing nonsense", you said.

This flies in the face of what statistics tell us about religiosity levels in the educated versus the not so educated.

We can read Philo of Alexandria's views of the Hebrew Scriptures. He wrote around 50 CE. We can read Origen's views of the Bible. He wrote around 220 CE. Were they Fundamentalists?

We can read what Christian writers thought in the 19th C. We can trace the rise of Fundamentalism from the late 18th C, as disquiet grew about the direction of belief within the mainstream churches (Protestant and Catholic). We can see the "line in the sand" -- the declaration of the "5 Fundamentals" in the early 20th C, and the reaction within the mainstream churches to that challenge.

You seem to have a distorted view of history, and you seem to see my comments through that distorted lens. If you have facts about the development of Fundamentalism to support your claim, please bring them. Thanks.

Referring to the views of a couple of writers does not reflect the views of mainstream believers. I do not have a distorted view of history I think but am more of a realist than you perhaps. You know quite well we cannot refer to stats to determine what the average goat herd thought, about the literal or allegorical nature of scripture. Common sense I think would suggest a strong leaning towards the literal - the literal message as told by the holy man down the track a bit that is, rather than read himself, as the chances of him being literate would be slim.

 

[GDon]

Not a good look if you don't know what your own argument is but I will help you out.

Thank you!

You were suggesting that intelligent people can be persuaded into believing all kinds of woo by reading texts, with the implication I think, they are just as likely to be converted as the not so intelligent. "Intelligent people can more eloquently talk themselves into believing nonsense", you said.

Okay. I don't think that I was implying anything about numbers myself, but let's agree to disagree about what was in my own mind.

This flies in the face of what statistics tell us about religiosity levels in the educated versus the not so educated.

I wasn't arguing about numbers, but those would be interesting statistics to view. Can you provide those statistics, please? No need to source them if you don't have them close at hand, I'd just be interested in your guess.

Referring to the views of a couple of writers does not reflect the views of mainstream believers. I do not have a distorted view of history I think but am more of a realist than you perhaps. You know quite well we cannot refer to stats to determine what the average goat herd thought, about the literal or allegorical nature of scripture.

This is the same rubbish that David Mo uses, when he makes a claim about history and then says "we don't have evidence to know" when asked to back it up.

Okay, so we can't resort to statistics to determine what the average believer thought back then. Would it be safe to guess that you also believe that most average believers throughout history mindlessly believed what the religious authorities told them?