Does the Bible make God stupid and insecure?

[JoeMorgue]

On topic I think "stupid and insecure" is a bad way to look at it.

He was written to be impressive to people who knew next to nothing about how the world works.

 

[acbytesla]

Cue appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, or appeal to popularity as the most possible coherent answer you're gonna get.

It is funny that David would think either is an authority. I haven't made up my mind which would be more of an authority. At least Sherlock Holmes was entertaining.

His cite of Mark demonstrates what I hate about religion. It is a threat against people thinking. "Hey, we know there isn't a credible reason to believe any of this but if you don't you're going to be destroyed.

 

[David Mo]

While I would agree that words can be used to have more than one meaning, you seem to repeatedly assume that everyone would use them only in the one sense that you would choose. E.g., that "stupid" has to always be meant as a matter of being bothered or of faith, or in the other thread that "sociopathy" has to be meant as a slur instead of a medical term.

Which I mention only because you wanted an example of how a simple proposition can be stupid. Frankly, that would be it. Being wrong about it once, ok, it happens over the internet. But repeatedly insisting that no, you know better than the one using the term that they didn't REALLY mean what they thought they meant, is downright stupid and delusional.

I haven't said anywhere that I know the "REAL" meaning of a word because I don't think the real meaning of a word exists. I say how I use words and how I think they are commonly used. I think that normally "stupid" and "sociopath" are used pejoratively. Anyone who is called stupid or sociopath gets angry. You'll tell me why.

I have also explained why your way of using "stupid" and "dishonest" cannot be applied to the case of two sentences that you had quoted. I have not seen you answer my objections.

 

[David Mo]

Not Really. Especially since both are fiction.

You get that don't you? Sherlock Holmes is a story made up by Arthur Conan Doyle and nobody has a clue who wrote Mark or Matthew or Luke or John. Those are just stories and 3 of them are simply rewritten stories either of Mark or from another source often referred to as Q.

My question to you is why would you believe them to be non-fiction?

I believe that both Holmes as Mark are fictional entities. But I was not quoting them as real persons, but the ideas that were uttered by them. And not because I believe they are true, but because I think they are interesting ideas to discuss and well expressed.

 

[David Mo]

It is funny that David would think either is an authority. I haven't made up my mind which would be more of an authority. At least Sherlock Holmes was entertaining.

His cite of Mark demonstrates what I hate about religion. It is a threat against people thinking. "Hey, we know there isn't a credible reason to believe any of this but if you don't you're going to be destroyed.

No and no. I don't quote Holmes as an authority. Nor do I cite Mark so.

Specifically, the quote from Mark is a little more complex than just the appeal to the Last Judgment. It plays with the feeling that many people have that their efforts to obtain many things are unsatisfactory. It raises the opposition between having and being. And the meaning of life doomed to death. In the context of dealing only with the things that matter--which is what had been raised--, it is a call to consider what should really interest man. A man that dedicates all his life to get money and more money may consider in his last moments that he has wasted his life. Or power, as Charles Foster Kane. (No. Kane is neither a real man nor an authority)

 

[acbytesla]

No and no. I don't quote Holmes as an authority. Nor do I cite Mark so.

Specifically, the quote from Mark is a little more complex than just the appeal to the Last Judgment. It plays with the feeling that many people have that their efforts to obtain many things are unsatisfactory. It raises the opposition between having and being. And the meaning of life doomed to death. In the context of dealing only with the things that matter--which is what had been raised--, it is a call to consider what should really interest man. A man that dedicates all his life to get money and more money may consider in his last moments that he has wasted his life. Or power, as Charles Foster Kane. (No. Kane is neither a real man nor an authority)

It isn't so much a threat of hell. But it is a threat.

A threat that something will be taken away from you. Your very essence. Something there is no reason to believe exists beyond our last breath if it lasts even that long.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I haven't said anywhere that I know the "REAL" meaning of a word because I don't think the real meaning of a word exists. I say how I use words and how I think they are commonly used. I think that normally "stupid" and "sociopath" are used pejoratively. Anyone who is called stupid or sociopath gets angry. You'll tell me why.

That's actually quite trivial: because it's something nobody wants to be. No matter if they actually are or not.

That's why we had the euphemism treadmill of "cretin", "idiot", "imbecile", "moron", and a couple of others before currently settling on "retarded", but now we see a backlash against that too. Each of those were actually a very specific term at one point. But at some point the cretins started getting offended at being called that, so we started calling them idiots instead. Then the idiots started getting offended at being called idiots, so we started calling them imbeciles instead. Well, with a quick detour through "amentia", but apparently nobody liked that one either. And so on and so forth.

You can go as low on the actually diagnosed IQ spectrum as you can physically get a coherent answer from someone, and use the term as technically as possible, and they'll deny vehemently that they are stupid or retarded. They're apparently just a bit slow, as their mom reassured them.

Cue the next step on the euphemism treadmill


BUT, and this is a big BUT (I like big BUTs and I cannot lie) this doesn't change the fact that the term also has a specific meaning. If you've seriously never heard big words used more accurately than a hip 14 year old would use them, well, that's just a problem with your circle of friends. It doesn't mean that everyone else in the world talks like those.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

At any rate, to return to the topic, so the objection is basically just that yeah, the apologetics arguments are irrational / illogical, but you don't like them being called "stupid" because "stupid" has other negative connotations? Well, I could even live with that. Fine, they're just irrational, if that makes you feel any happier.


BUT... you realize, I hope, that so do "irrational" and "illogical". If your standard for a word being pejorative is that calling people that gets them angry, try calling someone "illogical" or "irrational" and see if they'll thank you for noticing

Essentially if you absolutely want to never offend anybody, you just can't criticize religion. Because some people will equally get offended if you call their "smart" apologetics by the name of "irrational". Hell, some will get offended if you as little as don't follow the same religion, much less criticize it.

So it seems quite pointless to even get on the euphemism treadmill, because it's not going anywhere.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

No and no. I don't quote Holmes as an authority. Nor do I cite Mark so.

Specifically, the quote from Mark is a little more complex than just the appeal to the Last Judgment. It plays with the feeling that many people have that their efforts to obtain many things are unsatisfactory. It raises the opposition between having and being. And the meaning of life doomed to death. In the context of dealing only with the things that matter--which is what had been raised--, it is a call to consider what should really interest man. A man that dedicates all his life to get money and more money may consider in his last moments that he has wasted his life. Or power, as Charles Foster Kane. (No. Kane is neither a real man nor an authority)

Well, you can interpret it any way you wish, taken out of context, but that is not what Jesus says there. Here is the longer bit where it's in:

29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.​

So, no, Jesus is not talking philosophically at all. That last line is the payload. THAT is what he's talking about. He's talking about literally losing your salvation when Jesus comes back. That's it. "Soul" is not an euphemism there. It's literally meant as losing your literal soul.


Just for the record, though, I think Jesus is being disingenuous there anyway. He basically sets up Peter for a rebuking that he didn't deserve.

Mark's Jesus is not like John's Jesus.

John's Jesus might as well be wearing an "I'm the messiah, biatch!" t-shirt and print business cards with that. His being the messiah is almost all he ever talks about.

Mark's Jesus is the polar opposite. He's the ninja Jesus. Or rather the conspiracy theory Jesus. He does miracles left, right, and centre, then every time he tells people not to tell anyone about it. And apparently all of them keep it secret. So if you're a contemporary of Mark's and you've never heard of all the miracles in his new gospel book, that's why

So, anyway, here AGAIN Jesus tells Peter and the disciples to never tell anyone that he's the messiah. It's not the first time and it won't be the last. But apparently it's when Peter has had enough of being told to keep it a secret, only to watch Jesus preach the same stuff openly anyway. So he calls Jesus out on it.

Which just sets the scene for Jesus to call him Satan and tell him that he'll literally lose his soul if he's ashamed of what Jesus is doing.

Actually, I don't think "ashamed" is what Peter was thinking there.

But anyway, that's the payload of that story: follow Jesus and be proud, no matter in front of whom or what you risk, or you don't get saved when he comes back.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, you can interpret it any way you wish, taken out of context, but that is not what Jesus says there. Here is the longer bit where it's in:

29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.​

So, no, Jesus is not talking philosophically at all. That last line is the payload. THAT is what he's talking about. He's talking about literally losing your salvation when Jesus comes back. That's it. "Soul" is not an euphemism there. It's literally meant as losing your literal soul.


Just for the record, though, I think Jesus is being disingenuous there anyway. He basically sets up Peter for a rebuking that he didn't deserve.

Mark's Jesus is not like John's Jesus.

John's Jesus might as well be wearing an "I'm the messiah, biatch!" t-shirt and print business cards with that. His being the messiah is almost all he ever talks about.

Mark's Jesus is the polar opposite. He's the ninja Jesus. Or rather the conspiracy theory Jesus. He does miracles left, right, and centre, then every time he tells people not to tell anyone about it. And apparently all of them keep it secret. So if you're a contemporary of Mark's and you've never heard of all the miracles in his new gospel book, that's why

So, anyway, here AGAIN Jesus tells Peter and the disciples to never tell anyone that he's the messiah. It's not the first time and it won't be the last. But apparently it's when Peter has had enough of being told to keep it a secret, only to watch Jesus preach the same stuff openly anyway. So he calls Jesus out on it.

Which just sets the scene for Jesus to call him Satan and tell him that he'll literally lose his soul if he's ashamed of what Jesus is doing.

Actually, I don't think "ashamed" is what Peter was thinking there.

But anyway, that's the payload of that story: follow Jesus and be proud, no matter in front of whom or what you risk, or you don't get saved when he comes back.

Thanks for adding the surrounding passages. It has been a long time since I read it. I forgot just how much the Gospels play games with the words. It also reminds me that Christianity is really the religion of Paul and not Jesus.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, personally the lesson I would take from there is that the gospel Jesus is not really that nice person that people imagine, if they didn't read the book. Even if only John's version goes around telling everyone that he's the messiah -- hell, in fact that he's GOD -- whether they asked or not, Mark's Jesus (and by extension the ones in Matthew and Luke) are not very nice either and pretty full of themselves too.

And even in the Gospel narrative, look at what directly causes Judas's betrayal. Jesus defends his being anointed with some expensive perfume oil instead of selling it to give to the poor, because, "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me." (Mark 14:7, also copied by Matthew 26:11 and also John 12:8. It's one of the very few places where John agrees with the synoptics.) Which is not just flat out saying that HE is more important than the poor, but is actually referencing Deuteronomy 15:11 to an end that is the polar opposite of what it actually says: "For there will never cease to be poor in the land; that is why I am commanding you to open wide your hand to your brother and to the poor and needy in your land." A commandment to give to the poor, directly from God, has half of it quoted out of context to say the opposite: nah, give to me, you can deal with the poor later.

Which triggers Judas to go and call the authorities on Jesus. (Seriously. Mark 14:10, i.e., right the next line after Jesus finishes talking.)

So yeah, it helps to remember that it's THAT Jesus that we're talking about.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, personally the lesson I would take from there is that the gospel Jesus is not really that nice person that people imagine, if they didn't read the book. Even if only John's version goes around telling everyone that he's the messiah -- hell, in fact that he's GOD -- whether they asked or not, Mark's Jesus (and by extension the ones in Matthew and Luke) are not very nice either and pretty full of themselves too.

And even in the Gospel narrative, look at what directly causes Judas's betrayal. Jesus defends his being anointed with some expensive perfume oil instead of selling it to give to the poor, because, "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me." (Mark 14:7, also copied by Matthew 26:11 and also John 12:8. It's one of the very few places where John agrees with the synoptics.) Which is not just flat out saying that HE is more important than the poor, but is actually referencing Deuteronomy 15:11 to an end that is the polar opposite of what it actually says: "For there will never cease to be poor in the land; that is why I am commanding you to open wide your hand to your brother and to the poor and needy in your land." A commandment to give to the poor, directly from God, has half of it quoted out of context to say the opposite: nah, give to me, you can deal with the poor later.

Which triggers Judas to go and call the authorities on Jesus. (Seriously. Mark 14:10, i.e., right the next line after Jesus finishes talking.)

So yeah, it helps to remember that it's THAT Jesus that we're talking about.

Well I don't get that. Not that your analysis isn't good. But these aren't eyewitness documents. They were written 15 to 50 years after the crucifixion. The likelihood that they accurately reflect Jesus's words if there was a Jesus is simply not believable. What I see is a bunch of authors tailoring the same story for different audiences.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Absolutely agree on that. Just saying that even the character of the story isn't all that either, since David was quoting from him as some deep insight. That guy isn't either nice, nor particularly deep, nor particularly inspirational, if you look at what the authors actually say about him. The characterization of said character, if you will. Is all I'm saying.

Edit: basically, if you will, it's like hearing someone quote "I find your lack of faith disturbing" as some inspirational quote, while completely missing that it's said by Vader when he chokes a guy to show him who's boss. It being Vader and said scene, kinda undermines any authority that quoting a famous character might otherwise give a quote. All I'm saying is that quoting Jesus is almost as bad as quoting Vader, really.

 

[acbytesla]

Absolutely agree on that. Just saying that even the character of the story isn't all that either, since David was quoting from him as some deep insight. That guy isn't either nice, nor particularly deep, nor particularly inspirational, if you look at what the authors actually say about him. The characterization of said character, if you will. Is all I'm saying.

Edit: basically, if you will, it's like hearing someone quote "I find your lack of faith disturbing" as some inspirational quote, while completely missing that it's said by Vader when he chokes a guy to show him who's boss. It being Vader and said scene, kinda undermines any authority that quoting a famous character might otherwise give a quote. All I'm saying is that quoting Jesus is almost as bad as quoting Vader, really.

Good point. I always like to point out to Christians that two things Jesus said or didn't say.

The first is when asked what someone needed to be saved was to give everything to the poor and follow him. Almost no one is prepared and willing to do that. The second is that Jesus never uttered a word against homosexuality. I usually follow that up with the question are they followers of Jesus or Paul? Who's words and deeds should they consider?

 

[David Mo]

At any rate, to return to the topic, so the objection is basically just that yeah, the apologetics arguments are irrational / illogical, but you don't like them being called "stupid" because "stupid" has other negative connotations? Well, I could even live with that. Fine, they're just irrational, if that makes you feel any happier.

BUT... you realize, I hope, that so do "irrational" and "illogical". If your standard for a word being pejorative is that calling people that gets them angry, try calling someone "illogical" or "irrational" and see if they'll thank you for noticing

Essentially if you absolutely want to never offend anybody, you just can't criticize religion. Because some people will equally get offended if you call their "smart" apologetics by the name of "irrational". Hell, some will get offended if you as little as don't follow the same religion, much less criticize it.

So it seems quite pointless to even get on the euphemism treadmill, because it's not going anywhere.

The pejorative charge of "irrational" is considerably less than "stupid". If you blame someone for irrationalism, he won't get so angry that if you call him "stupid". This may be "trivial," but you seem reluctant to admit it. In reality, there are many thinkers who defend irrationalism and consider rationalism a plague. And they are not necessarily theists. The proportion is larger among theists, of course.

Yes, I think that in a fair debate it is important to lessen the burden of aggression as much as possible. Those who enter into an argument with Mussolini's jaw bother me.

 

[David Mo]

Well, you can interpret it any way you wish, taken out of context, but that is not what Jesus says there. Here is the longer bit where it's in:

(...)

But anyway, that's the payload of that story: follow Jesus and be proud, no matter in front of whom or what you risk, or you don't get saved when he comes back.

Oh, right. This is the original meaning of the text. I have already said it. But I also said that it was anything more and that I applied the phrase in the context of our discussion, not in the one in which you intend to explain.

For example: apocalyptic prophecy is pronounced in the context of the immediate coming of the Kingdom. It is an invitation to leave the world behind and place ourselves in God's hands. For the Kingdom comes "like a thief in the night". But a few centuries later, Mark's phrase was read as an expression of the repugnance of the absurdity of the world. Then it was the watchword of those who entered monastic life in search of a transcendent meaning.

I was using the phrase in the current debate. I explained it in a previous commentary. Not in the original sense. And I didn't say that Mark was "deep".

 

[David Mo]

Well, you can interpret it any way you wish, taken out of context, but that is not what Jesus says there. Here is the longer bit where it's in:

(...)

But anyway, that's the payload of that story: follow Jesus and be proud, no matter in front of whom or what you risk, or you don't get saved when he comes back.

Oh, right. This is the original meaning of the text. I have already said it. But I also said that it was anything more and that I applied the phrase in the context of our discussion, not in the one in which you intend to explain .

For example: apocalyptic prophecy is pronounced in the context of the immediate coming of the Kingdom. It is an invitation to leave the world behind and place ourselves in God's hands. For the Kingdom comes "like a thief in the night". But a few centuries later, Mark's phrase was read as an expression of the repugnance of the absurdity of the world. Then it was the watchword of those who entered monastic life in search of a transcendent meaning.

He was using the phrase in the current debate. I explained it in a previous commentary. Not in the original sense.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Look, what I'm specifically answering to is your claim that "Specifically, the quote from Mark is a little more complex than just the appeal to the Last Judgment." Actually, Mark used it specifically as just the appeal to the Last Judgment. Jesus clarifies it quite unambiguously.

Sure, you can take a phrase out of context to mean whatever else, but then that's just pareidolia applied to text instead of shapes. We have complex brains and notice patterns and similarities. It doesn't mean much more than that.

 

[David Mo]

Look, what I'm specifically answering to is your claim that "Specifically, the quote from Mark is a little more complex than just the appeal to the Last Judgment." Actually, Mark used it specifically as just the appeal to the Last Judgment. Jesus clarifies it quite unambiguously.

Sure, you can take a phrase out of context to mean whatever else, but then that's just pareidolia applied to text instead of shapes. We have complex brains and notice patterns and similarities. It doesn't mean much more than that.

The meaning of a word or phrase may change depending on the context.
The phrase we are talking about has three possible contexts or more: a hypothetical context in which it is pronounced by Jesus; the context of Mark's gospels; the context of late antiquity or the early Middle Ages. Different contexts may have different meanings. You may wonder what meaning it had in the original context, that is, that of Mark. But I can pose a different meaning in another context. None is the real one. Even Mark may be changing the meaning of his source, which is likely in the context of the discussion between Paulines and Petrines.

 

[Darat]

Well, personally the lesson I would take from there is that the gospel Jesus is not really that nice person that people imagine, if they didn't read the book. Even if only John's version goes around telling everyone that he's the messiah -- hell, in fact that he's GOD -- whether they asked or not, Mark's Jesus (and by extension the ones in Matthew and Luke) are not very nice either and pretty full of themselves too.

And even in the Gospel narrative, look at what directly causes Judas's betrayal. Jesus defends his being anointed with some expensive perfume oil instead of selling it to give to the poor, because, "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me." (Mark 14:7, also copied by Matthew 26:11 and also John 12:8. It's one of the very few places where John agrees with the synoptics.) Which is not just flat out saying that HE is more important than the poor, but is actually referencing Deuteronomy 15:11 to an end that is the polar opposite of what it actually says: "For there will never cease to be poor in the land; that is why I am commanding you to open wide your hand to your brother and to the poor and needy in your land." A commandment to give to the poor, directly from God, has half of it quoted out of context to say the opposite: nah, give to me, you can deal with the poor later.

Which triggers Judas to go and call the authorities on Jesus. (Seriously. Mark 14:10, i.e., right the next line after Jesus finishes talking.)

So yeah, it helps to remember that it's THAT Jesus that we're talking about.

And that has justified nothing being done to alleviate poverty for thousands of years, with Mother Theresa being an example of adopting that cruel and inhumane worldview.