I've been having a long debate on Facebook about religion, thought I'd post it here for posterity, and to make it a bit more accessible. It started when I posted this photo, of an article showing Hitchens and Dawkins taking a walk together during the Texas Freethought Convention in October 2011. The debate took place in the comments underneath the photo:
Dave
Greater good? Whatever happened to blind, pitiless and indifferent?
10 October at 18:03 •
Jim
They were discredited by Spinoza
10 October at 18:04 •
Jim
Check out http://www.kiva.org/community , for example
Kiva - Loans that change lives
www.kiva.org
Make a loan to an entrepreneur across the globe for as little as $25. Kiva is the world's first online lending platform connecting online lenders to entrepreneurs across the globe.
10 October at 18:07 • •
Dave
Spinoza discredited Dawkins? Sounds like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is headed for a split.
10 October at 18:43 •
Dave
Re: Kiva, I say good show! More people should be philanthropic. But I ask again, from where do you derive your "ought" in reference to moral duties?
or as Norman Geisler reminded me today (via mp3):
Romans 2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
10 October at 18:54 •
Jim
There you go, quoting your magic book again. This bit allegedly written by a psychopathic torturer who reformed himself after a psychotic episode or hallucination.
10 October at 22:32 •
Dave
And once again you avoid answering the question.
10 October at 22:44 •
Jim
What question? Where do morals come from? From the human breast. Or am I supposed to accept that the genocide-ordering, rape-victim-stoning and slavery-enabling sprite of yours had something to do with them?
10 October at 22:52 • Like • 1 person
Dave
Sounds relativistic, am I to understand that morality originates in a subjective feeling? Not very solid ground. If it feels good lets call it moral.
10 October at 22:59 •
Jim
I don't mind where you argue it's from, as long as you don't invoke an imaginary being that allegedly created everything to its own design, didn't like what it had made so then decided to subject 99.9999% of them to death by drowning (and starvation for those that survived the initial flood).
10 October at 23:05 •
Jim
... despite being allegedly omniscient and therefore knowing that it would happen in the first place.
10 October at 23:24 •
Dave
Likewise I don't mind you throwing all that it the mix, but I still see no answer in your rebutals.
Tuesday at 08:46 •
Jim
So I have to know and be able to explain exactly where morals come from, otherwise goddidit?
Tuesday at 08:48 •
Dave
That's about the size of it, in the absence of a (better) hypothesis, I think the God hypothesis wins the day, even if you don't like the God that I would fit into that gap. I think the goddidit hypothesis also works better than anything that anyone else has come up with in terms of origin of the universe, origin of life, the Cambrian explosion and the resurrection of Jesus.
Tuesday at 14:58 •
Jim
The Cambrian Explosion lasted 80 million years. Jesus never existed.
Tuesday at 15:10 • Like • 1 person
Dave
btw, could you please give me chapter and verse re: stoning a rape victim. They must have skipped that one in my seminary training. (and my compliments for you wordsmithing abilities, if you ever want to go into gratuitously pissing people off you certainly have the vocabulary to do so.)
Tuesday at 15:10 •
Dave
Jesus never existed- a statement of faith contrary to the bulk of historical scholarship, I guess that's what Dawkins means when he talks about faith is believing in something even in the teeth of evidence.
Tuesday at 15:12 •
Dave
Geologically speaking, isn't 80 million years a rather brief period?
Tuesday at 15:13 •
Jim
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A23-27&version=NIV
Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 22:23-27 - New International Version
www.biblegateway.com
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and
Tuesday at 15:15 • Like •
Jim
Re Jesus never existing. The onus is on the claimer to prove it happened. 'Historical scholarship'? No contemporary records, no artefacts, no statues, nothing. Pics or it didn't happen.
Tuesday at 15:17 •
Jim
While there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that the story was inspired by an amalgam of other messianic cults of the time and region.
Tuesday at 15:19 •
Dave
Thanks for the link. btw, though I'm not sure it matters, but I've checked a few places and they come up with a Cambriam period of less than 55 million years. I'll comment on the link later.
Tuesday at 15:20 •
Jim
The cambrian explosion was a geologically short period, that's why it's referred to as the explosion. But it's still 80 million years. Plenty of time for gradual change over millions of generations.
Tuesday at 15:20 •
Jim
Wikipedia says 70 - 80, whatever.
Tuesday at 15:20 •
Ed
The British archaeologist William Ramsey, a convinced atheist who lived in the 19th, early 20th century, was committed to using archaeologicl/historical evidence to disprove the New Testament account. In the end the weight of the evidence was so overwhelmingly positive that the NT records are true and accurate that Ramsey became a committed Christian. All it would have taken to substantiate his unbelief was discovering one real historical fact that was untrue, but the more he investigated, with all the new discoveries that were happening in the time, the more the evidence supported the historical accuracy of the gospel and Acts.
Tuesday at 15:28 •
Ed
Jumping in :-)
Tuesday at 15:29 •
Jim
Things have come on a lot since the late 19th C. Lots of archeological discoveries, but still no concrete evidence to back up the story. I mean the whole thing is riddled with plot holes consistent with it being cobbled together syncretistically. Top deity had to sacrifice himself to himself because the things he designed himself were malfunctioning. Don't even get me started on the doctrine of the trinity being a direct breach of the first commandment.
Tuesday at 15:39 •
Ed
In spite of all the discoveries since the time of Ramsey none contradict the NT (and OT as well) accounts, and as discoveries increase they continue to affirm the historicity of the biblical records.
Tuesday at 15:47 •
Ed
No other historical record has ever been subjected to such intense scrutiny (understandaby in terms of its claims- I'm not disputing that) as the Bible. In spite of that the more we discover the more the historicity of the biblical account is verified. Myths just don't work like that. Mythologies are ahistorical by their very nature. Historical details usually don't matter- the story does. That is common to all mythologies. The historical accuracy of the Bible is absolutely unique.
Tuesday at 15:51 •
Ed
It does not fit the pattern of mythology at all. True, there were many different myths at the time of the NT, some involving messiah figures. But they all share the same ahistorical character.
Tuesday at 15:54 •
Ed
Read the stories of Mithras; the myths of the corn god who comes back to life. They could happen anytime, and virtually anywhere. The place names are accidental when present. Entirely not so with the Bible.
Tuesday at 15:57 •
Ed
To use a poor comparison, in her biography of Socrates, The Hemlock Cup, Betthany Hughes quotes another historian as calling Socrates "the doughnut"- we know an awful lot about everything surrounding his life, but actually nothing directly about him- only the records given to us by Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes. But the wealth of the historical details around his life give us confidence he existed. Of course, nothing like the weight of the issue of whether Jesus was who the NT claims is at issue with Socrates. But our evidence is better that Jesus existed- records dating to a few decades after his death. The records we have from the witnesses to Socrates' life are far newer (preserved through the labours of Christian monks who believed that learning and truth is worth preserving, even if pagan in origin). It's stretching things by any standard to say that there is no evidence for him, whether or not you believe the NT claims about him.
Tuesday at 16:07 •
Ed
Note on second note above- I wasn't meaning that Mithras was the corn god. The way I wrote it might be confusing.
Tuesday at 16:08 •
Jim
Nice Gish Gallop, Ed
Tuesday at 16:09 •
Ed
? Don't understand the reference.
Tuesday at 16:10 •
Jim
http://tinyurl.com/66x385r
Tuesday at 16:12 •
Jim
Nobody is making supernatural claims about Socrates.
Tuesday at 16:15 •
Ed
"The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised."
Tuesday at 16:15 •
Jim
I meant the 6 posts in a row, not the strength or otherwise of the arguments
Tuesday at 16:17 • Like
Ed
Sorry- I guess it was a bit like that, excepting the "half-truths, lies and straw-man" bit. It wasn't my intention. Once again the FB format is not the best way to discuss these things.
Tuesday at 16:17 •
Ed
My mind gets rolling and my fingers take over.
Tuesday at 16:18 •
Jim
Yes, we can get into never-ending debates on these issues, and I haven't spent 30+ years studying them like you have. And you guys are going to go right on believing in zombie god, and I'm going to go right on believing in my atheistic religion, right?
Tuesday at 16:19 •
Ed
We both know people do change. You and I both have.
Tuesday at 16:20 •
Jim
Usually not through this format though. Seeds get planted in much more subtle circumstances. Alpha male debate only hardens one's position.
Tuesday at 16:21 •
Ed
I'm about ready to head to bed. I'm leading a school in Perth, Australia, so it's getting late here- well, only 10:20, but the day starts early.
Tuesday at 16:22 •
Jim
Sleep well!
Tuesday at 16:22 •
Ed
Thanks. Until next time, when I'll try to be less Gish-like. :"-)
Tuesday at 16:23 •
Dave
Re: Deuteronomy 22, you have got to be kidding! Rape-victim-stoning? You’ve got to pull some pretty slick eisegesis to make that accusation stick. The whole passage is about protecting the sanctity of sex and marriage and includes some pretty radical ideas, like men ought to be held accountable for what they do with their penises.
Tuesday at 19:07 •
Jim
Er it is an instruction to kill all betrothed women who are raped in cities but don't cry out loud enough. Seems pretty clear to me.
Tuesday at 19:26 •
Al the Troll
The important message there seems to be that if you're in any doubt the answer is probably to stone to death all those involved.
Tuesday at 19:32 • • 1 person
Jim
@Dave, re "gratuitously pissing people off". The reason I posted this photo of the newspaper article was that I was happy to see Christopher Hitchens - currently battling stage 4 oesophageal cancer - taking a stroll with his friend Richard Dawkins, for what may be the last time. You picked up on the fact that it was shared from a page called 'Atheists for the Greater Good' and decided to turn that into a debate on morals (on my page). In that situation I don't feel like the onus is on me to mind my language, and I'm not going to mince my words. Interestingly you then said it was great that Kiva Atheists were doing good things - that's exactly what the Atheists for a Greater Good page is all about. Atheists doing philanthropy and improving the lives of others. You can try telling us that we have no moral basis for doing so, or that our morals come from [enter supernatural being's name here], but we're just going to carry on doing philanthropy regardless.
Wednesday at 08:44 •
Dave
And please continue to be philanthropic. I certainly didn't mean to make light of Hitchen's situation. Contrary to whay some may thinnk I don't believe there are many Christians who take pleaseure in his demise. He has been a great catalyst for thought and has posed some important questions.
Wednesday at 11:43 •
Al the Troll
If you did take pleasure in Hitchens' demise could you still call yourself a Christian? It doesn't seem hugely Christian. Although neither does stoning rape victims to death. Or stoning anyone to death for that matter.
Wednesday at 11:47 •
Dave
Re Deuteronomy: in first two verses the sex act is not considered rape nor is it called rape. Was she being raped in town, given the layout of towns in those days, a simple scream would have brought help. This assumes the sex act was not rape. The following two verses taken in the context of the first two assume there is no one nearby to rescue her if she cried out. Remeber, a text without a context is a pretext.
Wednesday at 11:50 •
Dave
@Alastair - you'd have to be a pretty poor exegete to get that out of that text, but as I hinted before, with the proper eisegesis you can make it say anything you need it to.
Wednesday at 11:51 •
Jim
@Alastair, it's all thanks to a fine piece of fundie double-think - love thy neighbour, but pray that the 'wicked' meet their come-uppance. The definition of wicked is very elastic, ask Fred Phelps, or the various abortion clinic arsonists, bombers and assassins.
Wednesday at 11:54 •
Jim
"with the proper eisegesis you can make it say anything you need it to" [/ irony ]
Wednesday at 11:55 •
Dave
Actually, I fear there are people who call themselves Christians who would like Hitchens to go away. And there are alot of atheists who wanted Christians to go away. I actually admire Hitchins in that he has dared to step into arenas where a lot of his collegues would not tred.
Wednesday at 11:56 •
Jim
(speaking of irony, those abortion clinic murderers refer to themselves as 'pro-lifers')
Wednesday at 12:01 •
Dave
I can read it in English and not have to even consult the Hebrew or commentaries to know that it is quite legitimate to understand it as I have explained it to you. In order to make it fit your interpretation you need to read rape into that first section. It's just not there. I'll admit that I don't want it to say anything about stoning rape victims but thankfully I don't have defend what is already clear in English. The symantic gymnastics are all yours.
Wednesday at 12:04 •
Dave
Jim, if I ever utter a word of support for abortion clinic bombers you may take me to the mat. Until I do that (and I won't) you're just preaching to the choir.
Wednesday at 12:08 •
Jim
I understood that the word 'violate' implied rape, and the fact that the woman should 'cry out', but even if it doesn't, the verse does not specifically rule out rape, so any woman raped in a city who doesn't cry out loud enough fits the criteria, and presumably some were stoned to death in this situation. I love the fact that we're arguing about the specifics of the criteria and not about the fact that people should be stoned to death, and that according to Matthew (who wasn't there and was writing 40+ years after the events took place) , Jesus said that not one iota of this law should be taken away.
Wednesday at 12:10 •
Al the Troll
Bombing an abortion clinic is wrong, good. But we're still good to go on the stoning people to death thing? Sweet.
Wednesday at 12:12 •
Jim
*any betrothed woman
Wednesday at 12:12 •
Jim
I'm just trying to imagine how, in an era before the printed word, in a time of limited literacy, when handwritten texts and word of mouth were the prime sources of information, any historically accurate information about the leader of a religious/political group with devoted followers keen to big up his achievements, could be relayed to a biographer 40 years after the fact.
Wednesday at 12:17 •
Dave
In the Judeo-christian ethic having sex with anyone with whom you are not married is a violation. As I said, the sacredness of marriage is the key to this passage. In this hypothetical case while the woman is violated she would also deemed complicit for not seeking help from those within earshot. The second two verses are seen in juxtaposition to the first two for comparison, a commmonly used form in Hebrew writing.
Wednesday at 12:21 •
Jim
So you can confidently say that no rape victim was ever stoned to death on the basis of this verse? Rape victims are still being stoned to death in fundamentalist Islamic countries, I'd say it's a fairly safe bet that they were in ancient Israel too.
Wednesday at 12:26 •
Dave
Alastair, I don't think we want to start a capital punishment debate, we'd never see the end of it. But you are comparing apples and oranges. With one a lunatic fringe bomber has taken the law into his hands to punish people he deems to be guilty without regard for innocent life. With the other it is about the upholding of the law. I hope you can at least appreciate the difference in the two very different scenarios. But I will spare Jim further debate on that topic.
Wednesday at 12:28 •
Jim
PS your 'Judeo-Christian ethic' obviously didn't apply to King David, King Solomon, Rehoboam, Eve, Cain and Abel (one presumes), Lot and his daughters, Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, etc. And the idea that all the royal concubines were voluntary is laughable - they would largely have been captured sex slaves. The Judeo-Christian ethic is a modern invention, and is as elastic as the definition of 'wicked'.
Wednesday at 12:35 •
Dave
Jim, you sure seem intent to put put words into my mouth. I don't know if any rape victims were stoned to death on the basis of this verse. I do know that if that happened it was a miscarriage of justice. A lot of laws get misinterpretted and misapplied. And seriously, I abhor the Islamic practices like stoning rape victims and genital mutilation (a favorite Hitchens argument). I am not going to defend Islam and I can't imagine you think I need to. It's a red Herring, my friend. And your "safe bet" is nothing more than speculation.
Wednesday at 12:36 •
Dave
Jim, the OT is glaringly slient about the issue of multiple wives. And while I suspect you are speculating again the OT does make this clear, monogamy was the plan. It was also commonplace, even the status quo that kings would amass wives as gifts from other monarchs. I don't see any evidence to determine teh voluntary nature of such arrangements, but I concur, voluntary? Probably not. But does the OT commend multiple wives and concubines? Nope. Instead it clearly shows that wherever a man took on more than one wife he ended up in misery.
Wednesday at 12:41 •
Jim
I referred to Islamic punishments because, as primitive legal practices from the Middle East, they reveal what was probably standard across that region in the past. Forced marriages, death sentences for rape victims (but not rapists) and keeping girls and young women veiled and locked away made perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view in an era when they were the only ways to guarantee certainty regarding your (grand)child's paternity, thereby ensuring the continuation of your DNA.
Wednesday at 12:44 •
Dave
The prohibition may not have been explicit but the results of such a lifestyle were clear to see. That's one of the things that I like about the Bible, other religious literature the Bible makes no qualms about showing the heroes warts and all. Kinda gives you hope to know that it's not about being perfect
Wednesday at 12:44 •
Al the Troll
So if the lunatic fringe group that takes the law into their own hands to punish people they deems to be guilty without regard for innocent life are called Christians then we're good?
Wednesday at 12:48 •
Dave
But Jim, you commit the genetic fallacy in assuming that all the Middle East operated according to the same practices. You want to use what you know to be true about one religion and culture and force fit it into another. It's similar to the argument "all the ancients believed lightning came from the gods and science has proved them wrong, therefore this god business is rubish." The conclusion doesn't follow logically from the premise, plus the premise hasn't been proven true in the first place.
And your DNA theory only works under naturalism. The Judeo-Christian worldview does not subscribe to the idea that our sole purpose is to replicate DNA (funny that that idea comes from Dawkins who denies the existance of purpose then reminds us that being a DNA factory is our only purpose).
Wednesday at 12:56 •
Jim
I'm not saying that's definitely what happened across the ME, just that it's an indication that that's what might have happened. The DNA theory explains the origins of the practices, which were then codified into religious law and retrospectively given a divine origin. Yes, it only works under naturalism, sorry about that.
Wednesday at 12:59 •
Dave
If I call myself a hamburger and do not act, look or smell like a hamburger, I am not a hamburger. I don't like that the lunatic fringe calls themselves Christians but there is no copyright holder on the name and pretty much anybody can (and they do) claim the name and then drag it through the mud. Just don't expect to join hands with them and sing hymns.
Wednesday at 13:05 •
Dave
Nevertheless, your theory is a good starting point, but it lacks evidence for it's conclusion. I would of course submit the Bible as evidence to the contrary but you have already dismissed that line of evidence a priori. So I don't think we'll get anywhere with that theory.
Wednesday at 13:07 •
Al the Troll
But killing innocent people certainly seems to be with the spirit of the old testament if not the letter so maybe their claim to be Christians isn't so unfounded after all.
Wednesday at 13:07 •
Jim
It's a good theory, and it doesn't need evidence for its conclusion, because conclusive evidence is almost impossible to find thousands of years after the fact. Occam's razor says go with the best theory. If you entertain the possibility that naturalism is the way things are as a thought exercise (AKA 'taking off your god glasses') you might find that a lot of other things fall into place. To start with, for example, the diversity and uniqueness of fauna on islands such as Madagascar and Australia...
Wednesday at 13:28 •
Jim
go with the best theory, until a better one comes along
Wednesday at 13:38 •
Jim
82 comments, I'm phoning Guinness soon...
Wednesday at 14:03 •
Dave
OK, last rant: On the Deuteronomy passage: In those days an engagement was a contractual / covenant agreement which was binding and could only be nullified by divorce.
Re: innocent people – I presume that you refer to various people groups for which God is often accused of being genocidal. Well, that claim of innocence and the accusation of genocide depend largely on one thing: is the Bible true? If the Bible is not true then God is not a moral monster, he is a non-entity, he is irrelevant. The worst you could say is that the inventor of God was evil. But even that would be hard to make stick since the whole God myth may have been useful in assuring the flourishing of Israel, and may have been essential in keeping order and allowing them to pass their DNA on to future generations of Jews and thus stand together under a common uniting myth, a myth which gave them a source of pride and identity and a cause for which to fight. Naturalism then has no ground upon which to make a moral claim against such a hypothesis if the Bible is just a useful myth.
But if the Bible is true, and God is as he is described therein, then the possibility that they were innocent becomes quite remote. Being omniscient, he would know their hearts and their deeds, being holy he would be intolerant of sin, being good and loving he would allow sufficient opportunities for compliance, being just he would exact appropriate punishment.
Further, “utter destruction” language may well be hyperbole, as war propaganda commonly is. Paul Copan says that it is likely that when Israel was said to have destroyed a people group they may well have only attacked the strongholds. (After all when one attacks another country the normal understanding is that they have attacked that country’s military). This be evidenced by the fact that these people groups still existed long after they were said to have been destroyed (remember, there were still Germans after WW2 even though the allies utterly destroyed them). Had the writers been writing a mythical account it is more likely that their enemies would have been written out of their stories as was also common in those days.
Jim, it seems to me that Occam’s razor says go with the simplest solution. Worldview is all about which glasses we use to make sense of the world, not which of us use glasses and which do not. Without the god glasses we’re stuck with no explanation for the origin of the universe, origin of life or a basis for absolute moral values. So until a better theory comes along I’ll take your advice and stick with what I’ve got.
And if you’re going to call the Guinness people be sure to order me a pint (and tell Oz I said hello).
Wednesday at 19:55 •
Jim
The origin of the universe is essentially unknowable, irrespective of your personal theory. There are various solid theories for the origin of life, none of which is currently 100% waterproof, especially with regard to the role of RNA, but we're getting there. A basis for moral values - I beg to differ. My morals are based on evolved empathy, not on a millennia-old list / book.
Re: if god does not exist how can he be genocidal? Well exactly. The people who invoked him were genocidal, according to the bible. The point is that you can't rely on him as the source of morals on the basis of the bible, because the god posited there does not act morally by any objective standard.
As for the historic integrity of 'people groups', people groups, races, nations, etc. are labels invented by people. There's no such thing as a 'Jewish people', even the strictest enforcement of racial segregation cannot stop interracial marriage, rape, whatever from 'polluting' the DNA.We're all Africans.
Wednesday at 20:22 •
Jim
?.... so genocide against a 'people' is simply genocide against another group of individuals, who in those days probably shared almost identical DNA. 'Innocence' and 'guilt' are meaningless in such situations: one week you were on the receiving end of a raid, the next you were carrying out a revenge raid. Wiping out an entire population, including the women, children and infants who, by any definition, were innocent, also conferred evolutionary advantages to the perpetrators (less competiion for resources for themselves and their descendants), and prevented future generations coming to exact revenge on them (we've all seen the Godfather films).
Wednesday at 20:36 •
Jim
Re hyperbole: it's either 100% accurate or it isn't. If it isn't on this point, why should we trust the rest of it? Was Jesus walking on water hyperbole, or feeding the 5000? If not, why not?
Wednesday at 21:31 •
Dave
Hey Jim, I've been laid up all day with a migraine. I'm better now, so here it comes...
10 hours ago •
Dave
Origin of the Universe – perhaps, but then why do so many people busy themselves with the unknowable and why did steady-statists bristle at the idea of the big bang? Because the big bang fits quite nicely in the creation story even though the recording of it creation story predates the acceptance of the big band theory by thousands of years. As a result multiverse theories are being proposed to avoid any god involvement, theories which look a lot like how atheists view the god hypothesis: no evidence and can’t be observed.
Origin of life theorist have now concluded that life could not have originated spontaneously on the earth and have had to resort to extra-terrestrial seeding theories which to date lack evidence.
The idea of absolute morals is that they exist regardless of if no one believes in them. “Evolved empathy” implies changing over time. In that case we are not talking about the same thing.
10 hours ago •
Dave
Re genocide: If I have understood you correctly you have made two knowledge claims: 1. you can’t really know what happened thousands of years ago and 2. ancient Israel was genocidal. And how do you know that they were genocidal? The Bible says so. The book written thousands of years ago.
Now, in reading your extended explanation of genocide it seems to me you are describing perhaps even condoning a type of social Darwinism. If you indeed subscribe to social Darwinism then it leaves you little room to be upset about genocide or any other atrocity. In fact, atrocity becomes a relative term. But perhaps I am not following your line of argument.
10 hours ago •
Dave
About hyperbole, if when I was a kid I was to say “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse” my sister would say, “Liar, no you can’t.” If I said the same to my best friend he would likely say “Me too” or “So, you’re really hungry, eh?” The difference is my best friend was committed to understanding me even when I used hyperbole while my sister was committed to misunderstanding me.
Further, I don’t think the use of literary devices such as hyperbole, simile and metaphor in anyway compromise the integrity of the scripture, that is, if you are committed to understanding it. Since such devices were common in ANE literature then it seems their inclusion speaks to its authenticity. Jesus used hyperbole as well. Remember it one passage he equates hate with murder and in another he tells us to hate our families. People concerned with understanding Jesus recognized the hyperbole while others saw it as an inexplicable contradiction.
And why not elsewhere? If you can find reason to suggest that certain events were hyperbolic then you’d have a case, but asking why not without suggesting evidence is not good argumentation.
If there is any good reason to think that the Bible is inauthentic it would lie in the fact that it reports embarrassing events, ( other ANE literature). The Bible shows us the good and bad side of its heroes, reports crushing defeats and details multiple captivities and exiles. Also, it sets the stories in geographically, historically and culturally verifiable circumstances. ANE mythology was typically not concerned with such things.
10 hours ago •
Dave
I think that´s enough for now. Have a good trip to the UK and as usual, I´m jealous.
10 hours ago •
Jim
Sorry to hear about your migraine. Glad to hear it's better. Re genocide, there are written records going back thousands of years, including the bible, none of which we have to take at face value, but taken as a whole they paint a picture of life being pretty brutal. Archeology and anthropology confirm this.
10 hours ago •
Jim
Re social darwinism, I'm neither describing or condoning it, I'm merely examining the facts and looking for explanations. Evolution by natural selection provides possible explanations of many human phenomena, without excusing them, including those I mentioned such as preservation of girls' virginity, inter-tribal violence, but also religion and supernatural stories in general. Thankfully we've moved on, the enlightenment came along and put an end to the Inquisition, 'witch' burning, public disembowelment, and a lot of other grisly features of life in the dark ages and before it. I for one am very grateful to be living in an age and country where I'm not in perpetual fear of being pulled from my bed and tortured for what I believe, or having a burning torch lobbed into my straw hut in the middle of the night.
Re hyperbole, there's a big difference between the examples you give and a straight-faced description of numbers of people murdered, concubines, etc. And your examples of Jesus saying contradictory things is so dripping with molasses-thick irony it's almost painful. Assuming that there even was a carpenter who became a leader of a small band of fishermen and was crucified at 33, no-one who was there wrote anything down, the people who did write things down did so 40+ years later, with only Chinese whispers to base their writings on, Luke and Matthew copied and embellished Mark, and that's before various clerics and others started tinkering with the texts to suit their purposes. So is it any wonder we get 'hate is murder' and 'hate your family' being attributed to the same person?
