Interpreting Theology

I see no point to debating the dating and accuracy of scripture. Stronger arguments can be made about authorship and canonization anyway.

I'm not the one who brought it up.

Originally Posted by Minion

So you're entire argument about historical accuracy is based purely on assumption, devoid of fact? Cool. Fascinating discussion we're having here.

I don't know. You seem to be dodging pretty well. Interesting indeed. Annnnd, we have the old "I didn't bring it up" dodge. You actually ARE the one who brought it up. Click! Second paragraph. I DID instigate an argument if only because you can't ASSUME that witnesses are unbiased.

There is little to do with actual histotry in the Bible as it has to do with GOD. Sure, theres some accurate fact in there regarding some of the events of the time.

But I was under the impression that as a Christian, you follow the Bible not as a good historical novel, but as a guideline for your morals in your life.

Which is a pretty heavy topic to place on such a very old book. THATS what I am saying.

EDIT: And since we're getting complaints, I won't humor anything else from Minion about the validity of 1000+ (happy?) year old scriptures RIGHT AFTER I REPLY TO HIM.

We're supposed to be discussing theology and ALL FORMS thereof, yea?

Quote:

There is little to do with actual histotry in the Bible

See, when you say things like this, I can't help but get annoyed and not take you seriously. The Bible is the best source of ancient history we have. Literally, it has never been wrong regarding archeology. Sure, someone people thought it was from time to time, and then they'd find what they were looking for.

We're not even getting into how terrible a job they did if they did tamper with it. I mean, their savior riding into town on a donkey? Being spit on and taking it? Having women as the first messengers of the gospel (would have been very sketchy back then)? The list goes on. And what's with all the pointless detail in the Bible about which way Jesus went and when to what town and what river he cross and what road he followed? What purpose does that serve in a made up story? You don't hear about what route little red ridinghood took to go to grandma's house, do you? That's because myths don't generally bother with details, but when someone is recording history, they do bother with the details.

The Bible smacks of being a historical document and not a made up story.

Originally Posted by Minion

See, when you say things like this, I can't help but get annoyed and not take you seriously. The Bible is the best source of ancient history we have. Literally, it has never been wrong regarding archeology. Sure, someone people thought it was from time to time, and then they'd find what they were looking for.

We're not even getting into how terrible a job they did if they did tamper with it. I mean, their savior riding into town on a donkey? Being spit on and taking it? Having women as the first messengers of the gospel (would have been very sketchy back then)? The list goes on. And what's with all the pointless detail in the Bible about which way Jesus went and when to what town and what river he cross and what road he followed? What purpose does that serve in a made up story? You don't hear about what route little red ridinghood took to go to grandma's house, do you? That's because myths don't generally bother with details, but when someone is recording history, they do bother with the details.

The Bible smacks of being a historical document and not a made up story.

The majority of it, sir, in MY opinion - is just that. Made up.

If it were about recording history, it wouldn't really speculate on inner working of the mind of the characters in it. It would tell the dry facts.

It was written, as you admitted, years AFTER the fact. So many years that generations would have passed.

The story works for you. Good. Great. Run with it! Don't expect everyone to follow suit.

And now, can we please stop with the shit about the validity of the Bible? I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me, and thats all it is - a matter of opinion. DEAL?

Nope. Since this thread is about debating, I don't think we're gonna stop doing that anytime soon. It's not like you can claim we're off topic.

Anyway...

Quote:

If it were about recording history, it wouldn't really speculate on inner working of the mind of the characters in it. It would tell the dry facts.

It's got both. Why does it talk about what Jesus is thinking? Because it's important. Literature can serve many purposes at once, can't it? Especially if it's good literature. Besides, there weren't text books back then. This is the way history was told.

Originally Posted by Minion

Nope. Since this thread is about debating, I don't think we're gonna stop doing that anytime soon. It's not like you can claim we're off topic.

I was trying to be courteous to other posters, but if you think you can exhaust ME with inane discussions about your beloved Bible, by all means. Try me.

I just thought it might be nice for, you know, you and I to shut the fuck up so other people won't be drowned out. Other people DO have opinions. I know you hate that.

And technically, we ARE kind of off topic. The topic is "theology." Not "the validity of the Bible."

Quote:

It's got both. Why does it talk about what Jesus is thinking? Because it's important. Literature can serve many purposes at once, can't it? Especially if it's good literature. Besides, there weren't text books back then. This is the way history was told.

Its not historic is it's speculation on the innerworking of a person's mind. Thats presumption.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that the Bible was actually written by god himself.

And "stories" and "fiction" are also classified as "literature." Is it a historical novel? Perhaps a THRILLER MYSTERY? If it weren't for the RELIGION section of Barnes & Noble, Minion, which shelf would the Bible be placed upon? I don't think it even qualifies for the philosophy section!

Quote:

And technically, we ARE kind of off topic. The topic is "theology." Not "the validity of the Bible."

Theology is the "knowledge of God." Since the Bible is about God, it and anything about it are fair game.

Quote:

Its not historic is it's speculation on the innerworking of a person's mind. Thats presumption.

Maybe the author was told what the historical figure in question was thinking about by the person himself?

Quote:

If it weren't for the RELIGION section of Barnes & Noble, Minion, which shelf would the Bible be placed upon? I don't think it even qualifies for the philosophy section!

First of all, it generally has it's own section. Unless you go to a second-rate B&N that has more varieties of latte than it has books. Secondly, what's your point? If there was no mystery section, where would Sherlock Holmes go? Who cares?

Originally Posted by Minion

Theology is the "knowledge of God." Since the Bible is about God, it and anything about it are fair game.

But we're not even discussing God.

Quote:

Maybe the author was told what the historical figure in question was thinking about by the person himself?

There's more than one author of the Bible, Minion.

Not to mention, like you said, written GENERATIONS AFTER the events occurred. These are your words.

People didn't live up to 100 back then, dude. They were lucky to see 40.

Quote:

First of all, it generally has it's own section. Unless you go to a second-rate B&N that has more varieties of latte than it has books. Secondly, what's your point? If there was no mystery section, where would Sherlock Holmes go? Who cares?

My point is that if it were used as a historical document exclusively, it would be in the history section. Not right next to the New Age Wicca books in the religion section.

I re-iterate: There is some historical truth in the Bible. But thats not it's expressed purpose. That would be "to spread the word of God."

Quote:

Not to mention, like you said, written GENERATIONS AFTER the events occurred. These are your words.

I did not say that and, in fact, I said, not more than a few posts ago, that we have manscripts dating back to about 100 AD. That's like, 2 maybe 3 generations. It's like hearing about it from your grandpa.

Originally Posted by Minion

It's like hearing about it from your grandpa.

"Back in the day, when I was a kid, I walked 30 miles in the snow BAREFOOT to get to school! You little ungrateful BASTARDS!"

That was always totally true and historic. ALWAYS BELIEVE YOUR GRANDPA!

Not everyone's grandpa was senile. Besides, if they only lived till they were 40 (many lived longer) their bodies deteriorated before their minds ever could. No reason not to trust their memory. Especially, like I said, when so many of them agree on something.

Originally Posted by Minion

Not everyone's grandpa was senile. Besides, if they only lived till they were 40 (many lived longer) their bodies deteriorated before their minds ever could. No reason not to trust their memory. Especially, like I said, when so many of them agree on something.

The only benefit you get is that this tradition doesn't get translated a WHOLE BUNCH OF TIMES over again. People just add their own little spin.

And remember - anything that comes out of a human's mouth has a spin.

But remember - if several humans, independent of each other say the same thing, it's probably true. Or at least true enough to get you the chair if these people claim you murdered someone. I'd say we as a society have a great deal of faith in this kind of evidence.

Originally Posted by Minion

But remember - if several humans, independent of each other say the same thing, it's probably true. Or at least true enough to get you the chair if these people claim you murdered someone. I'd say we as a society have a great deal of faith in this kind of evidence.

Aren't you the one who thinks if something is said in majority, it is the right decision?

I bet burning Joan of Arc was a great idea. Let's not forget those Nazis! And the Inquisition? Perhaps running the American Natives off of their land entirely? Yea. Those weren't bad decisions at all.

Historically speaking, thats very, very wrong. Especially when you're talking about something abnormal like an apparition, a UFO, or maybe a voice from God.

It's out of the ordinary. People WANT to believe in these things. So they will. They are COMFORTED by each other. But don't fool yourself into thinking that if MANY believe, then its TRUE.

We're not talking about majority decsions. Look, if 5 million people see a UFO and they all describe it the same way, then it probably happened. The idea that many people can hallucinate or will lie about something the exact same way? Now, THAT'S mathematically impossible.

Originally Posted by Minion

We're not talking about majority decsions. Look, if 5 million people see a UFO and they all describe it the same way, then it probably happened. The idea that many people can hallucinate or will lie about something the exact same way? Now, THAT'S mathematically impossible.

BUT MINION!:

Originally Posted by Minion

But remember - if several humans, independent of each other say the same thing, it's probably true.

Do you have any idea how many people have claimed to see the same exact kind of UFO flying around in the sky - no knowledge of each other or other sightings - and have the SAME EXACT VISION?

HOLY SHIT, I GUESS THAT MEANS THEY DO EXIST!

Come on. You've got a scientific brain. Use it.

All I am saying is that its a great story -I NEVER denied that. But thats all it is: One giant fable. And I have a feeling thats what it's original intention was. People just manipulated it through it's evolution.

You should read Canticle for Lebowitz. ^_^

Quote:

Do you have any idea how many people have claimed to see the same exact kind of UFO flying around in the sky - no knowledge of each other or other sightings - and have the SAME EXACT VISION?

I'll guarantee they really did see the thing they described. Was it a UFO? Probably not, but it was something. It's kind of hard to hear entirely different words coming out of the same person's mouth, though. I mean, were all the Biblical authors going deaf or what? Were they Aramaic as a Second Language students? Help me out here.

Originally Posted by Minion

The Bible smacks of being a historical document and not a made up story.

The Bible says Adam and Eve were the parents of every living human. Genetically impossible. It also says Moses and his family of 6 or whatever were the only living decendants after the flood and repopulated the earth. Genetically impossible. The Bible says all living animals except those on the ark perished in the flood. Impossible. The earlier humans lived to be 600-1000 years old. Bullshit, as well as impossible. All original interpretations of the creation of the Earth led Jews to believe the earth was flat according to the verses of the OT. Of course now that we know that's impossible, there are all sorts of "truer" interpretations of the verses claiming it actually means round. Is it so hard to admit the writers of the OT didn't know what the hell they were talking about? Sure they've recorded a historical event here and there, and kept super-good track of their geneologies, but that in no way proves true the other 50+ "facts" that are impossible (unless you want to claim everything was a miracle back then, which is just a lazy man's denial blind faith).

There are also a number of OT prophecies that were never fulfilled. I can list them if you'd like.