A Brief Summary of the Christian Bible

[Politesse]

For example...

I wondered about this, too. From Galileo's telescope to Franklin's lightning rod to Darwin's theory of evolution, it appears to me that science calls religious ideas into question, rather than reinforcing them.

That's a very selective reading of religious ideas; you're focusing on famous examples of conflicts between individuals and the state church. Most religious values are about core human experiences like love, compassion, and the pursuit of wisdom, not pseudoscientific claims about how the world works. Why would knowing more about science make one unable to comprehend moral and philosophical truths?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For example...

I wondered about this, too. From Galileo's telescope to Franklin's lightning rod to Darwin's theory of evolution, it appears to me that science calls religious ideas into question, rather than reinforcing them.

I suppose one could claim that the discoveries of science are gifts from their god. It's possible to squirm around and make those discoveries fit one's "interpretation" of some holy writing, as many people do.

And of course because these gods are capricious and mysterious they do things we don't understand, so outcomes don't really matter, only the religious claim.

 

[bilby]

For example...

I wondered about this, too. From Galileo's telescope to Franklin's lightning rod to Darwin's theory of evolution, it appears to me that science calls religious ideas into question, rather than reinforcing them.

That's a very selective reading of religious ideas; you're focusing on famous examples of conflicts between individuals and the state church. Most religious values are about core human experiences like love, compassion, and the pursuit of wisdom, not pseudoscientific claims about how the world works. Why would knowing more about science make one unable to comprehend moral and philosophical truths?

What does religion have to do with moral and philosophical truths? (Other than making a total balls-up of establishing what they are or how we might know them)?

Religion often seeks to establish or explain such truths, but is as well equipped to do so as a one legged man at an arse kicking contest.

In fact the causality runs the other way; Religions are often attempts to explain those truths - and religion is a shithouse way to explain anything, so it invariably ends up simply distorting them. In this regard it's completely valueless at best.

 

[Politesse]

That's a very selective reading of religious ideas; you're focusing on famous examples of conflicts between individuals and the state church. Most religious values are about core human experiences like love, compassion, and the pursuit of wisdom, not pseudoscientific claims about how the world works. Why would knowing more about science make one unable to comprehend moral and philosophical truths?

What does religion have to do with moral and philosophical truths? (Other than making a total balls-up of establishing what they are or how we might know them)?

Religion often seeks to establish or explain such truths, but is as well equipped to do so as a one legged man at an arse kicking contest.

In fact the causality runs the other way; Religions are often attempts to explain those truths - and religion is a shithouse way to explain anything, so it invariably ends up simply distorting them. In this regard it's completely valueless at best.

This is, of course, not the way religious their own traditions.

 

[southernhybrid]

Here's my personal summery of the Bible.

The Christian Bible is a collection of mythological tales, often mistaken as historical facts, that initially attempt to explain first cause, along with morality lessons that were common in ancient Mideastern society. It also includes some uplifting poetry. The myths include claims made by an individual who claims to be the Saviour of mankind, along with some humanistic myths that are meant to encourage positive behavior toward other humans. The central character of the NT may have been based on a real or fictional person. The book often contradicts itself, and makes irrational claims, which is likely explained by the fact that it had many different authors that wrote these stories over a long period of time. It appears as if tribal identity is an important aspect as well. The book finally ends with a section referred to as Revelations. That part of the Bible appears to be the rantings and ravings of someone suffering from severe psychosis. There are many different versions and translations of the book, and some parts were not considered accurate enough by those who decided how to compile these stories.

Is that brief enough?

If not, how about this. The Christian Bible is a book of theological mythology which is often taken as literal truth, despite the fact that there is little historical evidence for most of the claims made. Many of the claims sound fictitious and are not based on anything rational. This is explained by the fact that it was written during a time prior to the scientific method, reflecting the limited knowledge available during the times it was written.

Still to long? How about this.



The Christian Bible is an ancient book based on fantasy that was believed to be real during the time it was written. It describes prophets, gods, miracles and other fantastical ideas that were probably common during ancient Mideastern times.

And here's an afterthought, not to be considered a summary.


Despite the fact that the book does contain some examples of what the modern world might associate with humanism, the Christian sect commonly referred to as evangelical, has gained dominance in the contemporary US. Sadly, most of those in this group have put more emphasis on the more tribal, judgmental parts of their Savior's writings, while often ignoring the more positive, tolerant aspects. But, this seems to be changing as more US citizens are becoming less religious and fewer are identifying with Christianity, while some Christians prefer to hold a very liberal, symbolic view of the Christian Bible, putting their emphasis on the more positive aspects of Christian theology. There are even some Christian atheists that embrace the more inspiring traits of the Biblical Savior while not assuming that any of the claims made are to be taken literally. I see this as a positive development.

Don't like it? Well, at least I tried to give a shot.

 

[Angry Floof]

There are even some Christian atheists that embrace the more inspiring traits of the Biblical Savior while not assuming that any of the claims made are to be taken literally. I see this as a positive development.

I see it as a positive as well.

My thought about spiritual metaphor and Christianity is that the universe and human imagination and history provide an infinite world from which to choose meaningful metaphors for the ineffable and inarticulable aspects of human existence.

Why the fuck would anyone but the indoctrinated consciously choose the most depraved human acts - bloody torture and human sacrifice - to serve as their most sacred and central symbols of their personal mythology?

Oh right, it's not their personal mythology or their personal experience they are expressing at all - it's a symbol of group identity handed to them by others and glued there by subconscious social and cognitive mechanisms, which in turn leaves such depraved concepts to have their way with them subconsciously.

Even a ghastly old fish god symbol seems sane and humane compared to a crucifix.

 

[rousseau]

So are you claiming that when science disagrees with religious teaching that religious people simply accept that their religion is wrong but continue to be religious? Isn't it more the case that they begin to make excuses for what their religion says and start inventing things like higher powers and ceremonial deism to cover over the conflicts? That's what I see, that their religion is still more important, which is what Floof is saying, and with which I agree.

It's probably because they lack sufficient scientific understanding to discard that comforting old identity, even though they see their religion as insufficient to explain their observations. Their gods still make miracles happen like saving a kids life or explaining the beauty of a flower. And I should add they remain very loyal to that old group identity.

There's a degree of difference between "a religious authority is wrong about a specific topic" and "religion is wrong about everything". Most people negotiate this distance at least occasionally. Even fundamentalists, though they might not like to admit it. And not everyone is a fundamentalist. What does a progressive Protestant Christian lose by accepting that evolution is a good explanation for biological diversity? From a prog-Christian perspective, the Bible isn't supposed to be a scientific textbook in the first place, that isn't what it was created for. No conflict.

I guess what you're upset about is that many people weather these conflicts without losing their faith, and you believe that they ought to lose their faith, that science, if correctly followed, fundamentally precludes religious belief. I do not agree that science is religiously partisan, however. The whole advantage of science is that it relies on that which can be empirically confirmed and thus sits at a level of truth which is beyond the boundaries of philosophical disagreements. A property of a material thing is what it is regardless of one's beliefs about the metaphysical context in which that fact is true. It is, in fact, remarkably good at creating common ground, and there are no religious requirements to practicing or understanding science. Anyone, anywhere, can replicate a scientific result, and it will work exactly the same way regardless of their religious beliefs. Or it isn't science at all. Either science works equally well for Christians and non-Christians, or it has become methodologically illegitimate.

It's a social/tribal/loyalty dance.

'I pretty much believe in everything that discredits Christianity as nothing but a folk-tale started in antiquity, but if I called myself an Atheist all of my friends would disown me'

IMO, you either believe, or you don't. To believe in something like the theory of evolution but still sincerely call yourself a Christian implies some type of tribal or material motivation, imo. It's a person who's either faking it, or who is still fooling themselves because it's socially advantageous to do so. There is no true reconciliation between real scientific understanding and religion.

 

[Lion IRC]

Science reinforces my religion.

For example...

I wondered about this, too. From Galileo's telescope to Franklin's lightning rod to Darwin's theory of evolution, it appears to me that science calls religious ideas into question, rather than reinforcing them.

Not another derail.

 

[bilby]

That's a very selective reading of religious ideas; you're focusing on famous examples of conflicts between individuals and the state church. Most religious values are about core human experiences like love, compassion, and the pursuit of wisdom, not pseudoscientific claims about how the world works. Why would knowing more about science make one unable to comprehend moral and philosophical truths?

What does religion have to do with moral and philosophical truths? (Other than making a total balls-up of establishing what they are or how we might know them)?

Religion often seeks to establish or explain such truths, but is as well equipped to do so as a one legged man at an arse kicking contest.

In fact the causality runs the other way; Religions are often attempts to explain those truths - and religion is a shithouse way to explain anything, so it invariably ends up simply distorting them. In this regard it's completely valueless at best.

This is, of course, not the way religious their own traditions.

Of course not. But reality and facts exist; and the way the religious see their own traditions is simply wrong.

Religion is valueless as a guide to reality; Where a religious tenet happens to align with fact, it is either purely coincidental, or the result of that religion adopting information discovered by the scientific method. In the latter case, frequently after centuries of resistance to doing so.

That an idiot doesn't think of himself as an idiot tells us nothing about his level of idiocy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I wondered about this, too. From Galileo's telescope to Franklin's lightning rod to Darwin's theory of evolution, it appears to me that science calls religious ideas into question, rather than reinforcing them.

Not another derail.

You said that sciences reinforces your religion.

How has science reinforced your belief that Jesus came back to life after being dead and his subsequent levitation up into the sky?

How has science reinforced your belief in Jesus's ability to bring a dead son back to life to console his mother?

How has science reinforced your belief with miracles like multiplying loaves and fishes?

Or pick other examples.

Your link talked about how your religion helped you with science. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking how science helps with your religion because you said it reinforces your religion. I'm guessing you're kinda christian, but if not okay.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So are you claiming that when science disagrees with religious teaching that religious people simply accept that their religion is wrong but continue to be religious? Isn't it more the case that they begin to make excuses for what their religion says and start inventing things like higher powers and ceremonial deism to cover over the conflicts? That's what I see, that their religion is still more important, which is what Floof is saying, and with which I agree.

It's probably because they lack sufficient scientific understanding to discard that comforting old identity, even though they see their religion as insufficient to explain their observations. Their gods still make miracles happen like saving a kids life or explaining the beauty of a flower. And I should add they remain very loyal to that old group identity.

There's a degree of difference between "a religious authority is wrong about a specific topic" and "religion is wrong about everything". Most people negotiate this distance at least occasionally. Even fundamentalists, though they might not like to admit it. And not everyone is a fundamentalist. What does a progressive Protestant Christian lose by accepting that evolution is a good explanation for biological diversity? From a prog-Christian perspective, the Bible isn't supposed to be a scientific textbook in the first place, that isn't what it was created for. No conflict.

I guess what you're upset about is that many people weather these conflicts without losing their faith, and you believe that they ought to lose their faith, that science, if correctly followed, fundamentally precludes religious belief. I do not agree that science is religiously partisan, however. The whole advantage of science is that it relies on that which can be empirically confirmed and thus sits at a level of truth which is beyond the boundaries of philosophical disagreements. A property of a material thing is what it is regardless of one's beliefs about the metaphysical context in which that fact is true. It is, in fact, remarkably good at creating common ground, and there are no religious requirements to practicing or understanding science. Anyone, anywhere, can replicate a scientific result, and it will work exactly the same way regardless of their religious beliefs. Or it isn't science at all. Either science works equally well for Christians and non-Christians, or it has become methodologically illegitimate.

It's a social/tribal/loyalty dance...

There is no true reconciliation between real scientific understanding and religion.

I agree. So why don't believers just say as much?

I find nothing dishonest with a person telling me they are still very emotionally attached to their religious convictions, that they recognize how those beliefs conflict with basic scientific observations, but that they find practicing those beliefs comforting on many levels. I'm okay with that.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Your link talked about how your religion helped you with science.

Nope. Wrong. That's the opposite of what that thread conveys.
I do NOT hold the view that my religion helps me with science.

...That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking how science helps with your religion because you said it reinforces your religion.

Go back and read that thread again. (Or at least the first page.)

Do you know much about natural theology?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...Your link talked about how your religion helped you with science.

Nope. Wrong. That's the opposite of what that thread conveys.
I do NOT hold the view that my religion helps me with science.

...That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking how science helps with your religion because you said it reinforces your religion.

Go back and read that thread again. (Or at least the first page.)

Do you know much about natural theology?

I figured I'd get that reply. That's okay.

I was curious because you said

Science reinforces my religion.

 

[Lion IRC]

I said science reinforces my religion because that's what I think.
It's not the other way around.
Cart/Horse/Cart etc etc

 

[bilby]

I said science reinforces my religion because that's what I think believe.
It's not the other way around.
Cart/Horse/Cart etc etc

FTFY.

You get those two words mixed up quite a lot; it's at the root of most of your errors.

 

[Politesse]

Nope. Wrong. That's the opposite of what that thread conveys.
I do NOT hold the view that my religion helps me with science.



Go back and read that thread again. (Or at least the first page.)

Do you know much about natural theology?

I figured I'd get that reply. That's okay.

I was curious because you said

Science reinforces my religion.

You seem to be confused about the difference between these sentences. Let's replace the nouns and see if that helps.

Is the sentence

Sex reinforces my marriage

the same as

My marriage helps me with sex

?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I said science reinforces my religion because that's what I think.

And I said okay because I've come to expect this type behavior from religionists.

So we're good.

 

[Lion IRC]

I said science reinforces my religion because that's what I think believe.
It's not the other way around.
Cart/Horse/Cart etc etc

FTFY.

You get those two words mixed up quite a lot; it's at the root of most of your errors.

So you think there's no God(s) ?
Or you believe there's no God(s)

What a lame quibbling.

 

[Kharakov]

You can simplify it even more.

Once upon a time people wondered how they got here, why they are here, and what happens after they die. So God told them.

So your Bible told you, and you believed it, and believe it even now.

Yes. Pretty much.
But you know, it wasn't called "The Bible"^TM when it was being written.

It was called "we're making money selling our tribe's monotheism to the Romans, so they can use it as a foundation for a more politically correct monotheism that will set up a permanent corrupt overclass. We're allowed to write ourselves in a permanent nation at the end of time, so it's a good deal."

 

[Politesse]

a permanent corrupt overclass

That seems like an odd way to describe the historical class structures of Europe. If anything, the Church with all its power often represented the anti-structure to the state apparatus; a counter to secular power whose ranks were much more permeable to those of lower birth than the relatively calcified hereditary ruling class. Barring a core of Italian city-states and the occasional bishop-king, most of Europe was a theocracy in name only, with actually opposing power structures only nominatively claiming affiliation and support of and from one other. In practice, the relationship between the Vatican and the feudal/medieval monarch was complex at best and sometimes covertly hostile.