You proceed from the assumption that god exists, faith-based rather than a neutral standpoint. All your 'heavyweights' do the same.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
See very few points made here that come from a neutral standpoint to be honest. People may think they are, but they are just kidding themselves.
See I find that viewpoint unfathomable. Theistic views are held by about 75% of people alive on this planet. There can hardly be many things more worthy of study, whether there is a god or no.
Would you rather put forward the assumption that a god does not exist and consequently close down all departments because there's just nothing else in theology worth studying?
Well you'd think you'd have to some evidence that god exists before committing time and resources to such a study.
That's psychology, sociology, comparative religion etc etc worth studying.
Erm, no, like theology incorporates studies of ancient literature, language, ethics, history, religion, culture, etc. So, no, you don't really need to have evidence for God's existence in order to study thousands of years of accumulated world history and everything that this history entails.
Hmmmm. Not really. That's like saying that philosophy can be explained solely within the realms of neuroscience.
That's a very poor parallel.... Oxford University's prospectus... 'The study of God’s relationship with humankind and the universe'.
That doesnt really have any bearing on my point, which is that just because two disciplines overlap, it doesnt mean they aren't worth of being a discipline unto themselves.
You mean it doesn't have any bearing on my point which is that it's odd to study something which by its definition makes an unprovable assumption.
I don't think you have to believe in a religious dogma to study theology, religion has affected the world one way or the other.
Why? Theology isn't the discipline of proving if there's a god or not. That it can't be proven makes no difference to the field of study.
For some its the study of other people's faith and belief. For others its an exploration of their own faith and belief. Either way the inability to prove the existence of god is moot.
Can't imagine atheists will form even a moderate minority among its students, though.
Yeah. You have a degree in the affects fairlytales have had on society throughout history.
Could you elaborate on what you really mean by this statement?
One wife asked his husband:
Why do you support United? You spend 10% of your monthly wage to watch them every week, you wasted your time watching them playing in the cold hard Wednesday on a shitty Stoke stadium, you missed our anniversary just so you can go to Moscow to watch United Final, spending our hard earned yearly bonus while doing so. What has United given you? Their players didn't even know you, the managers certainly doesn't know you. You could have watched them on TV and spend next to nothing. Why all the bother supporting something that doesn't benefit you at all?
Why do you support United? You spend 10% of your monthly wage to watch them every week, you wasted your time watching them playing in the cold hard Wednesday on a shitty Stoke stadium, you missed our anniversary just so you can go to Moscow to watch United Final, spending our hard earned yearly bonus while doing so. What has United given you? Their players didn't even know you, the managers certainly doesn't know you. You could have watched them on TV and spend next to nothing. Why all the bother supporting something that doesn't benefit you at all?
Welcome back, Mihajlovic. Still reminiscing of your genocidal heroes in Serbia? After all, the Abrahamic god loved himself a good genocide here and there, so fits right in, eh?
I'm certain your theology studies provided you with awesome religious apologies, err, historical facts and scholarly retorts to respond to such atrocities as stated in the Hebrew Bible. Do tell! I've heard it from a handful of theologians in my lifetime, so I'll cue up the broken record.
But since you've boasted of your educational achievements (or merits) in attempt to big yourself up as some superior being over us ingrates, perhaps you won't mind if posters post various passages and you can explain from a theological viewpoint. Besides, you can put to use that theology degree and we can feel worthy of your presence. Do it for us little people, as Jesus would.
I'm certain your theology studies provided you with awesome religious apologies, err, historical facts and scholarly retorts to respond to such atrocities as stated in the Hebrew Bible. Do tell! I've heard it from a handful of theologians in my lifetime, so I'll cue up the broken record.
But since you've boasted of your educational achievements (or merits) in attempt to big yourself up as some superior being over us ingrates, perhaps you won't mind if posters post various passages and you can explain from a theological viewpoint. Besides, you can put to use that theology degree and we can feel worthy of your presence. Do it for us little people, as Jesus would.
Is this about gay marriage?
Yes please Mihajlovi .
This passage needs some expaining .
Genesis 38:8-10
Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
Have you tried using google and typing in something like 'understanding ancient, middle eastern biblical literature in their context', or something like that?
Genocidal heroes of Serbia? What are you on about?
And lol at your 'posting various passages' idea. You can do your own research, the internet is full of information regarding how to deal with texts written several thousand years ago and how to view them in context of that time/culture/language etc. You ever heard of conventional ancient warfare rhetoric? Have you ever read an Egyptian or Assyrian description of wars and victories? Recognize a pattern? This is so silly. Oh look, there a text in Leviticus that says you should not cut the corners of your beard. Haha those crazies believed their heads are squares and have corners.
If you google one of your big-hitters (see above) Bart Erhman, you find that he says that most scholars, "apart from the most rabid fundamentalists," admit that the Bible is "full of lies." Interestingly Erhman has rejected Christianity largely because of the problem of evil (another issue of which you claimed superior knowledge without advancing either argument or sources).
pwned
Pete, I intentionally provided you with a list of scholars who are critical of biblical texts and specifically cited Ehrman because he is currently one of the biggest critics! And the reason why I did that is to point you to scholars and to move you away from populist writers such as Dawkins et al. Did you not get this?! I cited Bultmann, did this not ring any bells in your head??
But here's the thing- it is at least possible to have a constructive dialogue with scholars who are critical of the bible! And you can find tons of debates between Ehrman and other biblical scholars who each present their point of view. But you're a different type of bird, you don't give two shits about any of this. You're here not to have a dialogue, but to ridicule and make a caricature of everything. And that's fine you can do whatever the hell you want, but this is just boring to me.
And no, I do not have any superior knowledge on the 'problem of evil' argument. I've only pointed out that there are good philosophical/theological explanations for this issue. It's been discussed for centuries already.
Last edited:
Erhman is a fascinating character. He was a hate figure for christian fundamentalists for many years, since he pointed out that the many inconsistencies in the bible showed that bible inerrancy was plainly untrue (google the Erhman Project).
However when he then wrote a book and pointed out that no-one with any academic credibility has suggested that Jesus wasn't actually a real person, suddenly the same sceptics that had lauded him in the past made him a figure of hate too. Life eh?
In the end pete, you still seem hooked into this notion that all christians and scholars believe in bible inerrancy. If you can't get over that, then nothing else will make sense. It'd be like trying to figure out the finer points of molecular biology while still believing that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman. There are some basics you need to accept.
And if you dont want to accept it that then, cool, that's your biz. But obviously it makes it harder for your comments to carry credibility.
You mistake my position, I'm hooked into the notion that it's complete myth from start to finish, though great literature as translated by Tyndale.
Last edited:
You're the one who doesn't want to have the dialogue. If it bores/is beneath you don't bother posting with the plebs.
You believe that no contemporaneous historic record exists at all?
The bible is fiction, but it does not mean that there were not wars and empires that did not exist. Obviously Rome, Babylon, Egypt etc existed. But its not the version of history the Bible portrays.
What is the evidence that Jesus existed as a historical person? Genuine question, I looked at the wikipedia article (yeah I know...) a while ago and was too lazy and stupid to read all the sources, can someone give me or link me to a summary or whatever?
I read a few books, this was the only credible one.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443
Written by Bart Erhman, as who was discussed above. There isn't really a way around reading into it I dont think, since there isn't a single piece of evidence its a bunch of stuff.
But the point is, do you think its contemporaneous or not? (with the events portayed)
Cool, cheers. How much of what is in the Bible is believed to be accurate? I'm not talking about miracles and stuff obviously, like, was there almost definitely a preacher called Jesus who was crucified in that region around that time, or is even that much supported by credible evidence? Or less even?
Of course its not, The new testament was written decades after the death of Christ. And the old testament was also written after the events.
Academic consensus is that there was a man who we now call Jesus. As for the NT stories surrounding him, impossible to say how much was borne out of some kernel of truth that was blown up or misinterpreted, how much was entirely fabricated at the time and how much was fabriacted later. Suffice to say that, at best, a minority was real life events.
No, it was written down years after. Which is different from being created years after. Or do you not believe that either?
Almost definitely is pushing it from what I know, it's just more than likely (as is his baptism and crucifixion). The name's been transliterated into Greek and then Latin, he'd have actually been called something more like Yeshu or Yeshua. Not much else you can get a good idea of when the next independent source to mention him is over half a century later.