|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Did Moses exist and does it matter?
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I know mousethief, but I insist on being included and being inclusive ![[Smile]](smile.gif) My point stands. The epistemology of the Fathers and Jesus Himself includes unquestioning, unquestionable acceptance of the TaNaKh. So?
Some years ago, in my 'modern' 1950s ... 1850s, 14 year old's, fundamentalist phase, you agreed that the OT should be read as if it were so. They did with no intellectual caveat at all.
You can't be projecting our modernism back on their pre-modernism, surely?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, Ad Orientem, if I understand it correctly, the Orthodox believe that scripture and Tradition are essentially part of the same continuum.
In which case, would you accept as literally historically true (in the modern sense) that:
- St Bertram changed loaves into stone.
- Various Celtic Saints were apparently able to sail from Ireland to Brittany or Wales, Cornwall etc on millstones?
If your 'all or nothing' argument holds then surely we should accept the historical veracity of the stories about St Ursula and the 11,000 virgins and so on.
As Le Roc has said, even Adam's name ('Mankind' or 'Everyman' if you like) gives us a clue as to how to approach the story.
And how do you deal with talking snakes?
I've certainly come across 'fundamentalist' Orthodox like yourself but one of the things that I found most attractive when I first encountered the Orthodox was that they seemed to me to manage to be both conservative theologically (Virgin Birth, Resurrection, the Trinity, Deity of Christ etc) yet without being woodenly fundamentalist.
The more I encounter Orthodox converts online the more that initial impression wanes.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@EE - what is the point of this thread?
The same as any of the other threads on this forum - for discussion and debate, for thinking issues through.
You might not be finding it helpful, presumably because it doesn't reinforce your presuppositions, but I've found it quite helpful.
I can only speak for myself of course.
The OT writers weren't writing history in the way that we know it. You might not like that, but that's the truth of it.
That's how ancient texts work. In fact, that's how any text worked up until modern times ... and I'd suggest that no text is value-free.
Have you ever read Gerald of Wales's account of his journey around Wales in 1188 to recruit for the Third Crusade?
It's a fascinating description of medieval Wales. But that doesn't mean that there aren't tall stories in there - someone attacked in his house and overwhelmed by toads on account of some sin or other, a bloke made pregnant by unnatural acts with a bull ...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Gerald records these stories as if they were sober fact. That's how people thought in those days.
Does that mean that he is an unreliable witness about life in medieval Wales? No, of course not, he's one of the few written witnesses we have of that time and his accounts of his tours of Wales and Ireland are fascinating and extremely valuable historically.
The OT writers, the Fathers, the medieval scribes, they all thought differently to us. We can't project our own views and values back onto them.
I'm not Orthodox but I do have a growing interest in the Fathers. It strikes me, with respect, that you are taking just as wooden an approach to how you read them to how you read the scriptures.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Ad Orientem: What, he could but he didn't? It's just made up. That's essentially what is being said. I would argue this: If, considering Moses is a figure of Christ, God did not do those things then neither was Christ risen from the dead. No parting of the Red Sea, no Resurrection. As for us, no hope.
A beautiful illustration of "if any part of it isn't true, then none of it is true". I personally find this quite damaging.
It would be very instructive if those who study these things in great depth could plainly tell us which bits of the Bible they think deserve to be treated as useful myths, and which we need to approach with faith that they bear some kind of relationship with facts. (I suppose there could be a third category for 'results pending'.)
As things stand, it must be very easy for people in the pews to mistakenly believe that they need to have 'faith' in a whole bunch of things, when really they don't.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure it all breaks down as neatly as that, SvitlanaV2.
It seems to me that some of the stories in the OT and the NT have 'fact' and 'myth' woven together very closely. Hence the example I gave of the account of Herod's death in Acts.
It seems that classical historians did record Herod's death as sudden - or at least the debilitating illness that struck him down so that he eventually died came on suddenly.
To some it would have been seen as a sudden debilitating disease. Some may have wondered whether he had angered the gods in some way. To the early Christians it was seen as God's judgement - 'he was struck by an angel and died.'
So what's going on there?
I would suggest that there's an historical event - Herod's sudden death - which was then interpreted in a particular way by the early Christians ie. he killed James, he exalted and vaunted himself, shortly afterwards he took sick and died - ergo, God must have struck him down. How? By some kind of avenging angel similar to the one who appears in the Exodus account smiting the first-born of Egypt.
So, what's going on? Luke (and yes, I believe Luke to have been the author of Acts) was drawing on the 'myth-kitty', drawing on literary antecedents from Jewish history/myth (because the further you go back the more they fuse).
The ancient Egyptians were hit by sudden plagues for daring to oppose God. Herod in their own day was struck down in a similar way.
Acts draws plenty of parallels from OT stories. One could argue that Ananias and Sapphira is another example ... but I won't go there as I'm likely to get even more stick.
That's what I mean by both/and not either/or.
'Some said it thundered.'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, Acts 12:23 says that after being struck by 'the angel of the Lord', Herod was 'eaten by worms and died' - which Wikipedia (reliably?) tells us might have been Fourniere's Gangrene, the same disease that did for his grandfather.
There are interesting comparisons between Josephus's account, the early Christian account (found in Acts) and the Jewish 'take' on these events.
I would suggest that it's an interesting but ultimately futile exercise trying to compare or reconcile the accounts - which do differ in significant respects. But then, so do some of the miracle and other accounts in the Gospels - which, again, I suspect is only to be expected.
What we have are people looking at the same events from different angles. The Jewish view of this particular Herod was that he was pretty mild and harmless ... which doesn't necessarily contradict the account in Acts, of course. He may well have been harmless towards some and equally quite ruthless towards others (in this instance, the early Christians) ... there are plenty of rulers who have shown both traits.
It's interesting that there are owls appearing at odd moments and all manner of omens and so on in the Josephus account. But then, that's how people thought in those days. There were always signs and portents going on and people reading significance into stuff that happened.
For what it's worth, I submit this example as an instance of where it's hard to tell where sober history ends and myth begins. Are we to understand the Acts statement about the angel of the Lord smiting Herod in a literal sense?
Or is it a figurative way of saying that the guy died suddenly after persecuting the Christians and this was seen as God's judgement upon him?
You can read the Wikipedia piece here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Agrippa
I'm suggesting that fact/myth and interpretation are woven together in many of the Biblical stories and it's not a simple case of going:
Story A - Historical fact.
Story B - History and myth combined.
Story C - Completely mythical.
I don't think it's anywhere near as neat and binary as that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Story A - Historical fact.
Story B - History and myth combined.
Story C - Completely mythical.
I don't think it's anywhere near as neat and binary as that.
This thread hasn't really allowed for a mix of 'history and myth'; the emphasis has been on how history is irrelevant to a true understanding of the Moses story. Inevitably, this emphasis gives the impression that myth should be prioritised.
My interest is less in the details of these stories than in the questions surrounding God's involvement. To me, mythologising God's involvement seems to be a matter of downgrading God's involvement. In our less 'mythological' era, the next step on from downgrading God's involvement in the biblical context is to marginalise him to almost (but perhaps not entirely) day-to-day irrelevance now.
Sophisticated thinkers can manage this challenge quite well, I suppose. How the rest of the Church should respond is the problem that few seem able to address.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's how you might have read the thread but it's not how I've read it, nor how I see things.
I can see what you're getting at, though.
If God didn't really part the Red Sea then he might not be interested in Aunt Agnes's chilblains ... or, more seriously, Jesus might not have been raised from the dead and our faith is futile.
Forgive me, but that sounds rather binary again.
Sure, I know what you're saying but how far do you want to take this? Are you suggesting that we have to believe in a literal 6-day Creation and a talking snake in order for the Gospel to have any meaning for us in the 21st century?
Sure, there are dangers ... I certainly don't want to end up with a concept of a Deist God who sets the universe going like clock-work then clears off the scene and lets us get on with it.
But it strikes me that there's a fair bit of leeway between that kind of position and one which has God advising us what to have for breakfast every morning by supernatural means or whatever else ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SvitlanaV2: It would be very instructive if those who study these things in great depth could plainly tell us which bits of the Bible they think deserve to be treated as useful myths, and which we need to approach with faith that they bear some kind of relationship with facts. (I suppose there could be a third category for 'results pending'.)
Well, I guess it would be nice if we had a neat list with things we have to believe in and things we don't, things we have to do and things we don't. Preferably in a colour-coded Excel sheet, or better still, a Powerpoint presentation ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Christianity works like that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
To me, mythologising God's involvement seems to be a matter of downgrading God's involvement. In our less 'mythological' era, the next step on from downgrading God's involvement in the biblical context is to marginalise him to almost (but perhaps not entirely) day-to-day irrelevance now.
Sure, but these events still have be handled in the way in which they actually occurred, unless as Gamaliel points out you are also willing to accept the edge cases (Babel is origin of all human language, animals could talk originally).
The issue would still be however that that there is historical evidence against some literal interpretations of the Bible (size and timing of the Exodus).
and then there is the edge cases contained in the NT (do we really have to believe that the rock that moses struck rolled after the Israelites in the desert?).
quote:
How the rest of the Church should respond is the problem that few seem able to address.
Let's be clear here; Are you saying that we should keep things simple even if they are ultimately not true because of the utilitarian purpose a simpler story would have?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel and LeRoc
FWIW I'm as fascinated by dinosaurs as everyone else! It's just that I don't really understand where God comes in. I've never heard any sermons on that, for some reason. I suppose I'll have to look for a book or a website at some point.
As for how Christianity is supposed to work, it's increasingly clear that we each have to answer that question for ourselves. Religious professionals and specialists can provide some help, but that help now seems quite limited, certainly on these kinds of issues.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SvitlanaV2: FWIW I'm as fascinated by dinosaurs as everyone else! It's just that I don't really understand where God comes in.
What exactly would you want to know about God and dinosaurs?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Are you saying that we should keep things simple even if they are ultimately not true because of the utilitarian purpose a simpler story would have?
No. Most mainstream church clergy do try to keep things simple. They don't empower their congregations to consider the importance of myth - if it is, indeed, all that important.
LeRoc
I only brought up dinosaurs because Gamaliel mentioned '6-day Creation'. I'm not sure if it's a good idea for us to go on a tangent about God and evolution; my point is simply that when I read the Bible one of the things I look for is God's involvement, and that this expectation remains whether or not the text has been mythologised.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SvitlanaV2: my point is simply that when I read the Bible one of the things I look for is God's involvement, and that this expectation remains whether or not the text has been mythologised.
With this I agree completely.
(PS I have a sneaking suspicion that Job 41 is secretly God's lovesong for the dinosaur.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Q: How likely is it that he turned loaves of bread into stone in order to thwart an attempt by the Devil to cause him to break a fast?
A: Well, it would appear that this is a legendary or mythical aspect of the story of St Bertram (or Bertoline). It has echoes of the story of Christ being tempted in the wilderness to turn stones into bread, so the story acts as a kind of inversion of that.
So, you see there a story which may have a kernel of historical veracity - a bloke called something like Bertram who became a hermit and was noted for his piety - and mythological elements.
Yes, at the point where the story becomes unbelievable without faith, you relegate the miraculous incident to myth. Applied to the Bible, this approach isn't a denial of the supernatural, but I think it may be a denial of one's inability to believe in the supernatural. The inability to believe is categorised as a sophisticated form of belief, and identified with the belief of the authors of the faith, or at least some of them.
There are a couple of problems with this.
First, the idea that we can recreate the faith of the Fathers in a reservation in our 21st century minds. Second, the idea that what's proposed – an appreciation of myths which received their fulfilment in Christ – is an adequate translation of their belief that God authored history as a living allegory foreshadowing Christ. The first idea is historically and anthropologically implausible. The second idea falls down because the facsimile is offered as a better modern equivalent than... believing that God did indeed author history as a living allegory foreshadowing Christ.
How this mythic translation can be thought better, I think I see, and I'll get to in a second.
It's true that their idea of history was not ours, because their idea of history rejected – or rather, never entertained – a definition of truth other than 'what God has given us to believe.' This isn't the same as saying that they were interested in a more 'poetic' truth; there was no concept of actuality without an author, or data that couldn't submit to an allegory of the main event.
The mythic translation permits us to preserve a sense of continuity with their belief by mapping it onto the place it would occupy in our experience of the world. Using what Harold Bloom might call a misprision of their faith, we can imagine ourselves sharing it. Yes, our version exists in parallel with a lot of other data, but they must have had equivalents, which, come to think of it, we have no conclusive reason to think they overlooked, because they never said they had. As you can't prove a negative, and archaeology was for them an unknown unknown, this idea is sustainable, providing you think of every reference expressing implicit belief in the stuff that you don't believe happened as being 'in-universe'.
There are a couple of advantages in this.
We can discern the different genres in which the books of the Old Testament were written, and recognising that they aren't all history is fairly uncontroversial. The problem is, some of them are history. That isn't to say they're true, of course, but they're intended to be believed. That isn't to say that everyone involved in their dissemination believed them either, which is where the problem arises. How can someone who disbelieves these accounts of miracles credit that intelligent people promulgated them in good faith? The mindset of someone who could is almost harder to imagine than the miracle itself. The mythic translation makes it seem within our range. It was a myth. Some believed it, some didn't, and they didn't have to believe it to mean it. Like priests now. They're all honest, but they have different ideas about what it means. Problem solved.
The broader advantage: paradoxically, regarding one's inability to believe to be a sophisticated form of belief enables people who want to continue to believe to continue to believe. I was reading Gamaliel's posts on the search for actual signs and wonders in Pentecostal churches when I realised: for someone who holds, or wants to retain, the continuationist view, it must be far easier to retain an open mind about gifts of the Holy Spirit if you believe that miracles have probably always looked more or less like this, and happened with roughly this level of certainty. (While I find those churches interesting, I'm a cessationist, so for me the discrepancy isn't an issue.)
So, I don't oppose the use of the mythic idea by people who find themselves unable to believe in the supernatural. It's an intellectual toehold which they can use to keep faith in their salvation, and avoid concluding that Exodus is a bunch of tall stories intended for an audience who didn't know any better. If it helps, all power to you. I wouldn't fancy the prospect of staying put in a toehold indefinitely, but it's better than dangling precariously, or falling. At the same time, I see no reason why people who find themselves able to believe in the supernatural should entertain it. It doesn't give us anything we need, which is what I think SvitlanaV2 is getting at with the question of how the rest of the church is expected to respond.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
My interest is less in the details of these stories than in the questions surrounding God's involvement. To me, mythologising God's involvement seems to be a matter of downgrading God's involvement. In our less 'mythological' era, the next step on from downgrading God's involvement in the biblical context is to marginalise him to almost (but perhaps not entirely) day-to-day irrelevance now.
I would go further than this. There are many people who regard Exodus as myth, but for most of them the cast list includes God. The idea of treating Moses as mythic while believing in the God he spoke with, and in Jesus, depends on the individual's ability to stop reasoning when they've had enough, and I've addressed in a previous post how tenuous this position seems to me to be, buffeted as it is by both Christians and atheists. Yes, what any of us believe is a subset of the stuff the Church once tried to make people believe, but to treat Moses as a myth is not the same as scoffing at tales of saints sailing on millstones, it's narrowing the spotlight of what we believe still further. We can accept that for much of it's history the Church was cheerfully mendacious, and still believe they thought their yarns promoted faith in the greater truth. But how much of the greater truth can one permit to be untrue, in the service of greater-yet-smaller truth, before one concludes that, actually, it's bullshit? As Gamaliel has noted, your mileage may vary.
What do I think?
Part of my reason for joining this site in June was a disturbing experience I had in May. Reading accounts of what the Jews believed before they arrived at monotheism, I felt troubled. Was I treacherous? Was I irresponsible in reading things which, though others have no doubt read them without danger, were making my mind toy with the notion of the survivability of absence of faith? I felt fear too, reading the account of the human relationship with God turn into a story of different peoples' relationships with gods, local, reflecting aspects of what they would later come to know. Feeling my grip on my own faith challenged, I appealed to God in fear. What saved me from despair was the memory of my own experiences of the presence of God, the recognition that God chose His moment to enter my life. I laughed, realising that I couldn't be an atheist again if I wanted to. But I haven't gone back to reading about Asherah, Ēl, Hadad, and Yahweh, except to check their names for this sentence. You could conclude from this that my faith is weak, call it that if you want, but I want to keep it.
Did Moses exist? Yes, I think he did. Is it important? For me, yes it is. How do I reconcile theology and history? I don't, I leave it to God.
I'd be interested to know how many of those proposing the idea of consciously-believed myths were brought up in Christianity. Because to me, as someone who once disbelieved 100% of miracle accounts, it looks like you're trying to reach or maintain a kind of faith which doesn't require one to believe that God ever did anything. You're easing yourselves off, as though to see how little faith you can get along with. From the perspective of someone who has never been outside Christianity, this probably looks different than it does to me.
If I wasn't a believing Christian, I wouldn't be a practising Christian. I wouldn't even be an ally of Christians. If Christianity wasn't true, I couldn't subscribe to it as a system of ethics. How could I?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In the case of Christ's Ressurrection, things are different though. This event is crucial to my faith, in ways I can't fully explain. That's why in this case, I make a leap of faith.
For the moment, you don't apply the standard to Christ because you would prefer not to. I hope, if you want to, you always feel like that, and find yourself able to make the leap.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
What do I think?
Part of my reason for joining this site in June was a disturbing experience I had in May. Reading accounts of what the Jews believed before they arrived at monotheism, I felt troubled. Was I treacherous? Was I irresponsible in reading things which, though others have no doubt read them without danger, were making my mind toy with the notion of the survivability of absence of faith? I felt fear too, reading the account of the human relationship with God turn into a story of different peoples' relationships with gods, local, reflecting aspects of what they would later come to know. ... But I haven't gone back to reading about Asherah, Ēl, Hadad, and Yahweh, except to check their names for this sentence. You could conclude from this that my faith is weak, call it that if you want, but I want to keep it.
While I sympathise, I would suggest that you are now on a toehold of your own. One of the reasons for this will be apologetics of sorts.
You can't unlearn that things you've read about - and sooner or later you are likely - in an evangelical context - to hear an appeal to faith based on a much more singular approach to the rise of monotheism than what you read about. At which point you are on a toehold of your own - believing against reason.
TBH I wonder if you don't realise this at some level - because the ship itself is unlikely to give rise to easy answers, and you are far more likely to encounter challenges to the fine line you have decided to draw for yourself.
Having faced a variant of this myself (and coming from a Christian background), I'd like to suggest that all truth is God's truth - and the only way forward that is likely to bring stability is to form a new understanding that integrates all aspects of yourself (including your new found knowledge). That doesn't mean that you end up in a situation where you believe everything is mythical and not supernatural (neither I nor I suspect Gamaliel is in that position). It will make somethings more complicated and hard - but I don't think faith was ever meant to be easy.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with Chris Stiles, I don't think there are any easy answers.
I'm not sure if this makes a difference but this is how I see it ...
I don't 'scoff' at stories of Saints sailing around on mill-stones or St Bertram allegedly turning loaves into rocks. They are great stories. I might snigger, though, at the Orthodox priest taking one of these stones and putting alongside the iconostasis in order to venerate it.
But I wouldn't then suggest that the rest of his faith - in the Trinity, in the deity of Christ etc etc was somehow compromised by that. His eternal salvation doesn't depend on the way he treats that piece of rock.
Now, in a way I can't rightly explain, I would suggest that the stories in the OT are on a 'higher level' than these hagiographical medieval stories - and that although some elements may very well be mythic, it doesn't at all undermine the way I approach them and seek to learn from them and apply lessons to my own life ... although it's true of course, that I fail miserably in doing so ...
I'm not sure where 'myth' ends and history begins. I don't think we'll ever have that level of certainty.
I can live with the tension. Or to put it another way, I can learn to live with the tension ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Pligue-a-jour:
quote:
I would go further than this. There are many people who regard Exodus as myth, but for most of them the cast list includes God. The idea of treating Moses as mythic while believing in the God he spoke with, and in Jesus, depends on the individual's ability to stop reasoning when they've had enough, and I've addressed in a previous post how tenuous this position seems to me to be, buffeted as it is by both Christians and atheists.
Presumably, then, you are comfortable with reading Esther as a historical novel because God is nowhere mentioned?
Actually, this is the James Delingpole Climate Science version of Biblical Archeology. James Delingpole is a very clever man who has, for various reasons, convinced himself that belief in Global Warming is an elaborate con, orchestrated by people who want to establish a world socialist government. If you read his various writings on the issue you will find lots of stuff about world socialist government and very little about actual, you know, evidence. Because there is none. If there was a case for a historical Moses, the historical Mosesites would be citing Egyptian Stelae and evidence of encampments in the Sinai Desert and so forth. But instead we get all this meta stuff about how people will find it harder to believe in Christianity if the Exodus is relegated to an allegory. Well maybe, maybe not, but its hardly a way of establishing what is and is not historical fact, is it?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas
...evidence of encampments in the Sinai Desert...
How could there ever be evidence of encampments in the Sinai Desert, unless they were permanent settlements?
quote:
...Egyptian Stelae...
And for what reason would their information be considered more reliable than that of the Bible? And why do you think that a stele ought to mention Moses, assuming that the biblical accounts are historically accurate?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
It's not so long ago that we had a fairly detailed discussion on this. Or something very close. It's been obliviated since, but since I am a generous-hearted sort, I've located it for you all. Here it is.
It struck me at the time that by approaching it from the historical end of things, we achieved an interesting and enlightening exchange of views - or at least I thought so. I'd definitely recommend reading it. Not that everyone would necessarily agree, but it might save couching discussion in terms that are so pre-loaded that unless you sign up to a predetermined way of looking at things, then disagreement is the only possible outcome.
[ 21. September 2013, 14:29: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Plique-à-jour: For the moment, you don't apply the standard to Christ because you would prefer not to. I hope, if you want to, you always feel like that, and find yourself able to make the leap.
Thank you (I guess), but there's no 'for the moment' here. I've been making this leap for a couple of decades already.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
...Egyptian Stelae...
And for what reason would their information be considered more reliable than that of the Bible? And why do you think that a stele ought to mention Moses, assuming that the biblical accounts are historically accurate?
Why should astronomical observation and the findings of astrophysics be considered more reliable than the Bible's flat and plain statement that the earth is immovable?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Plique-à-jour: The idea of treating Moses as mythic while believing in the God he spoke with, and in Jesus, depends on the individual's ability to stop reasoning when they've had enough
In last month's Book Group, we discussed Restoration, a book by Rose Tremain about the interactions between a character named Merivel and Charles II. I have no problem at all with the fact that Merivel is a fictional character, and Charles II really existed.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Why should we assume that the Biblical accounts are historically accurate, EE?
History wasn't written in those days as we write it today. You keep coming up with these category errors.
First define what you mean by 'historically accurate.'
Meanwhile, I'll look up the link on the historical/mythic issue as it may well help shed light on this one ... and yes, there are a lot of presuppositions on this thread.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Trouble is, to some minds there's a difference between the documentation of an event being described as 'historically inaccurate', and being told that the documentation was of an event that didn't happen at all!
Does anyone have any links to alternative accounts of the Exodus story? I've come across one version on Youtube, but it's probably not mainstream.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, I'm no expert but from what I can gather the alternatives boil down to:
- The Hebrews were already living in Canaan and there was no disapora in Egypt.
- Some Hebrews went to Egypt and later returned and this formed the basis of the Exodus story.
I think the first is rather too reductionist. The second may have legs but we'll never know for sure. Besides, all we have is the Biblical account, so lets stick with that even if it is not 'historical' in the modern sense of the word.
The archaeological evidence for the invasion of Palestine by returning Israelite tribes is pretty skimpy, if not non-existent ... but then, like EE (and I do agree with him at times, honest) it's hard to see how some of the stories in the Pentateuch account would necessarily have left discernible archaeological traces. If we were to go excavating the Sahara in a few hundred years time looking for evidence of nomadic, Bedouin tribes we wouldn't find an awful lot outside of permanently settled areas.
My own surmise - and it's no more than that - is that Exodus does echo the experiences of nomadic Semitic tribe who spent some time in Egypt and to whom the stories of the Patriarchs and of Moses and the Exodus became the essential 'foundation myth' - using myth in its broadest sense.
This doesn't mean that there aren't historical elements in the story but the key thing is the sense that God delivered them from bondage and took particular care of them until they got to where they were as a nation. And that 'mythos' provides tremendously profound types, shades of meaning and resonance that echo throughout the scriptures and provide the foundation blocks for NT teaching on sin, salvation, the Messiah and much else.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Why should astronomical observation and the findings of astrophysics be considered more reliable than the Bible's flat and plain statement that the earth is immovable?
So you are regarding the information contained in Egyptian stelae as being on a par with scientific observations and measurements?
On what basis?
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Why should we assume that the Biblical accounts are historically accurate, EE?
In my last post, I only assumed it to ask the question that if Moses were an historical figure why should he be mentioned on an Egyptian stele? In other words, I was assuming the biblical account was accurate for the sake of argument. Why should we assume that other records from the Ancient World should be considered more reliable than that of the Bible? There seems to be the assumption that unless such and such in the Bible is confirmed by some other source, then it is open to question, but even if it is confirmed by that other source, it is still open to question, unless you can prove that that other source is reliable.
Of course, we can assume that the exodus event really happened if we are already convinced that the God of the Bible is real and righteous. Given that the Bible continually puts the reference to the exodus in the mouth of God as a real event, to which God appeals in order to urge people to repent, then the trustworthiness of God as a person establishes the veracity of the event being referred to. The evidence therefore is both theological and philosophical.
I agree that this looks like a circular argument. But we have a record of the exodus in the form of the historical accounts in those documents which make up the Torah. Now if we claim that those accounts are false, then it is incumbent on us to present convincing arguments to support the thesis that the Jews knowingly faked their scriptures - or were woefully ignorant people (which doesn't seem at all plausible given the centrality of this event in their recorded history). If we are prepared to give Egyptian stelae the benefit of the doubt, then why not other writings from the Ancient World, such as the Torah?
The argument from 'myth' is just not convincing, given that that this historical event is central to God's purposes for Israel. Parables, stories and the kind of figurative and anthropomorphic language that mousethief has referred to concerning our experience of nature is one thing, but actual historical events in which the Jews took part, which are referred to continually throughout their scriptures, in order to present a moral argument regarding the trustworthiness of God, is quite another. How exactly can we turn in faith and trust to a God who says "I delivered you from Egypt, but actually you know, I know and everyone knows that I didn't really..." It's just not plausible, I'm afraid. So, while this argument may seem circular, it isn't really, because there is at least the strong evidence of psychological plausibility. It stretches all credulity to affirm the quite obviously anti-Semitic view that the Jews for many centuries were just incredibly ignorant morons - or corporately malicious liars - concerning their own history and religion, which is what the myth theory really implies.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: My own surmise - and it's no more than that - is that Exodus does echo the experiences of nomadic Semitic tribe who spent some time in Egypt and to whom the stories of the Patriarchs and of Moses and the Exodus became the essential 'foundation myth' - using myth in its broadest sense.
This doesn't mean that there aren't historical elements in the story but the key thing is the sense that God delivered them from bondage and took particular care of them until they got to where they were as a nation. And that 'mythos' provides tremendously profound types, shades of meaning and resonance that echo throughout the scriptures and provide the foundation blocks for NT teaching on sin, salvation, the Messiah and much else.
Beautiful. That would be my take too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, we can assume that the exodus event really happened if we are already convinced that the God of the Bible is real and righteous. Given that the Bible continually puts the reference to the exodus in the mouth of God as a real event, to which God appeals in order to urge people to repent, then the trustworthiness of God as a person establishes the veracity of the event being referred to. The evidence therefore is both theological and philosophical.
Well said, that man! This is what I've been saying throughout this thread, only you put it much better than I did.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, we can assume that the exodus event really happened if we are already convinced that the God of the Bible is real and righteous.
There are many different 'Gods' in the OT - some of whose characteristics are not in the least righteous.
Personally I would look to Jesus, His character and teaching. If the OT writer has a different take then I'll see it as their belief about God - not God's real character.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
There are many different 'Gods' in the OT - some of whose characteristics are not in the least righteous.
Personally I would look to Jesus, His character and teaching. If the OT writer has a different take then I'll see it as their belief about God - not God's real character.
OK. So that is the Marcionite view. Fine. But unfortunately that undermines the 'myth' theory, because even if the historical events are actually just mythic stories, their bloodthirsty and apparently 'unrighteous' content is still there, and still needs to be explained. If this mythological foundation is necessary and important, then its 'unrighteous' content must feed into the fundamental nature of Judaism and thence Christianity. If we argue that we can disregard these stories, then that rather contradicts the claim that these 'myths' convey truth at a certain level.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If we argue that we can disregard these stories, then that rather contradicts the claim that these 'myths' convey truth at a certain level.
Yes - and I do disregard some of them. The flood story is one of them. Such an unforgiving God is not the God I know and worship.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
I took longer to write my previous post than I have this, so do let me know if you think any of what I'm saying here doesn't work with what I said there.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
While I sympathise, I would suggest that you are now on a toehold of your own. One of the reasons for this will be apologetics of sorts.
You can't unlearn that things you've read about - and sooner or later you are likely - in an evangelical context - to hear an appeal to faith based on a much more singular approach to the rise of monotheism than what you read about. At which point you are on a toehold of your own - believing against reason.
I take from sermons what I can use, but I'd been a Christian for two years before I ever set foot in a church. I'm an AffCath high Anglican, so I'm not sure where I would hear the kind of appeal you're talking about, and what preachers think has never been the centre of my kind of faith - I'm not an evangelical, contrary to what you may have concluded. Apologies if I've misunderstood your point.
All religious faith is the triumph of belief over reason. If you're looking for a faith which doesn't require belief in what would seem to be impossible, it's called atheism. Again, I think this is what people brought up within Christianity (as you've mentioned that you were) aren't getting - I know where you're headed. I recognise the scenery you're describing.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
TBH I wonder if you don't realise this at some level - because the ship itself is unlikely to give rise to easy answers, and you are far more likely to encounter challenges to the fine line you have decided to draw for yourself.
Not really, most of my friends are Leftist atheists. There are more Christians here than in my life, and it was the Christians I came here for (including many posters whose discussions I have nothing to add to, but can learn from, on the special interest boards).
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by Pligue-a-jour:
quote:
I would go further than this. There are many people who regard Exodus as myth, but for most of them the cast list includes God. The idea of treating Moses as mythic while believing in the God he spoke with, and in Jesus, depends on the individual's ability to stop reasoning when they've had enough, and I've addressed in a previous post how tenuous this position seems to me to be, buffeted as it is by both Christians and atheists.
Presumably, then, you are comfortable with reading Esther as a historical novel because God is nowhere mentioned?
I don't see how your question follows from the bit you've quoted, could you clarify the connection?
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If there was a case for a historical Moses, the historical Mosesites would be citing Egyptian Stelae and evidence of encampments in the Sinai Desert and so forth. But instead we get all this meta stuff about how people will find it harder to believe in Christianity if the Exodus is relegated to an allegory. Well maybe, maybe not, but its hardly a way of establishing what is and is not historical fact, is it?
This thread isn't about establishing historical fact, it's about whether Moses existed and what our view of that question has to do with our faith. I care about the events of Exodus because I'm an Christian. If I didn't believe in the same God as its authors did, my interest in their to-ings and fro-ings would be nil. If I somehow managed to become an atheist again - which is impossible, having experienced what I've experienced, but hypothetically - if I became an atheist again I wouldn't give a shit about the proof of what really happened. Nothing in the facts is more paradigm-shifting than faith itself, and without faith, skeletons at the bottom of the Red Sea wouldn't convince me that the events happened as they're described.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Having faced a variant of this myself (and coming from a Christian background), I'd like to suggest that all truth is God's truth - and the only way forward that is likely to bring stability is to form a new understanding that integrates all aspects of yourself (including your new found knowledge). That doesn't mean that you end up in a situation where you believe everything is mythical and not supernatural (neither I nor I suspect Gamaliel is in that position). It will make somethings more complicated and hard - but I don't think faith was ever meant to be easy.
I know that all truth is God's truth. Your quote of my post cut out the part where I refer to the source of my stability. You also seem to have overlooked the part where I said 'How do I reconcile theology and history? I don't, I leave it to God.'
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I take from sermons what I can use, but I'd been a Christian for two years before I ever set foot in a church. I'm an AffCath high Anglican, so I'm not sure where I would hear the kind of appeal you're talking about, and what preachers think has never been the centre of my kind of faith.
Well, as you pull experience later on, let me do so now My particularly varied christian background has shown me that such things come and go in waves, you are as likely to either encounter rationalism of one sort or another in the circles you move in - at some point these things come back into vogue.
quote:
If you're looking for a faith which doesn't require belief in what would seem to be impossible, it's called atheism. Again, I think this is what people brought up within Christianity (as you've mentioned that you were) aren't getting - I know where you're headed. I recognise the scenery you're describing.
Well, let me say that I see where you are coming from there. Yes, there are a number of fairly militant atheists who come from evangelical backgrounds of one sort or another - and who usually explain their change in beliefs as a collapse of the supernatural into the rational. A number of these people also never seem to leave the cage phase of belief.
I don't incidentally believe that "All religious faith is the triumph of belief over reason." At least not in the sense you seem to use it. Ultimately, all faith will require belief and will have to move beyond the rational (however this doesn't mean that faith is completely without foundations and consists of believing five impossible things before breakfast).
So I'm not particularly sympathetic to where the rest of the discussion has been headed re moses particularly. A lot of the people arguing along these lines (in the world more widely rather than this forum) aren't even doing so on particularly rational grounds - no historian would automatically disbelieve an ancient source. So there are plenty of things in the Bible that I would hold to as historical fact, but equally there are others (such as a six day creation) that I would take as mythological or christological based on the scientific evidence. It seems to me that *EVERYONE* except the most wooden of literalists does somethign similar.
Equally, I'd say to you that you have opened Pandora's box - and I'd re-iterate that you can't magically forget what you may have read - the only way through is to critically examine it and re-intergrate that part of your personality into yourself.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, as you pull experience later on, let me do so now My particularly varied christian background has shown me that such things come and go in waves, you are as likely to either encounter rationalism of one sort or another in the circles you move in - at some point these things come back into vogue.
Yes, I am. It doesn't bother me. Most of my friends are Leftist atheists. I already told you that. Have you read what you're replying to? Can you not comprehend what you're reading?
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Well, let me say that I see where you are coming from there. Yes, there are a number of fairly militant atheists who come from evangelical backgrounds of one sort or another - and who usually explain their change in beliefs as a collapse of the supernatural into the rational. A number of these people also never seem to leave the cage phase of belief.
I don't incidentally believe that "All religious faith is the triumph of belief over reason." At least not in the sense you seem to use it. Ultimately, all faith will require belief and will have to move beyond the rational (however this doesn't mean that faith is completely without foundations and consists of believing five impossible things before breakfast).
That you think 'belief' is not the foundation illustrates precisely how near you are to the door marked 'Exit'. Faith begins with the experiential but it doesn't begin with the empirical. By definition, it can't do.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So I'm not particularly sympathetic to where the rest of the discussion has been headed re moses particularly. A lot of the people arguing along these lines (in the world more widely rather than this forum) aren't even doing so on particularly rational grounds - no historian would automatically disbelieve an ancient source. So there are plenty of things in the Bible that I would hold to as historical fact, but equally there are others (such as a six day creation) that I would take as mythological or christological based on the scientific evidence. It seems to me that *EVERYONE* except the most wooden of literalists does somethign similar.
Yes. Why are you saying this as though you were arguing with me? I'm talking about exactly what I said I was, the subject of this thread, no more, no less.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Equally, I'd say to you that you have opened Pandora's box - and I'd re-iterate that you can't magically forget what you may have read - the only way through is to critically examine it and re-intergrate that part of your personality into yourself.
No I haven't, I've read some information. Information I will naturally forget, though I can't forget having known it - I had to check the names, remember? Get through what? There's nothing to get through. I'm staying out of the way of the fear of doubt, because although it was given to me to recognise that I wouldn't be capable of real doubt with the experiences I've had and remember, I don't want to spend hours in anxiety when I could spend them in praise and thanksgiving. There's nothing to reintegrate. Remorse and misgivings are not signs of split personality disorder, as you seem bizarrely to be implying, they're part of any life that (this phrase again) aspires to moral seriousness.
[ 22. September 2013, 00:07: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It would be very instructive if those who study these things in great depth could plainly tell us which bits of the Bible they think deserve to be treated as useful myths, and which we need to approach with faith that they bear some kind of relationship with facts. (I suppose there could be a third category for 'results pending'.)
It's rather more nebulous than that, I think (or at least it is for me and some people I have talked to or read). I have given lists before on this thread of things that I flat out do not believe, either because they are SO impossible as to be beyond believing even if you do believe that there are some miracles. Events such as the sun standing still, or claims such as the earth being immovable, fall into this category.
There are things that I'm skeptical of because they contradict known facts, but which I could change my mind about if the facts on the ground were to change. That the Hebrews were a massive work force in Egypt seems unlikely from the historical record, and the Egyptians kept pretty good historical records. There is a possibility of something turning up, some new Rosetta Stone or something, that would change this. So my skepticism is not set in stone, so to speak.
C S Lewis somewhere talked about the Bible moving from "pure myth" in the Genesis creation stories, through to things he considered mostly historical, such as the court records of Israel and Judah, through to things he was confident about, such as the Gospels and the Acts. This seems reasonable to me. Can I make thick black lines, and say "on this side are stories about events that never happened, and on the other side are records of events that did happen, although perhaps embellished"? No, I cannot. Nor is that important to my faith. I can't even see why it would be, absent an "all or nothing" hermaneutic that says if any part of it isn't historically accurate to a pin, then none of it is reliable.
I don't think the purpose of the Bible is to be a compendium of history, or a guide to chemistry or physics or medicine, or even (in the case of the NT and the Church) a guide for how to "do church" (if the early Christians thought that, they wouldn't have written the Didache). I can understand the temptation to treat it in these ways, because it beats thinking. ("Come, let us not reason together, for you can't trust your reason," says the Lord.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't think the purpose of the Bible is to be a compendium of history, or a guide to chemistry or physics or medicine, or even (in the case of the NT and the Church) a guide for how to "do church" (if the early Christians thought that, they wouldn't have written the Didache). I can understand the temptation to treat it in these ways, because it beats thinking. ("Come, let us not reason together, for you can't trust your reason," says the Lord.)
Do I read the Bible as though it were chemistry? I didn't think so, but perhaps it's all relative.
'Thinking' is great, but we don't all think the same thing when it comes to the Bible. I'm coming to the conclusion that theology and Bible studies have their place, but that they frequently serve to create divisions and hierarchies in the body of believers. I don't feel that my taking the mythologising route would help me or the church in general, but it would certainly help some.
I'd rather study novels, where the exploration of alternative perspectives is less fraught with consequence, and where grassroots readers are under no obligation to take the insights offered by specialists as gospel (if you'll excuse the irony).
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Yes, I am. It doesn't bother me. Most of my friends are Leftist atheists. I already told you that.
Perhaps I should have been clearer, I think the chances are good that you'll encounter the same arguments/information that you are currently avoiding one way or another - either in their original or garbled form via one of your circles.
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
That you think 'belief' is not the foundation illustrates precisely how near you are to the door marked 'Exit'. Faith begins with the experiential but it doesn't begin with the empirical. By definition, it can't do.
Actually I didn't say that it started with the empirical either - that's you reading stuff into what I said. It's based ultimately on a mixture of experience and scripture, filtered through varying amounts of reason and tradition. If it was purely experiantial, then I wouldn't have much to differentiate it from the faith of my contemporaries growing up - many of whom were converts to experiential forms of other religions.
TBH, I suspect a little amateur psychology on your part here. From what you said it sounds like many of your 'leftist athetist' friends had a christian background of some kind or another. And I imagine in common to a lot of people in that situation they would describe their 'conversion' to atheism in terms of a conversion to pure rationalism. So you believe that's the dangerous end of the human condition.
It is possible to possess a faith that isn't divorced from reason - millions of people manage it, without slipping into atheism.
Equally, plenty of people find experience a very unstable place to stand on - especially when they faced with people with experiences which are more powerful than their own.
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
No I haven't, I've read some information. Information I will naturally forget, though I can't forget having known it - I had to check the names, remember? Get through what? There's nothing to get through. I'm staying out of the way of the fear of doubt, because although it was given to me to recognise that I wouldn't be capable of real doubt with the experiences I've had and remember, I don't want to spend hours in anxiety when I could spend them in praise and thanksgiving.
Sure, but then on the other hand there was still part of you that led you to read it - and then lead you to read this thread.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ad Orientem: The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
But do I get to wear sandals during this process?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
I don't know. We had a shipmate who went straight from sanctimonious, seek-ye-theosis Orthodoxy to atheism after after reading one book. So beware, Ad Orientem, beware!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Perhaps I should have been clearer, I think the chances are good that you'll encounter the same arguments/information that you are currently avoiding one way or another - either in their original or garbled form via one of your circles.
No, they aren't.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
TBH, I suspect a little amateur psychology on your part here. From what you said it sounds like many of your 'leftist athetist' friends had a christian background of some kind or another. And I imagine in common to a lot of people in that situation they would describe their 'conversion' to atheism in terms of a conversion to pure rationalism. So you believe that's the dangerous end of the human condition.
No, I don't. None of my Leftist atheist friends have any religious background that I'm aware of. Nothing I've said would hint otherwise to someone who wasn't trying to force what I'm saying into a box. My social milieu is literally a Leftist atheist one. You've decided you can explain my life to me, so you aren't paying attention to what I'm telling you.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It is possible to possess a faith that isn't divorced from reason - millions of people manage it, without slipping into atheism.
I didn't say 'divorced'. Read what I said again, thinking about it and not trying to categorise the person who wrote it.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Equally, plenty of people find experience a very unstable place to stand on - especially when they faced with people with experiences which are more powerful than their own.
No idea what you're talking about here.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Sure, but then on the other hand there was still part of you that led you to read it - and then lead you to read this thread.
There is no division. I know you were brought up a Christian, but how do you have the nerve to lecture me from a position of total ignorance? This isn't science, nor is it faith - it's what you want me to agree to so you can dismiss my experiences. No, son.
[ 23. September 2013, 00:37: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The link is clear, if you ask me. Protestantism leads to rationalism leads to atheism.
Yes, there never was a massive move to atheism in any relatively Protestant-free Orthodox countries.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
There is no division. I know you were brought up a Christian, but how do you have the nerve to lecture me from a position of total ignorance? This isn't science, nor is it faith - it's what you want me to agree to so you can dismiss my experiences. No, son.
Actually I think you'll find that you did that first back here:
"That you think 'belief' is not the foundation illustrates precisely how near you are to the door marked 'Exit'."
and here:
"Again, I think this is what people brought up within Christianity (as you've mentioned that you were) aren't getting - I know where you're headed. I recognise the scenery you're describing."
I would apologise for mischaracterising your friends, but it rather appears that you are getting your characterisation of those brought up within christianity from somewhere, so I'd ask where?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
There is no division. I know you were brought up a Christian, but how do you have the nerve to lecture me from a position of total ignorance? This isn't science, nor is it faith - it's what you want me to agree to so you can dismiss my experiences. No, son.
Actually I think you'll find that you did that first back here:
"That you think 'belief' is not the foundation illustrates precisely how near you are to the door marked 'Exit'."
and here:
"Again, I think this is what people brought up within Christianity (as you've mentioned that you were) aren't getting - I know where you're headed. I recognise the scenery you're describing."
I would apologise for mischaracterising your friends, but it rather appears that you are getting your characterisation of those brought up within christianity from somewhere, so I'd ask where?
I'm not characterising you. I was responding to what has been said, on this thread, by people brought up within Christianity.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No most of them became Muslims.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Yes, there never was a massive move to atheism in any relatively Protestant-free Orthodox countries.
And those countries are?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
