RiffTrax Forum

General Discussion => Books 'n Readin' => Topic started by: anais.jude on April 13, 2008, 10:22:48 AM

Title: the bible
Post by: anais.jude on April 13, 2008, 10:22:48 AM
*This is not about the Bible as a religious text, only as a piece of literature. If anybody brings religion onto this board, I will be forced to hilk out on thee*


Are there any people in the Bible that refer to themselves in the 3rd person? (like Mr. T)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 14, 2008, 05:31:22 AM
Well Jesus for one.

Also which translation?
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 14, 2008, 06:00:05 AM
isnt asking for the bible to be discussed without the religion a bit like talking about moby dick without the metaphor or the whale?
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 14, 2008, 06:04:49 AM
Well, not really, obviously it is a religious text, but its not only a religious text, once it was translated into the vernacular it was opened to literary interpretation and manipulation that other texts aren't as open to.

As each translation has been created choices were made over which particular word to use and often those were ascetic/literary choices rather than theological ones.



Title: Re: the bible
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 14, 2008, 06:06:52 AM
yeah ive heard this before but i still think it loses a bunch by viewing that way.  i think that reading moby dick wthout seeing his overall metaphor would be about the same. 
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 14, 2008, 06:13:08 AM
No nobody is saying this is the only way to understand the bible, just as one loses a lot from la recherche du temps perdu by only focusing on the madalins but you can still generate a discussion about it that is worthwhile and interesting.

And really if discussing the bible as literature isn't interesting to you you don't have to do it, I mean nobody is forcing you to, but equally speaking you can't insist that people turn every discussion on the literary text that is the bible into one of theology.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: RoninFox on April 14, 2008, 06:13:36 AM
Thanks to this thread I'm getting google ads for free e-books about the apocalypse from a Christian group that seems to think it's funny...but still want to warn me I'm going to hell.

I hope you're all happy.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 14, 2008, 06:14:27 AM
Hmm your post gave me an ad about dark times in the Star Wars universe hmmmmmm
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 14, 2008, 06:17:05 AM
those are related  (armegeddon and star wars)

but im not saying we need not look at it from a literary perspective i just think they are basically linked.  to view one you need to also at least lightly look at the other.  thats all im saying. 
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: RoninFox on April 14, 2008, 06:17:29 AM
Hmm your post gave me an ad about dark times in the Star Wars universe hmmmmmm

Dark times called prequels?   :rimshot:

So anyway, this bible thing...
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: RVR II on April 14, 2008, 06:18:30 AM
I'm getting a "Jericho" banner :scared:
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 14, 2008, 06:22:21 AM
but im not saying we need not look at it from a literary perspective i just think they are basically linked.  to view one you need to also at least lightly look at the other.  thats all im saying. 

Oh yes that's true i think what Anais didn't want was arguments about the spiritual nature of the bible: Literal Inspired Word of God, Inspired By God, Words written About God, the rambling gibberish of stoned Sheppard that sort of argument. :)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 14, 2008, 06:25:30 AM
well why would we?  afterall we all know dianetics is true?
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 14, 2008, 06:31:15 AM
Heretic, Lady Eris is the true God!!!!!!!
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 14, 2008, 06:39:21 AM
like, totally
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_lpL870wV2A4/RwuKarUzWfI/AAAAAAAABZM/5uP2LZwpCGE/s1600/eris.PNG)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: RVR II on April 14, 2008, 06:44:00 AM
 :o :o
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 14, 2008, 06:52:31 AM
Ok so NSFW then? I only see a red x.

Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 14, 2008, 06:58:35 AM
You love Retro Junk Twice?

Actually the red X thing is at my end, the firewall here blocks some sites at random. I'll be able to see it when i get home.

I can do a work around using photobucket but before I do i tend to ask if it's SFW  :)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 14, 2008, 07:03:14 AM
darn, it was working before :-\

it was a picture of Eris from The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_1IZcQmTYBSI/RlhN-4Ej95I/AAAAAAAAAC0/Lr80hcNc3fA/s200/eris.jpg)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 14, 2008, 07:08:49 AM
Ah ok yes Discodianism meets Madge  :D
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: anais.jude on April 14, 2008, 08:32:58 AM
my question was actually inspired by reading moby dick....odd.


Tripe, you said Jesus for one. What about Satan? I am working on a theory about the metaphor in moby dick. Some of Ahab's speeches mimic Paradise Lost, but I am not sure if Satan reffered to himself in the third person.

As a rhetorical technique, i find reffering to yourself in the third person var var annoying

Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 14, 2008, 08:36:00 AM
No Satan generally uses I if he refers to himself at all.

And he doesn't turn up all that much as Satan as we now envision him wasn't really how he was envisioned at the time of writing for most of the bible.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: RoninFox on April 14, 2008, 03:45:29 PM
And I imagine it's the same for when he's referenced as Lucifer.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 14, 2008, 04:31:09 PM
There's actually only one verse in the bible that mentions the name Lucifer, and it is Isaiah 14:12. Saying that this is a reference to Satan is a stretch, since there really isn't justification in the context. It could be referring to an invading king, but most likely it's referring to Venus.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 14, 2008, 04:35:51 PM
yep Darth gave what would have been my answer.

Satan doesn't really feature all that much in the Bible. He's more like a guest starring role, sort of like Walken on SNL :)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: RoninFox on April 14, 2008, 04:38:37 PM
Ah.  The whole various names for seemingly different evil beings that may or may not refer to the same adversary thing has always confused me.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: AmandaGal on April 14, 2008, 06:08:44 PM
I've actually heard Christians quote things about Satan said in Paradise Lost like they were from the Bible.  It's quite strange.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: mrbasehart on April 14, 2008, 06:13:37 PM
Being the secular heathen that I am, I've never ever read the Bible (or been Baptised, but that's another story).  Anybody know which version is the best? I'm a little "eh" on the whole King James version, but I feel it's something that I need to read at least once.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 14, 2008, 06:27:17 PM
Ah.  The whole various names for seemingly different evil beings that may or may not refer to the same adversary thing has always confused me.

Funny, Tripe and I were just talking about a great resource for just such questions... John Romer's "Testament". A little understanding of the (pardon the term) evolution of today's more popular text can add a lot to understanding the seeming inconsistencies. I'm not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but when you begin to see how many cultures, themes and motivations have shaped the texts we most commonly see today it's amazing to me there's anything coherent left.

If you can manage to read it as just a novel, it's a little trippy, but a great window into the social mind-set of the times... dependin on, as Tripe said, which version you read.

Anybody know which version is the best?

Not touching that one!
(now where's that :coward: smilie?)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 14, 2008, 06:41:27 PM
Being the secular heathen that I am, I've never ever read the Bible (or been Baptised, but that's another story).  Anybody know which version is the best? I'm a little "eh" on the whole King James version, but I feel it's something that I need to read at least once.

I was in the same boat as you. In fact, I didn't read the bible until a deconverted from being an evangelical. I was finally able to appreciate it for what it was.

I've always been partial to the Oxford Annotated Bible, which is a New Revised Standard version, but has footnotes for a lot of the words and ignores some of the silly pc translations made.

I've also been told that the New American Standard version is very accurate. Keep in mind, when I'm talking about accuracy, I mean it has all the warts and contradictions found in the earliest manuscripts we've found thus far. The Revised Standard Version is also pretty good.

My favorite translation of the New Testament is the Pre-Nicene New Testament, translated by Robert M. Price (who has written some great books on textual criticism). It has all of the books found in the canon, as well as a lot of other really interesting, lesser-known books (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Peter, etc.).
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: mrbasehart on April 14, 2008, 07:36:41 PM
Cool.  I'm due to get some new books soon, I'll keep an eye out for one of those.  Cheers!
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tyrant on April 14, 2008, 09:43:44 PM
I've read the King James version off and on my entire life and still think to this day that it can't be beat in terms of poetic beauty and composition. However, if one is needing to study the Bible for any reason, it's probably the last version to read since it's also really hard to understand/interpret. I'm with Darth Chimay regarding the New American Standard. Moreso if it's a study guide version.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Fortis on April 14, 2008, 10:34:36 PM
Well the King James Version I have been studying my entire life is the LDS version...er not version, its just the same King James Version you would find in the 1800's. So a lot of the wording is a lot more complex and harder to understand than the newer versions. And going on with what Tyrant said...I think with all of the wording changes (while it can be good to help people understand) it makes the poetry and...well majesty so to speak of the bible less noticeable.

I mean, I think they lose some of the literary...poetry for lack of a better term. I mean, you lose some of the chiasmus's in the text and so forth. There are just little things that make studying the bible from a literary standpoint more worthwhile and, well, cooler, that you lose when you change the text for understanding.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 15, 2008, 02:22:13 AM
Quote
I've actually heard Christians quote things about Satan said in Paradise Lost like they were from the Bible.  It's quite strange.

also a large part of peoples belief in heaven and hell comes from paradise AND inferno.  pretty sad actually. 
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: mrbasehart on April 15, 2008, 05:15:20 AM
Quote
I've actually heard Christians quote things about Satan said in Paradise Lost like they were from the Bible.  It's quite strange.

also a large part of peoples belief in heaven and hell comes from paradise AND inferno.  pretty sad actually. 

Waitaminute... You mean there's no passage in the bible that describes Judas being anally raped for eternity? Boo!

:)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: RoninFox on April 15, 2008, 05:41:03 AM
Ah.  The whole various names for seemingly different evil beings that may or may not refer to the same adversary thing has always confused me.

Funny, Tripe and I were just talking about a great resource for just such questions... John Romer's "Testament". A little understanding of the (pardon the term) evolution of today's more popular text can add a lot to understanding the seeming inconsistencies. I'm not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but when you begin to see how many cultures, themes and motivations have shaped the texts we most commonly see today it's amazing to me there's anything coherent left.

If you can manage to read it as just a novel, it's a little trippy, but a great window into the social mind-set of the times... dependin on, as Tripe said, which version you read.

Good tip, thanks.  This hasn't been something on the top of my research list or anything, but I'll be sure to keep an eye out for that one next time I'm at the bookstore.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 15, 2008, 05:48:46 AM
Ah.  The whole various names for seemingly different evil beings that may or may not refer to the same adversary thing has always confused me.

Funny, Tripe and I were just talking about a great resource for just such questions... John Romer's "Testament". A little understanding of the (pardon the term) evolution of today's more popular text can add a lot to understanding the seeming inconsistencies. I'm not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but when you begin to see how many cultures, themes and motivations have shaped the texts we most commonly see today it's amazing to me there's anything coherent left.

Absolutely, the book is great and if you can see the show ever it's brilliant too, I can't emphasise enough how good Romer is at explaining the history of the bible. Sadly though I did a search on Amazon and while his other, Egyptology specific, books (which are also very good because that's what he is first and formost) are mostly all available, Testament seems to be out of print :(

Anybody know which version is the best?
Not touching that one!
(now where's that :coward: smilie?)

Oh, I will. depending on what you want from the bible lets say you want either clarity or poetry. If it's the former I'd go with either Today's New International Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today%27s_New_International_Version) or The New Jerusalem Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Bible) depending on if you want the Protestant or Catholic cannon respectively.

If it's poetry, the thees and thous and all the begats I'd go with either the King James Version (technically it should really be called the Prince James version but there we go) or the Douay-Rheims Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible) again depending on wheather you want Protestant or Catholic Cannon.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 15, 2008, 06:34:56 AM
Testament seems to be out of print :(

How many do you want?
http://search.ebay.com/romer-testament_W0QQfromZR41 (http://search.ebay.com/romer-testament_W0QQfromZR41)
There are tons of gently used copies out there for pennies.
I would also highly recommend his mini-series "Byzantium" for a cultural slant on the subject. A little digging can yield the DVDs for $10.00 USD or so.
Your local Library is also a good possibility for this as it's not that old.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 15, 2008, 06:38:50 AM
You know I've not actually ssee Byzantium, or if i have I don't recall it. I'll have to track that down :)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 15, 2008, 07:26:51 AM
You know I've not actually ssee Byzantium, or if i have I don't recall it. I'll have to track that down :)

Most definitely!
Seriously, I put it right up there with Testament. It isn't an all-inclusive history of the Byzantine Empire, it's more about the heartbeat.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: BBQ Platypus on April 15, 2008, 09:13:17 AM
If you're REALLY into Biblical interpretation, with the linguistics and semantics and whatnot, the New English Translation is the best.  The translations are clearly well thought-out, and there are even footnotes explaining each translation.  In this way, it is possible to see the entire process of translation even if you're not a linguist.  It also ensures the reader won't feel cheated out of the full weight of the meaning of the words themselves.

The full text of the NET Bible is available here:

http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm (http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 15, 2008, 09:16:37 AM
Probably my best translated Apocrypha is the NET one.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 15, 2008, 11:10:51 AM
Choosing a translation is difficult. I suppose it boils down to belief. There are a lot of bibles out there, especially modern ones, that try to "fix" contradictions and other messiness, much to the detriment of the book. I don't know if there are any real rules of thumb out there for recognizing these translations, and I'm not accusing any of the translations listed above of being one of these, but it is something to keep in mind when looking for a bible. I prefer mine with all the errors and such, as it allows the reader to more easily get into the mind of the writer.

A pretty decent online translation is the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com)). It's the King James version (which actually is pretty accurate), and has a lot of cross-referencing. They've also gone through the Book of Mormon and the Quran.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 15, 2008, 12:18:08 PM
I used a student's study bible in some ancient history classes, no idea what "Translation" it was, but it was very straightforward and had good notes. 

Probably the NIV or NEV or one based on them.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: RoninFox on April 15, 2008, 04:13:41 PM
This just reminds me of back before I decided Christianity wasn't my path and I went to confirmation classes at the Presbyterian Church my Mom started taking us to.  I really wanted to learn about the bible so I went out and bought my own copy of "The Student Bible" and took it to class with me.  The next week the teacher had bought me a copy of the Good News Bible to replace it.  Was really confused that day, but I took it.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 16, 2008, 07:57:56 AM
Hmmm... interesting.
I was doing a little digging into the Council of Nicea and came across this short article.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Constantine-Bible.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Constantine-Bible.html)
I was always under the impression that the Council of Nicea was the first large scale attempt to codify  a standard text for the Bible. This article had this to say:
Quote
Constantine (and the Council of Nicea, for that matter) had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397 (60 years after Constantine's death).

I'm gonna have to dig a little deeper on this one.
(this is exactly why I have so many projects that never seem to end!)  :D
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 16, 2008, 11:14:55 AM
Yeah, Nicaea was just the "filioque" controversy, no?

New term on me... but Google says "Yes".  ;D
(I add this more for peer review than instruction)
It seems that the Arian stance that Jesus was created rather than literally of God was the major impetus for the council.
The council also set a general stance for proper Christian faith rather than any textual editing.
This, in turn, set the stage for an eventual textual canonization 60 years later in Carthage.

Admittedly a very shallow description, but I think I've got it now.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 16, 2008, 11:24:11 AM
It seems that the Arian stance that Jesus was created rather than literally of God was the major impetus for the council.

The way Christianity treated Arianism was terribly ungrateful considering it had won Christianity the most converts at the beginning.

And to be honest most people are more in line with believing the Holy Spirit comes from God and Jesus does likewise rather than believing She's some sort of joint product of J-man and his Dad.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 16, 2008, 11:41:55 AM
Check out the Gospel of Nicodemus sometime. I believe it's the source for the non-canonical but fairly well known "Harrowing of Hell," where the big J goes to Hell to free the pious (but non-Christian) who came before him.  It was one of the texts that got cut after the 4th century, along with the Gospel of Thomas (which itself is just sort of weird).

I've seen some of the PBS stuff about these (actually I think it was "Forbidden Books of the Bible" or something of the sort) and it looked very interesting indeed. I love this sort of stuff! Not for any fact checking missions so much as for what it says about how other folks viewed the subject. Like the Noah story from around (I believe) the Caucus Georgia region wherein Noah is brought a bit of Grape Vine by a crow rather than an Olive branch and Dove. Upon coming to ground Noah plants the vine, grows the Grapes, makes wine, gets drunk and throws up.
I don't understand why that one got left out!  ;D

For me, at least, it brings the whole thing back to the people rather than leaving it at the pulpit.
Looks like I have another project!  ;)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 16, 2008, 11:48:13 AM
Check out the Gospel of Nicodemus sometime. I believe it's the source for the non-canonical but fairly well known "Harrowing of Hell," where the big J goes to Hell to free the pious (but non-Christian) who came before him.  It was one of the texts that got cut after the 4th century, along with the Gospel of Thomas (which itself is just sort of weird).

I've seen some of the PBS stuff about these (actually I think it was "Forbidden Books of the Bible" or something of the sort) and it looked very interesting indeed. I love this sort of stuff! Not for any fact checking missions so much as for what it says about how other folks viewed the subject. Like the Noah story from around (I believe) the Caucus Georgia region wherein Noah is brought a bit of Grape Vine by a crow rather than an Olive branch and Dove. Upon coming to ground Noah plants the vine, grows the Grapes, makes wine, gets drunk and throws up.
I don't understand why that one got left out!  ;D

Especially when the drunk and naked Noah is left in:

Quote
Genesis 9
18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.
 20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
       "Cursed be Canaan!
       The lowest of slaves
       will he be to his brothers."

 26 He also said,
       "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
       May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

27 May God extend the territory of Japheth;
       may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
       and may Canaan be his slave."


The Book of Enoch is worth a look too.


Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 16, 2008, 01:21:36 PM
I dunno... it's far less salacious than when Lot got drunk and his two daughters decided to "lay with him," and each gave birth to the head of a tribe (Moabites and Ammonites).

It sounds so dirty, but it really is kind of a common origin myth for early tribes, especially if you think of Lot as a god instead of a human. Same with Noah; there's some evidence in the bible that he was considered by the early Israelites to be the god of wine.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 16, 2008, 01:28:51 PM
Quote
Genesis 9
18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.
 20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

Well I'll be hornswoggled... I didn't remember that part being in the KJV. Brain's goin' to mush faster than I thought. Pretty soon I'll be chuckin' rocks at the neighbor kids and tellin' em to "git offa my lawn!"

Thx for the pointer... and for not calling the Inquisition on me!  :D

I dunno... it's far less salacious than when Lot got drunk and his two daughters decided to "lay with him," and each gave birth to the head of a tribe (Moabites and Ammonites).

It sounds so dirty, but it really is kind of a common origin myth for early tribes,...

Maybe that's where the old European monarchies found their moral justification.
Probably not so much for Billy Bob and Lulu Mae, tho.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tyrant on April 16, 2008, 01:44:55 PM


 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
       "Cursed be Canaan!
       The lowest of slaves
       will he be to his brothers."

 26 He also said,
       "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
       May Canaan be the slave of Shem.

27 May God extend the territory of Japheth;
       may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
       and may Canaan be his slave."



***  Translated from Noah's drunken slurred yelling.  ;D

Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 16, 2008, 03:29:02 PM
Quote
Genesis 9
18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.
 20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

Well I'll be hornswoggled... I didn't remember that part being in the KJV. Brain's goin' to mush faster than I thought. Pretty soon I'll be chuckin' rocks at the neighbor kids and tellin' em to "git offa my lawn!"

Thx for the pointer... and for not calling the Inquisition on me!  :D

I dunno... it's far less salacious than when Lot got drunk and his two daughters decided to "lay with him," and each gave birth to the head of a tribe (Moabites and Ammonites).

It sounds so dirty, but it really is kind of a common origin myth for early tribes,...

Maybe that's where the old European monarchies found their moral justification.
Probably not so much for Billy Bob and Lulu Mae, tho.


Yeah, it's fairly common practice for royals to claim divine ancestry in all the cultures I've studied, going back to about 1200 BC. I don't do the near or far east, so maybe someone can chime in there.

From what I remember, such tales as the Lot tale, and the tale of Esau (the red hair being a dead giveaway), aren't so much about royal lines as they are about entire peoples. I seem to remember the Egyptians having similar tales, as well as the Greeks. I can't think of any specifics right now and I can't look them up since I'm at work, but I'm sure there are examples out there.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Fortis on April 16, 2008, 04:02:34 PM
Well I claim descent from Noah!


 ???

Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 16, 2008, 05:57:57 PM
Yeah, it's fairly common practice for royals to claim divine ancestry in all the cultures I've studied, going back to about 1200 BC. I don't do the near or far east, so maybe someone can chime in there.

Actually I was commenting on the inbreeding aspect... tongue in cheek, you understand.
(poor joke... just as well it flopped.)

***  Translated from Noah's drunken slurred yelling.  ;D

And Noah bade them; "Get thee from my lawn."
Then did he cast stones at them and fall back upon the ground.


On a more serious note, I am genuinely impressed at the level of competent discussion all over this board. Not that I'm anything special at all, but it isn't often I see this on a protracted basis.

And on that note I'll keep my mouth shut unless I have something to say that actually adds to the discussion.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 16, 2008, 06:00:10 PM
On a more serious note, I am genuinely impressed at the level of competent discussion all over this board. Not that I'm anything special at all, but it isn't often I see this on a protracted basis.

The majority of us and certainly the regulars are really quite bright all things considered. :)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Fortis on April 16, 2008, 06:11:23 PM
On a more serious note, I am genuinely impressed at the level of competent discussion all over this board. Not that I'm anything special at all, but it isn't often I see this on a protracted basis.

The majority of us and certainly the regulars are really quite bright all things considered. :)

To add to this self-congratulatory circlejerk, I can't STAND being on other fora (yes, that one was just for pedantry), because the level of discourse is usually:

ur stoopd n i thnk u shud hehe lol

You just summed up half of what you see on youtube, and anything really anywhere on the internet...it seems that the rifftrax forums are where all of the intelligent people gather...
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 16, 2008, 07:16:55 PM
On a more serious note, I am genuinely impressed at the level of competent discussion all over this board. Not that I'm anything special at all, but it isn't often I see this on a protracted basis.

The majority of us and certainly the regulars are really quite bright all things considered. :)

I pooped my pants.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 16, 2008, 07:18:28 PM
You'll note I specified "majority"  ;)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: sarcasm_made_Easy on April 17, 2008, 01:12:31 AM
in fact the discourse is so brilliant here we actually have several threads now devoted to how brilliant we are here.  i myself have started about five or six of them :) 
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: RoninFox on April 17, 2008, 06:02:12 AM
Okay, questions over which is the best translation of the bible...

solved thanks to BBQ Platypus (http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php/topic,7427.0.html)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 17, 2008, 08:24:12 AM
Just a note for those interested in the Romer book "Testament"
Barnes & Noble resellers show 6 "New" or new condition copies starting at about $8.00 USD.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Testament/John-Romer/p/9781568524894/?CND=5 (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Testament/John-Romer/p/9781568524894/?CND=5)

Still searching for the vids.... anywhere!
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 17, 2008, 08:30:44 AM
Here's a little of it:

[yt=425,350]flqBSbwrzvQ[/yt]
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 18, 2008, 08:28:57 AM
Here's a little of it:
Dude, you're killin' me!  ;)  I feel like a junkie in need of a fix.

Just to dirty up the water a little further, I thought I might mention A rather prodigious and definitely controversial author, Harun Yahya, a "Turkish Intellectual". Most all of his works are freely available from his website: http://www.harunyahya.com/ (http://www.harunyahya.com/)
Most of his material will probably rub you the wrong way, but the man is not stupid. He does raise some interesting points... if you can wade past all of the extreme rhetoric.
This is from the introduction to his book "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution"
Quote
The purpose of this book is to reveal the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution in all fields and to inform people about the ulterior, underlying, and real purpose of this so-called "science", which is in fact a fraud.

It should be pointed out that evolutionists have no answer to give to the book you are now reading. And they will not even attempt to answer it for they are aware that such an act will simply help everyone to a better understanding that evolution is simply a lie.

It always amazes me when I see people that can be so intelligent and basically throw it all away by using their talents as a weapon. Then again, the biggest slimes in history only get that title because they had enough followers to make them noticeable. Without a crowd you're just an eccentric a$$hole!
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 18, 2008, 08:36:55 AM
Here's a little of it:
Dude, you're killin' me!  ;)  I feel like a junkie in need of a fix.

Thing is, that was just put up a couple of days ago, I wonder if he'll be posting more of it.

Romer really is a great presented of ideas, do you want to see his bit about pagan iconography?
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 18, 2008, 02:14:14 PM
Just to dirty up the water a little further, I thought I might mention A rather prodigious and definitely controversial author, Harun Yahya, a "Turkish Intellectual". Most all of his works are freely available from his website: http://www.harunyahya.com/ (http://www.harunyahya.com/)
Most of his material will probably rub you the wrong way, but the man is not stupid. He does raise some interesting points... if you can wade past all of the extreme rhetoric.
This is from the introduction to his book "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution"
Quote
The purpose of this book is to reveal the scientific facts that refute the theory of evolution in all fields and to inform people about the ulterior, underlying, and real purpose of this so-called "science", which is in fact a fraud.

It should be pointed out that evolutionists have no answer to give to the book you are now reading. And they will not even attempt to answer it for they are aware that such an act will simply help everyone to a better understanding that evolution is simply a lie.

It always amazes me when I see people that can be so intelligent and basically throw it all away by using their talents as a weapon. Then again, the biggest slimes in history only get that title because they had enough followers to make them noticeable. Without a crowd you're just an eccentric a$$hole!

I dunno. After reading a couple of chapters in that Collapse of Evolution book, I have to say that I do find the man to be stupid. He's using arguments that have been soundly debunked for years, even a century for a couple of them. It made my brain hurt. I don't want to hijack the thread with an evolution/creationism discussion - someone can start a separate thread for that and I'll be more than willing to join in - but I will say that I do sometimes wish creationists came up with some new arguments instead of just trotting out the same old tired garbage they've done for the past century.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 19, 2008, 05:24:50 AM
I dunno. After reading a couple of chapters in that Collapse of Evolution book, I have to say that I do find the man to be stupid. He's using arguments that have been soundly debunked for years, even a century for a couple of them. It made my brain hurt. I don't want to hijack the thread with an evolution/creationism discussion - someone can start a separate thread for that and I'll be more than willing to join in - but I will say that I do sometimes wish creationists came up with some new arguments instead of just trotting out the same old tired garbage they've done for the past century.

hehehe...
I felt the same way... still do, really. It's not easy to wade through that kind of drivel without wanting to slap him in the back of the head and shout "IDIOT!" The majority of his arguments are, as you said, tired garbage, but he does manage to hit on a few things that make you think.

Maybe it's the "Jackass the movie" syndrome for me. It's not that I particularly enjoy it, but those "you've got to be kidding me!" moments keep me hanging on. Hmmm... come to think of it, that might explain why I keep collecting scientology crap and, to a lesser extent, Dawkins... among others.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 20, 2008, 02:37:23 AM
hehehe...
I felt the same way... still do, really. It's not easy to wade through that kind of drivel without wanting to slap him in the back of the head and shout "IDIOT!" The majority of his arguments are, as you said, tired garbage, but he does manage to hit on a few things that make you think.

Maybe it's the "Jackass the movie" syndrome for me. It's not that I particularly enjoy it, but those "you've got to be kidding me!" moments keep me hanging on. Hmmm... come to think of it, that might explain why I keep collecting scientology crap and, to a lesser extent, Dawkins... among others.

Dawkins? Really? I've never had that sort of moment with his writing. The closest was in The Ancestor's Tale when he started talking about logarithms. In that case it was, "you've got to be kidding me... you expect me to understand this?!?" But I was never taught math properly.

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: BathTub on April 20, 2008, 03:36:00 AM
As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

Did you see the perfect example of this 'railing against what I think Dawkin stands for, not what he really says' last week?
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 20, 2008, 06:16:43 AM
Dawkins? Really? I've never had that sort of moment with his writing. The closest was in The Ancestor's Tale when he started talking about logarithms. In that case it was, "you've got to be kidding me... you expect me to understand this?!?" But I was never taught math properly.

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

I like Dawkins, but he does have a habit of portraying himself as a somewhat rabid Atheist. In the God Delusion he refers to Agnostics as being "Fence Sitters" and basically says he has no respect for anyone who puts themselves in that category. I read it as his way of saying "Be a man, make up your mind." A short time later, when talking about his sliding scale, he admits that there is a tiny molecule of himself that isn't sure whether or not there is a God.

This may sound odd, but I have more respect for him when he recognizes that one molecule of himself than when he goes on as if it isn't there. Basically the difference between "There is no God" and "Based on all of this, I just can't buy into it.". It isn't his arguments that bother me, it's some of his statements. I just have this little voice saying "Me thinks he doth protest too much."
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tyrant on April 20, 2008, 04:00:18 PM

I like Dawkins, but he does have a habit of portraying himself as a somewhat rabid Atheist. In the God Delusion he refers to Agnostics as being "Fence Sitters" and basically says he has no respect for anyone who puts themselves in that category. I read it as his way of saying "Be a man, make up your mind." A short time later, when talking about his sliding scale, he admits that there is a tiny molecule of himself that isn't sure whether or not there is a God.

This may sound odd, but I have more respect for him when he recognizes that one molecule of himself than when he goes on as if it isn't there. Basically the difference between "There is no God" and "Based on all of this, I just can't buy into it.". It isn't his arguments that bother me, it's some of his statements. I just have this little voice saying "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

  Although I'll admit he's a staggeringly brilliant individual with many good arguments for this and that, I find him to be of an overall arrogant and condescending attitude towards anyone who has different opinions than him. I've always thought scientists should be more open-minded than that. I'm amused about the tiny molecule of doubt he's got towards his (lack of) beliefs. None of us can ever be 100% sure of ANYTHING (science is the first to admit this), and Dawkins is just barely sliding under that fence with his tiny molecule so he's not a hypocrite amongst his own.  :)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 20, 2008, 04:12:39 PM
Actually one of my most abiding memories of Dawkins is from the Faraday lectures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institution_Christmas_Lectures) he gave back in 1991.

He was telling an anecdote about how he was asking his (I think 3 or 4 year-old at the time of the story) daughter why she thought flowers presented so many colours. She'd answered "to make the world pretty daddy".

He said "So I had to tell her she was wrong"

I remember thinking, I hope you didn't phrase it exactly like that, sounds a bit blunt really.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: torgosPizza on April 20, 2008, 04:49:11 PM
I would rather be told that directly than have some made-up answer. "You're right! It's because the world needs to be pretty!"

Kind of like, at the beginning of god is Not Great, Hitchens relays a story about a teacher who said that the world is green "because that color is easy for our eyes to look at." Well, no, Hitch says. Our eyes are adapted to the color of nature, not the other way around.

To me, the honest answers are the best answers, regardless of bluntness.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 20, 2008, 04:50:26 PM
No it's not the telling her she's wrong it's the way you phrase that. That's what I meant, I thought it was funny.

See I can tell my daughter that that's not why the flowers are all those colours in ways that are less blunt and flat as "your wrong!"

See that is the thing about Dawkins he is very bright but he's also a quintessential science nerd/Mr. Logic at times, or at least that's sometimes the image he has. It's kind of amusing.

And really Honesty may be the best answer in some situations but Blunt and Honest do not have to go hand in hand. In fact just saying "your wrong" isn't even the best way to communicate that fact  :)

Title: Re: the bible
Post by: AmandaGal on April 20, 2008, 05:45:04 PM
Tripe,
You're wrong.









Someone had to say it.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 20, 2008, 05:47:51 PM
Oooh, snap!
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 20, 2008, 06:01:55 PM
Tripe,
You're wrong.









Someone had to say it.

You make my inner Dawkins daughter cry

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/72/173724754_60c2543969.jpg)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: esoobaC .T bocaJ on April 20, 2008, 06:04:23 PM
Oooh, snap!

Title: Re: the bible
Post by: torgosPizza on April 20, 2008, 06:29:13 PM
Ha! Well done, old chap. :clap:
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tyrant on April 20, 2008, 11:18:27 PM
No it's not the telling her she's wrong it's the way you phrase that. That's what I meant, I thought it was funny.

See I can tell my daughter that that's not why the flowers are all those colours in ways that are less blunt and flat as "your wrong!"

See that is the thing about Dawkins he is very bright but he's also a quintessential science nerd/Mr. Logic at times, or at least that's sometimes the image he has. It's kind of amusing.

And really Honesty may be the best answer in some situations but Blunt and Honest do not have to go hand in hand. In fact just saying "your wrong" isn't even the best way to communicate that fact  :)



  He could have also told her, since she was a child, that perhaps that's ONE of the reasons why flowers are different colors, and then given her the scientific reason. Or perhaps told her that's what some people say and it's a nice idea, but science says......Hell, she was partially right anyway since hummingbirds and probably bees are attracted to flowers of certian colors, but that's splitting hairs.

   I agree with you 100%. I'm all for honest answers too, especially with kids. But being so honest that you're just blunt about it doesn't necessarily promote critical thinking in children. Wrong tone and wrong wording, and the kid isn't even concerned about what they're being told anymore, but rather concerned that they've gone and displeased their parent in some way. How are they learning anything then, other than what NOT to say to piss off Mommy and Daddy? If told they're flat out wrong enough times, they might even stop asking questions.

  This story is a nice example of how I've observed Dawkins' general treatment of anyone he doesn't agree with. One thing's for sure, and that's a damn interesting biography should Dawkins' daughter ever decide to write one.  ;D
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: ScottotD on April 20, 2008, 11:46:43 PM
I've read parts of the bible and I take it in much the same way I do something like Easop's fables, a collection of short stories with a message.

For the sake of peace I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 21, 2008, 08:09:24 AM
I've read parts of the bible and I take it in much the same way I do something like Easop's fables, a collection of short stories with a message.

For the sake of peace I'll leave it at that.

No actually that's exactly what the intent of the thread was; Discussing the literary elements of the bible.

(http://blog.nj.com/hobokennow/2007/09/medium_tim-gunn-veronica-webb.jpg)
Carry On
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 21, 2008, 12:00:28 PM
Dawkins? Really? I've never had that sort of moment with his writing. The closest was in The Ancestor's Tale when he started talking about logarithms. In that case it was, "you've got to be kidding me... you expect me to understand this?!?" But I was never taught math properly.

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

I like Dawkins, but he does have a habit of portraying himself as a somewhat rabid Atheist. In the God Delusion he refers to Agnostics as being "Fence Sitters" and basically says he has no respect for anyone who puts themselves in that category. I read it as his way of saying "Be a man, make up your mind." A short time later, when talking about his sliding scale, he admits that there is a tiny molecule of himself that isn't sure whether or not there is a God.

This may sound odd, but I have more respect for him when he recognizes that one molecule of himself than when he goes on as if it isn't there. Basically the difference between "There is no God" and "Based on all of this, I just can't buy into it.". It isn't his arguments that bother me, it's some of his statements. I just have this little voice saying "Me thinks he doth protest too much."

Well, he is a scientist and as such he can never say anything with 100% certainty. That's just the nature of science. I'm an atheist and as such, I can't say that there certainly is no god, much as I can say there certainly are no square circles, or no unicorns. It's just not possible to prove something isn't. On the other hand, I haven't seen or heard any compelling evidence otherwise

It certainly seems that people have a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone talks about their atheism. I've noticed this personally. When someone talks to me about his or her faith, it's considered fairly normal. Most of those people wouldn't even be considered rabid in their faith; they just like to talk about it. Yet, when I talk about my lack of faith to the same person, they all of the sudden act as though I were some crazed baby-eating lunatic who wants to destroy freedom and wants to wipe out all religions. I like Dawkins because he's making it more normal to talk about atheism outloud as I'm gathered with my friends around a bucket of delicious fried baby arms.

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

Did you see the perfect example of this 'railing against what I think Dawkin stands for, not what he really says' last week?

No. I missed that.

Anyway, back to the bible. How 'bout that Song of Solomon, huh?
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: Tripe on April 21, 2008, 12:03:25 PM
Anyway, back to the bible. How 'bout that Song of Solomon, huh?

Akiva's most contentious inclusion.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 21, 2008, 04:43:53 PM
Well, he is a scientist and as such he can never say anything with 100% certainty.

Precisely. I just think he should keep the tone of his statements a little closer to that thought. Kinda follows the baby eating thing.

Quote
Anyway, back to the bible. How 'bout that Song of Solomon, huh?

Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies.
Would you like to run naked through my flower bed?

Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine.
Lay off the Pork Rinds and Ripple, Lard ass!

Yes, I know... there's a special Hell waiting for me.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 21, 2008, 05:28:27 PM
Well, he is a scientist and as such he can never say anything with 100% certainty.

Precisely. I just think he should keep the tone of his statements a little closer to that thought. Kinda follows the baby eating thing.
[/quote[

I dunno. I guess I see it the same as when someone says with certainty there is a god.

Quote
Anyway, back to the bible. How 'bout that Song of Solomon, huh?

Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lilies.
Would you like to run naked through my flower bed?

Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine.
Lay off the Pork Rinds and Ripple, Lard ass!

Yes, I know... there's a special Hell waiting for me.

You know, when I get mixed wine in my navel, girls think I'm a slob. Typical double standard.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: BathTub on April 21, 2008, 06:42:51 PM
Well, he is a scientist and as such he can never say anything with 100% certainty.

Precisely. I just think he should keep the tone of his statements a little closer to that thought. Kinda follows the baby eating thing.

There was a real good example of this a couple of weeks ago when Dawkins was on the The Big Questions (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2443,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Questions,BBC), I'm at work so I can't tell you exactly at what point in the show it was. But it was the black lady, an Evangelical Christian who made a statement, "I believe that Gay People have a choice about their sin" or something close to that. And Richard Dawkins response gets everyone worked up. He of course says "You are wrong. People were saying stuff like "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" while ignoring the point he was making, and tried to make repeatedly was that 'Your Opinion' can indeed be wrong when you are disagreeing with reality. It was interesting to watch.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: BathTub on April 21, 2008, 06:59:45 PM
As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

Did you see the perfect example of this 'railing against what I think Dawkin stands for, not what he really says' last week?

No. I missed that.

It was funny. This guy Mark Ravenhill wrote an article (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,2273469,00.html#article_continue) for the Guardian titled "Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art" He goes on and on about how 'the myth of christianity' has given us all this beauty and we must defend it from Dawkins the  Destroyer so that the little kids can have an understanding of it in the future and so on.

Of course all this completely ignores that Dawkins positively encourages knowledge of religion to aid in an understanding of our culture, he's said it repeatedly (and recently) and there is a section of The God Delusion on that subject. So they have now published that section online for anyone to read here (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2469,Religious-education-as-a-part-of-literary-culture,Richard-Dawkins-The-God-Delusion).

A small portion...

Quote
"The King James Authorized English translation includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Songs and the sublime Ecclesiastes. "
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 21, 2008, 07:14:46 PM
It's probably because it just soaks into the lint there. You gotta have hygiene, man, hygiene!

Well, yeah, but the lint is in there to soak it up. Otherwise, it'd just be leakin' out all over the place. Duh.

As far as The God Delusion goes, I think people have said that Dawkins says a lot of things that he just doesn't. They tend to portray him as this crazed rabid atheist, but they've turned his argument into a caricature. And how can you not like a man who's married to frakkin' Romana? Granted, I do wish that he'd gone into some of the more complex arguments for god from people like Tillich, but that's not really the kind of god most people believe in, so I see why he didn't.

Did you see the perfect example of this 'railing against what I think Dawkin stands for, not what he really says' last week?

No. I missed that.

It was funny. This guy Mark Ravenhill wrote an article (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,2273469,00.html#article_continue) for the Guardian titled "Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art" He goes on and on about how 'the myth of christianity' has given us all this beauty and we must defend it from Dawkins the  Destroyer so that the little kids can have an understanding of it in the future and so on.

Of course all this completely ignores that Dawkins positively encourages knowledge of religion to aid in an understanding of our culture, he's said it repeatedly (and recently) and there is a section of The God Delusion on that subject. So they have now published that section online for anyone to read here (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2469,Religious-education-as-a-part-of-literary-culture,Richard-Dawkins-The-God-Delusion).

A small portion...

Quote
"The King James Authorized English translation includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example the Song of Songs and the sublime Ecclesiastes. "

Oooo... Dawkins is going to be on Dr. Who? I can't wait to see that. I wonder if he'll bring Romana.

After that, the article really goes off-track. It reminds me of the time I was debating the existence of god with a friend and he said it was obvious god existed because beauty exists. I ended the debate then.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: AmandaGal on April 21, 2008, 08:38:26 PM
I dunno. I guess I see it the same as when someone says with certainty there is a god.

People who say with 100% certainty that there is a God are speaking from something other than science, barring those idiots who confuse religion and science.  This is the crux of the debate.  You can, arguably, have 100% faith.  You can never have 100% science.

One of the many reasons why religion and science should be totally separate things.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 22, 2008, 12:56:39 AM
I dunno. I guess I see it the same as when someone says with certainty there is a god.

People who say with 100% certainty that there is a God are speaking from something other than science, barring those idiots who confuse religion and science.  This is the crux of the debate.  You can, arguably, have 100% faith.  You can never have 100% science.

One of the many reasons why religion and science should be totally separate things.

I absolutely agree. It just seems like, when it comes to him, people have bought into a lot of straw man arguments and unfair caricatures of what he says. Or maybe it's just that I don't find anything he's said shocking in the least. He's just saying them in a more public way than many have in a while.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 22, 2008, 06:24:43 PM
People who say with 100% certainty that there is a God are speaking from something other than science, barring those idiots who confuse religion and science.  This is the crux of the debate.  You can, arguably, have 100% faith.  You can never have 100% science.

One of the many reasons why religion and science should be totally separate things.

I absolutely agree. It just seems like, when it comes to him, people have bought into a lot of straw man arguments and unfair caricatures of what he says. Or maybe it's just that I don't find anything he's said shocking in the least. He's just saying them in a more public way than many have in a while.

i know, this is way off topic for the thread, and I wanted to be good anais.jude... please don't hilk on me.  :D

I don't mean this in smarmy way at all, so please don't take it that way... it's just an observation on my part. I've always had trouble with notion that Science an Religion are really separate. There is certainly a large portion of both camps that feel persecuted by the other and, indeed, there is a lot of persecuting going on, but at the root of it they really aren't that far apart. The achievements of the Greeks, Romans, Persians and so on not withstanding, Science, to a huge degree, was inspired by the desire to know God's universe better, and in so doing know Him better. The idea that God's universe was based on immutable laws and that men (in the purely non-sexist way, of course) might be able to understand slices of it is what got folks away from simple observation and philosophic discussion, and into studying causality. Prior to the boom in scientific study it was in large part perfectly acceptable to blame plague on the sinners and view it as God's wrath. Slaughter a few thousand of the unrighteous, flog yourself day and night and things might turn out OK. Science has taught us (some of us anyway) how to slaughter one another for entirely different reasons and with much more efficiency.

At a more basic level, both Science and Religion are fraught with holes and conflicting "truths" and require a large amount of faith in some very fundamental concepts. How many times do we use Science without knowing anything about how something works and without even considering it might fail, even when our very lives depend on it working? And how many times, after a "near miss" do we say "Thank God." even if it isn't a conscious praising? All things considered, I don't see why there shouldn't be room for both. After all, God helps those who help themselves.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: torgosPizza on April 22, 2008, 06:46:37 PM
[How many times do we use Science without knowing anything about how something works and without even considering it might fail, even when our very lives depend on it working?

But that's the point. Science is science because the results are observable, predictable, and repeatable. The theory satisfies the results when you can make a prediction about an experiment. If the result does not match, then you change the theory based on the new information (but only after many more times of running the experiment).

These things work because we know they will work - it's been proven. The same way we can test and observe gravity and electricity. No one has "seen" an electron, but we know they are there because of how other things interact with them. Sure, the best we can do is infer their presence and their other properties - as was mentioned above, no one can claim to know everything about everything - but the things we do know with some measure of certainty have gotten that way thanks to cold, hard science - not faith.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 22, 2008, 07:45:57 PM
[How many times do we use Science without knowing anything about how something works and without even considering it might fail, even when our very lives depend on it working?

But that's the point. Science is science because the results are observable, predictable, and repeatable. The theory satisfies the results when you can make a prediction about an experiment. If the result does not match, then you change the theory based on the new information (but only after many more times of running the experiment).

These things work because we know they will work - it's been proven. The same way we can test and observe gravity and electricity. No one has "seen" an electron, but we know they are there because of how other things interact with them. Sure, the best we can do is infer their presence and their other properties - as was mentioned above, no one can claim to know everything about everything - but the things we do know with some measure of certainty have gotten that way thanks to cold, hard science - not faith.

Believe me, I understand your point perfectly. My point is that you personally (or me, or anyone) haven't done all of the Science for ourselves. We take it on faith that the work has been done and that it's dependable. After all, every one around us uses it all the time, it's what makes the world tick, just as religious faith makes the universe tick for those with that faith. We know for certain that the current model of the universe is flawed. There is still no Grand Unified Theorem, we simply use what we know will work for our purposes, just as the righteous would pray and atone and say "see, it worked" when the plague petered out, or when the afflicted are healed by the Blessed Virgin. I know it's on a very different level of demonstration, it's just the very basic concept that is similar. We still rely on the immutable laws of the universe even though we, individually, don't really understand them.

And religion also changes when confronted with impassible conflicts. Granted it's much more slowly and very grudgingly, but I can well remember when certain radical paleontologists were scoffed at for suggesting that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Those guys took some pretty heavy heat from the Scientific community. So did Steven Hawking for his thoughts on Black Holes, etc, etc.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 22, 2008, 09:53:52 PM
[How many times do we use Science without knowing anything about how something works and without even considering it might fail, even when our very lives depend on it working?

But that's the point. Science is science because the results are observable, predictable, and repeatable. The theory satisfies the results when you can make a prediction about an experiment. If the result does not match, then you change the theory based on the new information (but only after many more times of running the experiment).

These things work because we know they will work - it's been proven. The same way we can test and observe gravity and electricity. No one has "seen" an electron, but we know they are there because of how other things interact with them. Sure, the best we can do is infer their presence and their other properties - as was mentioned above, no one can claim to know everything about everything - but the things we do know with some measure of certainty have gotten that way thanks to cold, hard science - not faith.

Believe me, I understand your point perfectly. My point is that you personally (or me, or anyone) haven't done all of the Science for ourselves. We take it on faith that the work has been done and that it's dependable. After all, every one around us uses it all the time, it's what makes the world tick, just as religious faith makes the universe tick for those with that faith. We know for certain that the current model of the universe is flawed. There is still no Grand Unified Theorem, we simply use what we know will work for our purposes, just as the righteous would pray and atone and say "see, it worked" when the plague petered out, or when the afflicted are healed by the Blessed Virgin. I know it's on a very different level of demonstration, it's just the very basic concept that is similar. We still rely on the immutable laws of the universe even though we, individually, don't really understand them.

And religion also changes when confronted with impassible conflicts. Granted it's much more slowly and very grudgingly, but I can well remember when certain radical paleontologists were scoffed at for suggesting that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Those guys took some pretty heavy heat from the Scientific community. So did Steven Hawking for his thoughts on Black Holes, etc, etc.

I think the difference here you might be missing is that science relies, by definition, on the natural, whereas religion relies, by definition, on the supernatural. Supernatural events are unexplainable; if they weren't, they wouldn't be supernatural. Because of this, you can't run repeatable, testable experiments based on supernatural hypotheses, so the sort of faith required is very different than that required by science.

As far as your examples go, sure there were people who rejected the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs and several other things, but they were won over by evidence and the ability to test the evidence themselves. Religion isn't like that; what do you test when someone tells you god has changed his mind?

The analogy between science and religion fails here. The faith one has in science is based on natural laws, but the faith one has in religion is based on the supernatural and that difference is critical.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 23, 2008, 04:25:25 AM
The analogy between science and religion fails here. The faith one has in science is based on natural laws, but the faith one has in religion is based on the supernatural and that difference is critical.

And Science has determined that 96% of the universe is comprised of something we cannot detect except by it's effect on the 4% we can detect. That strikes me as being a little esoteric. ;D
I really don't disagree with you, I only point out that neither you nor I test those hypothesis for ourselves. We go through our daily lives with the faith that the system we've entrusted our lives with will not fail us catastrophically. It's more a philosophical observation than a direct comparison.
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: AmandaGal on April 23, 2008, 05:27:08 AM
I agree to a certain extent that both science and religion require a kind of faith.  I've never seen an atom.  I have faith that they exist. I've seen mathematical proofs and I've ran a cyclotron so I've excited them.  I've never seen "gravity," but I know it's there.  If I jump, I fall.  If I jump again, I fall again.  We've seen time and time again that science can be wrong, so we are taking things in "faith."

I think it's language that is confusing the issue.  The "faith" of science is trusting the data.  You trust that this is really how it is and that these things really were reported correctly, etc.   You trust the steps in logic.  You trust the observations of the scientists before you.  You trust your repeated observations.  So, there is "faith" in that trust.

The "faith" of religion is more than about trusting the data.  You're given no real data to trust.  If you were, it wouldn't be religious faith. 

Why do you believe in God? What data do we have? The Bible?  To say you trust of the data (and I use the term loosely) presented by the Bible because they were written by God, and because of the data in the BIble you believe in God is circular.  Science is not circular like that. 

Most people would say it's more than the data in the Bible.  Most people would say they feel it to be so.  They know it in their hearts.  With religious faith, there comes a point that it has to take the next step from something in the natural world to something inside of you, if that makes sense.  With science you never do.  You make logical conclusions from the data.  You repeat your observations.  You get the same results.  You do this over and over and then you believe it to be true. 

Religious faith is a personal proof.  A personal step.  It is something you may not be able to prove to others, but you know it's true.  Something you may not be able to repeat may have convinced you there is a God and may have given you perfect faith.  It happens all the time.  I always like to hear my Christian friends tell me why they're 100% convinced their god is the right one. Each story is different.

With science, if someone asks, "Why do you believe in gravity?" we all pretty much say the same thing :)
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: DarthChimay on April 23, 2008, 09:33:18 AM
The analogy between science and religion fails here. The faith one has in science is based on natural laws, but the faith one has in religion is based on the supernatural and that difference is critical.

And Science has determined that 96% of the universe is comprised of something we cannot detect except by it's effect on the 4% we can detect. That strikes me as being a little esoteric. ;D
I really don't disagree with you, I only point out that neither you nor I test those hypothesis for ourselves. We go through our daily lives with the faith that the system we've entrusted our lives with will not fail us catastrophically. It's more a philosophical observation than a direct comparison.

Well, they determined it through very sound means (I'm assuming you're talking about dark matter). And they have detected it: http://www.physorg.com/news98450367.html (http://www.physorg.com/news98450367.html)

That's just one example of what dark matter is, and it isn't esoteric. You should check out the Astronomy Cast; they have a lot of great info about what dark matter is and how we know it exists. Within our lifetimes, the evidence has become quite overwhelming.

With science, if someone asks, "Why do you believe in gravity?" we all pretty much say the same thing :)

Yes. We say, "Watch this!" and throw a kitten out a window. Or a bible (to bring it 'round circle).
Title: Re: the bible
Post by: basselope on April 23, 2008, 05:12:55 PM
Well, they determined it through very sound means (I'm assuming you're talking about dark matter). And they have detected it: http://www.physorg.com/news98450367.html (http://www.physorg.com/news98450367.html)

That's just one example of what dark matter is, and it isn't esoteric. You should check out the Astronomy Cast; they have a lot of great info about what dark matter is and how we know it exists. Within our lifetimes, the evidence has become quite overwhelming.

Yea, that was cool as heck when Hubble caught that!
But, there again, Science can't claim proof in the strictest sense. We can only say that we're pretty dang sure it's there because we can see what it does, and that when it's included in our model of the Universe (as we understand it)  the model works.Science can only claim a very high probability based on very controlled observations and calculations of  the phenomena when applied to our current understanding of physics. It still takes a little faith that enough of the system up to this point is basically right.
I really thought that the mechanics of particle entaglement would be a stumbling block for quite some time, but they've got it pretty well sorted out now. And I'm sure they'll do the same for Dark matter and Dark Energy in time... but they're not there quite yet. They still have some 'splainin to do-like a modern day Enuma Elish.

(I just threw that in for thread continuity... I really don't know much about it.)  :-\