Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

#402
#402
I don't agree with the bible. It could have been written better according to me. Even though, by naturalism, which i'm forced to embrace, i have no objective basis to judge anything. My thoughts and faculties are the result of unguided, purposeless events on a spec of dust in an vast cosmos. Therefore, Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Ok, got it.

Ignore all the other parts in the bible where it speaks of honoring women, sacrificial love for a spouse, volumes of information on ethics within Psalms and Proverbs. Pick out parts that seem odd in our culture and dismiss the rest. Sounds good.
 
#403
#403
Roustabout said:
I don't agree with the bible. It could have been written better according to me. Even though, by naturalism, which i'm forced to embrace, i have no objective basis to judge anything. My thoughts and faculties are the result of unguided, purposeless events on a spec of dust in an vast cosmos. Therefore, Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Ok, got it.

Ignore all the other parts in the bible where it speaks of honoring women, sacrificial love for a spouse, volumes of information on ethics within Psalms and Proverbs. Pick out parts that seem odd in our culture and dismiss the rest. Sounds good.
Click to expand...

Just because it has parts that "good" doesn't cancel out the "bad" parts, and the "bad" parts aren't automatically "good" just because "God said so."

And lol that things "seem odd" in our culture; yes endorsed slavery, a passive attitude to rape, and women as property sure as hell seem odd. And it seems odd to condone such things because apparently the all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe was bound to the traditions and customs of man and seemingly powerless to, you know, tell people to stop doing those things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#404
#404
Roustabout said:
I don't agree with the bible. It could have been written better according to me. Even though, by naturalism, which i'm forced to embrace, i have no objective basis to judge anything. My thoughts and faculties are the result of unguided, purposeless events on a spec of dust in an vast cosmos. Therefore, Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Ok, got it.

Ignore all the other parts in the bible where it speaks of honoring women, sacrificial love for a spouse, volumes of information on ethics within Psalms and Proverbs. Pick out parts that seem odd in our culture and dismiss the rest. Sounds good.
Click to expand...

As an "objective" source of morality, the Bible falls at almost the bottom of the pile. At the very least, the OT is about as bad as it gets.

The problem with your sarcasm here is you are failing to recognize just how many people do read this texts literally, or even selectively literally. Sure, we can ignore texts on how to beat your kids in Leviticus...we can even explain it away by saying it was appropriate for the time, or it is allegory, or it doesn't apply now...or whatever. There are good parts of the Bible to stand up, absolutely. And there are parts that any decent person would ignore. But in doing so, one is only taking into account modern normalities on human rights and other areas of discourse that are contrary to what is written and believed as God's word. Every advance in science, every 21st century view on human rights...now must be wrestled with. I don't expect you or anybody else to actually admit that these 21st century views have nothing to do with God and they are contrary to the Bible, yet, here we are trying to make the two compatible.

There are some countries in the Islamic world that are Exhibit A on what happens when society doesn't force a check on barbaric beliefs. Lets not sit here a pretend that if stoning a girl that is not a virgin on her wedding night was normally accepted in today's society it would not happen because there is a sophisticated reading of Leviticus or philosophical moral reason that wouldn't allow it.

I'm sorry, but that is the simple truth. And round about discourse on objective morality and I can't say its wrong and whatever else...is just smoke screen because you don't want to admit it....or you really and truly can't see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#405
#405
Roustabout said:
I don't agree with the bible. It could have been written better according to me. Even though, by naturalism, which i'm forced to embrace, i have no objective basis to judge anything. My thoughts and faculties are the result of unguided, purposeless events on a spec of dust in an vast cosmos. Therefore, Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Ok, got it.

Ignore all the other parts in the bible where it speaks of honoring women, sacrificial love for a spouse, volumes of information on ethics within Psalms and Proverbs. Pick out parts that seem odd in our culture and dismiss the rest. Sounds good.
Click to expand...
A single reference to slavery being ok or killing someone for working on a certain day of the week should discredit any document in the mind of reasonable people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#406
#406
VolsSportsFan said:
Just because it has parts that "good" doesn't cancel out the "bad" parts, and the "bad" parts aren't automatically "good" just because "God said so."

And lol that things "seem odd" in our culture; yes endorsed slavery, a passive attitude to rape, and women as property sure as hell seem odd. And it seems odd to condone such things because apparently the all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe was bound to the traditions and customs of man and seemingly powerless to, you know, tell people to stop doing those things.
Click to expand...

That is a great post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#407
#407
Roustabout said:
It's just incredulity
Click to expand...

Right, nothing but unmitigated incredulity informs my rationale for rejecting the divine authorship of the Bible. Meanwhile your dismissal of evolution is based solely upon sound logical reasoning.

I've been overwhelmed by gratuitous incredulity in my refusal to accept the Bible as the word of God, but you can view a picture like this and continue to think that humans aren't just another mammal species.


consolation_zc_resized.jpg


You're the one who's allowed incredulity and arrogance to corrupt your faculties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#408
#408
Deputy Fife said:
Right, nothing but unmitigated incredulity informs my rationale for rejecting the divine authorship of the Bible. Meanwhile your dismissal of evolution is based solely upon sound logical reasoning.

I've been overwhelmed by gratuitous incredulity in my refusal to accept the Bible as the word of God, but you can view a picture like this and continue to think that humans aren't just another mammal species.


consolation_zc_resized.jpg


You're the one who's allowed incredulity and arrogance to corrupt your faculties.
Click to expand...

Technically, divinely inspired written by man. I believe Moses was the proposed author of the first five books in the OT. However, the authorship theory suggest groups of writers over a span of time.
 
#409
#409
I personally believe that everyone has a right to believe in what they want so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. For example, if parents desire for their children to learn creationism vs evolution, there should be an optional elective. Likewise, parents who want their children to learn evolutionary studies should have a right for their children to take that class.
 
#410
#410
SergeantVol said:
I personally believe that everyone has a right to believe in what they want so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. For example, if parents desire for their children to learn creationism vs evolution, there should be an optional elective. Likewise, parents who want their children to learn evolutionary studies should have a right for their children to take that class.
Click to expand...

Good thing you born here in 'Murica, right? Had you been born in the middle east, the version of creation and the god your parents "desired for you to learn" would have looked a bit different.

Again, the problem with all religion is that the morality it teaches is at odds with the ability of it's followers to stFu and leave other people alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#411
#411
SergeantVol said:
I personally believe that everyone has a right to believe in what they want so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. For example, if parents desire for their children to learn creationism vs evolution, there should be an optional elective. Likewise, parents who want their children to learn evolutionary studies should have a right for their children to take that class.
Click to expand...

Terrible idea.

Science (biology in this case) class should be mandatory. If evolution is the leading scientific theory, then that is what should be taught. If another scientific theory subplants evolution, then that theory should be taught.

If creationism is taught, it should either be an elective (not that I could ever see it being an elective by itself) or within an elective such as theology, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#412
#412
PKT_VOL said:
Terrible idea.

Science (biology in this case) class should be mandatory. If evolution is the leading scientific theory, then that is what should be taught. If another scientific theory subplants evolution, then that theory should be taught.

If creationism is taught, it should either be an elective (not that I could ever see it being an elective by itself) or within an elective such as theology, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, etc.
Click to expand...

I can see your point. In defense of my argument, if teaching violate someone's religious beliefs then it should not be force upon. However, the guardians should be required to sign something that makes them liable for their students/ children to not receive this instruction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#413
#413
SergeantVol said:
I can see your point. In defense of my argument, if teaching violate someone's religious beliefs then it should not be force upon. However, the guardians should be required to sign something that makes them liable for their students/ children to not receive this instruction.
Click to expand...

There are all kinds of things taught in science classes that potentially contradict one's specific religious beliefs, it's not just limited to evolution. If you start excusing little Jimmy from having to learn large parts of the curriculum, you've opened the door for any student(or parents of the student) to essentially pick and choose what little Jimmy can or can't hear(his ears might burn off). The end result would be the abuse of the concession leading to some students practically not having to take science at all, which certainly doesn't seem very fair to the students who are actually tested on the material.

If you don't want your kid to learn science, homeschooling them is your best solution. In public school, they shouldn't get special treatment. It's not practical nor is it fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#414
#414
SergeantVol said:
I can see your point. In defense of my argument, if teaching violate someone's religious beliefs then it should not be force upon. However, the guardians should be required to sign something that makes them liable for their students/ children to not receive this instruction.
Click to expand...

Violate their religious beliefs?

What if said person is a fundamentalist Christian? The theories of light fly in the face young Earth creationism. Are physics teachers at public school suppose to think of every possible physics theory that might contradict young Earth creationism? Others might find history class offensive. What are the children suppose to do instead?

If the parents feel that strongly about evolution, history, physics, etc. being taught to their children in a public school, they always have the option to private school them or home school them. Notice, it isn't the children who are offended by such things, it is the parents who are.

Often in these situations, it isn't really their own children that the parents care about, but rather the children of other parents. You see, parents have the ability and the opportunity to teach/control their kids at home after school, on the weekends, and in the summer. It is the public school time where the parent has the ability to influence the upbringing of other children who are not raised by their standards. This dynamic cuts both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#415
#415
I am talking on an individual basis for these kids. It wouldn't be a detriment to other students and I believe the schools could reasonably accomadate this request. Private religion based schools and some home schoolers already do this. While some of you may not agree with this, how would you feel if the situation was reversed? I am offering options that respect the interests of all involved. Just like some of you don't want to be force fed religion, the religious (fundamentalists) don't want to be force fed views that contradict what they believe in.
 
#416
#416
Why shouldn't tax payers who have children in school not have a say on how their tax dollars are being spent on education?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#417
#417
SergeantVol said:
I am talking on an individual basis for these kids. It wouldn't be a detriment to other students and I believe the schools could reasonably accomadate this request.
Click to expand...

How are they going to reasonably accommodate every single student with largely differing religious beliefs? Beliefs that would contradict a range of curriculum in multiple subjects(science, history, etc)? How would it not be a detriment to those who have to study complicated material and pass tests on it while others are not required to? If you think accommodating every single student in this way is not only fair, but reasonable and practical, I don't believe you've thought this through.

Private religion based schools and some home schoolers already do this.
Click to expand...

As is their right.

While some of you may not agree with this, how would you feel if the situation was reversed? I am offering options that respect the interests of all involved. Just like some of you don't want to be force fed religion, the religious (fundamentalists) don't want to be force fed views that contradict what they believe in.
Click to expand...

I went to a private high school. I was taught a ton of religious stuff I didn't agree with. I took the tests and participated in class because I understood that the school was primarily a religious institution, I didn't cry about being FORCED to hear their curriculum. And, make no mistake about it, I had no choice in where I went to high school. I made no assumption that I would be accommodated for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#418
#418
SergeantVol said:
I am talking on an individual basis for these kids. It wouldn't be a detriment to other students and I believe the schools could reasonably accomadate this request. Private religion based schools and some home schoolers already do this. While some of you may not agree with this, how would you feel if the situation was reversed? I am offering options that respect the interests of all involved. Just like some of you don't want to be force fed religion, the religious (fundamentalists) don't want to be force fed views that contradict what they believe in.
Click to expand...

Public schools, for the most part, already accommodate those who don't want to learn about specific things.

In high school, there were Mormons who objected to studying Arthur Miller's The Crucible. They were allowed to not participate.

The onus of an alternative lesson or preparing those students with similar skills shouldn't fall on the school. It should be on the student/parents. Needless to say, the preparation of possible testing of that material on standardized tests or post-requisite/supplementary courses/classes/lessons of that material would also be on the student/parent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#421
#421
My grandson who is on the 6th grade attending a public school was doing his homework at our home a couple of weeks ago. He worksheet was concerning Moses and the Exdous. Oh the horror, will this cause him permanent damage?

I was really shocked they were teaching that. It was in his social studies class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#422
#422
MercyPercy said:
Your taxes go to the military and you don't really have any say on how those dollars are spent.

Are you similarly outraged?
Click to expand...

They are spent on defense. Training and equipping our military. Due to my affiliation, I am essentially paying for a portion of my own salary.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top