... malevolent bully.

[Bruce Burleson]

No, it's quite credible. Most people believe that God exists in some form. Most people always have.

Most people used to the believe the world was flat. Most people believed the Sun was God. Most people were wrong. You know that phrase "2 million can't be wrong"? Fucking yeah they can be wrong.[/quote]

Of course believers could be wrong. But it is not incredible that people believe, since people have always believed. For all of history, religious faith of some sort has been the norm, and still is. So it should surprise no one that people believe.

[Bruce Burleson]

Since when is truth a Democratic thing "most people " believe lots of silly things and a few hundred years ago almost everything people believed was rubbish .
Lots of people believing in god doesn't mean there is one and I doesn't mean you have any concept of what god is like. Your book is obviously total gobshite

Just give it up Bruce you KNOW you don't need this stupid belief the insane mental hoops you have to jump through to to sustain it are not worth it .

My point was simply that it should not be deemed "incredible" (the word used by Charlou) that I should believe in God. Since most people always have believed, there is nothing "incredible" about it - it's part of human nature to believe in God. (Not everyone has that part, of course - some newer models have a different system). It's really not hard to believe when your experience leads you in that direction. The jumping I do is no more than a healthy regimen of calisthenics.

[Ra]

Most people believed the Sun was God.

I know. Where did you all go so wrong?

[Bruce Burleson]

Quite, but there is no clue from the text what that would be. However, the text does use quotes, and specifically refers to God speaking, in the active voice, and not Abraham thinking or perceiving something. Certainly, it is allowable for you to read the passage not as literally meaning God said X, Y or Z but rather Abraham thinking it. But, I wonder, why would a god inspire a book in that way? We can't know for sure, or even surmise that more likely than not, that your version is correct. As far as we can tell, it might be referring to a literal event and literal words spoken by God, or it could be referring to thoughts in Abraham's head. Or, it could be referring to something Abraham dreamed, or something Abraham imagined altogether. Is there a way to distinguish which one, if any, are correct? If so, let me know.

Who said that God inspired the book? Abraham had an experience, told someone about it, and later it was written down. No inspiration of the book is required. The book stands between us and the experience that Abraham had. We look through the lens of the book and attempt to interpret something that happened 4000 years ago. The inspiration was in the encounter between Abraham and God. Everything that happened after that is interpretation.

In the Book of Genesis, God is quite clear that he does want animal sacrifices.

Yes, I am quite aware of what the OT says, having studied it all my life. My argument is that the people of the OT misinterpreted God, and that Jesus gave us a proper interpretation.

However, how are we to know? Are sacrifices desired by God or not? A whole bunch of people trying to be faithful to God sure thought they were back in the day, right? Now, however, since culturally we don't do the animal sacrifices anymore, we are prone to view the Bible passages as saying something other than they actually say. That's fine, but how are we to know? And, why would a God make it so that we have to "interpret" these stories in the dramatic fashion that you do - especially when, clearly, reasonable minds can differ as to your interpretation?

We don't know. That's why it is called faith. I simply think that Jesus gave a better presentation of God than the OT. His view is more "reasonable", if I can use that word in this context.

Perhaps, but quite possibly, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had it wrong....how are we to tell?

Maybe they did have it wrong. In fact, I'm pretty sure they got parts of it wrong. So it comes down to whether the individual has a revelatory experience that convinces him/her of the validity of the faith. No rational certainty here.

Why do you find that to be a reasonable interpretation, but my suggestion that the whole thing could have been an invention of the author as an illustration, and that Abraham may never have existed, why do you find that to be something you are unwilling to entertain? Or, are you willing to entertain that notion? You said that you saw no reason to believe that Abraham did not exist - but, by the same token, is there any reason to believe he did? Or, if he did exist is there any reason to believe he talked to God? Or, is there any reason to believe that he got it wrong and was only thinking things in his head?

It is certainly possible that Abraham never existed. We do have an account of his life, however, and there is no reason that I can see why one should not accept his existence. But we can't be certain. Life is full of uncertainties, isn't it?

I am confused by your decisions as to what to believe and what not to believe. On what basis have you made these choices?

Personal, subjective experience.

[Bruce Burleson]

You'll agree, it's not authoritative at all, right? It has no authority?

Right, authority has no place in my argument. You look at what you have, and you make evaluations.

One may, of course, also interpret the human belief in gods much in the way you interpret the human belief in sacrifices. You cited a psychological need to sacrifice to the deity. Perhaps we can interpret all the references to a God in the Bible as just thoughts in people's heads, reflecting a psychological need to believe in some sort of supernatural higher power.

That is certainly possible.

The way I see it, there can be many alternative interpretations. We can even view the Jesus dying and rising again story as metaphorical, can't we? We could even interpret the existence of God as metaphorical, yes?

You can, if that is how you evaluate the available manuscript evidence. My position is that the crucifixion of Jesus is established as an historical event by a preponderance of the historical evidence, but you can interpret it any way you like. Belief in God and the resurrection of Jesus only comes when one has a personal revelatory experience, IMHO.

[dj357]

Belief in God and the resurrection of Jesus only comes when one has a personal revelatory experience, IMHO.

IMO, such a belief comes from taking the 'word' of bronze-age sheepherders far too freaking far, with a little psychotic break mixed in, just for fun. the crucifixion of a guy who might have been named jesus, though probably not, is quite probably a historical fact. What's not a historical fact and is also absolute fucking bollox, for anyone who even vaguely understands the world around us, is his supposed resurrection. No one comes back from the dead. NO ONE. As soon as you are brain dead, it's bye bye for all eternity.

[Epictetus]

It is not incredible that people believe, since people have always believed. For all of history, religious faith of some sort has been the norm, and still is. So it should surprise no one that people believe”.

I, for one, am not surprised in the least that “people have always believed”. This just confirms for me the limitless credulity to which human beings are susceptible. They can believe just about anything on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Does the Bible assure us that Balaam’s donkey was fluent in the Hebrew tongue? Well, then, it must be an irrefutable fact. I mean, why would anybody make such a thing up? It just has to be true.

Also, I wonder how many people who didn’t believe, who didn't subscribe to the religious “norm” of their environment, kept their mouths shut for fear of being persecuted (a justifiable concern). There have always been those who don't believe. It's just been dangerous for them to voice their doubts.

[Tigger]

No, it's quite credible. Most people believe that God exists in some form. Most people always have.

Most people used to the believe the world was flat. Most people believed the Sun was God. Most people were wrong. You know that phrase "2 million can't be wrong"? Fucking yeah they can be wrong.

Of course believers could be wrong. But it is not incredible that people believe, since people have always believed. For all of history, religious faith of some sort has been the norm, and still is. So it should surprise no one that people believe.

Just because it's been the norm, born originally of ignorance and superstition, does that make it the correct way to proceed in the 21st century? We have science, empirical experimentation and historical documentation that debunks much of what your book of fairy stories tells. Instead now of giving your book the authority and absolute rectitude it had in days of yore, you are now forced to accommodate the nonsense it spouts more and more, and to "interpret" its meaning. "He" is a pretty crap deity if he (no caps) can't make himself (no caps, doesn't merit it) understood forever.

[Epictetus]

Belief in God and the resurrection of Jesus only comes when one has a personal revelatory experience

What about the "personal revealatory experiences" of other competing religionists: Joseph Smith, Muhammed, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.? They can't all be right (they may very well all be wrong). This, I think, points up the danger/untrustworthiness of such "personal revealatory experiences".

[Bruce Burleson]

IMO, such a belief comes from taking the 'word' of bronze-age sheepherders far too freaking far, with a little psychotic break mixed in, just for fun. the crucifixion of a guy who might have been named jesus, though probably not, is quite probably a historical fact. What's not a historical fact and is also absolute fucking bollox, for anyone who even vaguely understands the world around us, is his supposed resurrection. No one comes back from the dead. NO ONE. As soon as you are brain dead, it's bye bye for all eternity.

Well that IS the issue, isn't it?

[Bruce Burleson]

Instead now of giving your book the authority and absolute rectitude it had in days of yore, you are now forced to accommodate the nonsense it spouts more and more, and to "interpret" its meaning. "He" is a pretty crap deity if he (no caps) can't make himself (no caps, doesn't merit it) understood forever.

I have no problem understanding Jesus. He made himself quite understandable, IMO.

By the way, it's not my book. It is a collection of early manuscripts.

[Bruce Burleson]

What about the "personal revealatory experiences" of other competing religionists: Joseph Smith, Muhammed, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.? They can't all be right (they may very well all be wrong). This, I think, points up the danger/untrustworthiness of such "personal revealatory experiences".

The problem of those you list is that other people believed THEIR experiences instead of having their own. Probably not good to base your faith on anyone else's experience. The kool-aid may not agree with your system.

[dj357]

IMO, such a belief comes from taking the 'word' of bronze-age sheepherders far too freaking far, with a little psychotic break mixed in, just for fun. the crucifixion of a guy who might have been named jesus, though probably not, is quite probably a historical fact. What's not a historical fact and is also absolute fucking bollox, for anyone who even vaguely understands the world around us, is his supposed resurrection. No one comes back from the dead. NO ONE. As soon as you are brain dead, it's bye bye for all eternity.

Well that IS the issue, isn't it?

not really. you have some scriptures, most of which contradict each other internally which support your belief that one single person in the history of the entire universe somehow reanimated post-mortem. I have the solid mountains of evidence, much of which can be seen in the calm graveyards all over the world, that billions upon billions of people have died and never come back from that point. and I don't have to rely on faith or belief. it's a fact.

you seriously expect us to believe that you happen have hit upon the one magical person in the entire universe who is immune to the laws of nature despite everything we understand about those laws...?

[normal]

What about the "personal revealatory experiences" of other competing religionists: Joseph Smith, Muhammed, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.? They can't all be right (they may very well all be wrong). This, I think, points up the danger/untrustworthiness of such "personal revealatory experiences".

The problem of those you list is that other people believed THEIR experiences instead of having their own. Probably not good to base your faith on anyone else's experience. The kool-aid may not agree with your system.

But they're still personal revelations. Just as worthy as a revelation you or I might think we've had. No?

[Feck]

What about the "personal revealatory experiences" of other competing religionists: Joseph Smith, Muhammed, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.? They can't all be right (they may very well all be wrong). This, I think, points up the danger/untrustworthiness of such "personal revealatory experiences".

The problem of those you list is that other people believed THEIR experiences instead of having their own. Probably not good to base your faith on anyone else's experience. The kool-aid may not agree with your system.

But they're still personal revelations. Just as worthy as a revelation you or I might think we've had. No?

Less relevant as we are here to talk about it first hand ..