Pray tell, where? And by whom?

coop

Pray tell, where? And by whom?”

Didn’t you see that copy of the 32 AD/CE paper laying around? It was in this huge, bold font across the mast-head.

Approximately the same people who gave us the story of Gawain and the Green Knight, or the rest of the Arthurian legend. The New Testament seen as fact is ridiculous, read as poetry it’s astonishing.

Which really has nothing to do with whether Christianity is a worthwhile religion or not — its lack of historical documentation is hardly a unique circumstance.

The resulting questions are more interesting. “*Why* do they find the English condescending?”

Let me guess, the bible!

I agree, but the need to shout over your opponent is definitely planned. Fox News perfected the art of inviting polite opponents for “dialogue” and never letting them get two words in during the ten minute slot unless they shouted too. MSNBC, taking on the role of The Liberal Fox News, is only following suit.

As for the mic idea, O’Reilly already has one. Guess how he uses it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuRCS_qshV0

#19 “Hitchens reminds me of a drunk, bullying professor at an after-class discussion session.”

Yes, but given the blithe ignorance that man has to slog through on a daily basis, I doubt I’d be any nicer were I in his shoes.

#31 “Pray tell, where? And by whom?”

Why, by several independent eyewitness accounts – Saint Matthew, Saint John AND Saint Paul. Collated for your convenience into one portable volume!

Meanwhile, I hope his arguments (nothing new, really) will some day ‘sink in’ with the moderates and undecided of this world, because therein lies our only hope.

Given time (unless the parties of god cut it short), who knows… this poor and god-forsaken planet might even get another chance at making it right.

We started out with many many gods. We are now down to one or two. It’s a matter of time. Thanks Hitch.

“that there are plenty of moral and intellectually sound atheists, interested in real dialogue, who unfortunately have the spotlight taken away by Dawkins…”
Dawkins is just fine, as long as he sticks to biology. As a zoologist he makes a shitty philosopher. The only reason that he’s “out” is because biology is, by far, the group of sciences most picked on by people who think that the world is far younger than it actually is.

“…and Hitchens.”
The curmudgeon has his place. The thing that saddens me about him is that he could be sooo much more if he only bothered to learn more than quips, wit and emotion-lade rhetoric.

“The first is your mocking of literary and historical analysis when applied to the Bible, and your imputation that I wasted my time in learning them.”
Spending time trying to reconcile, at best, quasi-fiction with itself is a waste of time. As a book, it’s interesting to read how other people thought (desert tribes are big on obedience, it seems). Learning about the Sinai of 1446BC by reading Exodus won’t teach you much, if anything, about the Sinai 1446BC. Where it makes truth claims, it fails. JC is purported to have said “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”. Well, I’ve heard Moses and the prophets (an awesome band, by the way) and lots of what they said is bunk.

“Likewise, the imputation is annoying when it is the study that leads one to the truth…”
The truth that a bunch of God’s Word is demonstratably false, most of it is far from great literature, the good sayings of JC aren’t original and the original ones aren’t good (unless, of course, the End was Nigh…which it wasn’t)?

“The second is your concept of reconciling which, it seems to me, is again the equivalent of a Biblical literalist’s…But the idea that the Golden Rule is somehow irreconcilable with the Old Testament is something I’ve never heard before.”
I’m not expecting both to say and do the exact same things (though some consistency would be nice). The Golden Rule is not irreconcilable with Tanakh. The problem is that the God of both books is two different gods. “Be nice to each other. Also, go kill those guys.” is not the Golden Rule; it’s incoherent (and, no, “they were all bad” does not cut it). Did you ever wonder why fundamentalists consistently fall to quoting OT passages to buttress a point and why that point sounds so at odds with what a loving God (much less a 3O’d one) is supposed to be?

“Sure, you can read the whole Bible literally.”
I tend to (especially Solomon, Song of. That book is sizzlin’ hot!). As presented, it’s God’s Word. It’s not my fault that He presenting things differently than they occurred. Me taking a book literally is not the problem; believers taking it literally is. I don’t bring my nasty atheism (sometimes agnosticism and occasion deism) into their churches, I would appreciate if they kept Genesis out of science class. Sadly, my non-interference is consistently not reciprocated.

We’re talking two thousand years ago. Most “historical events of the era” are preserved only as anecdotes to the writings of men who were told the stories by their grandparents, who may have seen it firsthand or may have heard it from a drunken merchant who was told it by a shepherd. If no one questions the resurrection being solid fact, fantastic. If anyone does, there’s an easy out, and a decent segue into talking about the Bible’s well-preservedness for paragraph at a time.

The rest of his post incorporates much the same easily-twistable language. It’s really a great example of weaselly apologetics. Notice how he claims to support the separation of church and state, while not precluding defense of faith-based legislature. He also endorses the Christian church while denouncing every denomination; this allows him to support the actions of any random Christian he likes while denouncing those he doesn’t as “not really Christian.” In fact, he talks a very great deal without actually saying anything substantiative. Any response to him other than “fuck you, get out” can be twisted in his favor.

In retrospect, perhaps more respect is due. 3/10 sir, but deserving of much more. Damn nice try. Might I suggest a slightly less informed location to repost this? Perhaps one with an abundance of Christians who’ll jump to your defense? Let us know, I’d like to watch.

“…and I’m a Catholic…”
Ah ha! So you have your whole own set of problems, heretic! Protestantism has the problem that when everyone reads and interprets the Bible themselves (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, apparently), lots of people end up with different answers (thanks a lot, Holy Spirit!). Catholicism has its own faults. Amusingly, they’re best illustrated in pro-Protestant/anti-Catholic apologetics…I’ll leave it up to you to swim in those zealous shark infested waters. I, meanwhile, think that you’re all nuts. Don’t take it personally. I’m a bit nutty myself.

“…who thinks that most of the theological problems with Christianity, like Biblical literalism and creationism, are errors of the Reformation.”
Try The Enlightenment, believe it or not. (Note: believe it).

…
Apropo of nothing, Bad Christian was an awesome movie. Harvey Keitel should’ve got the Oscar for his portrayal of Bad Jesus.

Anyone who doesn’t believe that this country (US) was founded on “faith-based” principles need look no further than the reverse side of the Great Seal of The United States (the “Eye of Providence”). That seal was adopted in 1782, and first appeared on the US dollar in 1935. There can be no doubt that the US was founded by a group of men who had a very strong “faith-based” belief system.

This symbol means many things to many people. One thing is certain, the Great Seal was designed by either initiates of the Rose Cross or of the Illuminati. Both of these organizations are Gnostic (they say as much in their published writings). In the work entitled “Fundamental Laws, 68th Convocation” (1916), published by the Order of the Rose Cross, the mystic significance of the Seal is described. You read this book for free, if you would like. I found it by searching books.google.com.

They said King Herod died in 4 BCE, and Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6 CE, when it’s established fact that Jesus was born before Herod’s death (Matthew 2:1) but after Quirinius began his governence (Luke 2:1).

“If you think that “the Golden Rule is not irreconcilable with Tanakh” you should not have said so.”
And if you think that the Old Covenant, with a little people in a little patch of not particularly good soil and their little god and the “Never mind, I really meant ‘everyone’. Sorry about the confusion. I’ll get Paul to sort it out later” and an actual 3O’d, all loving, all benevolent God are all the same thing…
Am I judging God? Obviously. Their god looks like one that people would make up. Too small, too jealous, too petty, too poor with people, too favouritist. An actual 3O’d god would be able and willing to chat with each and every person all the time, like an actual loving father writ large, rather than pick one every once in a while and get him to spread the word. In the very least, it would save people from accidentally mistaking their own made up gods for the true one (the problem with everybody else’s Revelation is that it’s wrong).

“To strip down your argument here, all you really said is ‘Your way didn’t lead to my answer so it must be wrong.’”
I see it more as “That book, much like the other books which others believe but you don’t, reflects Man more than it does God.” Your argument works just as well for the Book of Mormon as it does for the Bible (seriously, have you read any of the really good Mormon apologists? According to them you’re right but a little bit off, and they’re right and right on. Muslims, too. I assume that Hindus are in the same boat, but they just incorporate yours into their. I wonder how many arms their Jesus has…).
Read properly, they’re all true, which is problematic, as they’re incompatible.

“That’s not an argument about my process, it’s just an assertion.”
Is there God? That’s the only real question. I would say, no, unless it’s the deist Creaton, in which case I would shrug.

“It is a general thing I’ve noticed, that the common New Atheist approach to religion/the Bible destroys not only any attempt at understanding religion…”
There are a few secular authors writing about religion. Probably not in the manner you’re expecting, but the “how religions start, fuel themselves and propagate” is being investigated (and has been since sometime in between when they stopped burning people for asking questions and Twain’s pithy commentary on religion).

“..but in fact destroys the understanding of everything (literature, art, history, philosophy) that is not hard science.”
I would say, no. They do distinguish between science and philosophy, even if they aren’t good at finding the border between them. Science is the single best way we have of understanding how things work and learning about what really happened in the past, but it’s poor at figuring out what we should do (at best, it illuminates why we are what we are and how we came to be). The best path to that is moral philosophy, not religion (and once you move from the empirically verifiable the path gets messy. Human, as it were. Adding the supernatural just obscures the mess further, while pretending to add clarity).
Religion is based on an obsolete model of the universe. It’s the science before science (the “is”) and the philosophy before philosophy (the “ought). Problematically, it claims a source other than its actual source, which gives it a weight which it does not deserve.

“Not surprising, since that is where it roots its axiomatic principles.”
Only because they (us, actually) are up against a group for whom where the real world conflicts with Holy Book X, it’s the real world that’s wrong. If crass biblical literalism wasn’t so popular…most of the push back is because of the push the other way.

“Here’s a (hopefully) clear point that may help with the majority of your problems with the Old/New Testament – one is the revelation of the old covenant, the other is the new one.”
Here’s a clearer one. One is a tribal god, supporting that tribe against its neighbours starting in an era of virtually constant low-level warfare, no different than any of the other tribes and their gods. The latter is a view of god from a the eyes of an apocalyptic preacher who had some good ideas (and some that make more sense if the the End is Nigh, steeped in the lore of his surrounding…followed, of course, by no apocalypse. Instead, he got Paul, who brought his own view into the mix).

“…since it’s not just ‘go kill these guys’ but ‘make and defend a nation for yourself.’”
“…and take it from those guys. Did I mention that it’s really yours? Yup, you used to live here before those nasty Egyptians enslaved you. Sure, there’s no evidence that they did so, and eventually people will find that there’s pretty good evidence against it, but you should stick with what I say. Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?”

“Other cultures were not accepting of God’s Law, as signified by the perpetual attacks on Israel.”
As “signified”, sure. As “actually”, being a little people on the crossroads of empires will inevitably result in the big boys crossing your territory every now and then, and partly being in part of the Fertile Cresent means that everybody else wants what you’ve got (and you them) as well. No gods required. Or necessary. They seem to get in the way a lot, actually. You’d think they’d sort it out amongst themselves, then tell us what their decision was, but nooo. Jerks.

“Jesus makes the change from “Don’t abuse each other” to “Don’t abuse anyone” at a time when it can be accepted – and indeed it spreads like wildfire.”
I would say that the message proved popular because of, for most of its early adherents, the Beatitudes. “Sure, this world sucks, but the next one will be much better.” is a powerful lure for someone trapped under someone else’s heel.

“Would such a command really have been accepted in 1446 BC?”
The question is, how incompetent does a 3O’d god have to be to make it fit the history of the universe? On the one hand, it can design and build a total of one entire everything, yet on the other it can’t design the things that populate it all that well, and it can’t plan for the contingencies of its own poor planning, necessitating popping in every once in a while to mess with reality, and (knowing that “bad trees bear bad fruit” it sends a Deluge, sparing only some of the bad trees…which continue to produce more bad fruit), and it eventually figures out that the only way it’s going to get an ending similar to the one it wants is to offer its favourite creation a way around its own rules that it came up with itself.
The null hypothesis fits the universe better than any one involving an interventionalist god (more correctly, any supernatural explanation fits any possible universe better than any reality-centric theory).

“If the Old Testament was all that was needed for the world, Jesus would never have had to come in the first place.”
Except that the Torah has a bunch of things that did not happen. No Eden. No Adam. No Fall. No Flood. (And no Babel & no Exodus. At least the NT tries to keep its wrong details small). Jesus came for a fiction, to save Man from the consequences of fiction, thinking that He was the creator of it.

“I’ve no problem with your belief that it’s all bullshit – that’s totally fine, and I have that opinion about a great many things myself.”
It’s not all bullshit. Some of it, to some degree, probably happened.

“You keep falling back on ‘fundamentalists do bad things!’ and ‘fundamentalists use the Bible badly!’ I agree.”
That’s the only version of God that we, and I speak for all atheists, care about. Without the Christian Right, without militant Islam, without the lunacy of the Catholic church in the the third world countries where it still has power, we could go back to being apatheists.

“But you’re a fundamentalist too, only an atheist one…”
If reality-centered makes me a fundamentalist, then sign me up.

“…and your arguments are all just the reverse of theirs, meaning they just don’t affect me or the large swath of Christianity I represent…”
Obviously. No argument affects all people of religion.

“…and your arguments to force me onto your grounds, rather than argue from mine, really aren’t working…”
I’d say that the lack of an interventionalist god is pretty good grounds for disbelief in an interventionalist god.

“However, I would likely think that there are a number of things from the Bible that it would be better if you did do, even taking them literally.”
The good bits aren’t original and the original bits aren’t good. The supernatural bits are bunk and, of the remainder, lots of it is more appropriate to a desert tribe in times past, part of it is more appropriate if the end is coming, part of it is comforting (and handy for keeping the plebes under control), and the remainder is good because it reflects the best of common human experience. Still, I’d rather read Huck Finn.

“All texts require interpretation.”
And all readers, suitably filled by the Holy Spirit, come up with the correct interpretation (even when their’s is different than someone else’s). Of course, you’re a Catholic, so that mostly Protestant view isn’t your Christianity. Instead, yours relies on other people’s interpretations, which are also the right ones, and everybody else is doing it wrong.

“As for your non-interference, I agree (as a teacher myself) that keeping Genesis out of science class is a good thing (beside the obvious 1st Amendment problems, treating the Bible as a science text when it clearly is not does disservice to science as well as to the Bible itself).”
Unfortunately, your word with “them” carries just slightly more weight than mine (I mean, to “them” you believe the wrong thing, but you at least believe something). If it was a game of Protestant poker, a hand of “papist” would beat one of “atheist”, but both would lose to one of “Calvinist”.

“I had…multiple professors push atheism (one even taught Dawkins as a way of ‘explaining’ Victorian literature).”
Blech. Nothing kills the joy of learning like a shitty teacher. They should have some sort of Thunderdome for them, so that we only get taught by the best. Dawkins is a good populariser of science, but as a zoologist he’s a terrible philosopher. One of these days I really should read The Ancestor’s Tale. It’s in my pile of bought but not-yet-read books. It’s this thick! If it was toilet reading, you’d be in the bathroom forever! I shit you not!

“Non-interference is an impossibility, because our beliefs underlie our actions, and ideas have consequences.”
Realize, too, that any class would doesn’t explicitely credit, thank and praise God for everything is atheism to a lot of people (including, say Dinesh D’Souza, who is well-read enough that he really should know better. Luckily, he’s a Catholic, so that doesn’t effect you…oh…I guess that the monolithic RC church is less homogeneous than the presented facade implies).

“Additionally, most attempts at forced secularism wind up approaching enforced atheism.”
If none-above-any-other/slash/evidence and reason-based governance is interpreted as atheism, there’s not a whole lot I can do about that.

“What we should strive for is compassion and mutual understanding.”
Okay, you get the Pope to stop killing Africans with kindness and to stop excommunicating 9 year old rape victims for getting abortions and, and I’ll try to get Dawkins to read some books on normative ethics.

“Dialogue is a good thing.”
Our commonalities bring us together, while our differences keep things interesting.