searchengineguy wrote:Yes I get that, but are conveniently ignoring the totality of her vast education and experience in the field. As I continue to state, how many in her field have the ability to read and write competently in those six very relevant languages, attended those schools and worked on the numerous archaeological sites in the regions that she has? You are an educated man Moon, but she seems to have a lot more relevant qualifications in this field than yourself or most others in her field of study and yet you scoff at her and compare her to low rate amateurs?Moonwood the Hare wrote:Just saying I read it means nothing.
She has no doctorate and fluffs out her CV with claims to have read books. It reminds me of the host of a talk show who said 'You have read those great books . . . (reals off list of literary classic, audience gasps) . . . my next guest . . . has also read those books.' We know you are so impressed by her claims that you just believe things because you think she said them. If this stuff impresses you then you may continue to find it hard to see why others don't. It's for the tourists really.
I wasn't trying to compare people in the ancient world from perceptions of my own age and culture. I'm saying that Christianity was just another mystery religion that had borrowed most of their ideas from other cults. Even personal gods aren't a new idea. Baha'i and Hinduism for example have them too.
Then, as I keep saying, this has no relation to the actual comments you made about people in earlier eras being superstitious because they lacked scientific knowledge. If you just try to have some kind of connection between what you say and what you mean it will really help people understand you. 'Personal gods' is another of those clumsy modern concepts. I agree there are broad similarities between different ideas about an ultimate being; I am not sure why you think this is a problem for Christianity. You may remember me encouraging you to read Keith Ward's Images of Eternity which explores this idea in considerable depth.
Of course they knew where babies came from, but they didn't understand the whole biological process and made things up after reading the literature around them which was full of conjecture and whimsy.
The idea that understanding the details of the biological processes somehow rules out the possibility of extraordinary events won't fly. Firstly those trained in the relevant biology have a much better idea of how something like a virgin birth might happen through natural processes than people in the ancient world. Secondly, suppose a particular event, the supposed action of God cannot be explained using current biological theories; this only argues against its possibility if we already have a philosophical or religious commitment to a naturalist worldview - we have to be convinced that only events that can be explained by natural science can happen and no increase in scientific knowledge can tell us that. Furthermore most of the supposed similarities with ideas from contemporary literature are highly speculative and abstract, some like the supposed similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are just made up.
If it truly was the works of a divine supreme being, you would expect to find mentions of wisdom far beyond what ancient men and women knew at that time.
Common sense tells me that wisdom far beyond what people knew in any era would be of no use to them. Suppose someone were to present you with wisdom far beyond what is known today, you would struggle wouldn't you? You flounder around when presented with ideas that have been common in the academic world for decades.
The Bible fails to deliver anything like that, but tries very hard to on prophesies that fail and don't actually work. It brings nothing new to the table of any consequence.
The Bible and the Christian religion is not really claiming to bring something new or novel. You seem to feel that only the new and novel is worthwhile and I find this odd because when presented with unfamiliar ideas you seem to find them really hard to assimilate.
Which half of me do you say is not educated?
You have demonstrated yourself to be remarkably gullible, accepting without question ideas that would be rejected by those with a smattering of background knowledge. And it is this background knowledge I find to be missing. You present arguments that you have lifted from somewhere else and rarely seem to have done even minimal research, or looked at alternatives or criticism
Maybe not for yourself and elite others, but the messages are very unclear for the layperson. The buck stops with your god for allowing that to happen if you believe he was the inspiration.
All of us are dependent to some extent on those with expert knowledge in fields that are not our own. When you talk of God allowing that to happen you seem to be demanding a very high level of control over what people can believe. It seems again like you are hankering after fundamentalism.
I think you must been it's one of the worst fiddled books. At least the Jews attempted preservation, the Christians were a whole different kettle of fish.Moonwood the Hare wrote:Are you talking about the OT or NT? If OT then you need to understand that this high level of preservation was a relatively late development. If NT then even between the variants there is some diversity but I can't think of cases where this effects the core message.
Both. The Sermon on the Mount for example has very confusing passages, bad ideas and poor morals IMO.
And what has your fatuous opinion to do with the preservation of the text?