The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Christians, atheists, theists and skeptics: make your best case here.
Forum rules
Keep it real, minimal cutting and pasting please: we want to hear what YOU have to say!

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:48 pm

SEG I thought reading this link may help you to understand exactly what kind of extremist you are getting your so called facts from
http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/01/ali-sina-vs-sheila-musaji-will-the-real-savage-please-stand-up/
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5270
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Aaron » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:41 pm

Hey SEG, what about something from our culture that we can more relate to, pornography or sexting? Are we okay with the age that most kids are being exposed to pornography? What about kids talking naked pictures of themselves and sharing it with others? What's your opinions on all that SEG? Harmless curiosity? Just having fun? Is there a line to watch out for? What would you want for your kids?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else" - C.S. Lewis
User avatar
Aaron
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3094
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Alaska
Affiliation: Christian

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Aaron » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:11 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:So the obvious problem with this line of argument is that you, as the Christian, are the ones who claims that morality is god-ordained but suddenly, in this instance, you're outright admitting that morality is NOT god-ordained, it's culturally ordained. Sex with a child of 12 today is considered statutory rape. Sex with that same child 2,000 years ago would be considered normal-- in fact, in your words, maybe even good.

No, I don't think this is seeing it quite right. Take the part in the Old Testament about how a man should not wear woman's clothing (Deuteronomy 22:5). What's considered woman's clothing? I submit that that is dependent upon the culture. If it is normal for men to wear skirts in one culture then I don't see God in this verse trying to tell men not to wear skirts, I see him trying to tell men not to wear whatever would normally be worn by a woman in their culture because he wants a man to live as a man and fulfill the role God has made for him. So I see it as being God ordained insofar as God has a principle He wants people to follow (He wants men to live in and fulfill their role as men and women to live in and fulfill their role as women), but that doesn't mean that principle will look exactly alike in terms of specific articles of clothing, though if you're looking at it from the heart of the individual who is trying to live as a man lives it will look exactly alike between cultures, it depends on the culture, it depends on whether you're seeing the heart of the rule or the inconsequential external outworkings of the rule.

Also which society are you talking about the age of 12 being normal? In a short peruse around the Internet I found that Jewish tradition has marriage being allowed after 14 for boys and 13 for girls and puberty and same with ancient Rome. Surely 12 was an age that was used, but from the small amount of research I just did it seems like it's on the low end of the spectrum. But most do seem to make puberty a criteria.

And again what about our modern society today? How many people watch porn with minors in it? How many people are speaking out against teen and even preteen sexual activity? Isn't it almost considered a norm even if we don't like to admit it to ourselves? Are we really better than these societies you and SEG are picking at? I just found this statistic about adult men and young women
Adult Men Often Father Babies Born to Younger Teens.

*Fathers of babies born to teens are often significantly older than their female partners. It is estimated that, among girls who have given birth to a child by age 15, 39 percent of the fathers are between the ages of 20 and 29.7

*The age gap between teen mothers and their male partners is particularly striking among the youngest adolescents. Among mothers ages 11 to 12, fathers are on average 9.8 years older, and among mothers ages 13 to 14, fathers are on average 4.6 years older.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/467-pregnancy-and-childbearing-among-younger-teens
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else" - C.S. Lewis
User avatar
Aaron
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3094
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Alaska
Affiliation: Christian

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Simplyme » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:41 pm

Hey Aaron,

What is your gods principle on:

1 Corinthians 14:34
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

Should women shut there trap in church?

I wonder why you used "clothing" as an example, when there is so many more interesting subjects regarding your god principles like....

Adultery, Working on the Sabbath, Homosexuality, Worshiping other gods,
Witchcraft, Taking the LORD's name in vain or cursing his name, Cursing a parent, Disobeying a parent.

Aaron remind, me again what the punishment, your loving god, set for the above "crimes"?

And lets not forget slavery.......can't forget slavery.......
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby searchengineguy » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:41 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
searchengineguy wrote:As far as I am aware with Aisha, only two ages are repeatedly cited, 6 and 9 years old. Mythic, legendary and folkloric tales are absolutely linked with theology. Have a look here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_mythology

You said theology not religion. Theology would generally be regraded as something that enters any religion at a much later stage than myths legends or folklore. This is what happens when all your understanding comes from glances at wikipedia.

So never come across any older ages? This happens when you only read polemics.

Well show me anywhere in their own holy writings where it states that she was older. Dismiss the polemics and show me that she was definitely older in history. I found the following interesting in the link above, especially the C.S. Lewis quote, where he has a "True Christ Myth Theory":

The roots of the popular meaning of "myth"
Especially within Christianity, objection to the word "myth" rests on a historical basis. By the time of Christ, the Greco-Roman world had started to use the term "myth" (Greek muthos) to mean "fable, fiction, lie"; as a result, the early Christian theologians used "myth" in this sense.[23] Thus, the derogatory meaning of the word "myth" is the traditional Christian meaning, and the expression "Christian mythology", as used in academic discourse,[24] may offend Christians for this reason.

In addition, this early Christian use of the term "myth" passed into popular usage.[25] Thus, when essential sacred mysteries and teachings are described as myth, in modern English, the word often still implies that it is "idle fancy, fiction, or falsehood".[24] This description could be taken as a direct attack on religious belief, quite contrary to the meaning ostensibly intended by the academic use of the term. Further, in academic writing, though "myth" usually means a fundamental worldview story, even there it is occasionally ambiguous or clearly denotes "falsehood", as in the "Christ myth theory". The original term "mythos" (which has no pejorative connotation in English) may be a better word to distinguish the positive definition from the negative.[24]

Non-opposition to categorizing sacred stories as myths Edit
Modern day clergy and practitioners within some religious movements have no problem classifying the religion's sacred stories as "myths". They see the sacred texts as indeed containing religious truths, divinely inspired but delivered in the language of mankind. Some examples follow.

Christianity
J.R.R. Tolkien's love of myths and devout Catholic faith came together in his assertion that mythology is the divine echo of "the Truth".[26] Tolkien wrote that myths held "fundamental things".[27] He expressed these beliefs in his poem Mythopoeia circa 1931, which describes myth-making as an act of "sub-creation" within God's primary creation.[28] The poem in part says creation is "myth-woven and elf-patterned":

"... There is no firmament,
only a void, unless a jewelled tent
myth-woven and elf-patterned; and no earth,
unless the mother's womb whence all have birth." - JRR Tolkien
Tolkien's opinion was adopted by another Christian writer, C. S. Lewis, in their conversations: "Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality."[29] C. S. Lewis freely called the Christ story a "true myth", and he believed that even pagan myths express spiritual truths. In his opinion, the difference between the Christ story and pagan myths is that the Christ story is historically as well as spiritually true. "The story of Christ," writes Lewis,

"is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the others are men's myths: i. e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call real things."
[30]

Another Christian writer, the Catholic priest Father Andrew Greeley, freely applies the term "myth" to Christianity. In his book Myths of Religion, he defends this terminology:

"Many Christians have objected to my use of this word [myth] even when I define it specifically. They are terrified by a word which may even have a slight suggestion of fantasy. However, my usage is the one that is common among historians of religion, literary critics, and social scientists. It is a valuable and helpful usage; there is no other word which conveys what these scholarly traditions mean when they refer to myth. The Christian would be well advised to get over his fear of the word and appreciate how important a tool it can be for understanding the content of his faith."[31]

At a "Consultation on the Relationship Between the Wesleyan Tradition and the Natural Sciences" in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 19, 1991, Dennis Bratcher presented a discussion of the adaptation of Near Eastern mythical thought by the Israelites.[32] Bratcher argued that the Old Testament absorbed Near Eastern pagan mythology (although he drew a sharp distinction between the literally-interpreted myths of the Near Eastern pagans and the "mythopoetic" use of imagery from pagan myths by the Hebrews). During this presentation, he gave the following disclaimer:

"the term 'myth' as used here does not mean 'false' or 'fiction.' Even in my old and yellowed Webster's, 'fiction' is the third meaning of the word. In its primary and more technical meaning 'myth' refers to a story or group of stories that serve to explain how a particular society views their world."[32]

Judaism Edit
Some Jewish scholars, including Dov Noy, a professor of folklore at Hebrew University and founder of the Israel Folktale Archives, and Howard Schwartz, Jewish anthologist and English professor at the University of Missouri – St. Louis, have discussed traditional Jewish stories as "mythology".[33]

Schwarz authored the book Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism. It consists of myths and belief statements excerpted from—and, in some cases, synthesized from a number of excerpts from—both Biblical and non-Biblical Jewish texts. According to Schwartz, the Jewish people continue to elaborate on, and compose additions to, their traditional mythology.[34] In the book's introduction, Schwartz states that the word "myth", as used in the book, "is not offered to mean something that is not true, as in the current popular usage".

The coup d'etat was at the end in the miscellaneous section:
The Dewey Decimal system covers religion in the 200 range, with books on "Religious mythology & social theology", a subset listed under 201
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Keep The Reason » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:48 pm

Aaron wrote:No, I don't think this is seeing it quite right. Take the part in the Old Testament about how a man should not wear woman's clothing (Deuteronomy 22:5). What's considered woman's clothing? I submit that that is dependent upon the culture. If it is normal for men to wear skirts in one culture then I don't see God in this verse trying to tell men not to wear skirts, I see him trying to tell men not to wear whatever would normally be worn by a woman in their culture because he wants a man to live as a man and fulfill the role God has made for him.


And? You've just supported my argument. The culture defines the morals. God saying "men should not wear women's clothing" barely even makes sense in a culture where everyone pretty much just wears nightgowns and robes -- men and women both. Not a lot of men wore pants, since they weren't even around (they were in China, but... the middle east ain't China). M ost people, men and women both, wore a tunic /poncho type of garment over which they threw a cloak. Effectively, men and women dressed the same (wealthy people wore colors of course)

Among lesser folk the basic garment was the tunic, a kind of poncho, consisting of two squares sewn together with an opening for the neck. Pieces of a tunic with a “Scottish”-pattern that may have belonged to a Roman soldier were found at Masada. (Though what else exactly happened at Masada remains controversial.)

Over the tunic both men and women wore a cloak, or mantle. Virtually everyone had one of those (unless your creditor took it and kept it illegally after nightfall – Exodus 22:26–27).

link


So much for that.

So I see it as being God ordained insofar as God has a principle He wants people to follow (He wants men to live in and fulfill their role as men and women to live in and fulfill their role as women), but that doesn't mean that principle will look exactly alike in terms of specific articles of clothing, though if you're looking at it from the heart of the individual who is trying to live as a man lives it will look exactly alike between cultures, it depends on the culture, it depends on whether you're seeing the heart of the rule or the inconsequential external outworkings of the rule.


And? How exactly does that work with 12 year old girls being married off to 30 or 40 year old men? What is the "heart of the rule" when you admit here too that it's culture that really defines the morality.

When did it become immoral for men to no longer have intercourse with children, according to god? Where is the decree? Show it. Show where there is some decree we should concern ourselves with the "heart" of.

Also which society are you talking about the age of 12 being normal? In a short peruse around the Internet I found that Jewish tradition has marriage being allowed after 14 for boys and 13 for girls and puberty and same with ancient Rome. Surely 12 was an age that was used, but from the small amount of research I just did it seems like it's on the low end of the spectrum. But most do seem to make puberty a criteria.


Oh I see-- suddenly, the idea that "it didn't happen a lot" renders the point meaningless, is that it? You are still missing the core point. Today most modern nations consider an adult man having sex with a 14 year old girl a crime. It's even got a name: pedophilia. It's deemed immoral. Now you Christians are claiming that your god defines morality. And in defense of that idea, you argue with the analogy of clothing as if skirts vs pants is somehow an avatar of a girl who is still a child. A 12 year old is a 12 year old whether it's in New York City in October 2017, or in ancient Mesopotamia in 73 BCE.

Where is god's moral decree for children then? Show us where it is. And why did it change?

And again what about our modern society today? How many people watch porn with minors in it? How many people are speaking out against teen and even preteen sexual activity? Isn't it almost considered a norm even if we don't like to admit it to ourselves? Are we really better than these societies you and SEG are picking at? I just found this statistic about adult men and young women


I think we certainly ARE better in many ways than ancient cultures. And I'm not "picking on them". I already said I have no condemnation about people who bred children in their early teens, thousands of years ago. I'm the one who argues we've evolved our morality to better it over time, even if some people are shitstains who refuse to learn those lessons, or are just psychopaths.

I am not attacking those ancient cultures, I'm attacking the concept that you Christians insist a god defined morality, but then instantly argue that it's really the cultures that define it. You and Rian both have done exactly that.

Adult Men Often Father Babies Born to Younger Teens.

*Fathers of babies born to teens are often significantly older than their female partners. It is estimated that, among girls who have given birth to a child by age 15, 39 percent of the fathers are between the ages of 20 and 29.7

*The age gap between teen mothers and their male partners is particularly striking among the youngest adolescents. Among mothers ages 11 to 12, fathers are on average 9.8 years older, and among mothers ages 13 to 14, fathers are on average 4.6 years older.


For the third time -- And? Do you consider these liaisons immoral? Are they examples of statutory rape? Should we punish those who have sex with 14 year olds or not? What does your god say??.

Tell us what your god would say, and I'll even make it easier for you. A 32 year old man asks for the hand of a 14 year old girl in the USA. Allowable? If no, why not? What does Yahweh say about it?
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10548
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Rian » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:21 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:I am not attacking those ancient cultures, I'm attacking the concept that you Christians insist a god defined morality, but then instantly argue that it's really the cultures that define it. You and Rian both have done exactly that.

The only way I did "exactly that" is if you were at my house in the middle of the night, standing creepily over me, and I mumbled some words in my sleep that you twisted and interpreted to mean what you said, because I certainly didn't argue that. I mean, we were just camping up among the pine trees this weekend, so maybe I said "pine" and you changed it to "define"??? Who knows???

But it certainly is convenient for you to make-believe that I said that.

You are YET AGAIN putting words in someone's mouth and then trotting out your pre-packaged, canned arguments against the resulting straw man.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6262
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Keep The Reason » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:11 am

Rian wrote:The only way I did "exactly that" is if you were at my house in the middle of the night, standing creepily over me, and I mumbled some words in my sleep that you twisted and interpreted to mean what you said, because I certainly didn't argue that. I mean, we were just camping up among the pine trees this weekend, so maybe I said "pine" and you changed it to "define"??? Who knows???

But it certainly is convenient for you to make-believe that I said that.

You are YET AGAIN putting words in someone's mouth and then trotting out your pre-packaged, canned arguments against the resulting straw man.


First of all, don't worry. I'd rather eat my own face off than hover over you, sleeping or awake.

As usual, your own words speak for you:

Rian wrote:You know, as a woman, I'm going to quickly chime in here and say that if I lived back in the time you're talking about, and marriage was not uncommon at 12, and if I grew up in a poor family and had a high chance of living in destitution if I stayed unmarried, and marriages were commonly arranged in my society, then I could easily imagine myself as very, very grateful to be married to a much older man who was financially stable, as long as he was a good man. IMO, SEG, you really need to take that person's culture into account.


Context:

1. You are placing yourself in the time when marriages of 12 year olds were not uncommon, and you're even doing so as a female.
2. You are saying "if you were poor"
3. And if you "had a high percentage chance of living in destitution"
4. You are then saying you could "easily imagine yourself in such a marriage if it were arranged, to a good older man, who was financially stable", and that you'd even be GRATEFUL that it was the case for you. GRATEFUL. Your words. Look up there ^

Have I missed any of YOUR specific contexts? Have I "put words in your mouth" or have I accurately replayed your own words back to you?

5. Then you go on to admit that SEG really needs to take the person's culture into account.

Sooooo--- what does that mean? What is it about the culture that defines the rules? Where's Yahweh in that formula? You tell us.

Is god announcing, "Wellllll, banging 12 year olds is actually immoral buuuuut, given your culture, it's ok for now... In fact, a woman named "Rian" will make that same argument in a forum online, that it's "ok -- even good! in this culture". But, no hey, seriously-- in a few thousand years it WON'T be ok, because I say so even though I'm actually not going to say a word about it one way or the other."

Is that how your perfect and unerring god makes the rules? The moral compass is set in stone except when one's culture changes it and then it's not?

How is that any different from the culture setting the moral foundation?

You and Aaron BOTH say "we have to look at the context of the culture". Okay, that's the ATHEIST argument. We already KNOW that cultures define morality, and we already know humans have had badly formulated moral precepts both then, and now. We're still learning how to tame the less civilized of us and make them treat others decently, though frankly religious views help to poison that effort constantly by creating these silly divisions on "who's god is strongest?", when the fact is, no gods ever show up to any contests to settle the issue.

YOU'RE the people who insist god, in this case Yahweh, sets the moral foundations in place. Are you saying he doesn't? If so that would be quite a stunning admission -- and the natural follow up would have to be, "Why in the world would you worship a god who DOESN'T set the moral foundations?" But since you argue that he does, the natural follow-up question becomes, "Why is god's moral values so flexible that it's okay in Mesopotamia 100 CE to wed and have sex with a 12 year old, but it's totally immoral and illegal in most nations in 2017? Either doing this is right, or it's wrong."

What has changed in god's moral fabric??

I doubt you can answer any of these challenges because you are trying to square a circle. You are trying to have a god that defines moral law from time immemorial while forgiving him for having disastrously bad morals in the past, which we have learned were indeed horrific and evil. So you lay the burden of this on "the culture of the time" which of course negates any claims to an involved god with unalterable morals. And what's worse, your god even has specific prescriptions on how to go about wedding these children.

Oh yeah, and why do not men live to 120 years as a matter of course? The bible clearly says that "the days of men will number 120 years" but most everyone dies decades before that. Just another "you have to take it in the context of the times" deflection? Just yet another, "welll, that part is metaphor"? Yet another, "Pffft, you're like a fundie -- taking the goddamned book for what it actually says in all places, rather than taking it literally in some places and not in others so it's convenient to your belief system". Which is it? It's always one of those three.

You guys simply do not get how self-collapsing your model consistently is. In fact, it's most consistent trait is it self-collapses at almost every foundational point.
To cut some folks off at the pass, I don't advocate for violence, oppression, genocide, war, hatred or intolerance. Instead, I advocate for education, organization, activism, and the democratic process. ~~ KtR
User avatar
Keep The Reason
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10548
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:50 pm
Affiliation: Reasonist

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:04 pm

searchengineguy wrote:
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
searchengineguy wrote:As far as I am aware with Aisha, only two ages are repeatedly cited, 6 and 9 years old. Mythic, legendary and folkloric tales are absolutely linked with theology. Have a look here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_mythology

You said theology not religion. Theology would generally be regraded as something that enters any religion at a much later stage than myths legends or folklore. This is what happens when all your understanding comes from glances at wikipedia.

So never come across any older ages? This happens when you only read polemics.

Well show me anywhere in their own holy writings where it states that she was older. Dismiss the polemics and show me that she was definitely older in history.

I think we need to review what has happened here. You made an extensive quote from a far right anti-Islamic website which is the work of a racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, right wing, conspiracy theorist, bigot. He contacts Muslims spews his ill informed nonsense and demands that they prove his claims wrong. You have repeated the same request, showing that like him you do not understand how either Muslims or historians view the hadiths. I have given you my reasons why I think what I do on this matter. If you want to know more there are plenty of books and articles you can read. You could start here: http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/did_prophet_muhammad_rape_a_nine-year_old_aisha/
I found the following interesting in the link above, especially the C.S. Lewis quote, where he has a "True Christ Myth Theory":

The roots of the popular meaning of "myth"
Especially within Christianity, objection to the word "myth" rests on a historical basis. By the time of Christ, the Greco-Roman world had started to use the term "myth" (Greek muthos) to mean "fable, fiction, lie"; as a result, the early Christian theologians used "myth" in this sense.[23] Thus, the derogatory meaning of the word "myth" is the traditional Christian meaning, and the expression "Christian mythology", as used in academic discourse,[24] may offend Christians for this reason.

In addition, this early Christian use of the term "myth" passed into popular usage.[25] Thus, when essential sacred mysteries and teachings are described as myth, in modern English, the word often still implies that it is "idle fancy, fiction, or falsehood".[24] This description could be taken as a direct attack on religious belief, quite contrary to the meaning ostensibly intended by the academic use of the term. Further, in academic writing, though "myth" usually means a fundamental worldview story, even there it is occasionally ambiguous or clearly denotes "falsehood", as in the "Christ myth theory". The original term "mythos" (which has no pejorative connotation in English) may be a better word to distinguish the positive definition from the negative.[24]

Non-opposition to categorizing sacred stories as myths Edit
Modern day clergy and practitioners within some religious movements have no problem classifying the religion's sacred stories as "myths". They see the sacred texts as indeed containing religious truths, divinely inspired but delivered in the language of mankind. Some examples follow.

Christianity
J.R.R. Tolkien's love of myths and devout Catholic faith came together in his assertion that mythology is the divine echo of "the Truth".[26] Tolkien wrote that myths held "fundamental things".[27] He expressed these beliefs in his poem Mythopoeia circa 1931, which describes myth-making as an act of "sub-creation" within God's primary creation.[28] The poem in part says creation is "myth-woven and elf-patterned":

"... There is no firmament,
only a void, unless a jewelled tent
myth-woven and elf-patterned; and no earth,
unless the mother's womb whence all have birth." - JRR Tolkien
Tolkien's opinion was adopted by another Christian writer, C. S. Lewis, in their conversations: "Tolkien explained to Lewis that the story of Christ was the true myth at the very heart of history and at the very root of reality."[29] C. S. Lewis freely called the Christ story a "true myth", and he believed that even pagan myths express spiritual truths. In his opinion, the difference between the Christ story and pagan myths is that the Christ story is historically as well as spiritually true. "The story of Christ," writes Lewis,

"is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the others are men's myths: i. e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call real things."
[30]

Another Christian writer, the Catholic priest Father Andrew Greeley, freely applies the term "myth" to Christianity. In his book Myths of Religion, he defends this terminology:

"Many Christians have objected to my use of this word [myth] even when I define it specifically. They are terrified by a word which may even have a slight suggestion of fantasy. However, my usage is the one that is common among historians of religion, literary critics, and social scientists. It is a valuable and helpful usage; there is no other word which conveys what these scholarly traditions mean when they refer to myth. The Christian would be well advised to get over his fear of the word and appreciate how important a tool it can be for understanding the content of his faith."[31]

At a "Consultation on the Relationship Between the Wesleyan Tradition and the Natural Sciences" in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 19, 1991, Dennis Bratcher presented a discussion of the adaptation of Near Eastern mythical thought by the Israelites.[32] Bratcher argued that the Old Testament absorbed Near Eastern pagan mythology (although he drew a sharp distinction between the literally-interpreted myths of the Near Eastern pagans and the "mythopoetic" use of imagery from pagan myths by the Hebrews). During this presentation, he gave the following disclaimer:

"the term 'myth' as used here does not mean 'false' or 'fiction.' Even in my old and yellowed Webster's, 'fiction' is the third meaning of the word. In its primary and more technical meaning 'myth' refers to a story or group of stories that serve to explain how a particular society views their world."[32]

Judaism Edit
Some Jewish scholars, including Dov Noy, a professor of folklore at Hebrew University and founder of the Israel Folktale Archives, and Howard Schwartz, Jewish anthologist and English professor at the University of Missouri – St. Louis, have discussed traditional Jewish stories as "mythology".[33]

Schwarz authored the book Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism. It consists of myths and belief statements excerpted from—and, in some cases, synthesized from a number of excerpts from—both Biblical and non-Biblical Jewish texts. According to Schwartz, the Jewish people continue to elaborate on, and compose additions to, their traditional mythology.[34] In the book's introduction, Schwartz states that the word "myth", as used in the book, "is not offered to mean something that is not true, as in the current popular usage".

This is very good and nothing I would disagree with but it confirms what I said rather than negating it. The problem is that once again you are quoting things you do not really understand. The theory on myth and its relation to theology developed by Lewis and Tolkien is that myth is the earlier form of perception and theology follows later. Consider th following quotes from Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Tolkien
“But, said Lewis, myths are lies, even though lies breathed through silver.

No, said Tolkien, they are not.

...just as speech is invention about objects and ideas, so myth is invention about truth.

We have come from God (continued Tolkien), and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a 'sub-creator' and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour, while materialistic 'progress' leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of the power of evil.

You mean, asked Lewis, that the story of Christ is simply a true myth, a myth that works on us in the same way as the others, but a myth that really happened? In that case, he said, I begin to understand.”
“You call a tree a tree, he said, and you think nothing more of the word. But it was not a 'tree' until someone gave it that name. You call a star a star, and say it is just a ball of matter moving on a mathematical course. But that is merely how you see it. By so naming things and describing them you are only inventing your own terms about them. And just as speech is invention about objects and ideas, so myth is invention about truth.
We have come from God (continued Tolkien), and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a 'sub-creator' and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Out myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbor, while materialistic 'progress' leads only to a yawning abyss and the Iron Crown of evil.”

Lewis noted later in Myth became Fact
When we translate we get abstraction-or rather, dozens of abstractions. What flows into you from the myth is not truth but reality (truth is always about something, but reality is that about which truth is), and, therefore, every myth becomes the father of innumerable truths on the abstract level. Myth is the mountain whence all the different streams arise which become truths down here in the valley; in hac valle abstractionist (5) Or, if you prefer, myth is the isthmus which connects the peninsular world of thought with that vast continent we really belong to. It is not, like truth, abstract; nor is it, like direct experience, bound to the particular. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be a myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history.

and
“Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths: i.e., the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things'.”

The abstractions he refers to above we call theology. Do you follow?
and from his autobiography.
I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion — those narrow, unattractive jews, too blind to the mystical wealth of the Pagan world around them — was precisely the matter of great myths. If ever a myth had become a fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another, but nothing was simply alike. And no person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognizable, through all that depth of time… yet also so luminous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god. But if a god — we are no longer polytheists — then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not "a religion," nor "a philosophy." It is the summing up and actuality of them all.


The coup d'etat was at the end in the miscellaneous section:
The Dewey Decimal system covers religion in the 200 range, with books on "Religious mythology & social theology", a subset listed under 201

Seriously. Do you even know how to use a library? Because no one who does would argue that because two words occur close beside each other in the Dewey system this implies some intrinsic connection. It reminds me of how when I was about 15 a friend told me books on ghosts could be found under psychology.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5270
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby searchengineguy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:45 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:
Rian wrote:You know, as a woman, I'm going to quickly chime in here and say that if I lived back in the time you're talking about, and marriage was not uncommon at 12, and if I grew up in a poor family and had a high chance of living in destitution if I stayed unmarried, and marriages were commonly arranged in my society, then I could easily imagine myself as very, very grateful to be married to a much older man who was financially stable, as long as he was a good man. IMO, SEG, you really need to take that person's culture into account. Now I do think that there are some things that are universally wrong, and rape is one of them, but to apply a 21st century concept of rape into a culture thousand of years prior doesn't make sense. It seems to me from what little I know that every culture thinks rape is wrong, but they have different views as to what falls into the category of rape.


So the obvious problem with this line of argument is that you, as the Christian, are the ones who claims that morality is god-ordained but suddenly, in this instance, you're outright admitting that morality is NOT god-ordained, it's culturally ordained. Sex with a child of 12 today is considered statutory rape. Sex with that same child 2,000 years ago would be considered normal-- in fact, in your words, maybe even good.

But other than "god changes his mind" on issues you consider foundational moral precepts, you're embracing without any irony the atheist argument that humans define morality. This explodes your entire claim that moral precepts are authoritative and divinely inspired by an always good, never wrong, god. Actuarial tables (primarily driven by high infant mortality rates; see this link for a good read on it Actuarial Tables is not relevant here, nor is poverty, any more than it would be excusable today. Are men in backwater rural poverty-stricken areas of the USA allowed to couple with 12 year-olds "because they die younger there and are in poverty"? I don't think so.

In fact this also flies in the face of your own bible that specifically states that some people lived hundreds and hundreds of years (Noah, Abraham, Methuselah), but that god decided to limit man's lifespan to "one hundred and twenty years" (Genesis 6:3). Of course atheists know this is all merely legend and fiction, but again, you're on the team that insists it's the rules of existence, not us. So why people demonstrably lived much shorter lifespans (and why don't all men just live to 120 years?) creating your above scenario is opening a much bigger can of worms in both the age of consent category (pedophilia is ok in certain cultures at certain historical time under certain circumstances, and illegal immoral and heinous in other cultures at a certain historical time under certain circumstances) plus the bible directly refutes the short lifespan argument you seem content to adopt.

Like Christians do with slavery and wholesale slaughter of cities and towns in the Old Testament, you're forced to come up with inventive (sic) ways to excuse the perfect god you claim authors these rules, because anyone today can see that these ancient rules were grounded in a greater amount of barbarism and disinterest in human suffering than we have grown to understand today.

I am not condemning the ancients for being less civilized, or more barbaric, or less compassionate, I'm saying you Christians need to stop insisting some wise god informed them of civility and decency and rights-- for one, it's demonstrably not true (in that god's rules are just vile and disgusting and reek of human ignorance slowly evolving from less civilized to more civilized) and for another you can't even mount a sensible argument-- you literally have to surrender to the secular view (that moral principles are really culturally based), and then you have to pretzel around trying to make your square god fit into a round hole (slavery, mass killing, pedophilia, etc.) of actual human experience.

We get it that "in those days" girls that we'd consider underage today were regularly married and sexually active. We get it that slavery was pandemic and fully acceptable back then. We get it that humans slaughtered one another regularly.

What we don't get is the idea that you can somehow squeeze a loving, decent and supremely wise deity into that model what is simply human beings along a sloping grade of learning on how to be less barbaric and more compassionate (with ups and downs on both). Doing do it simply cheapens humans working to be better, and it delivers a deeply disgusting god who doesn't have a clue as to what he/she or it is doing.

KTR, What you have written here is gold. You have made crystal clear arguments that morals are not divinely inspired and simply engineered by human cultures. Well done Mate!
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Rian » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:27 pm

SEG, you do realize it's only an argument and not a proof, right?

Plus he's still putting words into my mouth (as he does with many others) that weren't there; it's like he sees some word in someone's post and *poof* goes the person's post and he pulls out his talking-points and posts them. Forget about even ASKING what the person actually meant when they say he got it wrong; he just fills it in!
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6262
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Rian » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:33 pm

And do all you men have such a low opinion of men that you can't imagine a man in other times and cultures actually being nice to a young girl he married? Or that he might possibly marry a young girl with any motive besides lust?
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6262
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Rian » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:58 pm

Keep The Reason wrote:Have I missed any of YOUR specific contexts? Have I "put words in your mouth" or have I accurately replayed your own words back to you?

You've accurately quoted my words back to me. I never had problems with that part.

5. Then you go on to admit that SEG really needs to take the person's culture into account.

Sooooo--- what does that mean? What is it about the culture that defines the rules? Where's Yahweh in that formula? You tell us.

You mean you'll actually listen? Why didn't you stop your post at this point and listen before running on at the mouth again and putting words into my mouth? Why aren't you quoting my words in this next section? It's because this is where you put words into my mouth, you twit! Sheesh! Seriously? Are you even serious about that top part where you quote me and then pretend you never put words into my mouth?

Here is what I think (and you have a different opinion, but they're both that - opinions - either one could be right or wrong). In Matthew 22, Jesus sums up the law and the prophets as this: Love God and love others. That's it. The OT laws were for a specific people and circumstance and purpose, and Jesus both fulfilled the law and transcended it. He frees us from the law and we live by faith, founded on love God and love others. The NT shows the early Church starting to live this out and getting good guidelines in place. It even talks about tailgating someone on the freeway! Did you know that? It's covered under the love others part and the act towards others as you would like them to act towards you. That's the beauty of Jesus bringing the new covenant - it's good for all times and places because it deals with the heart. The old one showed us that we can't life perfect lives, even the best of us (although we all do beautiful things, we still aren't perfect) and the new one says Jesus did it for us and will give us that new life if we let him. The new way is actually harder, but far, far better. The old way was laws; the new way love. It's easier to live by laws and people will twist them and act by the letter of the law but screw the intent; the new way is that you're accountable to God and called to work out your own life with Him. It's the hardest thing, yet the most wonderful thing. It's a journey that is just beyond words. And it is a journey - no Christian is perfect, and many come from pretty bad places (and people that look "good" are often some of the worst people and have a lot of fixing to be done). It's God working in each of our lives individually. So I have no problem with marriage ages being different in different cultures, or dress styles being different. It really comes down to doing what you feel is right, with God in your heart developing life and love in you daily.

It's hard to express all of this, especially since I'm an engineer and math person and don't write really well, but there's a first shot at it. GTG now and meet my husband at the hardware store and pick out a toilet; we're having a party tomorrow and we don't want a leaky toilet!

If you are not clear on any of this, please ask me before putting more words in my mouth.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6262
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby searchengineguy » Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:16 pm

searchengineguy wrote:As far as I am aware with Aisha, only two ages are repeatedly cited, 6 and 9 years old.


searchengineguy wrote:Well show me anywhere in their own holy writings where it states that she was older. Dismiss the polemics and show me that she was definitely older in history.


Moon wrote:I have given you my reasons why I think what I do on this matter. If you want to know more there are plenty of books and articles you can read.


Yes, I can see that there is a lot of controversy over what her ages were and we don't know with certainty whether she was older or younger than was stated in the texts.

When that happens, we need to rely on the earliest sources and multiple attestations.

Aisha herself stated in the hadith (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234), that she was that young and that she played with dolls while married to him. We are talking about the legitimacy of holy texts here Moon. Would you admit that any of your own holy texts was written in error by malicious persons?

searchengineguy wrote:I found the following interesting in the link above, especially the C.S. Lewis quote, where he has a "True Christ Myth Theory"


Moon wrote:Seriously. Do you even know how to use a library?

Seriously. Do you even know how to use irony?
Talking of such and getting more on topic, how ironic? is it that Jesus' 4 brothers being named in Mark 6:3:

"Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James (which =Jacob), Joseph, Judas (which=Judah) and Simon (which =Simeon)? "

Sure, the names on that region and era may have been common, but to have them all together is very chilling. Jacob, Joseph and Judah are 3 biblical patriarchs, and Simeon, being of the Tribe of Simeon was one of the twelve tribes of Israel and the brother of Judah.

...and the supposed sisters don't count, don't have names and are never involved in any family stories. It's also ironic that Christianity has more than 2.4 billion adherents, the Catholics being the most prominent (nearly half), yet the others don't believe them when they say that Jesus had no "full" siblings.
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Postby Simplyme » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:20 pm

Rian wrote:And do all you men have such a low opinion of men that you can't imagine a man in other times and cultures actually being nice to a young girl he married? Or that he might possibly marry a young girl with any motive besides lust?


You mean in the days that women were property? You mean in the days that slaves were ok? No....why would I have a low opinions of men in those days. Holy shit, you are prize.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Keep The Reason, Rian and 8 guests