|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 02/25/2005 : 01:26:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb
I do believe the creation account in the book of Genesis is largely symbolic. For example, take the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." [Read for yourself] It seems self-evident to me that this forbidden fruit consisted of a fall from innocence that, according to the Bible, need not have occurred. Genesis seems to be saying that we chose to lose our innocence, and that we've paid a price. Makes sense to me.
If there was no fall, why do we need a redeemer? |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
 |
|
|
NGR
New Member
Australia
9 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 02:47:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb
Genesis seems to be saying that we chose to lose our innocence, and that we've paid a price. Makes sense to me.
Whats this "we" crap. I don't recall getting a choice. |
|
|
|
jimrobb
New Member
38 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 22:07:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
A fairy tale not meant to be taken literally, and certainly nothing to base your life on. Right, jimrobb? I mean, it would be folly to place any sort of confidence into a book that makes so little sense.
H., if my jottings serve to popularize "[Read for yourself]", I will be pleased. Seriously, I think you're pushing the book too hard. The Bible is literature (as you know), and as such must be read as it was intended to be interpreted correctly. I consider the Genesis creation account to be archetype, symbol, and type. A literalist reading of the book will frustrate you, I agree. I think the story behind the story is that mankind was came to a crossroads, took one path, and lived to regret it. |
Jim Robb  |
|
|
|
jimrobb
New Member
38 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 22:14:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Stick to speaking about what you know. . .
Good idea. I should. I will try to make a more neutral comment about evolution in my blog. Evolution is certainly not my topic.
quote:
Then we can get to talking about changing the name of you blog.... Skeptics Club indeed...
Again, Dude, I have to say, where I come from, I'm considered alarmingly skeptical! But I agree that my faith is stronger than my doubts. |
Jim Robb |
|
|
|
jimrobb
New Member
38 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 22:24:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
If there was no fall, why do we need a redeemer?
Good question. But I believe there was a fall. It's just that it didn't have to occur at High Noon on the eighth day of creation. But, in my view, we tend to make too much of the archetypical fall, and not enough of the less-controversial personal fall each of us has experienced. I have sinned, am a sinner. I believe we're all in that boat.
quote:
Originally posted byNGR
Whats this "we" crap. I don't recall getting a choice.
The way I see it, we all choose to experience, and thus reiterate, a fall in our own lives. The "Fall" of Genesis seeks to explain how this started. |
Jim Robb |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 23:12:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb
The way I see it, we all choose to experience, and thus reiterate, a fall in our own lives.
Well, this would have pretty staggering implications for the idea of "free will," wouldn't it? It's one thing to claim we can all make choices, but quite another to claim that everyone has made, is making, and will make the same choice, even if it is just one choice out of zillions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 23:21:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Good idea. I should. I will try to make a more neutral comment about evolution in my blog. Evolution is certainly not my topic.
Seriously, if you have an ounce of intellectual integrity, you should print a complete retraction of that "spotty" evidence statement.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 01:30:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb
A literalist reading of the book will frustrate you, I agree. I think the story behind the story is that mankind was came to a crossroads, took one path, and lived to regret it.
Actually, a literalist reading will only "frustrate" someone trying to reconcile the god of the Old Testament with the god of the New. It isn't frustrating to me as I have no agenda, and can plainly read the words on the page without conflict. How do you avoid frustration? Oh, you toss it all out as a parable not meant to be taken literally. (Even though there is nothing in the original text to suggest the original writers were not intending to be literal. Sure, to modern eyes the tale seems absurd. But are you suggesting the bible writers knew the story to be untrue when they penned it?)
The problem, though, is that those stories are all we have. They are either true spiritual documents meant to instruct us on the most important decision of our existence, or they are fiction ("literature" as you put it) and can be considered merely as instructional stories on good living, maybe on a par with Aesop's fables.
I have two issues with that. The first is obvious, and that is if the bible is merely literature then religion is all a matter of personal taste. Some prefer sci fi, some horror, others romance novels. You can pick up the bible or the Koran or the teachings of Confucius. That is in fact what a lot of people do believe, that one should pick a religion that suits them. But we already went over this. I have no interest in adopting something purely on what I find pleasing. At the time, you stated that you were confident of the truth of your religion. You said "Truth matters, It's all that matters. Literal, objective truth." How you have arrived at that conclusion with such a lax interpretation of the book upon which your faith is founded is beyond comprehension.
Secondly, the "message" of the bible isn't all that uplifting. And I mean what it actually says, not whatever spin you choose to give it. The bible repeatedly makes clear that mankind is nothing. Dirt. God's plaything. He made us and he can destroy us. Indeed, the idea of original sin is predicated on the idea that we are so bad, dirty, awful, disgusting, selfish beasts that we deserve death. But if we beg hard enough, get down on our knees and pray hard enough, sacrifice all pleasure and admit our absolute worthlessness, then upon our demise god (if he's feeling particularly generous that day) might spare us his fiery hell and instead pull us into the loving embrace of eternal paradise. Sweet redemption, see? And that's supposed to make him a loving god and we are supposed to be thankful for that "offer."
But see, jimrobb, I don't believe that. I have a much more positive outlook on humanity than christians do. I don't think we're without value and I don't think we're sinful or dirty. I totally disagree with your opinion that we are all "guilty" of a personal fall. I think all of us are doing damn well in a pretty bad situation. I give us credit for getting up. So lay off the guilt trips, ok? It sounds like a personal problem. Whip yourself on your own time. The last thing any of us need is some wife-beating drunk of a god who kicks in the teeth, calls us shit, and tells us that's love.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/27/2005 02:01:03 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 08:04:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert:
Secondly, the "message" of the bible isn't all that uplifting. And I mean what it actually says, not whatever spin you choose to give it. The bible repeatedly makes clear that mankind is nothing. Dirt. God's plaything. He made us and he can destroy us. Indeed, the idea of original sin is predicated on the idea that we are so bad, dirty, awful, disgusting, selfish beasts that we deserve death. But if we beg hard enough, get down on our knees and pray hard enough, sacrifice all pleasure and admit our absolute worthlessness, then upon our demise god (if he's feeling particularly generous that day) might spare us his fiery hell and instead pull us into the loving embrace of eternal paradise. Sweet redemption, see? And that's supposed to make him a loving god and we are supposed to be thankful for that "offer."
But see, jimrobb, I don't believe that. I have a much more positive outlook on humanity than christians do. I don't think we're without value and I don't think we're sinful or dirty. I totally disagree with your opinion that we are all "guilty" of a personal fall. I think all of us are doing damn well in a pretty bad situation. I give us credit for getting up. So lay off the guilt trips, ok? It sounds like a personal problem. Whip yourself on your own time. The last thing any of us need is some wife-beating drunk of a god who kicks in the teeth, calls us shit, and tells us that's love.
Amen to that, H. Much better to stand up on your own two feet and take some responsibility for yourself than write it off on some guy in the sky. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 08:47:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb:
Again, Dude, I have to say, where I come from, I'm considered alarmingly skeptical!
And where would that be? The fourteenth century? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 10:12:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb:
Again, Dude, I have to say, where I come from, I'm considered alarmingly skeptical!
And where would that be? The fourteenth century?
Often, when I go to New Age Expos and such, I take a very perceptive friend of mine who is a great skeptic and also attends an evangelical church. Being a Christian and being a skeptic are not mutually exclusive. (He does now believe, after many conversations with me, that evolution happens. That he has faith in God does not really matter to me.) It does not follow that a good skeptic must also be an atheist or an agnostic. I kid my friend that he is blind in this one area, and he says that I am blind in the same area. Okay, so we move past that. There is much out there worth examining with a critical eye that has nothing to do with religion. I do not agree with all democrats on all issues either, but we are still democrats. (I'm sure this will be pegged as a false analogy, but so much of politics comes down to opinion, no matter how much critical thinking we do on the subject, I think the analogy is a fair one.)
I get tired of Christian bashing. Sorry. Sure, the subject of God is subject to doubt because God is not falsifiable. Okay. Whatever.
And sure, I draw certain lines. But I have no argument with those who acknowledge that what they believe is a matter of faith.
We are a skeptic site, not an atheist agnostic site even if our skepticism leads most of us to become an atheist and an agnostic.
All Christians are not fundamentalists. And some people of faith, in one area of their lives, can employ critical thinking on a wide enough range of ideas or claims that I would regard them as fellow skeptics.
So sue me...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 10:55:01 [Permalink]
|
Kil, I went to jimrobb's "Skeptic Club" website. What I saw boiled down to:
Jimrobb asks a question, claims he will infuriate some fundies with his answer, then proceeds to find a bible quote which supports his position and reinforces his nice comfortable faith.
I saw little of what I would consider actual skepticism there. The source of all the answers is the bible, and it is just accepted as being reliable. There is no critical thought applied to it's accuracy or reliability, not to mention the wealth of material from the same book which can be used to support the opposite postion on just about anything.
I too consider jimrobb to be "alarmingly skeptical", just not in the same way he meant it.
I don't think I was "christian bashing", but I acknowledge your viewpoint and I see how some might see it that way. I was merely trying to point out that christian apologetics (which is a much better description than skepticism of jimrobb's blog) haven't changed much in the last thousand or so years. It still requires that you believe the book without question, that the book is the authority and the source of all answers. jimrobb may indeed be able to be skeptical in other areas, but from what I have seen here and at his blog, he has not been very skeptical at all in the area of religion. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 12:45:49 [Permalink]
|
Well I certainly have never sinned. Sinning is some thing you do against god and since there is no god I couldn't have sinned. Morality on the other hand, is a set of common rules that when practiced by the individual, benefits the group thus also the individual. The tragedy of the commons is not inevitable. Lots of folks in that situation would recognize there isn't enough grazing land for more than one cow per person and wouldn't be inherently greedy.
While there are some who are inherently injurious to the group, the vast majority are not. If they were we'd have completely different societies. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/27/2005 12:46:08 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 12:49:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
R.Wreck:
Kil, I went to jimrobb's "Skeptic Club" website. What I saw boiled down to:
Jimrobb asks a question, claims he will infuriate some fundies with his answer, then proceeds to find a bible quote which supports his position and reinforces his nice comfortable faith.
What he seems to be doing is testing interpretations. Some of those interpretations might indeed infuriate a fundamentalist. That he uses the bible to support an interpretation that he is suggesting should not come as a surprise since he never ever claims to be anything other than a Christian. In other words,
He is using critical thinking, or attempting to, within the confines of biblical interpretation, and not in the broader sense, the one that many of us would prefer, of questioning his faith.
“Nice comfortable faith” is condescending. I think the reason he brings his stuff here is that we will give him a real run for his money. We are built to catch flaws in reasoning. We should view his presence as a complement.
quote:
R.Wreck:
I saw little of what I would consider actual skepticism there. The source of all the answers is the bible, and it is just accepted as being reliable. There is no critical thought applied to it's accuracy or reliability, not to mention the wealth of material from the same book which can be used to support the opposite postion on just about anything.
Again, he isn't questioning the truth of the Bible, as we would prefer. He is looking for and suggesting answers from within its pages.
quote:
R.Wreck:
I too consider jimrobb to be "alarmingly skeptical", just not in the same way he meant it.
In matters of faith, he does not exactly share our brand of skepticism, true. It is more of an in-house thing.
quote:
R.Wreck:
I don't think I was "christian bashing", but I acknowledge your viewpoint and I see how some might see it that way. I was merely trying to point out that christian apologetics (which is a much better description than skepticism of jimrobb's blog) haven't changed much in the last thousand or so years. It still requires that you believe the book without question, that the book is the authority and the source of all answers. jimrobb may indeed be able to be skeptical in other areas, but from what I have seen here and at his blog, he has not been very skeptical at all in the area of religion.
Just saying that they haven't changed for the last 1000 years is bashing. He never claimed that he doesn't believe in the Bible. Or, that he is skeptical of the bible per say.
Yes, it would be nice to see other areas of skepticism brought up in his blog. I'll give you that. And maybe he will get to it. I dunno. But to many Christians, his site would be considerd skeptical within the confines of Christianity. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 18:29:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb:
Again, Dude, I have to say, where I come from, I'm considered alarmingly skeptical!
And where would that be? The fourteenth century?
Often, when I go to New Age Expos and such, I take a very perceptive friend of mine who is a great skeptic and also attends an evangelical church. Being a Christian and being a skeptic are not mutually exclusive. (He does now believe, after many conversations with me, that evolution happens. That he has faith in God does not really matter to me.) It does not follow that a good skeptic must also be an atheist or an agnostic. I kid my friend that he is blind in this one area, and he says that I am blind in the same area. Okay, so we move past that. There is much out there worth examining with a critical eye that has nothing to do with religion. I do not agree with all democrats on all issues either, but we are still democrats. (I'm sure this will be pegged as a false analogy, but so much of politics comes down to opinion, no matter how much critical thinking we do on the subject, I think the analogy is a fair one.)
I get tired of Christian bashing. Sorry. Sure, the subject of God is subject to doubt because God is not falsifiable. Okay. Whatever.
And sure, I draw certain lines. But I have no argument with those who acknowledge that what they believe is a matter of faith.
We are a skeptic site, not an atheist agnostic site even if our skepticism leads most of us to become an atheist and an agnostic.
All Christians are not fundamentalists. And some people of faith, in one area of their lives, can employ critical thinking on a wide enough range of ideas or claims that I would regard them as fellow skeptics.
So sue me...
Well said. But I ain't no Demmycrat! :scowl:
I really don't care what someone else's beliefs and/or suprestitions might be -- I am not an evangelical atheist. When someone comes here and makes unfounded claims, then I will try to provide the proper information, with reference, and argue about it if I have to.
Jim is one of the calmer and more reasonable Christian believers to come here, and I would not take his faith away from him, even if I could. He's happy with it, so I'm happy for him. All I ask is to have accurate, independant reference for claims (the Bible is not an independant reference for much of anything).
As to his website, I haven't visited it (I will, shortly), but, as I see it, what he says and does elsewhere is somebody else's concern. To me, what he says and does here is what is important to us.
Skeptics is as skeptics does, and I suspect that everyones version of skepticism is a little different. To, say, out absent friend verlch, jim would be only slightly less skeptical than, oh, say, myself.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
