God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them...

Thomas said:
No they don't. Actually it's up to you to make your point logically and rationally. Simply saying 'I don't believe it, therefore it's not true' is neither.
Click to expand...

I am saying that if a thing isn't credible like the creation stories, the flood and those surrounding the life of Jesus,then for those who claim they are true they have to put up the evidence, but of course they can't.
 
Quirkybird said:
I am saying that if a thing isn't credible like the creation stories, the flood and those surrounding the life of Jesus,then for those who claim they are true they have to put up the evidence, but of course they can't.
Click to expand...
Well for a start, you obviously aren't aware of the fact that the Bible needs to be read as a collection of materials comprising differing literary genres; mythologies, histories, testimonies, lists, hymns, poems, proverbs, wisdom literature, eschatalogical speculation ... to lump everything into one basket is, in the face of modern scholarship, nonsense.

To assume that just because one can read, a 21st century, English-speaking reader will understand a text written with a Semitic or Hellenic sensibility is, equally, a nonsense.

You cite three examples, to which I shall respond:

The creation stories
The 'creation myths' are a metaphysical discourse in the mythopoeic style of Semitic literature. The material elements of the discourse — paradise, the Garden, the four rivers, the two trees, the serpent, the primordial couple, is a rich metaphysical discourse which sums up the idea of God, of man, and the relationship between the two, according to a contemplative appreciation of 'the human condition'. To say the discourse 'lacks credibility' makes the fundamental error in assuming the discourse should be read as 'history' in the modern and common sense. That shows a degree of ignorance regarding the way to read the Bible.

So while the material

The flood.
There is indisputable geological evidence of significant catastrophic floods in the region. To say there is no evidence is simply to ignore the facts.

The stories surrounding the life of Jesus
This is one of my favourites. Until quite recently, critics assumed that Luke was 'making it up' because he spoke of places that didn't exist, he referred to known historical personages by titles that didn't exist, he justmade up stories to suit his narrative ...

... then archaeologists found the places 'that didn't exist', and they found evidence of personages known by titles 'that didn't exist' ... historians of Rome use Luke's gospel as a reliable 1st hand, eye-witness, 'man in the street' account of life in occupied Jerusalem, because so much of what he says has been corroborated from other sources.

You fall into the Bultmann error:
A is a myth;
B reads like A;
therefore B is a myth.

It's flawed logic, although if you've a reputation like Bultmann's, you'll get away without being challenged for quite a while.

You are of course welcome to your opinion, that I do not dispute, but that anyone else should give it any credence, on the evidence you've offered so far, I suggest would be unwise.
 
I find your 'logic' very difficult to follow. However no matter, you are obviously happy believing as you do, and I can't see any reason to change my thoughts on the topic, so we will have to agree to differ.:)
 
Tadashi said:
Well, what I asked was,

What else do you rely on, in terms of Christianity, in terms of trying to figure out "What would Jesus do"?

I'm talking strictly about Christianity here, since the discussion started as "how we read/interpret the Bible." I read the Bible to try to understand what Jesus really meant, what he really wanted to teach us, so, Hindu scripture is irrelevant to my question.

Sorry to be picky, but also here, you're not answering my questions.

What I asked was,

What do you mean when you say "agree with the scholars"?
When you say the scholars, who do you have in mind?

I'm asking these questions because of your earlier comment below...Here, you make, what it seems to me, an accusation.

"it was done from a very narrow perspective resulting in interpretations that tend to be rather one sided."

I don't mind anyone criticizing anyone's view (that's what a debate is about), but the criticism has to be based on a careful observation or be backed by a logical rationale, otherwise it's slander. And Jesus taught against slander.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. (Matthew 15:19)

So, I'm asking you to explain how you formed your above opinion. For you to say that, you must've had some scholars or theologians that made you think this way. So, I'm asking, "who are they"?

Tad
Click to expand...
I have answered your questions Tad, but we seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion that makes those answers unacceptable to you. You see to me, Christian and Hindu scripture are completely compatible. Many of the lessons taught in the Bhagavad Gita for instance, though not strictly related to the life of Jesus are the same lessons and ideals he taught in the NT.

As I've said, I read the NT for the basic story, but for me, there has been too much human input to make a reliable and rational assessment of what Jesus actually meant by some of those teachings. For me, Hindu scripture clears that up. I'll read a passage in the NT, cross reference it with a similar event in the BG and suddenly, the message in the NT becomes more clear.

As for religious scholars, I've listened to a lot of them. I really can't name anyone in particular. To me, aside from their presentation, they're all the same. One says one thing the next another and in my experience that's usually based upon whatever doctrine they subscribe to. I'm not really criticizing them or even saying their assessments are right or wrong, but that lack of consistency in and of itself is the basis for my opinion.

There is another instance however that has reinforced that opinion for me. One of my oldest and dearest friends happens to be a retired Theology Professor. Despite his rather impressive credentials, too numerous to mention, he's one of the most down to earth people you'll ever meet. He's perhaps the exception to the rule when it comes to religious scholars

One day we were casually discussing the 10 commandments. Mind you, this was long before my Ministry and prior to any serious Bible study, Hindu or otherwise. I gave him my take on the 2nd commandment, which is much the same now as it was then and one I had formed at a very early age. He just sat back and stared at me for the longest time. When he finally spoke he jokingly said, "You know, it took me almost 30 years to come to that conclusion. I fear my time at university was wasted." That has always stuck with me and in my eyes proves my assessment that, when it comes to matters of faith, regardless of how much time you put into study, one opinion is as good as another.

The thing is, to me, none of that scholarly knowledge matters. As my late father-in-law put it, the word of God is already born unto us. With that in mind, in matters of faith, none of us knows any better than anyone else. You learn the basics, get what ever religious mentoring you deem appropriate and form an opinion.

I hope that clears things up a bit for you, but alas I fear it will not...:(
 
Thomas said:
The stories surrounding the life of Jesus
This is one of my favourites. Until quite recently, critics assumed that Luke was 'making it up' because he spoke of places that didn't exist, he referred to known historical personages by titles that didn't exist, he justmade up stories to suit his narrative ...

... then archaeologists found the places 'that didn't exist', and they found evidence of personages known by titles 'that didn't exist' ... historians of Rome use Luke's gospel as a reliable 1st hand, eye-witness, 'man in the street' account of life in occupied Jerusalem, because so much of what he says has been corroborated from other sources.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty pathetic straw man. :D
 
Thomas said:
Ah, I read your 'one opinion is as good as another' as being a generalisation, that the opinion of the man who knows nothing about a subject is equal to the opinion of the man who has spent his whole life researching it.

I didn't realise you meant difference of opinion between scholars, so I must apologise for my terse response.

The 'peer review' process is generally accepted as the best methodology among scholars. Without peer review, nonsense and deceptions would soon reign.

The trouble is, many know that publishing a 'popular' book (not following the peer-review trail) that challenges orthodoxy immediately guarantees sales and an element of notoriety, especially when they can claim some order of scholarship — the Jesus Seminar is a classic example of that.

So, sadly, no, I don't even think all scholarly opinions are equal. I have learned to ask myself 'what's the agenda here?'
Click to expand...

With this assessment I can wholeheartedly agree. At the risk of another terse response however, I was indeed lumping scholars together with laymen when I originally suggested that their opinions were of equal value.

To qualify though, I was only talking in terms of faith as I believe that faith is deeply personal and individualistic. I was also making an assumption that said layman had done all do research and sought whatever mentoring they deemed necessary before forming their opinions and that they had an acceptable grasp of the language and dialect nuances of the text they were reading.

I realize not everyone will agree with that, but I come by it from a somewhat unique perspective. You see, Fiji was a big wake-up call for me. I went there with a big chip on my shoulder. I assumed that because I had college degrees hanging on the wall back home that I knew more than they did. As it turns out, I had indeed memorized more facts, but I couldn't even come close to matching the wisdom of some of the people there. Even though, most had no formal education to speak of. Especially where matters of faith were concerned.
 
Quirkybird said:
I am saying that there is no evidence to support the less than credible stories in the Bible. For those who say there is, they have to put up or shut up!
Click to expand...
No, they don't, unless they're imposing their beliefs on you. Is anyone here doing that?
 
Namaste Jesus said:
I have answered your questions Tad, but we seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion that makes those answers unacceptable to you.
Click to expand...
Well, I wanted some names of scholars that made you think their opinions were from a very narrow perspective and rather one sided. That was my question. So, anything other than those names was, I'm sorry, naturally unsatisfactory to me.

NJ, I really don't have a problem with how you approach religions to strengthen your faith. If Hinduism works for you, I think that's great.

My problem is not a religious one, but a moral one. To me, you seemed to have disrespected and demeaned the work of Biblical scholars and theologians for no good reason.

Sorry, but I have to keep coming back to this comment of yours.
Namaste Jesus said:
In my experience, the problem with those who have studied the Bible intently is that in most cases it was done from a very narrow perspective resulting in interpretations that tend to be rather one sided.
Click to expand...

If you're gonna say this to anyone's work which s/he dedicated themselves to, you'd better be able to explain why you think that with actual examples. If you can't, then please don't say it, because it sounds to me like just a baseless accusation.

You say you listened to a lot of scholars, but you can't name even one or two? and tell me which part of what they said sounded unconvincing and made you doubtful about them? I'm sorry but that just makes me wonder how intently you listened to them...

The story of your friend is nice, but I wonder if he was being humble and kind. I don't take that as a cue to trivialize the study of theology.

NJ, it's not my business whether you value scholars' opinions or not in regards to your religious practice, it's your faith and of course you're free to pursue it the way you think is the best, as so am I. But I minded a somewhat slanderous remark you made, and that you couldn't give the example of what you based it on.


Tad
 
Hi Tad, sorry my explanation did not meet your expectations, but I can't turn my comment into something it isn't. My comments were general and were more or less intended to express my opinion of the field itself rather than any one individual.

I understand you don't agree with me and that you don't care for the way I put it. I'm ok with that, but please don't try to tell me what I can and cannot post or the way I have to post it. After all my perspective is just that, my perspective, not yours

So let's just leave it at that, agree to disagree and move on.
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Hi Tad, sorry my explanation did not meet your expectations, but I can't turn my comment into something it isn't. My comments were general and were more or less intended to express my opinion of the field itself rather than any one individual.
Click to expand...
Yea, NJ, I'm sorry too, because I don't think that kind of explanation would meet anyone's expectation who has a logical mind.

I'll give you an example:

If someone says to me "I cannot trust Mr.so-and-so, he says one thing and does another all the time!" So I'd ask, "Can you give me an example of how he does so?" and the person goes, "Well... I don't remember any particular incident, but I know he does..." --- Do you expect me to believe what this person says?

Namaste Jesus said:
I understand you don't agree with me and that you don't care for the way I put it. I'm ok with that, but please don't try to tell me what I can and cannot post or the way I have to post it. After all my perspective is just that, my perspective, not yours
Click to expand...
Well, this is a discussion/debate forum, I'll offer my opinions as I see fit. I'll call a spade a spade. As I said, it's not your religious perspectives that I have a problem with, it's your throwing out an accusation and not being able to back it up with actual examples. What I don't agree is not your religious views, but your ethics. I wanna make sure you understand that.
 
Quirkybird said:
I am saying that there is no evidence to support the less than credible stories in the Bible.
Click to expand...
How would you know? Give me the names of three books on Syro-Palestinian archaeology that you've actually read and feel competent to judge.
 
Namaste Jesus said:
In my experience, the problem with those who have studied the Bible intently is that in most cases it was done from a very narrow perspective resulting in interpretations that tend to be rather one sided.
Click to expand...

Hi Tad, I don't like there being a rift between us, so let me give this one more shot. You seem to be stuck on this one particular comment I posted in reply to you a while back.

After re-reading it several times I realized that, due to a poor choice of words on my part, this sentence may very well have been misunderstood. I do apologize for that. I didn't intend to cause such chaos or make it appear as though I were maligning theologians and religious scholars. Just a case of the brain thinking one thing and the hands typing another.

I intended a more general statement regarding my thoughts on the process of intent Bible study, but obviously that's not how it was taken. So let me start over.

All I'm saying is, while I tend to place more value on the overall story of the Christian Bible rather than individual details, those who study it intently, (I'm not talking about anyone in particular here), do just the opposite and narrow their focus down to each individual line of text. That's all I meant when I said, "Narrow Perspective" above. I also stated that the resulting conclusions drawn from such study were, "One Sided". I say this, because again, we're only talking about the Christian Bible and I personally consider all religious teachings valid and intertwined.

I further take the position that since even after such intent study, many religious scholars still differ in opinion and since many of their conclusions match those who have not studied the Bible intently, that, in matters of faith, one opinion is as good as another.

That, you can agree with or not, but hopefully will explain where I was coming from when I said it...:rolleyes:
 
Gee, a whole lot went down in the day or two I was away! I'm probably too late to the party, so some general thoughts on the many comments posted.

Thomas said "To assume that just because one can read, a 21st century, English-speaking reader will understand a text written with a Semitic or Hellenic sensibility is, equally, a nonsense."

You seem to be suggesting that the book that has been printed more than any other in the world is written in a way that 99% of the people reading it, being laymen, will not be able to understand it properly?

On the issue of opinions commented upon by Thomas, Tad, NJ, Jay, Quirky, et. al., here's one more for the pot.

On Knowledge:
Definition of Scholarship (the portion that relates to this discussion):
A person who has studied a subject for a long time and knows a lot about it : an intelligent and well-educated person who knows a particular subject very well.

The knowledge base of a scholar is almost always going to be far greater than that of a layman, when considering the above definition. Certainly no one would ever consider the suggestion that a layperson's knowledge of, say, physics, carries the same weight of someone who is a physicist.

Yes there are those who are self educated, and sometimes to a level equal to another having a degree in the field of study. We all know of examples where self educated types have made profound discoveries that the degreed have not.

Two points about this generalization.

One. The level of knowledge and understanding varies quite a bit, both for the degreed and the self educated. There has to be some ruler by which we can judge the accuracy of anyone's thoughts on a topic. Typically this is by peer review. Which often puts the self educated out in the cold. An unfortunate necessity. Which has not always been proven to be the correct choice. Overall though it is the best process we have.

Two. Along with the level of knowledge is something which perhaps carries even more importance, which is motive. Not that an agenda is of necessity a bad thing; most everyone has an agenda of some kind. If it is perceived to be an agenda to get at the 'truth' to the best of one's abilities, that is a good agenda.

If the agenda is to increase a person's stature, or that their career hangs on their interpretation being correct, not so much.



On Opinion:
The eagle eyed among you will have noted that in the above commentary, no mention was made of opinion.

Definition of Opinion:
1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
2. the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
3. an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something.

Opinions are much harder to judge because they are, by definition, a judgement that may or may not be based upon fact or knowledge. Emotion is often wrapped up with the opinion, which can harm the sensibility of said opinion even more.

Here in the U.S. there has been a tragic trend in which people have come to the belief that they are entitled to their opinion. AND that they are entitled to their opinion even when the facts completely refute said opinion. AND that their opinion carries more weight in their life views than any facts to the contrary.

In essence, opinion trumps facts. It is why the rest of the world looks at the United States and wonder if we have lost our minds. Because of this destructive trend, in essence we have.

Opinions, in order to have any worth at all, have to be based upon something more than that-is-what-I-wish-to-believe. The more informed the opinion, the more based on facts available, the more weight an opinion should have.

Even then, opinions are dicey because learned individuals can look at the same information and come to differing opinions. Which makes it appear as if any opinion is of equal weight. And that is a fallacy. Learned opinions must be given more weight than the off the top of one’s head kind. In order to have any potency, opinions have to be backed up by documentation. If one cannot or will not provide such documentation, they must be prepared to have their opinion given little credence.

Finally, there has been mentioned the issue of wisdom versus scholarship. Wisdom can be learned entirely from life experience, or by long study, or both. The difference between wisdom and the rest that has been mentioned above is that wisdom tends to be broader strokes of learning, where knowledge is more in the details. Wisdom and knowledge are different branches of the same tree. To suggest wisdom is equal to or greater than knowledge is incorrect as the two cannot be compared side by side. They are separate.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Even then, opinions are dicey because learned individuals can look at the same information and come to differing opinions. Which makes it appear as if any opinion is of equal weight. And that is a fallacy. Learned opinions must be given more weight than the off the top of one’s head kind. In order to have any potency, opinions have to be backed up by documentation. If one cannot or will not provide such documentation, they must be prepared to have their opinion given little credence.
Click to expand...
A great post. I couldn't have said it any better myself!

Tad
 
Hi NJ, I appreciate your making effort, but I still don't think you understand my point. Please understand I have no beef in terms of how you study the Bible or how you practice your faith. If you don't value scholars' opinions, that's fine. That's not the issue here.

Namaste Jesus said:
those who study it intently, (I'm not talking about anyone in particular here), do just the opposite and narrow their focus down to each individual line of text.
Click to expand...
Are you by any chance suggesting that they take a verse out of context when they study? If so, I'd like to tell you that's exactly what scholars/theologians caution against.

I'm not saying "don't criticize scholars/theologians." I actually do that myself once in a while. But when I do, I have a particular saying of a particular scholar or a theologian in mind. I don't generalize them (or any other people of profession for that matter) when I criticize them.

What I'm saying is, how can I take your criticism as a valid one, if you can't name any particular scholar/theologian, or any particular book or article that made you think that way?

Okay, another example:

If I had said, "Most Americans are rude!", someone is gonna naturally ask me, "What makes you say that?", and if I couldn't give any example of what I mean, do you think I should say such a thing?

Ethically speaking, when you criticize something, you gotta back it up with the evidence. Otherwise it's just an accusation, it's slander, is all I'm saying.

Do you disagree?


Tad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top