A
Agathon
Guest
It’s not a myth; it is history.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
You’ve done more to establish what your position is by calling Moses a ‘myth’ than you might realize. Now I understand where you’re coming from.
I’m not sure that the Bible is capable of providing the kind of ‘evidence’ you’re looking for, if I’m reading you correctly. Nevertheless, the kind of ‘evidence’ that’s reasonable to ask of antiquity might be different than what you seem to want. Is archaeological evidence and theories of modern historians the only kind of evidence that’s acceptable to you? Are cultural histories and traditions things that you cite as ‘evidence’, or are they to be dismissed out of hand, in your opinion?
Yep, fair enough! I would recommend, then, that this be the way you present your assertions. It came off – to my ears – as if you were saying “this is fact. proven fact.” without any sort of justification, and in contradiction to what is generally taught by the Church!
I disagree. I think that one’s character – or doctrinal leanings, as it were – influences one’s conclusions, but I hope that (on all sides) folks are open to hearing dissenting cases and working through them. I think that confirmation bias exists throughout the spectrum of beliefs (and non-beliefs!), and I hope that folks are willing to consider ideas that run counter to them.
I think that you might be surprised at “what has been said about the Bible in the last 150 years or so” if you think that it only contradicts strict scriptural literalists.
That would hold for you as well… right?
A
Agathon
Guest
Why the thumbs up?
C
curious_cath
Guest
Moses almost certainly existed. What I call a myth is the claim that he wrote down the books of the Pentateuch. It is also a myth that Israel had the Pentateuch as a book of laws before Josiah.
Because all statements about the Bible are based on plausibility, all assertions of truth mean exactly what you find most plausible! This means we accept truthfulness based on finding it the most plausible assumption or explanation. It is implicit for every statement made by anyone about the Bible, including you and me. Even if you say it or not., even if I say it or not. What other criteria may you exhibit for recognizing truthfulness?
C
curious_cath
Guest
No. But if a claim or assertion in the Bible is in direct contradiction with archaeological facts then the plausibility of that assertion must be questioned. This means no evidence should be accepted that is in conflict with the facts.
M
mythbuster1
Guest
In that case, on what basis do you say that all killing is sin? You deny the veracity of the very books you use as a basis for your claim.
A
Agathon
Guest
You had to believe the first statement under the Pontifical Bible Commision. The second statement contradicts Sacred Scripture itself.
E
ericc
Guest
You are moving away the discussion, but I’ll humor you.
- Since you claim it is a myth, prove it. I am citing Biblical sources to defend my position. You are citing yourself. If your point is that the Bible is a myth, (you shouldn’t cherry pick you know), then why are you calling Elijah a murderer? The one you claim you hated the most. Why should you hate a mythical person who performed mythical deeds? That is very illogical.
- Elijah is a prophet. The King and Queen may have turned to idol worship. It does not lessen the responsibility of Elijah to enforce Mosaic laws. The Mosaic laws are divinely given. King Ahad does not have any authority to remove them. Did King Ahad nullified any mosaic laws? Did former kings Saul, David, Solomon etc nullify Mosaic laws? Nope. Why didn’t King Ahad execute Elijah for killing his Baal prophets? If Elijah was guilty of mass murder, King Ahad would have the perfect excuse to get rid of him. And when your so-call murderer confronted King Ahad about Naboth’s Vineyard, King Ahad had to humbled himself before God. 1 Kings 21. He knows who is the real God.
- Are Mosaic laws myths? Jesus didn’t think so.
What is the law of free killing? I have no idea what that is. You make pronouncements freely but no one is clued in what you meant.
I have quoted the relevant verses to substantiate Elijah’s enforcement of capital punishment previously . You ignored it. That is not MY law. It is Mosaic. I asked you to substantiate that all intentional killing is murder. It is still outstanding. You defined it as intentional killing, not free, so let us try to keep the terminology at intentional.
Of course he did. His sermon on the Mount defines how we should behave towards our neighbor. He defined what one should do about divorce. His Good Samaritan parable defines who our neighbor is. He defines how we should baptize.
Quoting Jesus does not help your case at all. It is another case of fallacious argument of appealing to higher authority. Calling his prophet a mass murderer really doesn’t help.
Christian faith is based upon reason and logic (and faith). God is reason and logic because reason and logic is truth. And God is truth. If you believe in truth, you should acknowledge your error in falsely accusing Elijah a mass murderer and ask for his forgiveness as well as others who you may have misled.
If you have no intention of backing up what you claim, I think we should conclude our discussion because zero response from you after asking the same question several times is unproductive. It gets tiring when you evade answering and bring in new diversionary stuff to the table which is futile as I tend to stay focused on the original issue.
G
goout
Guest
We have to focus on both sides of Christ. Christ is all loving and He is all just.
G
Gorgias
Guest
The way I’ve heard the claim presented isn’t that he personally put pen to paper…
Based on…?
I would disagree. A Catholic would hold to the historical truth of the death & resurrection of Jesus. This isn’t a statement about ‘plausibility’. On the other hand, if we were to discuss other events recorded in the OT, and discuss them based on their seeming likelihood, it would make sense to temper one’s statements explicitly in terms of “plausibility”.
In any case, it’s a hermeneutic that really requires explicit mention, since it’s not the hermeneutic that many use in approaching the Bible…
G
Gorgias
Guest
Isn’t archaeological evidence interpreted by archaeologists? And therefore, aren’t ‘facts’ but rather ‘theories’?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Because I’m hoping she, too, is open to new ideas that are in conflict with her currently-held beliefs. It would be hypocritical to call others out for being close-minded while at the same time, close-minded with respect to one’s personally-held stance.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Voldemort is a bully and doesn’t exist either. We can invent fictional characters that are bad. You know this, the readers know this, do better in your responses in the future.
Can you demonstrate that there is an objective morality in reference to a deity that has yet to be demonstrated to exist at all? I’ve presented my example as to where I understand we can demonstrate this to exist, but you are referencing the moral pronouncements of an entity that has yet to be demonstrated to exist and have yet to explain why we should take its position over anyone else’s. We know that, in the reference point of nutrition for people, drinking batter acid is objectively bad for example.
I say you don’t like reality since you are presenting a problem that may not actually have an answer to it and attempting to solve it with a solution that is indistinguishable from an imagined entity like peter pan based on your responses.
Reread what I wrote, I do not believe you addressed what I said. Also, you have not presented why your imagined deity’s pronouncements, as a reference to objective moral responses, should be solutions to our moral problems. So, in my presentation of referencing reality that we all have access to, we have to understand why someone’s solution to a moral problem is good or bad. Is it objectively good or bad? Depends on the problem. There can be objectively bad choices but I’m not sure there are objectively good choices over other good choices. Such as choosing to eat apples or oranges to maintain good nutritional health in reference to humans.
You are the one pronouncing the positive statement that a deity exists. I am not. The burden of proof is on you for that. This is basic logic 101.
Human standards to a deity - Not sure how that addresses what I wrote. I am talking about you not applying your moral judgement to your deity as you would with anyone else you have a relationship with to assess them as good or bad. You continuously state that you will not ever judge your deity’s actions as bad regardless of what it does. That, by definition, is to shelve your ability to apply any moral assessment to the situation and are clearly playing the Stockholm Syndrome card.
You are now just coming across as just wanting the last work and really have nothing more to add to the advancement of the topic since your responses are not addressing what was said and not providing a way to understand your conclusions and just want to be taken as pronouncements without a method of understanding how you came to your position. This is not a conversation anymore to address these topics and you are just wasting the time of the readers and mine.
Anyone else have a point on this topic to pick up?
Can you demonstrate that there is an objective morality in reference to a deity that has yet to be demonstrated to exist at all? I’ve presented my example as to where I understand we can demonstrate this to exist, but you are referencing the moral pronouncements of an entity that has yet to be demonstrated to exist and have yet to explain why we should take its position over anyone else’s. We know that, in the reference point of nutrition for people, drinking batter acid is objectively bad for example.
I say you don’t like reality since you are presenting a problem that may not actually have an answer to it and attempting to solve it with a solution that is indistinguishable from an imagined entity like peter pan based on your responses.
Reread what I wrote, I do not believe you addressed what I said. Also, you have not presented why your imagined deity’s pronouncements, as a reference to objective moral responses, should be solutions to our moral problems. So, in my presentation of referencing reality that we all have access to, we have to understand why someone’s solution to a moral problem is good or bad. Is it objectively good or bad? Depends on the problem. There can be objectively bad choices but I’m not sure there are objectively good choices over other good choices. Such as choosing to eat apples or oranges to maintain good nutritional health in reference to humans.
You are the one pronouncing the positive statement that a deity exists. I am not. The burden of proof is on you for that. This is basic logic 101.
Human standards to a deity - Not sure how that addresses what I wrote. I am talking about you not applying your moral judgement to your deity as you would with anyone else you have a relationship with to assess them as good or bad. You continuously state that you will not ever judge your deity’s actions as bad regardless of what it does. That, by definition, is to shelve your ability to apply any moral assessment to the situation and are clearly playing the Stockholm Syndrome card.
You are now just coming across as just wanting the last work and really have nothing more to add to the advancement of the topic since your responses are not addressing what was said and not providing a way to understand your conclusions and just want to be taken as pronouncements without a method of understanding how you came to your position. This is not a conversation anymore to address these topics and you are just wasting the time of the readers and mine.
Anyone else have a point on this topic to pick up?
A
Agathon
Guest
Doesn’t your statement that there is no God require proof as well?
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Where did I write that? I believe I’ve always presented the idea of a deity as indistinguishable from an imagined idea of a deity. That it can not be demonstrated to actually be any different than an imagined idea of a deity.
Last edited:
C
curious_cath
Guest
What you see in the Old Testament. Jesus told to the adulterous woman: “Go and sin no more.” There is no such thing as free killing.
C
curious_cath
Guest
We call archaeological findings artifacts. They are tangible evidence, tangible history.
Last edited:
C
curious_cath
Guest
I am open-minded to fundamentalist interpretation. I know a lot about Evangelical Protestant fundamentalism and the 6000 years old universe.
The Catholicism I can respect is not like theirs. When Catholics enforce literal interpretation of the Bible, they are competing with hardcore professionals on the Protestant side, therefore they are losing. There is a reason the Catholic denomination cannot attract more people in mainland America,
C
curious_cath
Guest
The Bible is full of harsh words. We cannot read: “It is the most plausible explanation for your behavior that you are a brood of vipers.”
Or “I plausibly think your father is the devil!” 
We have to learn the speak up what we believe in.
A
Agathon
Guest
The incident with the woman caught in adultery doesn’t serve to erase the death penalty. It was just Jesus getting out of a trap.
- Status