Assumed Expertise in Unread Literature

[Radrook]

Is this phenomenon common to all religious books such as the Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu religious literature, or is it mostly manifested toward the Bible?

[Beancounter]

As this is a phenomenon that exists almost universally, to directly answer your question, I doubt that it is just directed towards the bible.

I assume this is a barb at many of the the members of this forum - myself included? ;). I would imagine that you have got this "impression" because the majority of members appear to come from a christian or jewish background and therefore do have some knowledge of the subject.

Incidently, talking with authority on subjects one knows nothing about is an indispensible skill in the world of business. Unfortunately it is often better to spout garbage very loudly than to say nothing at all.

[LW]

Originally posted by Radrook
Is this phenomenon common to all religious books such as the Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu religious literature, or is it mostly manifested toward the Bible?

I don't know, but in my personal case I've read more of the Bible than most Christians in this country. (I skipped over of the begats and I have still to read some parts of the prophets).

As for other religions, I've read a translation of Koran (doesn't count as "the real thing", I know), quite a lot of old Finnish pagan folk poetry (including stuff not in the heavily-edited Kalevala), the Hávamál, and bits and peaces of various sacred writings (Ancient Egyptian and Greek hymns, Avesta, Zen koans).

In addition I've taken three courses on world religions in high school, (covering the basic tenents of the established major religions).

I rarely speak about Hinduism here since I haven't read their sacred writings at all.

Have you studied other religions? Can you, for example, tell what the five pillars of Islam are?

[Edited to fix the accents of Hávamál]

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Radrook
Is this phenomenon common to all religious books such as the Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu religious literature, or is it mostly manifested toward the Bible? This from a person who has never met a subject that he could not pollute with the most banal and baseless rhetoric, and then avoid when pressed for evidence. You're a sham and don't even know it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Radrook
Is this phenomenon common to all religious books such as the Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu religious literature, or is it mostly manifested toward the Bible?

And this is a problem as opposed to, " Assumed Expertise in Read Literature " ?

[The GM]

Oh, I think he knows it, he just doesn't care. His view and the associated rationalizations that have zippitty doo daa to do w/ actual scripture makes his OP pretty funny in an ironic kinda way. I'm also fond of when he faces hard scrutiny he resorts to ad hom. Classy.

[Peter Jenkins]

I would happily show you mine (expertise in biblical studies) if you'll show me yours.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by The GM
Oh, I think he knows it, he just doesn't care. His view and the associated rationalizations that have zippitty doo daa to do w/ actual scripture makes his OP pretty funny in an ironic kinda way. I'm also fond of when he faces hard scrutiny he resorts to ad hom. Classy.

That was the case very early on. Now, he faces ' hard scrutiny ', with the ' ignore ' feature...

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LW


I don't know, but in my personal case I've read more of the Bible than most Christians in this country. (I skipped over of the begats and I have still to read some parts of the prophets).

As for other religions, I've read a translation of Koran (doesn't count as "the real thing", I know), quite a lot of old Finnish pagan folk poetry (including stuff not in the heavily-edited Kalevala), the Hávamál, and bits and peaces of various sacred writings (Ancient Egyptian and Greek hymns, Avesta, Zen koans).

In addition I've taken three courses on world religions in high school, (covering the basic tenents of the established major religions).

I rarely speak about Hinduism here since I haven't read their sacred writings at all.

Have you studied other religions? Can you, for example, tell what the five pillars of Islam are?

[Edited to fix the accents of Hávamál]

Of course I have studied other religions.
Not all, but I am familiar enough to talk intelligently about the major ones and a bit about of the less known ones such as shamanism. But that doesn't qualify me to delve into their sacred writings and presume to tell them what those writings are supposed to mean.

That is why I limit myself to the Bible with which I am familiar due to a lifelong reading and study of it.


BTW
I covered Islam in my social science curriculum at college.
I also covered it again when I was forced to give home High school classes to my son.

The 'Five Pillars' of Islam are:

1. One must believe that the prophet Allah is the final prophet and that God is one.

2. One must pray on a daily basis.

3. One has to keep the needy in mind and try to help them.

4. One must fast for self purification.

5. One has to try to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in one;s lifetime assuming that one is able to physically and is not prevented by some illness.

BTW
Knowing this does not mean that I should presume to feel qualified to pick and peck at Koran scriptures and try to come up with interpretations until I felt reasonably familiar with the book, Even then I would be very careful on how I would proceed if indeed I would proceed at all.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LW


I don't know, but in my personal case I've read more of the Bible than most Christians in this country. (I skipped over of the begats and I have still to read some parts of the prophets).

As for other religions, I've read a translation of Koran (doesn't count as "the real thing", I know), quite a lot of old Finnish pagan folk poetry (including stuff not in the heavily-edited Kalevala), the Hávamál, and bits and peaces of various sacred writings (Ancient Egyptian and Greek hymns, Avesta, Zen koans).

In addition I've taken three courses on world religions in high school, (covering the basic tenents of the established major religions).

I rarely speak about Hinduism here since I haven't read their sacred writings at all.

Have you studied other religions? Can you, for example, tell what the five pillars of Islam are?

[Edited to fix the accents of Hávamál]

Of course I have studied other religions.
Not all, but I am familiar enough to talk intelligently about the major ones and a bit about of the less known ones such as shamanism. But that doesn't qualify me to delve into their sacred writings and presume to tell them what those writings are supposed to mean.

That is why I limit myself to the Bible with which I am familiar due to a lifelong reading and study of it.


BTW
I covered Islam in my social science curriculum at college.
I also covered it again when I was forced to give home High school classes to my son.

The 'Five Pillars' of Islam are:

1. One must believe that the prophet Allah is the final prophet and that God is one.

2. One must pray on a daily basis.

3. One has to keep the needy in mind and try to help them.

4. One must fast for self purification.

5. One has to try to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in one;s lifetime assuming that one is able to ph

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LW


I don't know, but in my personal case I've read more of the Bible than most Christians in this country. (I skipped over of the begats and I have still to read some parts of the prophets).

As for other religions, I've read a translation of Koran (doesn't count as "the real thing", I know), quite a lot of old Finnish pagan folk poetry (including stuff not in the heavily-edited Kalevala), the Hávamál, and bits and peaces of various sacred writings (Ancient Egyptian and Greek hymns, Avesta, Zen koans).

In addition I've taken three courses on world religions in high school, (covering the basic tenents of the established major religions).

I rarely speak about Hinduism here since I haven't read their sacred writings at all.

Have you studied other religions? Can you, for example, tell what the five pillars of Islam are?

[Edited to fix the accents of Hávamál]

Of course I have studied other religions.



Not all, but I am familiar enough to talk intelligently about the major ones and a bit about of the less known ones such as shamanism. But that doesn't qualify me to delve into their sacred writings and presume to tell them what those writings are supposed to mean.

That is why I limit myself to the Bible with which I am familiar due to a lifelong reading and study of it.


BTW
One course in particular focused on other regions as they function as myth. I studied their historical background in my Two years of Western History Classes. These covered Middle Eastern Religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and ancient religions of that region such as the Greeks pantheon of Gods and the Babylonian and Egyptian religions.

I also studied religion as part of my anthropology course.

On my own I have delved into the many diverse religious denominational variations found in Christend

[Skeptical Greg]

The scholar has demonstrated his expertise in googling..:clap:

[Scot C. Trypal]

Is this phenomenon common to all religious books such as the Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu religious literature, or is it mostly manifested toward the Bible?

I think the 1st one. I’m sure, for example, there are Muslims and non-Muslims who aren’t familiar with anything but pet passages of the Koran, and still assume expertise in the book. I know I’ve seen Christian sites attacking Islam in such a way.

That is why I limit myself to the Bible with which I am familiar due to a lifelong reading and study of it.

I think that this may be the case for many of the posters here, both Christian and non. The topics here seldom get into other religions, seemingly because Christianity is what most here have had experience with throughout their lives.

I, for one, had Bible study as a regular class from as early as my memory goes, up to high school. Does this give me expertise? Nope. But I’ve found I’m more familiar with the Bible than most Christians who never had such classes in school.

[LW]

Originally posted by Radrook

But that doesn't qualify me to delve into their sacred writings and presume to tell them what those writings are supposed to mean.

I'm an expert on a very narrow subject area that has nothing to do with religion or history.

However, I have read (and own) quite a lot of books written by experts on various subjects. When speaking about religion, I usually quote those experts and give my source so that the others may evaluate the strength of the position that I'm arguing and also correct me if I'm using an incorrect source.

The 'Five Pillars' of Islam are:

Well, to tell the truth I intended the question be a more rhetorical one but forgot to qualify it as such.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook
Is this phenomenon common to all religious books such as the Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu religious literature, or is it mostly manifested toward the Bible?

I find it is a problem with any book. I've recently had a discussion with a poster here who talked about the theories of Jung and then later admitted he's not read any of his writings.

Then there was the whole "Robinson Crusoe" incident.

In the RW, you've got people who claim to "love Dickens", but mean that they saw "Oliver!" once on late night cable and watch "The Muppets' Christmas Carol" every year.

As far as religious works- very few New Agers who claim to be "buddhists" or want to use some of the terms have ever read any of the original texts, translated or not. Most have at best skimmed the Dhammapada and then claimed to "understand" buddhism. This would be the equivilent to you of someone picking out parts of Psalms and Proverbs then claiming to be a Christian. This is my experience, YMMV.

I used to talk to a gentleman who would rail against Mormonism at the college I attended, but I am in no position to judge his understanding of the Book of Mormon.

But, as other posters have pointed out, the entire history of Xtianity is rife with interpretation, misinterpretaion, reinterpretation, and counter-interpretation, to the extent that debate devolved into large-scale violence. To my mind, someone attempting to claim authority in this field, given this historical background, displays a troubling lack of humility.

Even when I studied to be a Methodist minister, I didn't have the hubris to claim my interpretation was the only possible one- but maybe that's why I ended up leaving the church, and the religion. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

Is this phenomenon common to all religious books such as the Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu religious literature, or is it mostly manifested toward the Bible? What pray tell makes one an expert in the Bible by the way? The mere ability to recite it? In other words is it just a matter of knowledge or, might there be a deeper mystery involved? I mean what good is it to be well versed in something if you don't understand the first thing about it? Whereas if you did understand it, maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal in the first place? And maybe we wouldn't be here arguing about it in other words? ;)

Also, understand that it's a two-way street here and, that it works both ways, whether you're arguing for or against the Bible. So, if anyone thinks I'm directing this specifically towards the author of this thread, they might be mistaken.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook
Is this phenomenon common to all religious books such as the Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu religious literature, or is it mostly manifested toward the Bible?

Radrook, I'm disappointed in you.

You apparently have assumed expertise in a book you HAVE read (The Holy Bible), and it's unjustified -- it turns out you aren't capable of reasoned debate on the subject.


What is it the Bible says about pointing out the speck of dust in your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

But, as other posters have pointed out, the entire history of Xtianity is rife with interpretation, misinterpretaion, reinterpretation, and counter-interpretation, to the extent that debate devolved into large-scale violence. To my mind, someone attempting to claim authority in this field, given this historical background, displays a troubling lack of humility.Like maggots in a rotting corpse, huh?

[TheERK]

Originally posted by Diogenes
The scholar has demonstrated his expertise in googling..:clap:

If you wanted proof of his knowledge, perhaps it would be better not to ask him a question that can be easily googled. How obnoxious it is to fault him for answering it.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Like maggots in a rotting corpse, huh?

More like wolves (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Ac+20:29-31), wouldn't you say? ;)

[Radrook]

Originally posted by scribble


Radrook, I'm disappointed in you.

You apparently have assumed expertise in a book you HAVE read (The Holy Bible), and it's unjustified -- it turns out you aren't capable of reasoned debate on the subject.


What is it the Bible says about pointing out the speck of dust in your brother's eye when you have a plank in your own?

Show me where I claimed expertise.
You can't can you?
That is because I didn't.


It is very obvious that you need to argue and that if you have nothing to argue over you then you will invent something to argue about.

I asked a simple question and simply wanted a relevant response.

Instead I get this.



BTW
I really don't care very much on whether you are disappointed or not since I am not here to gain your approval nor anyone else's.

[Radrook]

oops!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by TheERK


If you wanted proof of his knowledge, perhaps it would be better not to ask him a question that can be easily googled. How obnoxious it is to fault him for answering it.

First, I am not on trial here.
So a barrage of questions demanding proof of knowledge is really rather quaint.

Second, as I said, I had covered that particular area both at college and during my son's homeschooling.

Third, I did not claim biblical expertise nor would I ever assume to be that presumptuous.

The question I ask I ask because I notice people assuming expertise, citing scripture, and not even knowing what the context of that scripture is because they haven't taken the time to read the context. I was simply wondering whether such irrationality is manifested mostly toward the Bible or not.

If a person doesn't know the answer to the question why respond?????

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook
The question I ask I ask because I notice people assuming expertise, citing scripture, and not even knowing what the context of that scripture is because they haven't taken the time to read the context. I was simply wondering whether such irrationality is manifested mostly toward the Bible or not.
[/B]

Who are you talking about? SPECIFICALLY?

If it's me, you can bite my ass. You have every opportunity to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about, instead of starting this crap. Try responding to my points instead of attacking my character.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What pray tell makes one an expert in the Bible by the way? The mere ability to recite it? In other words is it just a matter of knowledge or, might there be a deeper mystery involved? I mean what good is it to be well versed in something if you don't understand the first thing about it? Whereas if you did understand it, maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal in the first place? And maybe we wouldn't be here arguing about it in other words? ;)

Also, understand that it's a two-way street here and, that it works both ways, whether you're arguing for or against the Bible. So, if anyone thinks I'm directing this specifically towards the author of this thread, they might be mistaken.


No one seems to know the answer or else prefer to turn the thread into other channels. Are other books approached in this manner? Or is it just the Bible that attracts charlatans in such numbers?






BTW
The only one I consider an expert on te Bible is God himself.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by scribble


Who are you talking about? SPECIFICALLY?

If it's me, you can bite my ass. You have every opportunity to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about, instead of starting this crap. Try responding to my points instead of attacking my character.

Sorry that you had to take my question personally.
It was not directed at YOU.



Actually, I had no one in particular in mind.
Just a general impression garnered from discussions at numerous forums.

I do not keep any particular poster in my memory with the detail or clarity that you suggest. Because of this I cannot pick any particular person out on this forum who meets the description iof claiming expertise while being ignorant. Since that is the case--I definitely was not referring to you nor any other specific person on this forum nor on any other forum that I have participated in.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook
I do not keep any particular poster in my memory with the detail or clarity that you suggest. Because of this I cannot pick any particular person out on this forum who meets the description iof claiming expertise while being ignorant. Since that is the case--I definitely was not referring to you nor any other specific person on this forum nor on any other forum that I have participated in. [/B]

It seems dishonest of you to begin a thread like this, when you cannot even say who you are talking about, and the only person I see here who's been defeated in Biblical argument is *you*.

You're trying to distract from the fact that you cannot answer the questions put to you. Handwaving and pointing fingers isn't going to work here.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by scribble


It seems dishonest of you to begin a thread like this, when you cannot even say who you are talking about, and the only person I see here who's been defeated in Biblical argument is *you*.

You're trying to distract from the fact that you cannot answer the questions put to you. Handwaving and pointing fingers isn't going to work here.

I cannot say specifically who unless I go through all my threads in order to see who. Since I don't have the time for that I will pass.
If you feel I am defeated--OK.
You are entitled to your opinion.
That applies to the finger pointing and handwaving as well.
If I offended you personally by asking this question it wasn't because I am singling you out since I you really do not stand out in my mind in that particular way despite your vehement accusations that you do. Yes I know that we have converesed, but the details are not clear since I speak to many people and they all tend to become jumbled.

In any case, you have my apologies if I offended you.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook
No one seems to know the answer or else prefer to turn the thread into other channels. Are other books approached in this manner? Or is it just the Bible that attracts charatans?


As I said above, in essence; "Yes", and "No".

Originally posted by Radrook
BTW
The only one I consider an expert on te Bible is God himself.

So, no one then? ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook
If I offended you personally by asking this question it wasn't because I am singing you out since I you really do not stand out in my mind in that particular way despite your vehement accusations that you do.


That's fine then. Your timing seems suspicious, after having ducked out of our debate prematurely.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


So, no one then? ;)

God.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by scribble


That's fine then. Your timing seems suspicious, after having ducked out of our debate prematurely.

I will have to check and see which debate you are referring to since I have many going on at the same time. My memory is limited a all human memory is and I have travel plans which are at present very distracting not to mention health problems.

But again, if I offended you in any way--I am sorry.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Peter Jenkins
I would happily show you mine (expertise in biblical studies) if you'll show me yours.

So you are an expert in the Bible?
Which means?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by radrook
BTW
The only one I consider an expert on te Bible is God himself.



Hmm, how do you discern that?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Radrook


I will have to check and see which debate you are referring to since I have many going on at the same time. My memory is limited a all human memory is and I have travel plans which are at present very distracting not to mention health problems.

But again, if I offended you in any way--I am sorry.

I have travel plans as well (leaving tomorrow), but I can keep track of the persons with which I am conversing. If it's too much trouble, if you can't be bothered maybe you should curtail some of your online antics, eh?

[Radrook]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
[B]

I think the 1st one. I’m sure, for example, there are Muslims and non-Muslims who aren’t familiar with anything but pet passages of the Koran, and still assume expertise in the book. I know I’ve seen Christian sites attacking Islam in such a way.]/quote]



First, thank you for keeping the thread on track.


Perhaps my question is unanswerable.
A survey comparing habits of adherents in this particular respect would have to be done. I doubt that there ever has been such a study done.

Yes, I am sure that other books have people claiming expertise while barely having read the books.

But my question is how prevalent is that in comparison to the Bible people who claim expertise despite not having ever read the book.

My question was prompted by a site I recently came across dedicated to pointing out what the author considers biblical contradictions. At one point the "expert" said that Samson had Murdered 3000 innocent people.

One has to wonder how anyone can call 3000 Philistines warriors out to kill Samson innocent people and how he could the results of military combat murder

One possibility is that this person read the verses he cites Samson without taking the needed time to read their context.

Based on that he assumed and then accused.

Since I have come across this modus operandi much in reference to the Bible repeatedly, the question about other books came to my mind. So I figured I would like to have people's opinions on this forum concerning the phernomenon.

BTW
As you know, the problem with not having read the book and quoting and interpreting is that it leads to conclusions which run counter to things that the person who is quoting might be unaware of.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


I have travel plans as well (leaving tomorrow), but I can keep track of the persons with which I am conversing. If it's too much trouble, if you can't be bothered maybe you should curtail some of your online antics, eh?

You are not qualified to judge my personal circumstances and neither am I accountable to you on this forum.
I have broken no forum rules and intend to keep it that way.
In short, you work your way and I'll work mine.
As to antics, if you are seeing my antics it is of your own choice.

BTW
If you have nothing to contribute to a thread except bickering, I would prefer you not contribute at all.

[Piscivore]

You're just never wrong, are you?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by LW
In addition I've taken three courses on world religions in high school, (covering the basic tenents of the established major religions).
Do high schools include Atheism/Humanism/etc. in their courses?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Radrook
That is why I limit myself to the Bible with which I am familiar due to a lifelong reading and study of it.
With all that study, please answer this question: Since the bible is god's "Life Manual" why is it so complicated that it takes years (decades?) of study to "get it?"

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth




Hmm, how do you discern that?


Claiming expertise in the Word of God is presumptuous because the Word of God is limitless in its profundity. The more you study the more you learn. Expertise suggests total knowledge of the mind of God as expressed in the scriptures.

The claim to expertise seems to claim a degree of knowledge that no human can ever fully attain. There are as yet unfulfilled prophecies which might be fulfilled in certain ways that we did not fully expect for example. References to heavenly things that our imagination is incapable of dealing with due to lack of experiential reference points. Accounts which might be only partially understood and must await further enlightenment.

The profundity and vastness are expressed like so:

Psalm 92:5
How great are your works, O LORD , how profound your thoughts!



Ecclesiastes 7:24
Whatever wisdom may be, it is far off and most profound- who can discover it?


Psalm 139:17
How precious to [ 139:17 Or [ concerning ] ] me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!


Isaiah 55
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD .
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.


NIV

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LW


I'm an expert on a very narrow subject area that has nothing to do with religion or history.

However, I have read (and own) quite a lot of books written by experts on various subjects. When speaking about religion, I usually quote those experts and give my source so that the others may evaluate the strength of the position that I'm arguing and also correct me if I'm using an incorrect source.


Absolutely!
That is definitely a proper way to proceed.


Imagine someone never having read Darwin's Origin of Species and yet claiming expertise on it. Sooner or later the person will cause the book to contradict itself or to say things it never said.




Well, to tell the truth I intended the question be a more rhetorical one but forgot to qualify it as such.

And I went right along!

LOL

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Radrook
Claiming expertise in the Word of God is presumptuous because the Word of God is limitless in its profundity. The more you study the more you learn. Expertise suggests total knowledge of the mind of God as expressed in the scriptures.



Presumptuous by your own standards.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore
You're just never wrong, are you?


Only God is never wrong.

BTW
Posting this thread was a mistake.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth




Presumptuous by your own standards.

If you wanted someone else's standards then you should have asked someone else.

[Lord Emsworth]

It was more of a rhetorical question.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
It was more of a rhetorical question.

The sentence lacks the proper punctuation to make it a question.
Using a question mark would be helpful.
I will get back to your question later.
God bless.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

No one seems to know the answer or else prefer to turn the thread into other channels. Are other books approached in this manner? Or is it just the Bible that attracts charlatans in such numbers?The Bible more than others I think, because it has so much to do with our cultural heritage. While there are those who study it to preach and get others to follow, and those who study it to try and dissuade others from doing so, due to any number of bad experiences they may have had from those who profess to do things in God's name. So, based upon the way other people behave, it's hard to know what to believe?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Radrook


The sentence lacks the proper punctuation to make it a question.
Using a question mark would be helpful.
I will get back to your question later.
God bless.



No, no, no ... I meant this one: "Hmm, how do you discern that?" which was in response to "The only one I consider an expert on te Bible is God himself."

[Radrook]

Originally posted by RSSchlueter

With all that study, please answer this question: Since the bible is god's "Life Manual" why is it so complicated that it takes years (decades?) of study to "get it?"

The Bible is like chess.
The basics of chess are readily learned.
Yet you can study chess all your life and will always have more to learn.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook

Posting this thread was a mistake.

You got that one right!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by scribble


You got that one right!

No harm intended.
My apologuies once again.
I was not in an yway referring to our debate.
You bring up many fine points in our debate that are definitely worthy of discussion and from which one learns quite a bit because of the research that such issues require.

God Bless.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The Bible more than others I think, because it has so much to do with our cultural heritage. While there are those who study it to preach and get others to follow, and those who study it to try and dissuade others from doing so, due to any number of bad experiences they may have had from those who profess to do things in God's name. So, based upon the way other people behave, it's hard to know what to believe?






Perhaps it has to do with the higher learning attack on religion which became popular with the increase of atheistic thought which followed Darwinian evolutionary ideas.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

Perhaps it has to do with the higher learning attack on religion which became popular with the increase of atheistic thought which followed Darwinian evolutionary ideas. Well, if you're going to attack something, it only stands to reason that you profess to have some understanding of what you're attacking. And yet I do understand why people would develop such a defense mechanism, because I personally can't stand to have the Bible rammed down my throat, neither would I have been able to accept it otherwise. If, in fact we live in the Age of Reason (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=65) (the Age of Information (http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html) now), then it only makes sense that we should be able to it approach the whole thing rationally. So in that sense you can't fault Atheism if, in fact this is what it purports (critical thinking in other words).

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, if you're going to attack something, it only stands to reason that you profess to have some understanding of what you're attacking. And yet I do understand why people would develop such a defense mechanism, because I personally can't stand to have the Bible rammed down my throat, neither would I have been able to accept it otherwise. If, in fact we live in the Age of Reason (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=65) (the Age of Information (http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html) now), then it only makes sense that we should be able to it approach the whole thing rationally. So in that sense you can't fault Atheism if, in fact this is what it purports (critical thinking in other words).



I can't speak for all Christians but I personally don't try to ram the Bible down anyone's throat. If I did then I would enjoy debating which I don't. I quote scripture which people are free t accept or reject as well as my understanding of such scripture.

However, I can understand your aversion since I personally did repeatedly have charismatic try to force their particular versions of biblical knowledge down my throat. One threatened me on a regular basis with hellfire. The other shouted at me spittle flying from his mouth and purple veins almost bursting on his throat that if I did not accept the Trinity then I was damned.

Neither oof these two people convinced me.
Neither did I see Christ reflected in their conduct.
So I can understand what you mean.

[Iacchus]

Did you know that by "a rod of iron," where the Bible says, "He shall rule with a rod of iron" (Revelation 12:5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+12) and 19:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+19)), that it signifies the rational understanding of the truth? This is Emanuel Swedenborg's (http://www.swedenborg.com) interpretation of it anyway. Therefore, in order for it to be accepted, it must be presented in this way.

[Z]

Or is it just the Bible that attracts charlatans in such numbers?

Well, there are an AWFUL lot of Christians, so I guess you're right about attracting charlatans, but it's not unique to the Bible, no.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Did you know that by "a rod of iron," where the Bible says, "He shall rule with a rod of iron" (Revelation 12:5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+12) and 19:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+19)), that it signifies the rational understanding of the truth? No, and neither do you.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

No, and neither do you. And why shouldn't it signify anything other than this? Or, are you one those who think there's no possible we can understand the Bible because it's purely ficticious and, we should therefore trash it entirely? This is the only way any of us can understand it, right? So maybe it's just a matter of clarifying certain things? Did you know that the birth of a child signified the birth of new doctrine and, that the woman who gives birth to the child in Revelation 12:5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+12) (same reference as above) siginifies the New Church and the new doctrine which is to be associated with it? So, it only makes sense that the doctrine be understood from a rational standpoint, right? Or else what's the point? Blind obeisance? Am afraid that's the only other choice you got. And hey if that's the case, I'm in agreement with you, trash the whole thing!

[ReasonableDoubt]

You're babbling ...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

You're babbling ... Do you know what rational means? If something is not sound and just and based upon reason, it's certainly not rational, right?

[LW]

Originally posted by RSSchlueter

Do high schools include Atheism/Humanism/etc. in their courses?

We still have a state church here (Lutheran) so in theory the religion classes are Christianity classes. However, in practice they have been more like general religion classes with a little bit emphasis on history of the Christian church for at least several decades, now. There's also two further options for those who don't belong in the Lutheran church: Greek Orthodox classes and, well, perhaps you could translate it as Humanism classes.

Atheism was mentioned in the religion class, but I can't remember how much coverage did it get.

However, Finland is very secular country. Out of my class of 36 people 4 or 5 were openly Christian and one was into New Age (he got a lot of flak about it). There were a couple of others that I knew to believe in God, and probably there were several believers that I didn't know about. Most of the rest were areligious (in the sense that they couldn't have care less about religious things) and a few were vocally atheist.

I didn't even know that creationists existed until one day two Jehovah Witnesses gave me a copy of the "Blue Book".

[LW]

Originally posted by Radrook
Imagine someone never having read Darwin's Origin of Species and yet claiming expertise on it. Sooner or later the person will cause the book to contradict itself or to say things it never said.[/b]

Ah, but the thing is that some very religious people have examined the Bible in detail, spending years or decades going through the texts in the original languages and they have concluded that there are contradictions.

For example, already in the twelfth century Jewish rabbis started to cast doubts on Moses being the author of the Pentateuch. Nowadays you are hard pressed to find a Biblical scholar (using Friedman's definition that presupposes knowledge on Biblical languages, archeology, literacy, and historical skills for a scholar ) who claims that Pentateuch was written by Moses.
And most of the Biblical scholars are religious, even today. Only a few atheists have the patience for studying for years Hebrew, Aramaic and other assorted languages just to be able to express educated comments about the history of Bible.

[b]
And I went right along!


Well, I've always believed that it is utter waste of time to try to assess someone's knowledge by using trivia questions. Those types of questions are more useful for introspection. Do I know enough of the subjet that I could answer this question? If I don't know, is this something that I should know? Do I make myself an object of ridicule if I continue posting on this subject without knowing this? That kind of stuff.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LW


Ah, but the thing is that some very religious people have examined the Bible in detail, spending years or decades going through the texts in the original languages and they have concluded that there are contradictions.

The other day I was watching a rerun of the film Jesus of Nazareth. The host let the viewers know that intermissions were going to be used to permit certain world-renown Bible scholars to comment on the film.

The intermission came and the two "experts" began not so much to talk about the film but to cast doubt on the Bible itself. This went on for three or four intermissions in which the attacks became more vigorous as each "expert" seemed intent on outdoing the other in his effort to ridicule.


The moderator or host seemed rather aghast on what was happening since obviously the two fellows were not invited strictly for that purpose. But of course he probably could not tell them to tone it down or would not or dared not. Or maybe he actually agreed but felt it inappropriate to express it so flagrantly a these two men of the cloth were doing.

In any case, I am familiar with what you are talking about.
It is the popular thing these days to jump on the anti-biblical bandwagon. Even the Vatican is doing it by proclaiming the Genesis account as metaphorical and stating that it is within the probable that we came from the lower animals.

Me?
I don't buy any of it.






Well, I've always believed that it is utter waste of time to try to assess someone's knowledge by using trivia questions. Those types of questions are more useful for introspection. Do I know enough of the subject that I could answer this question? If I don't know, is this something that I should know? Do I make myself an object of ridicule if I continue posting on this subject without knowing this?

I felt the question was quaint since anyone can punch a button and get answers on the net or from a book. But since I did not want to be rude by pointing this out, I figured I would go along for the sake of being civil.

[LW]

Originally posted by Radrook

In any case, I am familiar with what you are talking about.
It is the popular thing these days to jump on the anti-biblical bandwagon. Even the Vatican is doing it by proclaiming the Genesis account as metaphorical and stating that it is within the probable that we came from the lower animals.

Me?
I don't buy any of it.


I hope that you are not relying on tv-shows to get your information on Bible scholarship but have actually read some books by the said scholars. Otherwise you are just committing the very same thing that you accuse atheists of doing.

But anyway, I guess that you are aware that when we use scales to balance 200 years of Bible scholarship and your "I don't buy any of it", we are going to go with the experts.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LW


I hope that you are not relying on tv-shows to get your information on Bible scholarship but have actually read some books by the said scholars. Otherwise you are just committing the very same thing that you accuse atheists of doing.

But anyway, I guess that you are aware that when we use scales to balance 200 years of Bible scholarship and your "I don't buy any of it", we are going to go with the experts.


I don't have a problem with other people going along with atheism. I just don't buy it for myself. Others can do as they wish.

BTW
I have never claimed to be an expert on any evolutionist literature. Neither have I based my conclusions on statements made by any evolutionist atheistic literature. But if I did, I would at least be sure to get the context of what I am citing right.

[Z]

Well, that's ok, Radrook - we just assume you have no particular expertise in any literature, unread or not. At least, your so-called Bible knowledge is sorely lacking.

[Iacchus]

What's the difference between knowledge of and the real thing?

[LW]

Originally posted by Radrook

I have never claimed to be an expert on any evolutionist literature.

Why do you change the subject? We were talking about the Bible and people researching it, not about biologists.

Neither have I based my conclusions on statements made by any evolutionist atheistic literature. But if I did, I would at least be sure to get the context of what I am citing right.

I take this to mean that you haven't read any books written by Bible scholars.

Why not?

Think how much more effective your arguments would be if you could point out the places where the modern scholars are in error instead of just asserting that they have to be wrong.

How about making a deal? You read one book about Bible scholarship that I choose, and I read one book about Christianity that you choose. Deal?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by LW


Why do you change the subject? We were talking about the Bible and people researching it, not about biologists.



I take this to mean that you haven't read any books written by Bible scholars.

Why not?

Think how much more effective your arguments would be if you could point out the places where the modern scholars are in error instead of just asserting that they have to be wrong.

How about making a deal? You read one book about Bible scholarship that I choose, and I read one book about Christianity that you choose. Deal?

You are free to assume twist, create strawmen arguments, and use your fertile imagination to make all and any type of accusations you wish.

What you can't do is make them true.

BTW
I am not on trial here.

[Z]

Ya know, Rad, he made a completely reasonable request... and, as usual, you've ducked out.

No, you're not on trial here - but post at a skeptic site, and you should expect to fall under close scrutiny. If you don't want to fight the battle, don't step into the war zone.

Bad enough you've ducked out of the Tree of Knowledge question - although, that was waaay off topic. I really wanted to know the Truth on that one.