Deus ex machina. The author either constructs the character well or the author doesn’t. That’s why the Bible is so impressive. It isn’t constructed like the Dhammapada, Quran, Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, Kojiki, etc.
Impressive? What is impressive about it? That it's not constructed like the other works you mentioned? Why would it be? There is a VERY big difference between the Bible and those other works, and it's not the difference you think.
Dhammapada - a collection of sayings of the Buddha in verse form
Quran - believed to be the word of God as dictated to Muhammad
Tao Te Ching - a Chinese classic text traditionally credited to the 6th-century BC sage Laozi
Bhagavad Gita - attributed to sage Vyasa
Kojiki - composed by Ō no Yasumaro at the request of Empress Genmei
The Bible - The Bible appears in the form of an anthology, compiling texts of a variety of forms
Is it any wonder one of these things is not like the others? Everything else you mentioned has one author, one person compiling it, one person composing it. The Bible has many authors. And there is ample evidence to irrefutably show that some of those authors were referencing, even sometimes outright plagiarizing older works, sometimes word for word. II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 are identical, word for word, though they were written about 200 years apart. I seem to remember a couple of chapters in the New Testament, with different authors, being perfectly identical stories, just worded a little differently (very slightly). And I don’t mean “identical” as in they were both talking about the same events, I mean as in they were both rewriting the same text in their own words.
I also suggest watching this video about concerning “Why We Believe in Gods”, a lecture by Andy Thompson. IMHO, from what I’ve studies about the human brain and behaviour he’s spot on with this subject.
The more one learns about the universe the more interesting and awesome it becomes .
The addition of a god does not add to scientific knowledge, and religious sripture tends to confuse existing scientific knowledge because most of it is metaphorical in essence and distorts the mathematics of physics.
I don’t think you do understand. According to the story as you understand it, Thomas had known Jesus, then “saw” him after he had died on the cross. I don’t have any of that context, and lots more context that says things like that don’t happen. What clues would I have that it was Jesus standing there showing me his wounds? My first inclination would be that I’m hallucinating in some way. I would not trust my own senses solely for such a thing.
Thank you for exploring this with me and helping me understand more fully.
My conception of the Thomas Test is such that, if Yeshua were to pass the Thomas Test for you, he would satisfy your personal scrutiny in such a way that you would recognize him as your Lord and your God. Satisfying your personal scrutiny could be very different from what the story says happened between Thomas and Yeshua.
Here is my question restated in two parts:
Are saying that you would never be influenced by <i>any </i>amount of relational trust you have with another human being when deciding if some other human is divine or a savior?
If yes, would I be correct to posit that you would need to have Yeshua personally pass the “Thomas Test” for you?
Also - no I was not familiar with Elaine Pagel’s work - until now Thanks! This is just the education I was hoping for; reliable recommendations from reliable sources. I know of the Gospel of Thomas and a bit about Gnosticism. I am not an apologist or a bible scholar. Just some guy who loves Truth.
Thus, if as you remarked the story was a combination of metaphor and lies, it loses all value of informational truth on which the whole mythology is based.
I was asking for clarity re your blanket claim that it was all metaphor. I think we are in agreement that there is no informational truth to be gained if the story is metaphor or lies. My position is that it was either a miracle, a metaphor, or a lie. To be thorough I guess I should add that Yeshua could have just been horribly misquoted as in Monty Python's satirical sketch, "Blessed are the cheese makers!"
Due to my relational trust in The 5000, I think it was either a miracle or just not true. I am leaning toward it being true. I’m not so interested in what kind of untruth.
As atheist I always use the common definition of "miracle’
mir·a·cle, noun
1. a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency:"the miracle of rising from the grave"
Do you believe miracles can be real, i.e. the work of a divine agency, or do you use the term metaphorically?
IMO, if a “reported” phenomenon is not explainable by natural or scientific laws, it is mathematically forbidden and thus cannot happen the way it is described. To me that is a more plausible assumption than the assumption of a physical event which does not obey mathematical laws.
Any assignment of a divine cause contrary to universal law is a contradiction. Any divine causality would first have established Universal laws which produced the universe we see today. So to say that a divine causality can break its own creative laws is a contradiction. Mathematical laws are immutable.
As atheist I always use the common definition of “miracle’
mir·a·cle, noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency:”the miracle of rising from the grave”
I’m good with the common definition. Thanks for clarifying.
Do you believe miracles can be real, i.e. the work of a divine agency, or do you use the term metaphorically?
IMO, if a “reported” phenomenon is not explainable by natural or scientific laws, it is mathematically forbidden and thus cannot happen the way it is described. To me that is a more plausible assumption than the assumption of a physical event which does not obey mathematical laws.
Any assignment of a divine cause contrary to universal law is a contradiction. Any divine causality would first have established Universal laws which produced the universe we see today. So to say that a divine causality can break its own creative laws is a contradiction. Mathematical laws are immutable.
At this time, I believe miracles were, and would be, metaphysical events. I believe that they are only “provable”, to any extent, by a person who was subjectively part of the event. Even in such a case, they are only “provable” to the person or persons who were part of the event. A report of a miracle is just a report of a miracle, and thus, by natural law, a report of an impossible event.
After reading that paragraph over, I guess what I believe is that miracles are only able to be subjectively (personally) experienced.
Aww. I don’t desire to shred anything. I merely try to put things in proper perspective. I can find value in Scripture, just not “divine revelation”
I am persuaded that in days of old many natural events were observed and considered miraculous by very serious and honest people.
To a person who has no knowledge of “weather patterns”, a thunderstorm is indeed a metaphysical event caused by an “unknowable sky force”. That’s is factually true. But that does not make it a “motivated intentional” punishment by a thunder god, which would be the subjective experience of a person of being attacked or punished by a divine intelligence.
Note one of our sub-forums here named “Almighty Gawd cast His judgement on the Aussies”. What does that even mean? God selected Aussies for punishment? What was their sin?
Polytheistic peoples of many cultures have postulated a thunder god, the personification or source of the forces of thunder and lightning; a lightning god does not have a typical depiction, and will vary based on the culture. In Indo-European cultures, the thunder god is frequently known as the chief or King of the Gods, e.g. Indra in Hinduism, Zeus in Greek mythology, and Perun in ancient Slavic religion.
And Thor in the Nordic European countries.
These subjective experiences were part of our oldest communal stories, most now relegated to the history books as mythology.
I cannot recall the actual video, I believe it was a NOVA or a Nature presentation, but it was reported by a group of researchers studying the common Chimpanzee.
During a severe thunderstorm with heavy rain as well as thunder and lightning, while the females and children were huddled together, the Alpha male began to run around the clearing , screaming and beating the bushes. Then remarkably, the male picked up a stick and shook it at the sky, and beating the bushes and overhanging treelimbs while runing back and forth in the clearing. The obsesrvers all had the distinct impression that the Chimp was showing this aggressive defensive display at an “unseen enemy” that was making loud noises and throwing fire and water at him and his family from “above”. This Chimp clearly imagined a powerful presence hidden in the sky among the clouds, which was attacking his troupe and he was making a brave and impressive stand to thwart this danger.
Even today we hear tales about mysterious phenomena which are suspected to be evidence of a metaphysical causality but there is always a scentific explanation which provides the mathematical relative values and mathematical functions
I can point to one event that for all “intents and purposes” would qualify as miraculous and that of course is the BB.
I have been wracking my brains for years over the phenomenon of the BB. How could this event of cosmic proportions become manifest from an apparent “nothingness”? If ever there is an argument for a divine intervention the BB would qualify in all respects, but one!
And that is the presumption of “motivated intent”, which defines a purpose to the phenomenon. But when analyzing the proposition of "purposeful intent"on a cosmic scale, it has logically no longer anything to do with human experience. It took some 14.5 billion years before the appearance of homo sapiens, evolved from a proven accidental mutation of two hominid chromosomes into a single larger human chromosome creating the emergent growth of a larger more complex brain and the split of humans from a “common ancestor” both genetically and intellectually.
Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes
All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.
Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.
IMO, this effectively explains the evolutionary emergence of homo sapiens and debunks the story of Adam and Eve.
And is Scripture not the account of the human experience with the Gods? Take away human creation and we are left with the creation of the beginning, without any relationship to the human experience.
If yes, would I be correct to posit that you would need to have Yeshua personally pass the “Thomas Test” for you?
Not sure what else I can say about “relational trust”. It’s great for questions that are of low consequence, like if it’s raining on the other side of town and this related person is there. I would not use it for determining if there was a being who created the universe that could appear to me and be in relationship with me. If such a being exists, and could do something to my mind so that I was convinced of their existence, then, so be it. There’s not much I can do about that. Same goes for Descartes evil demon, who could be controlling my thoughts preventing me from knowing that. Or even if I am character in some computer simulation. No matter what, I am left with the same tools for determining what is real or not.
For easy reference, I pulled this from my article:
“Believing the impossible is not usually a very reasonable idea. But it is not necessarily beneath reason. Above, I wrote that I have a “reasonable trust”, I also have a relational trust of The 5000. It is built upon reason. It is not ‘blind’ trust held despite (below) reason. Relational trust is that which is demanded, after the full satisfaction of a person’s reason, for a relationship to go deeper.”
I do not think I am using relational trust to determineif there is a being who created the universe that could appear to me and be in relationship with me.
I asked you if you would ever be influencedby any amount of relational trust you have with another human being when decidingif some other human is divine or a savior? You seem to be saying your answer is “no” because you don’t feel using relational trust is an option for determining something of very high consequence. Thank you for being patient with me if my writing is a bit obtuse. Let me attempt to clarify. I used the word “deciding” not “determining” because of the implication that it would be an independent choice based on, and beyond reason, not a manipulation by the other being. If it was not an independent choice, I would agree with you that there is not much we could do about that. And, quite frankly, I’d say “to Hell with it”.
It seems to me, if the story I am referring to of Thomas and Yeshua is true, then Thomas would not, or could not, make that decision based on his relational trust of the other disciples. As I wrote, "I am eternally grateful to Thomas for telling others what he needed in order to believe that Yeshua was alive again and was his Lord and God. It gives me great clarity and comfort to understand that Thomas, … could not believe that Yeshua was alive again until Yeshua proved it to him personally.
So, here is where I am at; after I have satisfied the current limit of my reason, I feel that it is valid, useful, and perhaps essential to use relational trust to influence my very high, even ultimate consequence, decisions. I can always reconsider my choice if following the relational trust leads to dead ends or violates reason.
Seth Andrews graciously replied to my posting of The 5000 with:
“Seth Andrews@SethAndrewsTTA·Jun 1Replying to @SethWegherT When a defense includes, “If the story is true,” we must plant a flag and camp there until the truth question is satisfactorily resolved. Otherwise, we’re building our narrative on a hunch.” (see my blog post here for more)
If “planting a flag” means not even being open to acting upon the trust that other humans have built in me, I disagree with that decision.
As I am sure you know, Yeshua is quoted as saying to Thomas, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Lausten, what would you recommend that I do with my insatiable curiosity and yearning to experience what such blessings might be? I am comforted by the knowledge that, if the story is true, Yeshua will let me see him in person if that is what it takes for me to chose to be with him. But I don’t want to miss an opportunity at a blessing that could be even fuller than that.
I admire and respect your serious and well reasoned inquiry.
But your inquiry presupposes that we do not have any answers to these questions and that we are starting from scratch.
But that happened probably some 100,000 years ago, when the first curious mind looked up into heavens and asked a question. Since then most of that intitial question has been answered and the history of qustions, answers, and corrections are contained in our mythology and scientific history.
We know miracles which occur outside of universal physical constants are impossible. Mathematical regularity is what keeps the universe from falling apart. You are not allowed to break Universal laws, not even God, because if God is the originator of universal law He cannot break his own laws.
To believe different is a paradox and I don’t think that anyone wants to proclaim God is a paradox, even as we may proclaim that “God works in mysterious ways”. That may be so , but he cannot work against his own ways, that makes no sense at all.
I’ll spend some more time on this, but basically, those blessings are available now, with people you can see and touch now. I don’t know why you would want to relate to ghosts.
Peofessor Joel Baden (secular) is a biblical scholar at Yale Divinity. He has launched a FREE bible study series that is open to the public. “Seeking Truth Together”
The Bible should be taught as Ancient Literature, Not The Word of God.
David Leon said: The innocent children he commanded to be killed were a threat to that effort.
The effort being the creation of a messiah? Millions of innocent children killed in the effort to create a single messiah? Think about that statement a see the pure insanity of such a moral message. If God is all powerful why not create a messiah and leave the poor innocent children alone?
Refresh my moral compass again? How can innocent children be a threat to anything. Killing children is a moral act?
I can certainly understand how ignorant adults can be a threat to the creation of a messiah. The above is an example of such a dangerous moral compass. To me that is highly offensive immoral language.
Are we talking metaphorically about evolution and natural selection for beneficial survival traits? Then say so and don’t cloak it in mystical divine orders of weeding out innocent children to find a messiah. That condones infanticide.
Thanks! This is just the education I was hoping for; reliable recommendations from reliable sources. I know of the Gospel of Thomas and a bit about Gnosticism. I am not an apologist or a bible scholar. Just some guy who loves Truth.
