The apocryphal nature of religious texts

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:20 pm

First topic message reminder :

Probably a better discussion if we limit this predominantly to contemporary monotheism, but all three are open for discussion. We're looking for obviously spurious claims or claims that are demonstrably false when compared to what evidence we have, or claims that contradict other claims in other parts of the relevant book.

Beyond that we can broaden the discussion to include traditional dogma or doctrine, whether it is still accepted or has been rejected by the credulous. We can also use the discussion to analyse why we think the posted quotes are a barrier to credulity, or conversely why we don't find them a barrier to accepting they are a message from a deity.

I'll start with a contradiction.

John 1:18
No man hath seen god at any time.

Exodus 33:11

And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to a friend.

As one example.

by polyglide Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:03 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
Nothing in any religious tome offers anything that couldn't be entirely human in origin.

You mean like mankind themselves for instance???????.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:47 pm

What?

by polyglide Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:45 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Face to face can be a figure of speech.

At any time does not mean at no time.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:58 pm

What?

by polyglide Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:22 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Exactly what it says.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Jul 31, 2015 5:31 pm

What does it mean and what relevance has it to the thread or my post?

You can't just post random and barely coherent claims and expect anyone to know what your talking about.

This was the claim you quoted from me. Now in what way are responses salient?

[size=40]"Dr, Shedlon,[/size]
[size=40]Nothing in any religious tome offers anything that couldn't be entirely human in origin."[/size]

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:33 am

I posted this:

Dr Sheldon Cooper
Nothing in any religious tome offers anything that couldn't be entirely human in origin.

You then responded with this:

polyglide on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:03 pm
You mean like mankind themselves for instance???????.b

I have absolutely no idea what it is you're trying to say with that, or why you think it is a salient response to my post?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:35 am

deleted as it's a duplicate.

by polyglide Sat Aug 01, 2015 10:48 am

Dr, Sheldon,
All the religeous tomes I know of mention mankind, did mankind come about by mankind?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:13 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
All the religeous tomes I know of mention mankind, did mankind come about by mankind?

Quite obviously I was referring to the origins of the texts being entirely human in creation, as nothing in them requires omniscience. This premise really shouldn't require dumbing down, especially as I've made the point before, and the idea that I'd claim humans have supernatural powers should be so obviously anathema to everything I've posted thus far that even you should be able to fathom your reply is asinine; but then I really shouldn't have to point out to a religious person how to spell religious either, so perhaps my expectations here really are the issue again.

by polyglide Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:25 am

Dr, Shedlon,
Just as I do not know who or what america is etc; etc, as an American ?????????.

Quite obviously you do not think.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:42 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
Just as I do not know who or what america is etc; etc, as an American ?????????.

Quite obviously you do not think.

If you can't see difference between a typo on a smartphone, and a religious zealot not knowing how to spell religious then by all means let everyone know, as you have done. Or indeed the hilarity of the double comma after Dr and Shedlon (sic), or the capitalisation of a word in the middle of a sentence which you do at the start of every single post. Is this really the way you want to go? That's the more commonly used spelling of really with two l's btw.

Now do you have anything remotely cogent or salient to say about my actual f****** post? The one you have now responded to half a dozen times but completely ignored, about religious texts containing nothing that requires omniscience to have produced them?

From now obfuscation will be ignored as life is way too short for this idiocy.

by polyglide Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:23 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
If I was to dot everything and spell everything correctly just what would you have to grumble about?.

You obviously have no sensible answers to the posts.

Man can write anything without the help of anyone, it just so happens that Christians believe that God inspired man to write the Bible contents, get someone to explain, please.

Maybe I cannot know the difference between you making mistakes with all the aids available to you and myself using the wrong key etc; but I can assure you I do know when I am faced with stupidity.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:32 pm

Your two stock responses to every poster who's attempted any discourse with you. Reaffirm your beliefs emphatically with a bombast that ignores what's been said, and throw in a petty ad hominem.

I'll let others decide where idiocy lies as my ego is not so fragile I have to imagine every single person who disagrees with me must be stupid.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Aug 03, 2015 7:06 pm

Moving on with the thread there is Matthew 1 and Luke 3, two entirely differing lineages for Jesus. If two of his own disciple's "record" of his life can't be trusted to be accurate that doesn't bode well for the veracity of the books.

by polyglide Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:55 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
I feel any reasonable person will agree that you have not been too lenient with your own personal insults both to myself and your continual atheistic and heathen comments regarding my religion.

This would be totally unacceptable in many countries and just shows a total lack of decency, which I as a Christian, should ignore but then being human we all have failings, that is other than Dr, Sheldon.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:05 pm

If you can't take objective criticisms of your religious beliefs then don't discuss them in public forums like this. Your ad hominem is relentless and indiscriminate, and again I'm happy for anyone to read any thread your involved in, even where I was not posting to see this is the case.

Try tackling the topic for once....

by polyglide Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:36 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Just because people do not like the truth does not negate the facts.

I have explained that the Bible cannot be taken in a literal sense in many cases and in particular the Old Testament.

No present day person can realistically hope to understand the times of the events in the Bible nor the manner in which people of those times considered matters nor how they responded to events etc;

In view of this I have no real interest in the anything other than promise Jesus made and the conditions he sited e3tc;

You can argue till God takes over but no one can actually dispute the fact that many events, places, etc; can be verified as happening and the places confirmed.

A typical example being Moses and the events regarding the parting of the waters which recent investigations proving to the satisfaction of those concerned regarding the event the site etc; being confirmed as having taken place.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:41 pm

Like a parrot with amnesia. Those unevidenced claims have already been dismantled with references to real evidence, as opposed to just implying the evidence exists as you keep doing. Unfortunately you have no interest in discussion on this.

by polyglide Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:43 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
Yes I have.

Give all the references you say are evidence that what I claim is wrong and the proof to substanciate your claim.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Aug 04, 2015 5:46 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
Yes I have.

Give all the references you say are evidence that what I claim is wrong and the proof to substanciate your claim.

You didn't tackle this at all.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Yesterday at 8:06 pm

Moving on with the thread there is Matthew 1 and Luke 3, two entirely differing lineages for Jesus. If two of his own disciple's "record" of his life can't be trusted to be accurate that doesn't bode well for the veracity of the books.

My opening example was this

John 1:18
No man hath seen god at any time.

Exodus 33:11

And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to a friend.

As one example.

You simply dismissed that with semantics. If this message is divinely inspired by a being with an omniscient mind with omnipotence then it's rather incompatible with the fact that the message has ubiquitous errors, very badly dated moral laws, advocates some fairly heinous and amoral concepts such as rapine and slavery, and of course reflects the morals, prejudices, and ignorances of the humans of the epoch it was created in.

by polyglide Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:09 am

Dr, Shedlon,
Face to face can be taken in different ways as a matter of straightforwardness etc; and I will take this matter up later.

I have to go and get ready to see my homosexual friend Mike, who both my wife and I will enjoy a good afternoon with.

regards.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:32 am

Trying to claim scriptural meanings that are hidden or esoteric when the text meaning couldn't be plainer smacks of desperation tbh. Trying to claim a being with omnipotence and omniscience would communicate in such a way is absurdly irrational.

Trying to claim the message was somehow corrupted by the humans of that epoch is something of an own goal as it pretty much removes any validity from scripture. Worse than that it suggests either a willfully deceitful deity to allow this, or no deity at all to stop it. What it does not and cannot suggest is a benevolent deity with limitless power and knowledge, for fairly obvious reasons.

Don't forget to tell Mike that you think he's an "abnormal, unnatural. perverted, deviant. I'm sure you'll be surprised to find he's no longer desirous of your friendship, but since you claim to feel this way it's the honest decent thing to do.

Here's a helpful hint for you, referring to him as your homosexual friend sounds a little false, as if you're labouring the point to try and prove something. Just refer to him by his name or as a friend. I tend to judge people on their actions, rather than their claims, and tbh I don't think I'm unique in that sense.

by polyglide Fri Aug 07, 2015 2:55 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I am not being dragged into the homosexuality thing again although you seem to have it on your mind all the time.

I take the dictionaries definition for words and all I have ever said can be verified by that means.

I have friends in all walks of life who earn their living in many different ways and indulge in being drunk at times, I would never call them a drunkard, nor those who act in a silly manner idiots or stupid fools etc; etc;

Got the idea, Mike is Mike and his preferences are his buisiness choose how they can be rightfully described.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Aug 07, 2015 6:18 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I am not being dragged into the homosexuality thing again although you seem to have it on your mind all the time.

You brought it up, here:

Polyglide wrote:by polyglide on Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:09 pm
I have to go and get ready to see my homosexual friend Mike, who both my wife and I will enjoy a good afternoon with.

I merely responded to it, so I can only assume your lie is obfuscation as at some level you know what your deceit means. I have never raised this issue, I merely responded to a thread where it was the topic, and to your posts on the subject which were there before I started posting, start on page 1 of the thread on religiously motivated homophobia and your posts appear long before mine.

Polyglide wrote:I take the dictionaries definition for words and all I have ever said can be verified by that means.

So having claimed I'm obsessed with it when you were the one who brought it up, and then claimed you'd not be dragged into it again, you then proceed to repeat this lie? You claimed the dictionary defined homosexuality as a perversion, unnatural, an abnormality and gay people as deviants. None of those pejorative terms are in the dictionary, and I have shown this as have others, but since you've lied again I'll repost The Oxford English dictionary definition:

adjective

Sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.

LINK HERE

Polyglide wrote:I have friends in all walks of life who earn their living in many different ways and indulge in being drunk at times, I would never call them a drunkard, nor those who act in a silly manner idiots or stupid fools etc; etc;

Got the idea, Mike is Mike and his preferences are his business choose how they can be rightfully described.

You're being very verbose on a subject you just claimed you didn't want to discuss, but no, I don't grasp your point at all, as describing someone accurately according to a condition they have induced themselves like being drunk (your example) is clearly very different from making pejorative and false remarks about a person based on who they are, such as claiming the dictionary defines gay people as unnatural, perverted, abnormal, deviants. It's sad you can't see how these actions differ, and how the latter is homophobic and prejudiced, and of course deeply harmful, but if you don't want to discuss this then you'd best leave it alone. As I will not be bullied into accepting these bigoted descriptions as anything other than false and homophobic, EVER. Especially as the dictionary doesn't support your false claims, and you have already tested the patience of the mods on this one.

You ignored the rest of my post, which is again very odd as the only part you responded to was the part you said you didn't want to discuss??

by polyglide Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:04 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
One of the Mods actually agreed with certain reservations regarding what is natural etc;

Ask ten thousand Muslims or all Muslims what they think.

As you are apparently obssessed with this I feel you are unable to grasp reality

Irrespective of any other consideration, everyone has choices choose how they are born.

I have no intention of refering to homosexuality again, I have no problem with it as I have stated several times.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:30 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
One of the Mods actually agreed with certain reservations regarding what is natural etc;

So what. you were banned for claiming gay people were perverted, and repeatedly claiming the dictionary defined homosexuality in this way, when it most deficiently does not. Both boatlady and I have posted more than once the dictionary definition, you have never posted one, not once, resorting to semantics and thesaurus, as dishonest as it was silly.

Polyglide wrote:Ask ten thousand Muslims or all Muslims what they think.

Why? I can access any dictionary in seconds online, and know unequivocally that you lied about it

Polyglide wrote: As you are apparently obssessed with this I feel you are unable to grasp reality

You brought it up, not me. I shall leave it to others to decide whether your homophobic lie about the dictionary definition are real. Your attempt again to start to insult me though is a little sad, I knew you'd not be able to control yourself for long. Again if you don't want to discuss this subject then leave it alone and stop reintroducing it as you did here. I have done nothing but advocate equal rights for gay men and women, and an end to the kind of prejudice religion has fuelled against them, and that you have posted repeatedly. I am neither obsessed nor prejudiced, and all decent, honest people can read any of my posts on here and see that for themselves.

Polyglide wrote: Irrespective of any other consideration, everyone has choices choose how they are born.

What? That's a truly asinine claim, of course people don't choose how they are born. Are you saying you chose to be born heterosexual? I certainly didn't make any such choice, nor does any of the scientific medical evidence support your absurd claim.

Polyglide wrote: I have no intention of refering to homosexuality again, I have no problem with it as I have stated several times.

I'm afraid I simply don't believe either claim, and your posts amply evidence that you won't stick to them, as you have made them before and then contradicted them almost immediately.

by polyglide Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:33 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Only because you will not leave the subject alone, please do.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:40 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Only because you will not leave the subject alone, please do.

You brought it up not me.

by polyglide on Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:09 pm
I have to go and get ready to see my homosexual friend Mike, who both my wife and I will enjoy a good afternoon with. regards.

Why are you lying that I brought it up?If you want to let alone then do so, but you've already gone back on your claim within a few minutes, as I predicted you would.

by polyglide Sat Aug 08, 2015 12:42 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
No comment.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:01 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
No comment.

About what? You do understand this is a discussion forum?

by polyglide Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:03 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
No comment.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:07 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
No comment.

What has this to with the thread topic?

Try my first response to JP Cusick's opening post:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:46 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
It is Atheism against God but God is not against Atheism.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
An inaccurate misnomer, how can atheism be against something that it doesn't accept exists? You really are showing a poor understanding of what constitutes atheism. It isn't against god, as atheism accepts the axiomatic premise that there is no compelling empirical evidence for the existence of a deity.
It is important to give a general definition of Atheism as like on Wikipedia HERE. Atheism is a negative concept, as in saying "no" as in no God, no Deity, no conscious higher power, etc.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Again your basic polemic is entirely false, atheism is no more a negative concept than accepting that unicorns and mermaids don't exist is a negative concept. Atheism makes no claims, it simply doesn't accept the theistic claim that a deity exists, as there is no empirical evidence to support that claim.

So just because some one hates Christianity then that is not Atheist, or hating the scary Muslims is not Atheist, as one must reject the presence or the reality of any God by any name or form.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
You also appear to be confusing deism with theism, though your assertions that atheism doesn't accept the existence of any deity is correct, as there isn't one shred of empirical evidence to support the claim.
I myself declare the real existence of the "Creator Father God" but to use other names for the "Theo or Thea" is fine with me.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Then it is entirely incumbent on you to provide evidence for such a claim. If you really want to convince atheists try getting your evidence for your beliefs published in a worthy scientific journal and peer reviewed, something no theologian has ever managed to my knowledge.

My view is that Atheism is simply a form of self-righteousness, because without the judgements of a God then people get to create our own righteousness, and that appears to be the true motivation for being an Atheist.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
At least you've accurately described this as your view. However accepting things only based on evidence and having the intellectual integrity to say you don't know when that is the case is the antithesis of self righteous. Whereas the absolutes that theists deal in are axiomatically self righteous, they even believe they have the right to dismiss the beliefs of others as wrong, and their own as right, without evidence, at least atheists only dismiss beliefs based on the lack of evidence. Your last sentence is laughable, as again we see you try to claim knowledge of the mindset of a demographic of millions, without any evidence whatsoever.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:10 pm

A large thank you to Shirina for this, sorry I missed it until now. Very apropos to the thread title, and of course very very funny.

by oftenwrong Sat Aug 08, 2015 7:54 pm

Funny indeed, and clever too, but not without its cruelty for those people who insist upon absolutes. One might also say that all our religious texts are bogus because they have been translated into English from a myriad of other tongues.

A contemporary example might be the novel Soumission by Michel Houlebecq which has just been translated into English by the very capable Lorin Stein as "Submission".

As a social satirist, Houlebecq postulates our political system taken over by Muslim Brotherhood (It is a novel!) with interesting results.

Could that be part of some Holy Scripture in the 25th. Century?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Aug 09, 2015 12:18 pm

I suppose one could view satirising people's religious beliefs as cruel, but then religion has an appalling track record itself and it's cruelties are far more egregious and tangible. Even contemporary religions, and though it's only my subjective opinion, I think it's very dangerous to even suggest that any idea should be somehow beyond criticism. It's also worth noting that strong well evidenced ideas stand up to any amount of scrutiny, so it speaks volumes to me when people hold a belief that they won't tolerate being criticised or even commented on in any frank honest way.

Of course it's not subjective to point out that such archaic nonsense as blasphemy is an attack on basic human rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech and expression. Whilst I'm happy for the credulous to take offence, their rights stop there, and that offence doesn't entitle them to anything.

Interesting point about the mistranslation of religious texts, and of course the RCC banned the bible for most of Christian history, owning a copy would have been virtually impossible for anyone outside the church, and commenting on it was deeply unwise to put it mildly, and of course if you didn't speak Latin it would have been a fruitless exercise anyway.

The bible has had centuries of subjective editing as well, with who knows what cut from it because they were amazingly not considered believable. You have to wonder about the nature of anything considered not believable in a book that has a talking snake and virgin births, and of course unicorns and dragons.

"The KJV translation of the OT mentions unicorns nine times and dragons over 30 times — translations that go back to the LXX, which features the monokeros (“one-horn”) and the drakon. The Hebrew words behind these animals — r’em and tanin, respectively"

There are so many variables influencing modern Islam it's hard to say how it will evolve, but there are enough religious fascists who genuinely believe their cause is not only just, but justifies anything. The end justifies the means as far as this type of believer is concerned, and Christian history is hardly any better.

Of course all religious predictions are modified after the fact when they don't pan out as the credulous had claimed. Not to mention how hard the religious try to influence events to satisfy their favourite predictions. You have to seriously worry about such people in countries that have massive nuclear arsenals ranting endlessly about "end times" rapture, and demonic possessions, not to mention Satanic fantasies.

by oftenwrong Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:46 am

QUOTE: ".... countries that have massive nuclear arsenals ranting endlessly about "end times" rapture ...."

More than just a few people think that teasing little snippets of archeological evidence imply the existence of previous high-tech human civilisations wiped-out perhaps by some nuclear event.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:00 pm

I'm aware of one such poster over on the Amazon site. A right wing fascist religious lunatic with a penchant for conspiracies and a glowing admiration for one Adolf Hitler.

I am unaware of anything beyond argumentum ad ignorantiam to support such wild theories, though admittedly the idiot posting on the Amazon forums may have soured me against the idea unduly.

by Sponsored content