From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:42:47 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <5948@balrog.ctron.com> king@nickel.Sgi.COM (John E. King) writes:
>>
>>([...] it is my firm understanding that a book which is full of
>>atrocious crimes done with the approval of the supposedly just and
>>loving deity, if not directly ordered by it, has an infinitely low
>>moral code; and this is true of the Bible, but not of the Qur'an).
>
>The Bible, and for that matter the BoM, deal a lot with the
>history of its people of which warfare was an integral part.
>The Quran does not.

Not much, that is true.  It contains more sermons and fewer narratives.
Of course, this may well be the reason for which the Qur'an leaves the
reader with a more favourable impression than the Bible.

>However, its depiction of a loving God tormenting
>unbelievers for all eternity is chilling,

The Qur'an doesn't place such an emphasis on Allah being a loving god,
though it does call him merciful and compassionate.  But when we are
talking of the value of books as moral guides, I am more interested in
the actions of human beings portrayed as positive characters therein
than in the long-term strategy of a superhuman character (though
doubtless that is relevant as well).

>and much more graphic than the bible.

Your argument above applies here, only backwards: just as the Qur'an
doesn't tell much about the wars the Arabs led, the Gospels don't tell
much about hell, except that it is a bloody unpleasant place.

>But some of your criticism of the OT accounts
>appear to show your  lack of knowledge of the various covenants
>the God made with the nation of Isreal.  

That's "Israel".  Which covenants do you mean?  It may be that I know
about them, but don't think that they suffice to justify everything
that is going on.

>>>If you were going
>>>to make up a religion, would you portray the heroes as larger than life?
>
>>Actually, David's sending Uriah to his death was not a weakness, it
>>was a crime, and the fact that David wasn't punished for it (never
>>mind that his newborn son was)

>You still didn't really address the issue raised above,e.g, no other
>ancient document is so criticle of the main players.

If I didn't address that statement, it was because it was so obviously
false that I didn't think it deserved attention.  All Sumero-Akkadian
religious epics are very critical of the main players, gods and men
alike.  So is much of the Egyptian religious literature.  So are many
of the Greek myths.

>As far as David's son, 1.) Do you think David suffered from that loss?,

It says he did.  Yet this doesn't sound like much of an argument in
support of the death penalty for the newborn child of a murderer.
Someone had said that sons were not to be killed for their fathers' crimes.

>2.) What do you suppose happened to David's son after he died?

He underwent whatever the standard funeral procedure was at that time
and place.  Oh, you didn't mean his body?  The same as happens to the
flame of a candle when you blow it out.

>>That there was someone called Yeshua who was the illegitimate
>>son of a joiner called Yosef?  No doubt.  Both were rather common names.
>>That said Yeshua was a bum, a preacher, and was ultimately crucified?
>>Why not, after all?  Maybe he did.
>
>Great.  At least we got you to admit he existed.

Just don't overcredit yourselves.  I admit the possibility that he
existed, because I have no reason to deny it.  With so many carpenters,
so many illegitimate children, so many wandering preachers getting
themselves crucified by the Romans, and so many Yosefs and Yeshuas,
the probability of the above is certainly greater than zero.

>Let's assume for a minute he is not the Son of God, but just a man.
>At the very least you have to admit he had a profound impact.
>The calanders are based on his birth,

The Christian (and nowadays mainstream) calender is only said to be
based on his birth.  The various sources suggest that said event ought
to be located somewhere in the late spring of year 4BC, I think.  The
"date of his birth", which we know as Christmas and whereon the
calender is really based, is a pagan solstice holiday.

>and one third of the world claims to be one of his followers.

It might not be so, mind you, if the Crusades and the Conquista hadn't
taken place.  Hmm.  Does the Inquisition also count as impact of Jesus?
I'm not blaming it on him, merely wondering what "impact" really means.

>Can you name any other histrical figure who has had that kind of impact.

Yes.  Gutenberg, for example.  Most people deal with printed books more
often than with calenders, and I expect printing to outlive Christianity.

>Not bad for an illegitimate bum.

Well, some people are just lucky.  Not many illiterate merchants have
the like of Mohammed's impact either.  Not that this proves much.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc