Liars and whores

[Kostya]

Speaking of genesis, I have just finished reading "The Antichrist" by Nietzsche and this is his take on the bible's creation story:--Has any one ever clearly understood the celebrated story at the beginning of the Bible--of God`s mortal terror of science? . . . No one, in fact, has understood it. This priest-book par excellence opens, as is fitting, with the great inner difficulty of the priest: he faces only one great danger; ergo, "God" faces only one great danger.-- The old God, wholly "spirit," wholly the high-priest, wholly perfect, is promenading his garden: he is bored and trying to kill time. Against boredom even gods struggle in vain. What does he do? He creates man--man is entertaining. . . But then he notices that man is also bored. God`s pity for the only form of distress that invades all paradises knows no bounds: so he forthwith creates other animals. God`s first mistake: to man these other animals were not entertaining--he sought dominion over them; he did not want to be an "animal" himself.--So God created woman. In the act he brought boredom to an end--and also many other things! Woman was the second mistake of God.--"Woman, at bottom, is a serpent, Heva"--every priest knows that; "from woman comes every evil in the world"--every priest knows that, too. Ergo, she is also to blame for science. . . It was through woman that man learned to taste of the tree of knowledge.--What happened? The old God was seized by mortal terror. Man himself had been his greatest blunder; he had created a rival to himself; science makes men godlike--it is all up with priests and gods when man becomes scientific!--Moral: science is the forbidden per se; it alone is forbidden. Science is the first of sins, the germ of all sins, the original sin. This is all there is of morality.--"Thou shalt not know"--the rest follows from that.--God`s mortal terror, however, did not hinder him from being shrewd. How is one to protect one`s self against science? For a long while this was the capital problem. Answer: Out of paradise with man! Happiness, leisure, foster thought--and all thoughts are bad thoughts!--Man must not think.--And so the priest invents distress, death, the mortal dangers of childbirth, all sorts of misery, old age, decrepitude, above all, sickness--nothing but devices for making war on science! The troubles of man don`t allow him to think. . . Nevertheless--how terrible!--, the edifice of knowledge begins to tower aloft, invading heaven, shadowing the gods--what is to be done?--The old God invents war; he separates the peoples; he makes men destroy one another (--the priests have always had need of war....). War--among other things, a great disturber of science !--Incredible! Knowledge, deliverance from the priests, prospers in spite of war.--So the old God comes to his final resolution: "Man has become scientific--there is no help for it: he must be drowned!". . . .You can actually find the whole text of this book right here: http://www.underthesun.cc/Classics/Niet ... ntichrist/ Edited by: Kostya at: 9/23/03 9:37 pm

[PeterDF]

NiallNo! I don't pretend to be an expert on ancient Hebrew. My terminology was a bit loose here. I should have said that pre-scientific people would have had no reason to believe that the Genesis story was not a literal description of the creation. (But you already knew that that was what I meant.) I don't know very much about Augustine either but I did find this passage in Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy":Quote:The Greek view, that creation out of nothing is impossible, has recurred at intervals in Christian times, and has led to pantheism. Pantheism holds that God and the world are not distinct, and that everything in the world is part of God. This view is developed most fully in Spinoza, but is one to which almost all mystics are attracted. It has thus happened that mystics have had difficulty in remaining orthodox since they find it hard to believe that the world is outside God. Augustine however, feels no difficulty on this point; Genesis is explicit, and that is enough for him. His view on this matter is essential to his theory of time. (My emphasis) I would genuinely be interested to know where you got your information. I do not have a closed mind, if there is a good case that Genesis is an allegory I would be happy to listen to it, but I suspect that you won't find one. Quote:However, most scholars seem to disagree with your interpretationYou are probably right that most scholars of theology would disagree. But most scientists and a majority of leading thinkers would agree with me.Surely the point is that there is no way that anyone can make an effective rational argument that there is a god. Those that believe, do so either in spite of the lack of evidence, or even in spite of specific evidence against the individual interpretation of their particular religion. Those that want to believe are free to do so, but let us not fool ourselves that there is any rational basis for belief. The three main arguments for god are all flawed in various ways, and if you cannot find a good rational basis for god per se it is of many orders of magnitude more difficult to establish a good rational case for a specific religion like Christianity. Edited by: PeterDF at: 9/29/03 6:01 pm

[Niall001]

We are here because we disobeyed God's first command. We were no longer able to stay in the Garden.As for how to interpret the Bible correctly, well that is a question I could not answer without bias. I could tell you how to interpret most parts of the bible but I would be giving you the Catholic viewpoint. I believe it to be the correct way, but for me to say that it is right, wouldn't be fair. What you have to understand about the bible is that it contains biography, testimony, poetry, prophetic writings, parables, hyperbole etc. and learn where one should read the bible writings in certain ways. This involves asking the w questions. You must put the line in the context of the paragraph, the paragraph in the context of the chapter, the chapter in the context of the book and the book in the context of the bible.Peter, here is a quote from St. Augustine in one of his commentaries on Genesis:''In the beginning were created only the germs or causes of the forms of life which were afterwards to be developed in gradual cause"Its far from literal. A good online biography for Augustine can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia.Another interesting reference to genesis in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is ''The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents." It was only during the reformation that the 'more literal than thou' movement began to take center stage.Alas, I've gotta burn.Edit: I had to leave the lab before I said everything I had to say. Quote:Surely the point is that there is no way that anyone can make an effective rational argument that there is a god. Those that believe, do so either in spite of the lack of evidence, or even in spite of specific evidence against the individual interpretation of their particular religion. Those that want to believe are free to do so, but let us not fool ourselves that there is any rational basis for belief. The three main arguments for god are all flawed in various ways, and if you cannot find a good rational basis for god per se it is of many orders of magnitude more difficult to establish a good rational case for a specific religion like Christianity.I agree.Quote:You are probably right that most scholars of theology would disagree. But most scientists and a majority of leading thinkers would agree with me.Most scientists etc. are hardly experts in the relevant fields. A man may be an expert in one field but this does not make him an correct on all matters. *cough*chomsky*cough* Edited by: Niall001 at: 10/2/03 4:47 am

[Meme Wars]

Niall001:"Really unless you've studied the entire bible in the correct manner, theres no point trying to understand most of it. Most people here haven't and until they do..... "Monty Vonn:After meeting a diverse group of people in the military, I came back home to study the Bible to decifer which denomination was more on track. I spent the next 4 years reading it from cover to cover. The things I discovered shocked me, horrified me and discussed me. It was probably the one move I made that moved me furthest from my faith (Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, or Nondenominational)The Bible was so full of contradictions and nonsense, that the only way I could make sense out of it was to accept this is a history of a group of people and their society slowly maturing over time, and weaving complicated stories to help tie together the past and future to keep some kind of continuity. They really had no clue of ultimate reality. And that much of what was written was from old oral traditions that were glorified and deified over time from lip to lip, and then eventually committed to paper.

[Niall001]

Well if monty wants to go specifics then thats fine.Ever read the Laudabiliter that gives Henry the 2nd permission to invade Ireland? Last year, a student I know read it and concluded that Henry the 2nd was gay and having an affair with the pope.

[Chris OConnor]

NiallUmm...he was. Chris "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."

[Niall001]

Typical Brits! Actually wait, were you talking about henry the second or monty?