When will it ever be time for the human race to move on without the existence of god?

[Holiday20310401]

Well back then I suppose it was reasonable, no need for reason, the hierarchical ranking was topped by the supernatural, why do you think Shakepseare used pathetic fallacy so much? Who cares for if Hamlet talked to some ghost in a fiction book.

But some people may appreciate the notion of a supernatural event actually occurring. I mean that some people may enjoy thinking of clearing the red sea. Just kidding of course.

[midas77]

Didy, some religious fanatic of Shakespear might argue with you. Hamlet spoke with the ghost of his father, therefore ghost are real.

About the clearing of the red sea, Bible Scholars that it was not really the red sea. It was a mistranslation, It is Reed Sea. Check this link for further reading Untitled Page

[socrato]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I think answering that question scientifically or logically would miss the point. Explain, scientifically, how Hamlet spoke with the ghost of his dead father. Who cares?

I would think that people would have the sense that answering this question scientifically would give you the only logical answer. You can't just say that god just raised the red sea and allowed the hebrews to cross the red sea because thats impossible without some sort of scientific purpose or reason to it. The only way that you could say that god can exist and use his almighty power hat we perceive him to have is if he used it through science.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by socrato

I understand what you mean by logic and spirituality Aedes but if you were asked a question like how did the hebrews cross the red sea would you answer the question religiously(implying the power of god) or would you answer the question scientifically or logically.

The question can be answered so many different ways. I mean we don't HAVE to assume that the story is historically true exactly as it is written down. It could have taken place much differently and been mythologized by the time it was written down. It could have never taken place but it has become an allegory for god's (and Moses') shepherding of the hebrews from bondage. It's a story with great meaning to the tradition of my religion in particular (I'm Jewish) but that doesn't mean I need to explain the phenomenon described iin the story as opposed to accepting it as a traditional part of my peoples' historical lore.

[socrato]

Originally Posted by Aedes

The question can be answered so many different ways. I mean we don't HAVE to assume that the story is historically true exactly as it is written down. It could have taken place much differently and been mythologized by the time it was written down. It could have never taken place but it has become an allegory for god's (and Moses') shepherding of the hebrews from bondage. It's a story with great meaning to the tradition of my religion in particular (I'm Jewish) but that doesn't mean I need to explain the phenomenon described iin the story as opposed to accepting it as a traditional part of my peoples' historical lore.

I'm just contemplating but could it be possible that people use gods almighty power as an idea to describe and make themselves understand what they do not know that can be explained scientifically. Your right as well we don't even have to assume that the story actually happened the way it was told.

[Didymos Thomas]

Socrato, Holiday - I think you guys have missed the point. We're talking about a book - and it's not a history book, not a science text book. We do not demand scientific rigor in other literature, why demand scientific rigor in scripture?

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Socrato, Holiday - I think you guys have missed the point. We're talking about a book - and it's not a history book, not a science text book. We do not demand scientific rigor in other literature, why demand scientific rigor in scripture?

... maybe it comes down to how scripture is to be classified: fiction or non-fiction? ... if the former, then scripture is literature and is at most the subject of artistic criticism; if the latter, then scripture is history and is potentially the subject of stronger forms of criticism (historical accuracy, scientific accuracy, etc.) ...

[Holiday20310401]

I'm not saying that I really care for the red sea story, and I certainly don't believe that such an event occurred, I was just helping Socrato. The Bible is to me, mostly fiction, or at least information that should not be taken literally, like you said.

[midas77]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... maybe it comes down to how scripture is to be classified: fiction or non-fiction? ... if the former, then scripture is literature and is at most the subject of artistic criticism; if the latter, then scripture is history and is potentially the subject of stronger forms of criticism (historical accuracy, scientific accuracy, etc.) ...

I'm fond of historical novels (James Clavell, James Michener, Leo Tolstoy and the like). I find this form of literature very enlightening and informative. Are they non-fiction? Are they fiction? Frankly I'm having diffciulty putting it in any category, the way you categorize fiction and non-fiction. I find the Bible the same way. It is hard to pin it down in any category. Oh maybe, its in the inspirational and spiritual section of the library?

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by midas77

I'm fond of historical novels (James Clavell, James Michener, Leo Tolstoy and the like). I find this form of literature very enlightening and informative. Are they non-fiction? Are they fiction?

... nothing's ever black and white, is it? ... so what type(s) of criticism do you think this form of literature should be open to? ...