Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I don't know how many people have read this, but the great American author Mark Twain grew to be a vehement atheist in his old age. He wrote "Letter's from the Earth", a great polemic-style deconstruction of Christian mythology. The entirety is available here.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm

I especially like this because it argues purely from the bible's own logic and story, rather than basing it on scientific grounds. He focuses on analyzing the implications of the bible rather than if it is literally true, which I feel represents a possibly higher form of critique.

"God had warned the man and the woman that they must not eat of the fruit of a certain tree. And he added a most strange remark: he said that if they ate of it they should surely die. Strange, for the reason that inasmuch as they had never seen a sample death they could not possibly know what he meant."


Oh that's fantastic, never even occurred to me. That would make a great midrash:

"If you eat from this tree you will die," said god.
"We'll what?" asked Adam.
"Die."
"Not following you here."
"It's poison. Your heart would stop beating."
"So?"
"You need your heart to live."
"I do?"
"Yes."
"What happens if I'm not living?"
"You die."
"Oh, that again. You never really got around to explaining it."
"It's like if you stab an animal."
"Stab?"
"Do something violent to it."
"What's violent?"
"Oh, for ****'s sake. Do you know what reverse psychology is?"
"No."
"Wonderful. Don't listen to the snake."

I'm not sure I follow that. Considering everything else around them "died" except for them, it stands to reason that Adam and Eve just by powers of observation would have understood that "dying" would mean something like "cease to exist".

What I never understood is that it is "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and it is said by the serpent and the subsequent happenings that "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil", yet, it appears to me that a people that have no concept or understanding of good and evil...can't really be expected to find not obeying God "evil" or "wrong", so I don't see how by any meaning of the word just they could be held accountable for their naive actions.





... now, this seems to me like a severe fault in writing, the author obviously not have thought that his characters would be very different from him, and he just assumed that people he defined as "not knowing good from evil" would know good from evil. Bit silly.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm not sure I follow that. Considering everything else around them "died" except for them, it stands to reason that Adam and Eve just by powers of observation would have understood that "dying" would mean something like "cease to exist".

Did other things die in Eden?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What I never understood is that it is "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and it is said by the serpent and the subsequent happenings that "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil", yet, it appears to me that a people that have no concept or understanding of good and evil...can't really be expected to find not obeying God "evil" or "wrong", so I don't see how by any meaning of the word just they could be held accountable for their naive actions.





... now, this seems to me like a severe fault in writing, the author obviously not have thought that his characters would be very different from him, and he just assumed that people he defined as "not knowing good from evil" would know good from evil. Bit silly.

I've heard it explained that they had to leave the garden not because God was just pissed that they did something wrong, but because once they knew what they did, they simply couldn't stay any more.

I've also heard that the garden of Eden is more parable than an absolute dictation of the events exactly as they occurred.

I'm still on the fence about which I believe.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I've heard it explained that they had to leave the garden not because God was just pissed that they did something wrong, but because once they knew what they did, they simply couldn't stay any more.

I've also heard that the garden of Eden is more parable than an absolute dictation of the events exactly as they occurred.

I'm still on the fence about which I believe.

Eh you can make stuff up about anything. All I can tell is that the literal meaning of the story is ****ed up.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I've heard it explained that they had to leave the garden not because God was just pissed that they did something wrong, but because once they knew what they did, they simply couldn't stay any more.

I've also heard that the garden of Eden is more parable than an absolute dictation of the events exactly as they occurred.

I'm still on the fence about which I believe.

No, God was pissed they disobeyed a command, hence the punishment of death (mortality) for Adam and Eve(humanity). Eve(womankind) also was awarded the special punishment of pain during child birth and Adam(mankind) with the punishment of having to toil all his days.

IMO, it's just a parable, as most of the magical stories of the Bible are. Jonah and the fish, the Deluge etc.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I've heard it explained that they had to leave the garden not because God was just pissed that they did something wrong, but because once they knew what they did, they simply couldn't stay any more.

I've also heard that the garden of Eden is more parable than an absolute dictation of the events exactly as they occurred.

I'm still on the fence about which I believe.
Obviously, you can explain away any contradiction if you're allowed to just make stuff up. The bible says the reason why they couldn't come back was because god was afraid they would steal his thunder.

"And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”"

Wow, how noble.

You do know what is said about knowledge. Proverbs

Originally posted by alltoomany
You do know what is said about knowledge. Proverbs
That they're supposed to make sense? If the bible is a proverb then its making its points in a pretty horrible way.

Like I said, not sure I believe that to be true. But it isn't just making stuff up. This is coming from Biblical scholars who study stuff like this all day everyday.

I love his books but I had no idea about his views on Christianity and I don't favor them at all. I had read other books that nonchristians wrote and even through they are always enjoyable it does not mean that I argee with them on there views.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Like I said, not sure I believe that to be true. But it isn't just making stuff up. This is coming from Biblical scholars who study stuff like this all day everyday.

Even biblical scholars can make stuff up.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I love his books but I had no idea about his views on Christianity and I don't favor them at all. I had read other books that nonchristians wrote and even through they are always enjoyable it does not mean that I argee with them on there views.
Did you read the whole link?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Did you read the whole link?

Most of it.. Mark Twain had some mind, a little twisted, although needed.

He never let his schooling inerfere with his education

Mark Twain's "Little Bessie":

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainbes.htm

Miscellaneous atheist writings:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainwp.htm#THOUGHTS

Yes I did.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even biblical scholars can make stuff up.

That's true, but you can't go around saying "maybe they made it up" to the oppositions view. That's not a logical approach.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's true, but you can't go around saying "maybe they made it up" to the oppositions view. That's not a logical approach.

So many literary analysis jokes . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So many literary analysis jokes . . .

Hey, that rhymed.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's true, but you can't go around saying "maybe they made it up" to the oppositions view. That's not a logical approach.
Why can't I? Everything I said was totally true (that the "Explanation" you altered, is not found anywhere in the bible). And your response is to cite unnamed scholars, with no specific quotations, no names named, and no basis in writing. So there is basically no evidence you could have conjured, that would have been less meaningful.

Meanwhile, you could actually respond to the points Twain raised; gee, what an innovative idea?!

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why can't I? Everything I said was totally true (that the "Explanation" you altered, is not found anywhere in the bible). And your response is to cite unnamed scholars, with no specific quotations, no names named, and no basis in writing. So there is basically no evidence you could have conjured, that would have been less meaningful.

Meanwhile, you could actually respond to the points Twain raised; gee, what an innovative idea?!

Why can't you? I offer an explanation for the question you raise and you respond with "Meh, you're just making stuff up." You don't see how that is not a valid refutation?

I gave you two positions that fully account for the apparent contradiction you brought up. Meaning it's only a "contradiction" if it happened in the specific way you mentioned, and I see no reason to think this is the case. While I did not prove that either claim was absolutely true (as I said, I'm still on the fence about it) they are still perfectly valid possibilities, and as long as they are even valid possibilities your "contradiction" holds no weight. In order for it to present any inconsistencies you would have to prove that your interpretation of the passage was the correct one and show that the explanations offered are either untrue, or do not account for the problem. Which you haven't done. You just waved your hand and dismissed it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Why can't you? I offer an explanation for the question you raise and you respond with "Meh, you're just making stuff up." You don't see how that is not a valid refutation?

I gave you two positions that fully account for the apparent contradiction you brought up. Meaning it's only a "contradiction" if it happened in the specific way you mentioned, and I see no reason to think this is the case. While I did not prove that either claim was absolutely true (as I said, I'm still on the fence about it) they are still perfectly valid possibilities, and as long as they are even valid possibilities your "contradiction" holds no weight. In order for it to present any inconsistencies you would have to prove that your interpretation of the passage was the correct one and show that the explanations offered are either untrue, or do not account for the problem. Which you haven't done. You just waved your hand and dismissed it.
I follow the interpretation given IN the bible; that they were banished because he didn't want them to become immortal. This isn't some theory I have, this is literally what the book SAYS, and I even gave the quote. Can you explain what that quote is supposed to mean?

Literal meaning > apologetics

Originally posted by TacDavey
I've heard it explained that they had to leave the garden not because God was just pissed that they did something wrong, but because once they knew what they did, they simply couldn't stay any more.

I've also heard that the garden of Eden is more parable than an absolute dictation of the events exactly as they occurred.

I'm still on the fence about which I believe.

Let me make sure I'm reading you correctly: You're unsure whether the story of Eden was literal fact or metaphor?

Please allay my fears here. I'm happy enough not contesting theists anymore who decide to believe in a God based on their faith. But there's a point at which my face cringes and I can't help but ask "really?!" Usually that point is somewhere around believing implausible Old Testament stories as literal fact. It's like the fundamentalists who have a museum to explain how Noah's Ark worked. It strains any measure of credulity.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Did other things die in Eden? I imagine that they did, unless the various animals that were carnivores just... didn't exist, or something. I mean, just an example, Satan didn't create snakes, they were an animal that was already there, along with lions, tigers etc etc. Those animals kill other animals to survive.

I always thought that nothing at all died before the fall, and that carnivores didn't eat anything. My reasoning here is, God cursed the serpent to bite man's heal, so evidently it wasn't doing that before.

Evidently, that was the way it was being taught in Twain's time at least. Twain used to be a believer and I think these writings were more or less parodying the ideas he'd heard from preachers.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I follow the interpretation given IN the bible; that they were banished because he didn't want them to become immortal. This isn't some theory I have, this is literally what the book SAYS, and I even gave the quote. Can you explain what that quote is supposed to mean?

Literal meaning > apologetics

Jonah and the Whale was presented as literal. But studies of the text have shown that it was actually a parable. It never really happened.

And as I said, God may have not been sending them away as punishment but because it was necessary. He didn't want them becoming immortal.

Originally posted by Digi
Let me make sure I'm reading you correctly: You're unsure whether the story of Eden was literal fact or metaphor?

Please allay my fears here. I'm happy enough not contesting theists anymore who decide to believe in a God based on their faith. But there's a point at which my face cringes and I can't help but ask "really?!" Usually that point is somewhere around believing implausible Old Testament stories as literal fact. It's like the fundamentalists who have a museum to explain how Noah's Ark worked. It strains any measure of credulity.

Not everything in the old Testament is taken to be metaphor. As I said, there are those on both sides. And I haven't done all that much research into it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not everything in the old Testament is taken to be metaphor. As I said, there are those on both sides. And I haven't done all that much research into it.

Just try to rationally work that out for yourself, if stories like Noah's Ark and the Garden of Eden are literally true or not. Research, tbh, shouldn't be needed. Just some common sense.

Originally posted by Digi
Just try to rationally work that out for yourself, if stories like Noah's Ark and the Garden of Eden are literally true or not. Research, tbh, shouldn't be needed. Just some common sense.

I don't know if that's true. We are talking about supernatural events here. It sounds unrealistic until you consider that an all powerful being is involved. I don't know why creating a garden or flooding the world is more farfetched than creating the universe and all life in it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know if that's true. We are talking about supernatural events here. It sounds unrealistic until you consider that an all powerful being is involved. I don't know why creating a garden or flooding the world is more farfetched than creating the universe and all life in it.

Then you're not scientifically informed. We know the process by which the universe's bodies formed, and we also know enough to say that a worldwide flood is impossible and zero evidence exists for it.

And the Garden of Eden reads more like Aesop's Fables than anything legitimately possible. Aesop's Fables can have value without being literally true. Why can't the same be said of a biblical story?

Really, the vast majority of Christians accept those stories as metaphor. Don't be one of the ones that doesn't. Those are the easiest arguments to poke holes in, and are also the ones that lead you down the path of, say, the Young Earth Creationists.

OK, lets get this back on topic. This thread is about Twain's arguments not just another topic to argue about creationism. Almost everything he said ran with the notion of creationism so it should really be a moot point here. I think Twain makes a very good point, when he looks at how the very notion of moral law that is supposed to be "absolute" is rationalized away in the case of God.

Where is the discussion supposed to go after that, though? Every christian I've ever talked to on the subject has basically said to me, "yes God does things that would be morally wrong if we did them, but he's the almighty creator who created everything so he has his reasons for doing what he does, most of which we can't understand, and he has the right to do whatever he wants, being that we are all his creations".

Originally posted by Digi
Let me make sure I'm reading you correctly: You're unsure whether the story of Eden was literal fact or metaphor?

Please allay my fears here. I'm happy enough not contesting theists anymore who decide to believe in a God based on their faith. But there's a point at which my face cringes and I can't help but ask "really?!" Usually that point is somewhere around believing implausible Old Testament stories as literal fact. It's like the fundamentalists who have a museum to explain how Noah's Ark worked. It strains any measure of credulity.

Whenever theists try to explain a God-figure, it takes away all credibility. Does not the bible say that you should trust by faith alone? Okay, if you have faith, why should you need to explain it?

Originally posted by Digi
Then you're not scientifically informed. We know the process by which the universe's bodies formed, and we also know enough to say that a worldwide flood is impossible and zero evidence exists for it.

And the Garden of Eden reads more like Aesop's Fables than anything legitimately possible. Aesop's Fables can have value without being literally true. Why can't the same be said of a biblical story?

Really, the vast majority of Christians accept those stories as metaphor. Don't be one of the ones that doesn't. Those are the easiest arguments to poke holes in, and are also the ones that lead you down the path of, say, the Young Earth Creationists.

I don't know if it's true to say the majority of Christians believe it to be metaphor, but like I said, I'm completely open to the option. I haven't really looked into it fully. To me it doesn't really matter.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Whenever theists try to explain a God-figure, it takes away all credibility. Does not the bible say that you should trust by faith alone? Okay, if you have faith, why should you need to explain it?

The Bible never says you should just have blind faith. In fact, it says you should be able to defend your beliefs if challenged.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Whenever theists try to explain a God-figure, it takes away all credibility. Does not the bible say that you should trust by faith alone? Okay, if you have faith, why should you need to explain it?

Faith is a powerful meme. It not only allows but rewards belief without evidence, and gains support from collective belief. To me it's the primary reason religion maintains such a strong foothold in society...even more so than biological predisposition toward belief and general scientific illiteracy (though obviously all contribute).

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know if it's true to say the majority of Christians believe it to be metaphor, but like I said, I'm completely open to the option. I haven't really looked into it fully. To me it doesn't really matter.

It should. If you believe in something and base your life on it, how is it defensible that there are large aspects of it that you "haven't really looked into fully"? If you were just sort of an agnostic that didn't care about Christianity, ambiguity over Bible stories is understandable. But I don't get the agnostic vibe from you.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The Bible never says you should just have blind faith. In fact, it says you should be able to defend your beliefs if challenged.

Then how would you defend a physically impossible story like Noah's Ark? Metaphor, dude. Or, ya know, just not true, but I'm not trying to reach too much with my goals in this debate.

I too am baffled by Christians who don't actually read the bible. I mean, if I actually believed I had the word of God in my hands, I can't imagine anything more important than learning all that it has to tell me. So it is inconceivable, that someone could literally have a guidebook to the most important questions in life, and not even study it. I think this portrays a definite lack of intellectual curiosity.

Originally posted by Digi
It should. If you believe in something and base your life on it, how is it defensible that there are large aspects of it that you "haven't really looked into fully"? If you were just sort of an agnostic that didn't care about Christianity, ambiguity over Bible stories is understandable. But I don't get the agnostic vibe from you.

I'm not saying I don't care about any part of the Bible. I'm saying this particular story isn't as important. Like Jonah and the Whale. Whether that story is true or not really has no bearing on my belief in Christianity.

Originally posted by Digi
Then how would you defend a physically impossible story like Noah's Ark? Metaphor, dude. Or, ya know, just not true, but I'm not trying to reach too much with my goals in this debate.

Physically impossible? For God? An all powerful being?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I too am baffled by Christians who don't actually read the bible. I mean, if I actually believed I had the word of God in my hands, I can't imagine anything more important than learning all that it has to tell me. So it is inconceivable, that someone could literally have a guidebook to the most important questions in life, and not even study it. I think this portrays a definite lack of intellectual curiosity.

Why? Why is the question of "was there really a Garden of Eden" important to every Christian?

I do study it. But the question of metaphor verses reality in these particular stories seems ultimately unimportant to me.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Physically impossible? For God? An all powerful being?

Physically impossible given the mountains of evidence we have against it and the physical laws of our universe. How do you justify it literally happening? I'm genuinely curious.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Why? Why is the question of "was there really a Garden of Eden" important to every Christian?

I do study it. But the question of metaphor verses reality in these particular stories seems ultimately unimportant to me.

I would imagine the literal veracity of many such stories would have quite a large bearing on your view of the universe and God's role in it. To me, saying it doesn't matter is just a lack of imagination. Let's say, to return to the earlier analogy, that I wasn't sure if Aesop's Fables were real or not. If they are, holy shit, animals can talk and have highly developed senses of morality. It would utterly change the way I view the world. So too with the Ark. We're in a vastly different universe if the Ark happened, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, than we are if the universe follows logical rules and the Ark story is just metaphor.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I too am baffled by Christians who don't actually read the bible. I mean, if I actually believed I had the word of God in my hands, I can't imagine anything more important than learning all that it has to tell me. So it is inconceivable, that someone could literally have a guidebook to the most important questions in life, and not even study it. I think this portrays a definite lack of intellectual curiosity.

It actually makes some sense if you go back to the idea that religion was (and to some extent probably still is) evolutionarily advantageous because it eliminates cognitive dissonance in people so that they can focus on the more immediate concerns of survival. Once the item is "resolved," even if it isn't fully explored intellectually, the evolutionary ideal is achieved. A further curiosity wouldn't continue to be advantageous at that point. So, simply put, the species probably isn't programmed for continued intellectual inquiry. Once we come to a conclusion that satisfies us in philosophical or intellectual matters, there's no evolutionary advantage to going further because at that point it's distracting us from (historically) more important matters like hunting and gathering.

Originally posted by Digi
So, simply put, the species probably isn't programmed for continued intellectual inquiry. Thank God for the Bell curve.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Why? Why is the question of "was there really a Garden of Eden" important to every Christian?

I do study it. But the question of metaphor verses reality in these particular stories seems ultimately unimportant to me.
Because its the word of God? I have trouble fathoming how you could consider anything God says to be "unimportant". I try and study the words of people I consider "great thinkers" for guidance in my own life, and God would be an infinitely greater mind than any human; the value of understanding his words should be infinitely important.

Originally posted by Digi
It actually makes some sense if you go back to the idea that religion was (and to some extent probably still is) evolutionarily advantageous because it eliminates cognitive dissonance in people so that they can focus on the more immediate concerns of survival. Once the item is "resolved," even if it isn't fully explored intellectually, the evolutionary ideal is achieved. A further curiosity wouldn't continue to be advantageous at that point. So, simply put, the species probably isn't programmed for continued intellectual inquiry. Once we come to a conclusion that satisfies us in philosophical or intellectual matters, there's no evolutionary advantage to going further because at that point it's distracting us from (historically) more important matters like hunting and gathering.
But that still doesn't explain it on an individual basis. What is the actual thought process going through people's heads here? "This entity is infinitely wise, infinitely good, and has provided a book of infinite spiritual value; however, getting in the last words in an internet debate is more important to me than actually reading it"?

lol, conceded. I have no idea. I wasn't that type of Christian, so I don't have that perspective. Might be part of the reason I no longer am one.

Another thing that always bugs me, is when people tell me their religion is metaphorical, but when I ask them what it's a metaphor for, they have no idea. I mean, I could understand it if they think they couldn't explain it well enough to me. But it seems like so many people I have talked to haven't even asked themselves this basic question; whereas, I wouldn't even consider calling myself a believer of an ideology if I didn't think I had a deep understanding of it.

Most can easily be worked into some moral, and if it's from the Old Testament it's usually about obedience to God, so that isn't something I've encountered quite as much (maybe because I'm not asking that question). But I see your point. It comes back to the same idea of critical analysis and thorough understanding, which is sorely lacking oftentimes.

Originally posted by Digi
Most can easily be worked into some moral, and if it's from the Old Testament it's usually about obedience to God, so that isn't something I've encountered quite as much (maybe because I'm not asking that question). But I see your point. It comes back to the same idea of critical analysis and thorough understanding, which is sorely lacking oftentimes.
I think Twain brilliantly deconstructs that argument in this book, which is why I love it so much. When I read the bible I see no good ethics or wisdom in evidence. Most of the lessons seem like the opposite of what i'd consider the ethical response. When I talk to Christians, it seems like we are speaking two different languages, where many things they consider good seem terrible to me, and vice versa.

Twain, right. Sorry we got off topic.

Originally posted by Digi
Physically impossible given the mountains of evidence we have against it and the physical laws of our universe. How do you justify it literally happening? I'm genuinely curious.

I might point out that "reasons to believe it didn't happen" and "physically impossible for it to happen" are not the same thing. Second, God has the ability to mess with the laws of physics at a whim.

I fully believe it would have been a super natural event. Obviously it's not normal for the world to flood. And outside of God's intervention it wouldn't.

Originally posted by Digi
I would imagine the literal veracity of many such stories would have quite a large bearing on your view of the universe and God's role in it. To me, saying it doesn't matter is just a lack of imagination. Let's say, to return to the earlier analogy, that I wasn't sure if Aesop's Fables were real or not. If they are, holy shit, animals can talk and have highly developed senses of morality. It would utterly change the way I view the world. So too with the Ark. We're in a vastly different universe if the Ark happened, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, than we are if the universe follows logical rules and the Ark story is just metaphor.

I don't think my view of God or Christianity would change very drastically depending on whether there was a world wide flood or it there was a garden. I believe God has the ability to do these things. Whether He ever did or not seems irrelevant.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but there was no Christian revitalization when Jonah and the Whale was found to have never happened.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because its the word of God? I have trouble fathoming how you could consider anything God says to be "unimportant". I try and study the words of people I consider "great thinkers" for guidance in my own life, and God would be an infinitely greater mind than any human; the value of understanding his words should be infinitely important.

Sure, I think it's important to study the word of God. But there are certainly some things in the Bible that are more important than others. For example,

Imagine a Christian who never heard the story of Noah and the Ark. Would this person's views on Christianity be very different for anyone elses? Probably not.

Think about a Christian who had no idea about Jesus and had no idea that worshiping false gods was a sin. Now that person would have a drastically different view of Christianity.

Between knowing if God really made the earth in a literal six days and knowing that worshiping false gods was a sin, doesn't one of those seem expendable information to you?

Meh. Noah's Flood story was just a ripoff of the story from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Divine inspiration my ass, they ripped off Akkadian fiction.

The Akkadian's came from Noah's nutsack.

Canon.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Meh. Noah's Flood story was just a ripoff of the story from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Divine inspiration my ass, they ripped off Akkadian fiction.

True, but that isn't the discussion I've been having with Tac.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Sure, I think it's important to study the word of God. But there are certainly some things in the Bible that are more important than others. For example,

Imagine a Christian who never heard the story of Noah and the Ark. Would this person's views on Christianity be very different for anyone elses? Probably not.

Think about a Christian who had no idea about Jesus and had no idea that worshiping false gods was a sin. Now that person would have a drastically different view of Christianity.

Between knowing if God really made the earth in a literal six days and knowing that worshiping false gods was a sin, doesn't one of those seem expendable information to you?
But you aren't a christian who "never heard of this", you have the internet and you have a Bible, you are free to read up to your hearts content. And personally it seems blasphemous to say any word of God is "expendable".

Originally posted by King Kandy
But you aren't a christian who "never heard of this", you have the internet and you have a Bible, you are free to read up to your hearts content. And personally it seems blasphemous to say any word of God is "expendable".

Mmm. I'll admit "expendable" was probably the wrong choice of words.

I guess I can see your point. Even if it doesn't change much concerning my beliefs I suppose I shouldn't just ignore it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Mmm. I'll admit "expendable" was probably the wrong choice of words.

I guess I can see your point. Even if it doesn't change much concerning my beliefs I suppose I shouldn't just ignore it.
If I believed in the bible, I think intellectually i'd have no choice but to devote my life to studying it. Compared to the word of God, anything else would be totally trivial. Its wisdom would have to be infinitely greater than anything else I could be reading.

There's a famous philosopher whose name I'm not going to recall atm. But he was an adamant atheist, but considered full-blown, Bible-memorizing evangelical Christians to be the 2nd most acceptable belief system. Because if you actually, truly believed, nothing less than total adherence and devotion makes sense.

Like if you're caught cheating, then pray to God to forgive your soul. If you actually, completely believed that God existed, he was always watching you, and that heaven existed, you never would have cheated and would be living a vastly different life.

Most less-than-total religious adherence is culturally, not intrinsically driven.

Originally posted by Digi
Most less-than-total religious adherence is culturally, not intrinsically driven.
Thanks for saying that! I had been fumbling around for the right word to describe my feelings on morality in other threads, when I was trying to argue that you aren't "moral" unless you actually understand why what you're doing is a good thing. What I was trying to say, is that your morals should be intrinsically driven, that you should do them because you know that they are the right thing. Not because you were told to do them by someone else.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Thanks for saying that! I had been fumbling around for the right word to describe my feelings on morality in other threads, when I was trying to argue that you aren't "moral" unless you actually understand why what you're doing is a good thing. What I was trying to say, is that your morals should be intrinsically driven, that you should do them because you know that they are the right thing. Not because you were told to do them by someone else.

...I'm here to help.

I like you much better now that we talk in the religious forum. Weird that I knew of you for years over in comics but didn't really cross paths with you much.

Apparently I warned you back in '07 though. Gotta keep you peons in line.

dgrin

{edit} not that I didn't like you before, but I just wanted to extend the compliment. And we also "crossed" in tourneys of course, though I don't remember many dealings even in those (I think we fought maybe once in the HH business?).

Back on the Twain topic, it seems to me Twain was just doing what all good authors do - which is to make fun of something reverenced.

C.S. Lewis was one of these people, too, when he wrote "The Screwtape Letters." Do we call this an assault on Christianity? Of course not.

I think the word "assault" sounds like it comes from the vocabulary of somebody who must quanch all information that finds what he believes in false, negative, untrue, and a gross insult.

We just have to be more open-minded than that!!

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Back on the Twain topic, it seems to me Twain was just doing what all good authors do - which is to make fun of something reverenced.

C.S. Lewis was one of these people, too, when he wrote "The Screwtape Letters." Do we call this an assault on Christianity? Of course not.

I think the word "assault" sounds like it comes from the vocabulary of somebody who must quanch all information that finds what he believes in false, negative, untrue, and a gross insult.

We just have to be more open-minded than that!!
I gave a second link where he gives innumerable atheist texts. Even in his autobiography he insults Christianity. So I don't think that theory holds much water. We know C.S. Lewis was a Christian because he wrote many Christian texts, Mark Twain devoted much of his later life to these sort of polemics. So the answer seems clear to me.

Yeah, wasn't Lewis a very open and devout Christian, and weren't his writings specific apologetics for Christianity?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I gave a second link where he gives innumerable atheist texts. Even in his autobiography he insults Christianity. So I don't think that theory holds much water. We know C.S. Lewis was a Christian because he wrote many Christian texts, Mark Twain devoted much of his later life to these sort of polemics. So the answer seems clear to me. Wasn't Mark Twain christian?

Originally posted by Mindset
Wasn't Mark Twain christian?
For a long time, but his attitude drastically shifted when he was older.

Originally posted by Digi
Yeah, wasn't Lewis a very open and devout Christian, and weren't his writings specific apologetics for Christianity?
Mhm. He was Atheist for a while but JRR Tolkien's arguments managed to half convert him (I say half because Tolkien as a Catholic regarded the conversion as failed seeing as Lewis became an Anglican) and for many years he was probably the most highly regarded Christian Apologist.

Then one day he had an informal debate with an American philosopher who utterly trounced him on the subject. The fact that she was actually a devout Christian as well convinced him that his arguments sucked and he wasn't a very good Apologist so he stopped writing them and moved on to fiction.

Tolkien wasn't terribly devout from what I've read on him, which isn't comprehensive but is fairly extensive. It was just the period of time. Science hadn't caught up with religion yet, so percentages of theists were much higher, even in a traditionally less religious country like England.

But yeah, Lewis is one of the more well-known Christian apologists in recent history.

Originally posted by Digi
Tolkien wasn't terribly devout from what I've read on him, which isn't comprehensive but is fairly extensive. It was just the period of time. Science hadn't caught up with religion yet, so percentages of theists were much higher, even in a traditionally less religious country like England.

But yeah, Lewis is one of the more well-known Christian apologists in recent history.
He was devout enough to convince Lewis though.

I think its pretty clear that Lewis became much more gung-ho than Tolkien ever was. I mean I'm reading the Chronicles of Narnia right now for the first time (assigned reading) and in comparison to LOTR the Christian symbolism and the fact that they're Christian books is a thousand times less subtle and honestly feels rather forced.

Of course the fact Tolkien was also just straight up a better writer than Lewis might have something to do with it.

Well, The Chronicles are direct allegory for "The Christian Story," all the way through from Genesis to Revelation, and The Lord of the Rings is only indirectly allegorical

And both men were very good friends, although their arguments were intellectually epic. However, Lewis's wife died very young, and he began to write other, less family-oriented fiction, notable "Till We Have Faces."

Obviously, Tolkien was rather upset with Middle Earth, and wrote and wrote about that place.