I've avoided this thread for some reason, most likely because it got too long and involved on a subject I care little about, at a point when I had less time to. So, one quick response to settle the matter:
First, to answer your That "freeing" of the Bible was part of the wider shift in society; advent of the printing press and all that, plus a few clever people realising that if you make stuff available to everybody then everybody can buy it; untapped markets waiting to happen.
It makes no sense to argue that the enlightenment was caused by the Bible being more open and available either. The Bible being open and available as a result of the enlightenment, or as a result of the same causes, is much more reasonable and much more likely.
For this section, it might make more sense to read my penultimate paragraph first.
ICANT responded to doctorbill by arguing that the Jewish scripture must be divinely inspired to some degree and indirectly because Jews have presented the world with advanced discoveries. My counterargument was that those particular Jews made the discoveries as a result of wider culture and the knowledge built from the world, not because they were Jews -- the two facts are coincidence. The other point was that if a religious person making a great discovery validated their beliefs, the same must apply for every religious group simultaneously. Including atheists. Which would mean both that all gods exist (and ensuing theological problems where gods say they are the only god, enough to throw doubt on its own) and yet also that none of them do.
So obviously saying that any holy text must be divinely inspired on that basis is nonsensical; it creates a huge contradiction.
Trying to validate belief in the Bible -- or any text, but since this is the concrete example we must work with -- by doing so is a claim devoid of merit and intelligence. Arguing that Genesis is intended to supply such knowledge about the real world under the previous idea, coupled with the obvious contradictions between reality and its claims, is also an inherently unintelligent activity. And thus, my issue with ICANT: that he tries to do so despite the evident absurdity involved.
Finally, as to doctorbill's comments, I disagree with them as stated. Clearly Jews have provided great insights to the world,
just as people of every other cultural and religious group before, during and since then. Disagreeing with one person does not mean I agree with their other detractors; "the enemy of my enemy could still be my enemy too".
But doctorbill's point may have been something different, only not suitably expressed: that Judaism itself has not presented those insights. Judaism has not increased human lifespan, nor discovered better and safer ways of doing something, nor done much particular good for humanity that couldn't have been achieved in multiple other ways. It is thereby not anything especially useful or special, and one can only wonder why something as objectively unimportant could be considered divine in origin.
You recognised the original as idiocy, I recognised it as idiocy, I'm sure everybody else has at least subconciously registered the fact. Must I denounce every prejudiced comment as it occurs, or be considered complicit?
But on the flipside, must one immediately assume another was being an asshole while also assuming their language was perfect instead of wondering about what their actual intent may have been? "Leaping to conclusions is a great way to smack your head on the roof".
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
™ Version 4.2
