Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[penguinofhonor]

The discrepancies between the Gospels, and between the Gospels and the calendar, are neither unknown nor controversial. They've only been definitively traced to within ten or fifteen years after the Crucifixion, and were passed down in oral form for a very long time (I don't believe that history records when or by who they were first compiled and written down).

Yeah, a lot of Christians say there are inaccuracies in the Bible. I was responding to the idea that that God ensured the gospels were accurate as written and any differences were because God was tailoring them to different audiences.

[Arcvasti]

Hosea was the one who had to marry a prostitute to make a metaphorical point. Not sure about Malachi.

[Frumple]

I think my point is that if the Bible were justifiable, then everyone would believe it.

Oh, not necessarily. If there also existed equally justifiable accounts, people could just as easily believe in those, and that's assuming no mitigating circumstances (like never encountering it *waves forlornly to the pacific islanders*).

There's also justifiable but irrelevant, in which case people could, well- not exactly disbelieve, but just... not care. The bible probably wouldn't matter much if it were absolutely true, but humanity had been proven (by whatever means) to have no souls, or some equivalent situation. Most non-jews only sorta' care about the Torah, as an existent thing that's sort of an example. If something's completely inapplicable to you, why waste the energy to assign a belief state to it? Mark it N/A and move along, heh.

Probably some other edge cases, too *shrugs*

[freeformschooler]

One example of day-to-day faith (that certainly does not suggest you should believe in God) is this: all your friends start taking some new wonder drug, fad of the week, to help them lose weight. Surprisingly, this one really works. All your friends slowly become skinny, but a lot faster than you with your old-fashioned diet. FDA approved, doctors recommend it. The thing even gets TV ads and a recommendation by famous weight loss proponents.

However, taking a pill a day and doing nothing to lose weight seems to go against everything you've heard... surely there has to be some horrible side effect, right? So you give it five years. You've heard of side-effects in medicine that can take years to show up. "Really? You would trust your own superstition over doctors and the government? What are you, some kind of communist luddite freak?"

At this point, there are two outcomes.

1) It turns out the magic pill does, in fact, give everyone butt cancer around 5 years after its original use. Your faith was justified, even though not taking the pill at the time would have been considered irrational.
2) It turns out the magic pill does not give everyone butt cancer. Your suspicions may not be unfounded - perhaps people get butt cancer 20 years after taking it instead - but you decide 5 years was long enough of a faith trial period and try the pill anyway (assuming your diet didn't work out).

This is not some pascal's wager type of faith, since it does not claim a truly unknowable outcome: you had deep suspicions, instead of being completely agnostic to the pill's nature. It is the type many people use in day to day life, especially people who have a hobby/job of speculating on distant future situations with incomplete or unreliable information.

[penguinofhonor]

It is not irrational to avoid a drug for potential long-term side effects when it hasn't been tested for them.

[Frumple]

... that scenario doesn't actually say whether they've been tested long-term or not, PoH.

[freeformschooler]

It is not irrational to avoid a drug for potential long-term side effects when it hasn't been tested for them.

It is my understanding that most drugs are not subject to longitudinal studies in the 5+ year range. I could be wrong.

Also, I agree that it is not irrational. My point is that, for many people who want weight loss, including possibly yourself, the Hidden Zero Effect is in full force. That makes the rationality of taking it anyway seem to increase. For you. Hence: faith would be not taking it anyway, despite its seeming rationality.

[penguinofhonor]

It is not irrational to avoid a drug for potential long-term side effects when it hasn't been tested for them.

It is my understanding that most drugs are not subject to longitudinal studies in the 5+ year range. I could be wrong.

They aren't, but that's a common criticism of drug approval. It's a genuine risk that often doesn't get tested in the rush to get a product out the door.

[freeformschooler]

It is not irrational to avoid a drug for potential long-term side effects when it hasn't been tested for them.

It is my understanding that most drugs are not subject to longitudinal studies in the 5+ year range. I could be wrong.

They aren't, but that's a common criticism of drug approval. It's a genuine risk that often doesn't get tested in the rush to get a product out the door.

If that is true, and (as you say) it's not irrational to avoid a drug for potential long-term side-effects, does that mean the people taking newer drugs are the ones acting irrationality? Because they probably have some problem, like obesity or back pain or anger, that they want fixed, and they want it fixed more than they want to not get butt cancer. But you suspect that they won't feel that way when they do have butt cancer, so you make that decision based on your projected future self's feelings, instead of your current self's desires. I don't know if that's rigorous enough to be faith or if you'd have some other word you'd call that. Maybe "prime time market TV logic."

This analogy is kind of like the argument addicts always have with themselves when they want to quit. No wonder religion always gets caught up in that.

[Descan]

Though... For the most part, we *do* know of the cost of religion. There's a pretty reliable financial (tithing and such) and social (both individually in the sense of being Christian in Iraq at the moment, fer ex, and also when we do things like outlaw abortion and gay marriage, or believe in the rapture and so don't care about the future generations, etc [when we should not believe in the rapture and still not care about future generations instead!]) cost related to believing in and participating in a religion.

So it'd be more like taking a weight-loss pill that you KNOW gives you (100% curable, not even a scar, but costs you a pretty penny) butt cancer, slightly imbalances your viewpoint (or not so slightly if you have a bad reaction and go all rain-man or something, i.e. fundies) and puts your life in danger in areas where overweight people are seen as the prophets of God, and therefore you'd be committing heresy. (or something, help me out here)

And that's assuming the pill even works, people who've taken it tend to go on vacation to Europe (or other place, if you live in Europe) and don't come back, leaving before the pill takes effect. Some people claim to be able to talk to them, but they won't let you do it yourself, you have to go through them. They can't take any pictures, but the medium of communication assures you that they've lost all this weight and it was all worth it.

[freeformschooler]

Though... For the most part, we *do* know of the cost of religion. There's a pretty reliable financial (tithing and such) and social (both individually in the sense of being Christian in Iraq at the moment, fer ex, and also when we do things like outlaw abortion and gay marriage, or believe in the rapture and so don't care about the future generations, etc [when we should not believe in the rapture and still not care about future generations instead!]) cost related to believing in and participating in a religion.

I did say this was a non-religious example of faith that should in no way convince someone of the legitimacy of religious faith. Maybe you missed that and immediately jumped on the thing as attempting to justify religious faith.

[Descan]

Aye, you did, I was just trying to fit it over religion like a thin sheet of skin over a spikey sea urchin.

[penguinofhonor]

If that is true, and (as you say) it's not irrational to avoid a drug for potential long-term side-effects, does that mean the people taking newer drugs are the ones acting irrationality? Because they probably have some problem, like obesity or back pain or anger, that they want fixed, and they want it fixed more than they want to not get butt cancer. But you suspect that they won't feel that way when they do have butt cancer, so you make that decision based on your projected future self's feelings, instead of your current self's desires. I don't know if that's rigorous enough to be faith or if you'd have some other word you'd call that. Maybe "prime time market TV logic."

It's not guaranteed butt cancer though. If you know taking the weight loss pill has an unknown risk of long term side effects, I think you can arrive at both decisions rationally. Maybe neither would count as rational in the most absolute sense, but as rational as you can get while still being a human.

[freeformschooler]

If that is true, and (as you say) it's not irrational to avoid a drug for potential long-term side-effects, does that mean the people taking newer drugs are the ones acting irrationality? Because they probably have some problem, like obesity or back pain or anger, that they want fixed, and they want it fixed more than they want to not get butt cancer. But you suspect that they won't feel that way when they do have butt cancer, so you make that decision based on your projected future self's feelings, instead of your current self's desires. I don't know if that's rigorous enough to be faith or if you'd have some other word you'd call that. Maybe "prime time market TV logic."

It's not guaranteed butt cancer though. If you know taking the weight loss pill has an unknown risk of long term side effects, I think you can arrive at both decisions rationally. Maybe neither would count as rational in the most absolute sense, but as rational as you can get while still being a human.

I will have to think about that for a while. Thank you for engaging this.

[Gnorm]

Matthew 21 says that Jesus asked his disciples to bring him two donkeys and then says he somehow managed to ride both donkeys simultaneously into Jerusalem. He then cites a prophecy from Zechariah this apparently fulfilled. The other three gospels all describe a similar scene, but with one donkey. They don't mention any prophecies.

Luke and Mark mentioned the colt, and John mentioned the ass; Matthew mentioned both, along with the prophecy to justify it. Odd picture, but it seems to be what the Scripture describes. I'll try to look deeper into this prophecy and the Triumphant Entry later, along with the other issues brought up, but I am too tired right now.