Rejection of Holy Books & Divine Inspiration

[Neo Deist]

Deists typically reject holy books and divine inspiration. Far too often we are asked why. I wanted to take a moment and touch on this so that present/future deists can answer those questions logically.

For starters, every single holy book on the planet was written by the hands of humans, and many of those works were by anonymous authors. Not to mention large portions of the stories are nothing more than hearsay...3rd parties retelling what happened. That in and of itself makes such books subject to error. No human is perfect and free from any type of mistakes. Think about it...when you type a letter, how many times do you have to backspace, use error check, spell check, etc.? To further complicate holy books, when you translate outside of the original language and era, there will be a loss of meaning. Cultural idioms from the time period play a large role in the written works of that period.

If you were to go back in time and speak to a medieval knight decked out in full plate armor during July, and you said, "man that is cool!" he would look at you like you were the village idiot. That armor is heavy and extremely hot, not "cool." That is an example of an idiom that would be lost on him. The same happens when you take written works from thousands of years ago, translate them into a different language, and try to make sense of it in a modern culture. Unless you can put yourself in the mindset of the person and time period and speak the language, you really don't have a clue what is being said.

Some people will say that the holy book writers were divinely inspired, and that God guided their hands, dictated the words verbatim and thus the book is free from error. Bah...that is just an excuse to justify a position. I could easily say that I was divinely inspired to write a message that says no holy book was divinely inspired. Now we have a problem because clearly someone is wrong. Neither position can be proven true or false. The reason people say that holy book X was divinely inspired was so that others would not question it. "God said it and you have to accept it, no questions asked!" That is the real reason...those with power and influence want to maintain that power and influence.

So in summary:

Holy books: written by humans and subject to error, idioms and time period
Divine inspiration: an unprovable position used so that something can't be questioned

Edit: to be continued soon...

 

[Baladas]

Deists typically reject holy books and divine inspiration. Far too often we are asked why. I wanted to take a moment and touch on this so that present/future deists can answer those questions logically.

For starters, every single holy book on the planet was written by the hands of humans, and many of those works are by anonymous authors, or there are theories as to who wrote what. That in and of itself makes such books subject to error. There is not a human on the planet that is perfect and free from any type of mistake. Think about it...when you type a letter, how many times do you have to backspace, use error check, spell check, etc.? To further complicate holy books, when you translate outside of the original language and era, there will be a loss of meaning. Cultural idioms from the time period play a large role in the written works of that period.

If you were to go back in time and speak to a medieval English knight decked out in full plate armor during July, and you said, "man that is cool!" he would look at you like you were the village idiot. That **** is heavy and hot, not cool. That is an example of an idiom that would be lost on him. The same happens when you take written works from thousands of years ago and translate them into a different language, and try to make sense of it in a modern culture. Unless you can put yourself in the mindset of the person and time period, you really don't have a clue what is being said.

Some people will say that the holy book writers were divinely inspired, and that God guided their hands and thus the book is free from error. Bah, drivel. I could easily say that I was divinely inspired to write a message that says no holy book was divinely inspired. Now we have a problem because clearly someone is wrong. Neither position can be proven true or false. The reason people say that holy book X was divinely inspired was so that others would not question it. "God said it and you have to accept it, no questions asked!" That is the real reason...those with power and influence want to maintain that power and influence.

So in summary:

Holy books: written by humans and subject to error, idioms and time period
Divine inspiration: an unprovable position used so that something can't be questioned

Edit: to be continued soon...

I know that this is a DIR, but I just wanted to say that I completely agree.
I treat scriptures of any flavor as I would any philosophy book, and I believe it is dangerous not to do so.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Deists typically reject holy books and divine inspiration. Far too often we are asked why. I wanted to take a moment and touch on this so that present/future deists can answer those questions logically.

For starters, every single holy book on the planet was written by the hands of humans, and many of those works were by anonymous authors. Not to mention large portions of the stories are nothing more than hearsay...3rd parties retelling what happened. That in and of itself makes such books subject to error. No human is perfect and free from any type of mistakes. Think about it...when you type a letter, how many times do you have to backspace, use error check, spell check, etc.? To further complicate holy books, when you translate outside of the original language and era, there will be a loss of meaning. Cultural idioms from the time period play a large role in the written works of that period.

If you were to go back in time and speak to a medieval knight decked out in full plate armor during July, and you said, "man that is cool!" he would look at you like you were the village idiot. That armor is heavy and extremely hot, not "cool." That is an example of an idiom that would be lost on him. The same happens when you take written works from thousands of years ago, translate them into a different language, and try to make sense of it in a modern culture. Unless you can put yourself in the mindset of the person and time period and speak the language, you really don't have a clue what is being said.

Some people will say that the holy book writers were divinely inspired, and that God guided their hands, dictated the words verbatim and thus the book is free from error. Bah...that is just an excuse to justify a position. I could easily say that I was divinely inspired to write a message that says no holy book was divinely inspired. Now we have a problem because clearly someone is wrong. Neither position can be proven true or false. The reason people say that holy book X was divinely inspired was so that others would not question it. "God said it and you have to accept it, no questions asked!" That is the real reason...those with power and influence want to maintain that power and influence.

So in summary:

Holy books: written by humans and subject to error, idioms and time period
Divine inspiration: an unprovable position used so that something can't be questioned

Edit: to be continued soon...

Yes, but there's also the reason God doesn't intervene in the universe, the same reason God (if It exists) would have created the universe--Free Will.

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes, but there's also the reason God doesn't intervene in the universe, the same reason God (if It exists) would have created the universe--Free Will.

I am a big advocate of free will, I just did not have time to touch on it during the OP writing.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am a big advocate of free will, I just did not have time to touch on it during the OP writing.

I'm just proselytizing (if you will) the idea of free will's ultimate, singular importance. It's the sole purpose for this sentient spawning universe, and thus, why God, if It exists, would be a deist/laissez faire God.

 

[Neo Deist]

Free will also explains why bad things happen to good people. If God intervened, it would not longer be free will...even in cases of murder, rape, child abuse, etc.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Free will also explains why bad things happen to good people. If God intervened, it would not longer be free will...even in cases of murder, rape, child abuse, etc.

Exactly and vice versa with good things happening to bad people. Someone spent a lot of time writing the Book of Job, spinning his wheels getting nowhere, trying to placate those asking "Why?" in ever louder voices. ("Pastor, Rabbi, Shaman, this just doesn't make sense. My crops just died after I tended to them daily, while my worthless cousin across the river who sleeps 20 hours a day [and is drunk the other 4], just had a bumper crop!?!?!") There is just no good reasonable explanation for an interventionist God not intervening, or intervening when It shouldn't have.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

It's interesting that none of the people who created scriptures seem to have claimed an actual encounter with the Supreme Being: they felt inspired or were taught by an angel. Well, we can all feel inspired, but whether we are or not is another question! As for Muhammad's encounters with Gabriel, how could he know just who he was talking to? And, as with any channeled text, how much actually came from his own subconscious?

Many pagans (Africa, much of Native America, India) believe in a creator, but regard them in a deist way. Greek and Roman pagans were led to a belief in a creator by the arguments of philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle, but not usually as an object of worship, any more than a Hindu would pray to Brahman rather than to Vishnu or Ganesha.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It's interesting that none of the people who created scriptures seem to have claimed an actual encounter with the Supreme Being: they felt inspired or were taught by an angel. Well, we can all feel inspired, but whether we are or not is another question! As for Muhammad's encounters with Gabriel, how could he know just who he was talking to? And, as with any channeled text, how much actually came from his own subconscious?

The usual technique is to couch a statement as a divine quote ("Thus sayeth the Lord....."), or making one's self into God's direct mouthpiece ("My temple should be a house of prayer!").

 

[Neo Deist]

It's interesting that none of the people who created scriptures seem to have claimed an actual encounter with the Supreme Being: they felt inspired or were taught by an angel.

Well, that is not quite accurate. Moses is accredited with writing the Torah (although modern scholars now question that) and he had quite a few encounters with God. Jacob had a wrestling match with God (and God had to cheat to win...he dislocated Jacob's hip). Yet the Bible also states that no one has seen God so, it seems contradictions run amuck.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Free will also explains why bad things happen to good people. If God intervened, it would not longer be free will...even in cases of murder, rape, child abuse, etc.

But that free will isn't compatible with supernatural baggage that comes with your Christian Deism.

Nice new logo, btw. The declaration of freedom (free will) at the center/nucleus of our atomic existence. Don't know if that's what was intended. And then then there's that pesky ever-present CD inconsistency problem.

 

[Neo Deist]

But that free will isn't compatible with supernatural baggage that comes with your Christian Deism.

Nice new logo, btw. The declaration of freedom (free will) at the center/nucleus of our atomic existence. Don't know if that's what was intended. And then then there's that pesky ever-present CD inconsistency problem.

There is nothing supernatural about my belief regarding Jesus as a man and teacher, with a moral message to follow.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is nothing supernatural about my belief regarding Jesus as a man and teacher, with a moral message to follow.

You've got to separate the man from the (myriad number of ) myths without having to deal with those myths, which for 98% of Christians IS Christianity. I know that doesn't seem to bother you, but if Truth isn't our ultimate goal, which is denying myths wholesale, then you're only offering confusion. Or do you say up front, "Christian deism" implies no acceptance of any divine interaction in this universe?

 

[Neo Deist]

You've got to separate the man from the (myriad number of ) myths without having to deal with those myths, which for 98% of Christians IS Christianity. I know that doesn't seem to bother you, but if Truth isn't our ultimate goal, which is denying myths wholesale, then you're only offering confusion. Or do you say up front, "Christian deism" implies no acceptance of any divine interaction in this universe?

The people that I talk to follow my logic perfectly and have a tendency to agree with me, after I explain my beliefs in full. No one is confused; they are however, enlightened and express it.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The people that I talk to follow my logic perfectly and have a tendency to agree with me, after I explain my beliefs in full. No one is confused; they are however, enlightened and express it.

Hard to know what you're telling them. Billions of adherents of different religions "feel" enlightened, e.g. Christian following the "logic" that salvation via somebody 2000 years ago ostensibly sacrificing his life for them, while ignoring the necessity of repentance; and they don't have the first idea of what Truth or free will is about.

 

[Neo Deist]

...e.g. Christian following the "logic" that salvation via somebody 2000 years ago ostensibly sacrificing his life for them, while ignoring the necessity of repentance...

Which I do not buy into and make that very clear.