Bible Bias – Is God Absolute?

This thread is to discuss bias in regards to studying, understanding and promoting biblical scripture.

Biblical Exegesis

Exegesis (from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out') is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text. The goal of Biblical exegesis is to explore the meaning of the text which then leads to discovering its significance or relevance.

Poor Exegesis (or "Eisegesis")

In the field of Biblical exegesis scholars take great care to avoid eisegesis.....

Eisegesis

Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς "into" and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text.

While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an eisegete, as someone who practices exegesis is known as an exegete. The term eisegete is often used in a mildly derogatory fashion.

We see many preachers or believers interpetting their own meaning to texts; often based on their social adherences or preferences.

Bias Blind Spots

The bias blind spot is the cognitive bias of failing to compensate for one's own cognitive biases. The bias blind spot is named after the visual blind spot.

Young-Earth Creationists, anyone? Ignoring evidence and truth because of their strong faith.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.

Is the bible (religious doctrine) absolute? Are there absolute meanings to the laws and commandments?

If the word of God is objective or absolute; then surely the biblical scripture is eternal?

Any Christian that is true to the founding doctrines would have to agree that homosexuality is detestable (or an abomination); and fully agree that the destruction of the Amalekites was divinely warranted.

If Christians deny the above; they convict God of a moral relativism; which smashes that idea of absolution.

It seems quite often that believers (and Apologetics) use passages to convince people of the truth; but they conveniently miss out the disgusting passages.

I often hear the religious convict the non-religious of "Moral Relativism"; but it seems religion has problems catching up with modern morality (homosexuality, women's rights etc.)

Thoughts?

SOURCES:-
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

PS. There are better sources than wikipedia; they were simply used as a pre-requisite to my observations and questions. Do you own research.

Peace.

I am looking forward to a hopefully extensive debate on this thread. It's some interesting questions a tad above the usual "is, isn't, is.....", so often manifesting.

For my own weird pleasure, I would like to add still a facet to the many in OP: How can theists from subjective positions (faith) claim an objective answer (absolutes)?

Why do atheists care so much about God and the Bible?
I don't care about atheism and don't spend my time trying to debunk their beliefs.

So, I take it that you might, then, consider yourself to be a product of "blind" creation?

And, if so, that would mean that your "consciousness" would give you a status--from that "awareness"--as somehow superior to the "dumb" universe itself. Sheesh.

Science has yet to explain consciousness and as such should be very humble indeed when contemplating the origins of man.

And did you say "modern morality?" What planet are you observing?

reply to post by The GUT

Science has yet to explain consciousness and as such should be very humble indeed when contemplating the origins of man.

As it is; that's what it means to be a good scientist; science is always at the edge of the known; it can't reveal the unknown like religion puports to.

And did you say "modern morality?" What planet are you observing?

I'm talking about morality in many modern democratic countries; emancipation from slavery; women's rights; gay rights.

Of course; even the word of God couldn't get those concepts right straight away, why wasn't "Do not enslave" one of the commandments. Why didn't Jesus condemn it?

It would seem an obvious declaritive to stop years of torture and slavery.

Originally posted by Soldier of God
Why do atheists care so much about God and the Bible?
I don't care about atheism and don't spend my time trying to debunk their beliefs.

Except just now, where you did it anyway. Or was it: "See what you made me do" input?

But an answer to your question could be, that e.g. some groups of christian soliders have spent 1.500+ years with an extremely unhealthy interest in what their fellow human beings believed in, and how to correct 'heresies'.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Soldier of God
Why do atheists care so much about God and the Bible?
I don't care about atheism and don't spend my time trying to debunk their beliefs.

Except just now, where you did it anyway.

I did not, I asked an honest question of the OP. If you from what it seems in your posts and threads have made up your mind that God is not real, why do you care so much about a subject you don't believe in?

reply to post by The GUT


I hope, that your most venerable and exalted famility is blessed with the constant presence and benevolance of higher powers.

You wrote:

["And, if so, that would mean that your "consciousness" would give you a status--from that "awareness"--as somehow superior to the "dumb" universe itself. Sheesh."]

A sufficiently advanced degree of self-organised complexity, would be indistinguishable from 'free will', a alleged spiritual identity etc. Though this humble person does actually believe in some potential of a trans-cosmic quality, but he can't (and won't) try to 'prove' it.

Quote: ["Science has yet to explain consciousness and as such should be very humble indeed when contemplating the origins of man."]

And nature and the human mind abhors vacuums, so we must fill the gaps turning up? In this case with 'explanations'.

Originally posted by Soldier of God

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Soldier of God
Why do atheists care so much about God and the Bible?
I don't care about atheism and don't spend my time trying to debunk their beliefs.

Except just now, where you did it anyway.

I did not, I asked an honest question of the OP. If you from what it seems in your posts and threads have made up your mind that God is not real, why do you care so much about a subject you don't believe in?

I have the rather common agnostic position on 'god'/'god-not'. I react critically towards theists with gnostic (=absolute) claims. Buit I believe, I already answered that in my former post here.

reply to post by Soldier of God


Where I come from it is said a faith untested may prove ultimately worthless

Why not see non-believers posts on here as a free public service – there really is no need to thank us

Any Christian that is true to the founding doctrines would have to agree that homosexuality is detestable (or an abomination); and fully agree that the destruction of the Amalekites was divinely warranted.

Many Christians point to Leviticus 20:13 to show that god views homosexuality as an abomination. They then disregard that planting two seeds in the same hole, intermingling crops, eating a rabbit, wearing linen and wool together, and eating shellfish is also an abomination. They only see the verse that says homosexuality is an abomination.

For the Ancient Hebrews abomination meant against their tradition or against ritual, it did not refer to something that is innately immoral.

The historical context of those verses is about a nation trying to grow. Homosexuality went against ritual and tradition because it did not allow for procreation, not because it was an immoral act before god. Onan was put to death because he ejaculated outside of the woman's body, he violated social and cultural norms by failing or refusing to procreate. Homosexuals were viewed in the same way as Onan.

Many fail to read the bible in the historical context that it was written in and fail to take into account the culture of the people who authored it. In my opinion, and especially with the homosexual issue, they see what they want to see and use the bible as justification for their own bigoted views. Not all but some.

Originally posted by Soldier of God
Why do atheists care so much about God and the Bible?
I don't care about atheism and don't spend my time trying to debunk their beliefs.

That is because there is no belief to debunk. I do see you comment in these thread a lot though.

Just because we are atheists does not mean we will not discuss theological issues or call religion out for its lies and the impact it has had on humanity.

Originally posted by Soldier of God

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Soldier of God
Why do atheists care so much about God and the Bible?
I don't care about atheism and don't spend my time trying to debunk their beliefs.

Except just now, where you did it anyway.

I did not, I asked an honest question of the OP. If you from what it seems in your posts and threads have made up your mind that God is not real, why do you care so much about a subject you don't believe in?

We care about the issue of religion and its unbelievable tendency to be an extremely potent societal poison.

Originally posted by bogomil
A sufficiently advanced degree of self-organised complexity, would be indistinguishable from 'free will', a alleged spiritual identity etc...

Ah, most excellent spiritual nemesis but honored earthly friend, the warrior bogomil. We meet again for healthy and honored debate. This "self-organizing complexity," that has somehow achieved consciousness remains as debatable--even more so from my humble position--than the idea that like often begets like. Then there is the conceptualization of abstract thought which makes consciousness even more amazing. Without the ability for abstraction we certainly would be no more than cave men.

Highly unlikely that such a fine tuned universe--one that is capable of producing consciousness--would be little more than a "dumb" cosmos acting in machine-like manner to create-destroy-create-repeat. And I realize you do leave some room open for a consciousness outside ourselves.

I have the feeling if a scientist ever were to illuminate the nature of consciousness it would be at the end of either a super-duper electron microscope or a yet as to be developed telescope of near infinite power and would result from said scientist(s) finding themselves staring directly into the unblinking uber-conscious eye of God himself.

And nature and the human mind abhors vacuums, so we must fill the gaps turning up? In this case with 'explanations'.

As far as vacuums go: You realize that it's a somewhat useful concept, but that in reality there is no such thing right?

As far as the human mind can endeavor to contemplate and comprehend, "there is no such thing as nothing," and that presupposes an eternal and pre-exisiting "something" that I contend must include a consciousness that our own is but a glimmer of.

Peace.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Of course; even the word of God couldn't get those concepts right straight away, why wasn't "Do not enslave" one of the commandments. Why didn't Jesus condemn it?

It would seem an obvious declaritive to stop years of torture and slavery.

I understand your question and the honesty from which you ask it. A lot of believers--though not all--have a personal answer to that question, but it probably wouldn't make sense to you since you have a differing viewpoint.

My take: Once sin entered the garden the true damage--in an earthly sense--was already done. Decay was introduced: Moral, spiritual, and physical. At some point Satan--the finest (read sleaziest) attorney/legal mind the world has ever known, accused God of being nothing more than a dictator.

He demanded some rights/conditions to prove his point that not only was God unfair, but that we humans weren't worth God's effort . God, willing to be more than fair, conceded some of those conditions.

Whether slave or master the Word does outline our responsibilities one-to-another as believers. God is giving the devil his day in court. Look to the father of lies for the ugly in this world.

*Spoiler Warning*

It all works out in the end.

reply to post by The GUT


Esteemed pointer of the direction of the virtuous path (though our roles seems to be rather inverted), you are as usual able to see the point.

'Self-organizing complexity' is ofcourse just a label with more questions than answers. Just as 'free will', 'soul' and similar theist labels are.

Quote: ["Highly unlikely that such a fine tuned universe--"]

The argument of a 'finely tuned universe' has one big weakness. Any universe starting from an initial set of conditions of asymmetric polarities, would eventually develope a complexity, suited to those initial condotions. And then 'conscious' observers in such a universe would say: "Isn't it surprising how well the consequences correspond to the causes. This must for SURE indicate a pre-design".

Hmmmm.

Quote: ["one that is capable of producing consciousness--would be little more than a "dumb" cosmos acting in machine-like manner to create-destroy-create-repeat."]

Not having an ultimate reference-point, guesses on this from all directions are ........guesses.

Quote: ["And I realize you do leave some room open for a consciousness outside ourselves."]

For good or bad, I am after all a metaphysicist.

Quote: ["I have the feeling if a scientist ever were to illuminate the nature of consciousness it would be at the end of either a super-duper electron microscope or a yet as to be developed telescope of near infinite power and would result from said scientist(s) finding themselves staring directly into the unblinking uber-conscious eye of God himself."]

I see a (distant) future, where science redefines the scope of empiricism, so as to include sofar un-recognized experience (sceintific 'intuition'), WITHOUT letting go objectivity criteria. Theoretical sceince is already so esoteric, that it actually has outgrown a lot of theist speculations.

Quote: ["As far as vacuums go: You realize that it's a somewhat useful concept, but that in reality there is no such thing right?"]

I operate with most excellent asian notion, that 'relative reality' is very useful. There are almost-vacuums.

Quote: ["As far as the human mind can endeavor to contemplate and comprehend, "there is no such thing as nothing," and that presupposes an eternal and pre-exisiting "something" that I contend must include a consciousness that our own is but a glimmer of."]

The assumption-chain in this necessitates an extra assumption; namely that assumptions have any value. But if I assume the concept \\&#a§3, it would not spring into cosmic existence as 'real' without validation. Neither would it be a 'real' part of the major systems of theist/semi-theists speculations. It COULD be real in a holographic cosmos.

reply to post by The GUT


You wrote:

["My take: Once sin entered the garden the true damage--in an earthly sense--was already done. Decay was introduced: Moral, spiritual, and physical. At some point Satan--the finest (read sleaziest) attorney/legal mind the world has ever known, accused God of being nothing more than a dictator."]

And what reference-points are used to decide if 'god' is a dictator, and consequently if all the non-ending opposition to 'god' isn't freedom-fighting instead of rebellion?.....

.......A pro-'god' propaganda-manual.

It is the common circle-argument, albeit in a less offensive version than the standard.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Of course; even the word of God couldn't get those concepts right straight away, why wasn't "Do not enslave" one of the commandments. Why didn't Jesus condemn it?

Dude, bankruptcy is a modern invention, oftentimes in that period of time freedom simply meant freedom to starve to death. Paul condemns the semi-modern form of slavery where a person is stolen/captured against their will and sold into slavery.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

Of course; even the word of God couldn't get those concepts right straight away, why wasn't "Do not enslave" one of the commandments. Why didn't Jesus condemn it?

Dude, bankruptcy is a modern invention, oftentimes in that period of time freedom simply meant freedom to starve to death. Paul condemns the semi-modern form of slavery where a person is stolen/captured against their will and sold into slavery.

edit on 11-7-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

A natural question is ofcourse then, if a moral system based on app. 2.000 year old 'values' has any relevance at all today.

Cherry-picking on this point can (and will probably) take place, parallel to as when objective criteria concerning theism are introduced; and an 'educated guess' on my part is, that not only will there be the standard arguments from objective reasoning vs. faith, but there will also be the standard: "But they are not 'true' christians" inner-faith schism, when all the DIFFERENT 'gods' emerge with DIFFERENT 'absolutes'.

(Not to mention the inter-religious competition).