Historical Accuracy in Scripture

[LuisDantas]

Does it matter if if the stories in religious scripture actually took place?

What is more important in scripture, historical accuracy or the lessons that can be learned from it?

Discuss.

No, it probably does not matter, not least because they rarely fall into any middle ground between being far too distant to be relevant or recent enough to be well understood.

Except when there are "moral" or behavioral directives that attempt to justify themselves on those stories, of course.

But that is a specific case of the more general problem of attempting to justify lack wisdom with the presence of belief.

 

[1213]

So this debate was after the vaccine had already been tested against a placebo and proved to be effective. As is says, the ethical problem was raised later:

I understood it was ended sooner than normally, which is why the result is not trustworthy.

 

[ratiocinator]

I understood it was ended sooner than normally, which is why the result is not trustworthy.

In what way? The initial trial for effectiveness of the vaccine was complete.

The debate was about keeping a longer term control group considering that you'd basically be exposing the trail participants to risk of serous problems during an ongoing pandemic.

We now, of course, have much more data to go on. The article is three years old. There is no doubt that COVID vaccines are effective.

 

[metis]

Yeah, but was he forced to do so, or did he just hate Trump and wanted to get rid of him?

The courts decided against this, so did they also "hate Trump and wanted to get rid of him"?

By what I know, vermin means: "wild animals that are believed to be harmful to crops, farm animals, or game, or that carry disease, e.g., rodents". If people act like that, I think it is not wrong to use that word.

Sometimes it's not just what one says but how they say it.

I have compassion to American people. I think it is sad to see their country destroyed.

And those who go illegally there, I would like to ask, why, why not make own country great, instead of going to ruin other country?

So, Jesus' words about helping those in need, including strangers, doesn't matter one iota to you? So, do you think Jesus lied when he said we should "love one another"?

I believe so for example because they lied about the event.

But when you're asked for evidence, you never post any. The courts will deal with this rationally, and it's too bad that you don't do the same.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because they lied about it.

What lies did they tell about it? And who is "they" exactly?

Please give a link, where their plans can be seen and where did they say the plan?

I've given you the links before and you ignored them. Here you go again:

WATCH: ‘Trump asked us to come,’ rioters said during Jan. 6 attack

Before ending its nearly two hour hearing, the committee investigating the Capitol insurrection played video footage of rioters saying former President Donald Trump asked them to come to Washington on Jan. 6.

www.pbs.org

Capitol rioters say Trump told them to do it, which some legal experts say could open him to criminal charges

Trump instructed his supporters to come to Washington on January 6 and promised the protest would be "wild."

www.businessinsider.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-rioters-testimony/2021/01/16/01b3d5c6-575b-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html

'Because President Trump said to': Over a dozen Capitol rioters say they were following Trump's guidance

As President Trump's second impeachment trial arrives, Senate Democrats are trying to tie a direct line between his rhetoric and the deadly attack on the Capitol.

abcnews.go.com

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-capitol-defense/he-invited-us-accused-capitol-rioters-blame-trump-in-novel-legal-defense-idUSKBN2A219E/

Danger? I don't think there was any danger.

Well, they were, regardless of what you believe. And truth be told, you don't seem to be all that well informed about it.

And you ignored the counterargument here. You claim (bizarrely) that the Democrats orchestrated the January 6th insurrection "to make Biden to be the president" and I just pointed out how that doesn't make any sense. You argue nothing in return, except for a denial of reality claiming that the Democrats (and Republicans!) weren't in any danger on January 6th when all evidence points to the fact that they were in danger and many narrowly escaped the angry mob that broke into the Capitol building that day. Pence and his family were evacuated just seconds before the mob would have reached them. These are verifiable facts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The reasons why I believe so are:
1) It is too difficult for me to believe most people would vote against their own benefit.

What?

2) If they would not have cheated, they would not have to make the fake insurrection.

What???

3) Too much weird things happened in the counting of the votes.

There weren't any "weird things" happening in the counting of the votes.

And now you believe what the demonstrated liars say? I don't think the reason to settle the case had anything to do with, was there actual problems with the machines. It seems that own message was just a distraction to leave the actual case.

This was in response to, "They demonstrably lied to their viewers which was proven with their own text messages. Their own text messages betrayed the fact they were deliberately lying to their viewers. Fox News settled that suit because the evidence was heavily against them."

There is zero evidence that Dominion voting machines were rigged. There is a ton of evidence that Fox News lied to its viewers and talked about how they're lying to their viewers in texts sent between themselves. Those are the facts.

Even if some claim would not be true, it does not mean the cheating could not have happened by some other way.

You'd need evidence of that rather than just wishful thinking.

The fact of the matter is, Fox was caught lying. And they paid the price for it. I find it beyond bizarre that their viewers don't seem to care one whit that they were (are) being intentionally lied to. Unreal.

If Fox news gives room from alternative view, I think it is good, even if they would not be true, because then it is possible to discuss what is wrong in them. Obviously I think people should not lie, but giving room for alternative views, is not lying.

Flat out lying to your audience isn't providing an "alternate view." It's just making stuff up.

Calling someone nuts, doesn't really mean anything. The person could be some fanatical democrat who calls everyone nuts, if they don't agree with him. It would be more useful to explain why something is wrong, instead of lousy insults that are usually expressed only when person has nothing intelligent to say.

I wasn't drawing your attention to that. I was drawing your attention to the fact that FOX NEWS KNOWINGLY LIED TO ITS VIEWERS.
You don't seem to care at all about that.

Who Trump called vermin?

HIs political opponents.

How it is different from "democrats" calling Trump supporters with all kind of slurs?

Oh, do Democrats refer to their political opponents using the same verbiage as Hitler and Mussolini used to use?
Show me.

But, anyway, I think using slurs is not wise, nor good.

Great.

How could I deny it from other party, if the other is doing the same?
I hope I would not revenge anything, but denying the right from other group while allowing it to the own group is unjust.

The Democrats aren't doing revenge politics. That's just a useless Republican talking point. Trump committed crimes, and is now being held accountable for them.

And you think demanding the truth is wrong?

No. You completely avoided the point because you hacked my post up and left out the context, which was, "LOL! This is the Tweet his family and everyone around him FINALLY convinced him to send, a couple of hours into the breach of the Capitol building.

As the crowd was chanting "Hang Mike Pence," Trump sent out this Tweet:

"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"

And that's after fomenting the insurrection for months beforehand by claiming over and over the election was stolen from him despite the utter and total lack of evidence of such and after losing 60+ court challenges. Those people didn't just show up at the Capitol all on their own, as they themselves will tell you (which I'm pretty sure I've pointed out to you before)."

The point is that Trump, already knowing that Mike Pence was in harm's way, and while the angry mob was chanting HANG MIKE PENCE, threw gas on the fire and sent out that Tweet about Pence, knowing his supporters would read it and .... who knows. Maybe kill him. The people around Trump on that day (all Republicans) say that Trump didn't care at all what happened to Mike Pence, because he didn't tow the line and do what Trump wanted to do (which he couldn't have done anyway).

Please address the actual point.

"Over a dozen Capitol rioters say they were following Trump's guidance". Would be nice to know what guidance.

You'd probably learn that if you'd bothering reading the links I provided for you. But you don't seem to actually want to know.
Prove me wrong.

"criminal defendants say Trump incited them". Difficult to believe that. It seems they didn't listen him at all. Sounds too much like they were forced to say so, or undercover feds, or fake Trump supporters. After all, if they would have supported Trump, why were they not listening him while he was speaking?

What's difficult to believe about it? It's obvious to anyone paying attention that Trump fomented the insurrection. He even hoped to take part in it, but the Secret Service wouldn't allow him to march with the angry mob. That story, which was presented at the Jan. 6th hearings (by REPUBLICAN WITNESSES), has been corroborated by Trump himself.

So you're just going to invoke another baseless conspiracy theory here? Why are you trying so hard to avoid facing realty?

Why do you think so?

See above.

Because (Republican) witnesses that testified under oath at the January 6th hearing said so.

Also, Trump confirmed it, in an interview:

“Secret Service said I couldn’t go. I would have gone there in a minute,” Trump said.

Trump says he wanted to join supporters on Jan. 6 march to Capitol: report

Former President Trump, in an interview published by The Washington Post on Thursday, said that he wanted to march alongside his supporters during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, but the Sec…

thehill.com

Which confirms the testimony from the January 6th hearings that it's clear you didn't watch.

Trump said: “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”

If there was a fraud, I think it would violate constitution and the laws of U.S. So, I think it should not require termination of constitution. So, if Trump said so, I think it was stupid and wrong. But, hypothetically, what do you think, if Trump would have won by cheating the same way Biden is accused of winning, would it be ok to settle to the result?

Trump did try to win by cheating.

I don't think suspending the Constitution is ever a good idea.

I would say, dictator is not scary, if he wants to do the will of the people and stop illegal immigrants.

Dictators are not scary.

Well, there you have it, folks. Trump supporters are cool with dictators as long as it's their guy.

Thanks for confirming MAGA is a cult.

 

[1213]

What?

Yes, why would normal people vote for the benefit of tyrannical elite, instead for their own benefit?

What???

If you look at the videos of the "insurrection", it shows a peaceful tourist round in the capitol, where polices are friends with the people. The claim of violent insurrection is a lie, on basis of all evidence that can be seen.

There weren't any "weird things" happening in the counting of the votes.

It is funny that you use the name skeptic thinker.

But, I think the weirdest thing, or the most disturbing thing was the delay in vote count. It looked like they were counting as long as they can make Biden win. Other things that I thin were disturbing are for example these:

1. Illegal ballot drop boxes.
2. A Foreign Intrusion.
3. The Laptop Lie
4. Alleged Bribery
5. Illegal ballot harvesting in Wisconsin.
6. Ballot harvesting probe in the Peach State.
7. Bad voter signatures
8. 50,000 Arizona ballots called into question.
9. Foreign voters found on Texas rolls.
10. Foreign voters found on Georgia rolls.
11. More noncitizen voters.
12. Election Machine Vulnerabilities
13. Ballot chain of custody issues.
14. Fulton County irregularities.
15. Errant vote counting.
16. Dirty voter rolls.
17. Illegal exemptions from voter ID.
18. Uneven enforcement of election laws.
19. More illegal harvesting.
20. Voter fraud in Michigan.
21. Still more nursing home fraud.

Bombshells undercut the 'Big Lie:' 21 confirmed illegalities, irregularities from 2020 election

There are now nearly two dozen credible confirmations of wrongdoing, irregularities and illegalities that undercut the claims of bureaucrats, journalists and Democrats that the November 2020 general election was flawless.

justthenews.com

Oh, do Democrats refer to their political opponents using the same verbiage as Hitler and Mussolini used to use?

I think they use worse, by calling people nazis, racists... ...without any good reason.

What's difficult to believe about it? It's obvious to anyone paying attention that Trump fomented the insurrection. He even hoped to take part in it, but the Secret Service wouldn't allow him to march with the angry mob. That story, which was presented at the Jan. 6th hearings (by REPUBLICAN WITNESSES), has been corroborated by Trump himself.

Sorry, I think you don't give any real evidence for that.

“Secret Service said I couldn’t go. I would have gone there in a minute,” Trump said.

Trump says he wanted to join supporters on Jan. 6 march to Capitol: report

Former President Trump, in an interview published by The Washington Post on Thursday, said that he wanted to march alongside his supporters during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, but the Sec…

thehill.com

March to capitol is not necessary the same as insurrection. By what I know, people still have right to protest in U.S. and march to capitol.

Trump did try to win by cheating.

Sorry, I don't think there is enough evidence for to judge him.

Well, there you have it, folks. Trump supporters are cool with dictators as long as it's their guy.

How can one be called a dictator, if he does what majority of people want?

 

[1213]

What lies did they tell about it? And who is "they" exactly?

People against Trump, especially in mainstream media and politicians. And the lie is for example that there was a violent insurrection. If you look at the videos, they show Trump supporters peacefully walking in the capitol and being friendly with the police. No real evidence for what the media and politicians told.

You claim (bizarrely) that the Democrats orchestrated the January 6th insurrection "to make Biden to be the president" and I just pointed out how that doesn't make any sense. You argue nothing in return, except for a denial of reality claiming that the Democrats (and Republicans!) weren't in any danger on January 6th when all evidence points to the fact that they were in danger and many narrowly escaped the angry mob that broke into the Capitol building that day. Pence and his family were evacuated just seconds before the mob would have reached them. These are verifiable facts.

For example this video shows that the claims of violent insurrection by Trump supporters are ridiculous lie.

And the reason to think "insurrection" was by Biden supporters is for example that the only person evidently inciting it, Ray Epps, is free and is not rotting in Biden's dungeons like some of the people that are unjustly treated.

Ray Epps - Inciting Violence

The now infamous video of Ray Epps

rumble.com

 

[1213]

...There is no doubt that COVID vaccines are effective.

In what? Giving heart attacks to young people?

CDC Director Admits Vaccines Don’t Prevent Transmission

The CDC Director, Rochelle Walensky, admits vaccines don't prevent transmission of COVID-19.

rumble.com

Bill Gates Just Admitted that the 'Vaccines' are Ineffective

Bill Gates just admitted that the vaccines are not blocking infection, they don't stop variations, and they have a very short duration after they just spent years demanding that we take the vaccine or

rumble.com

Megyn Kelly: New Movie About Young People Who Died After Getting COVID Vaccine

Megyn Kelly is joined by Teryn Gregson and Ernest Ramirez, director and co-star of the "Shot Dead" documentary, to discuss the tragic deaths of children and babies after getting the COVID vaccine, doc

rumble.com

Fauci Says Natural Immunity Better Than Any Vaccine

This is a clip of Fauci admitting that getting infected, and thereby achieving Natural Immunity is better than ANY vaccine. ... It's amazing how Fauci flip-flops on the most important issues with rega

rumble.com

 

[metis]

If you look at the videos of the "insurrection", it shows a peaceful tourist round in the capitol, where polices are friends with the people. The claim of violent insurrection is a lie, on basis of all evidence that can be seen.

What complete nonsense, and here's the proof you don't know what you are talking about:

But will you watch this or cower out?

Here's a better video on this:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does it matter if if the stories in religious scripture actually took place?

Yes.

Our understanding of history is important in its own right. Also, some religious tenets depend on certain historical events being real for their validity.

Also, when a piece of scripture is unreliable in one respect (e.g. its historical claims), this raises questions about its reliability overall.

What is more important in scripture, historical accuracy or the lessons that can be learned from it?

Discuss.

Both are important, and often those lessons depend on the scripture being historically accurate.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes.

Our understanding of history is important in its own right. Also, some religious tenets depend on certain historical events being real for their validity.

Also, when a piece of scripture is unreliable in one respect (e.g. its historical claims), this raises questions about its reliability overall.



Both are important, and often those lessons depend on the scripture being historically accurate.

What if the intent of the scripture is allegorical?

What determines whether or not a scripture is historical or allegorical?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What if the intent of the scripture is allegorical?

Then it probably doesn't rely on historicity.

... though the question of whether it's true would still need to be settled somehow.

What determines whether or not a scripture is historical or allegorical?

Context, generally.

It seems to me that a lot of believers use a different approach, though:

• If taking a scriptural claim literally would seem ridiculous to a modern audience with modern knowledge, then it was meant to be allegory.
• If it seems plausible that the scriptural claim could be true, then it was meant literally.

 

[paarsurrey]

What if the intent of the scripture is allegorical?
What determines whether or not a scripture is historical or allegorical?

Then it probably doesn't rely on historicity.

... though the question of whether it's true would still need to be settled somehow.



Context, generally.

It seems to me that a lot of believers use a different approach, though:

• If taking a scriptural claim literally would seem ridiculous to a modern audience with modern knowledge, then it was meant to be allegory.
• If it seems plausible that the scriptural claim could be true, then it was meant literally.

• If taking a scriptural claim literally would seem ridiculous to a modern audience with modern knowledge, then it was meant to be allegory.
• If it seems plausible that the scriptural claim could be true, then it was meant literally.

Since Jesus/Yeshua the truthful Israelite Messiah neither claimed to say nor to author, nor to write nor he read anything in the NT Bible (similarly the holy or unholy ghost/spirit ), so isn't it an attempt by the Pauline-Christianity to mock or blame or playing with Jesus, please??

Regards

 

[ratiocinator]

In what?

In protecting people against COVID.

Giving heart attacks to young people?

There is no evidence of this.

COVID-19 vaccination and mortality in young people during the coronavirus pandemic - Office for National Statistics

An analysis of the mortality following COVID-19 vaccination and of excess death during the pandemic in young people.

www.ons.gov.uk

CDC Director Admits Vaccines Don’t Prevent Transmission

The CDC Director, Rochelle Walensky, admits vaccines don't prevent transmission of COVID-19.

rumble.com

Bill Gates Just Admitted that the 'Vaccines' are Ineffective

Bill Gates just admitted that the vaccines are not blocking infection, they don't stop variations, and they have a very short duration after they just spent years demanding that we take the vaccine or

rumble.com

Megyn Kelly: New Movie About Young People Who Died After Getting COVID Vaccine

Megyn Kelly is joined by Teryn Gregson and Ernest Ramirez, director and co-star of the "Shot Dead" documentary, to discuss the tragic deaths of children and babies after getting the COVID vaccine, doc

rumble.com

Fauci Says Natural Immunity Better Than Any Vaccine

This is a clip of Fauci admitting that getting infected, and thereby achieving Natural Immunity is better than ANY vaccine. ... It's amazing how Fauci flip-flops on the most important issues with rega

rumble.com

Lots of videos from an extremist right wing platform. Many comments tightly cropped (somebody doesn't want you to see the context) many of them old. The last one doesn't even mention COVID, it's about influenza and getting influenza is an effective vaccine if you survive. Many people die from it. You cannot generalise that to other diseases and vaccines.

You'd also have to be an total idiot to think there is zero risk from any medicine (there's risk every time you take an aspirin or paracetamol). The point is that the risk of not taking the vaccine is considerably greater than the risk from side effects. There will also be totally unrelated coincidences that some will erroneously blame on the vaccine (as with all the nonsense about MMR).

 

[1213]

What complete nonsense, and here's the proof you don't know what you are talking about:

But will you watch this or cower out?

Here's a better video on this:

Those seem fake, if you consider what happened inside the building. Or how would you explain the peaceful walking in the building at the same time there was allegedly violent riot trying to overthrow the government?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, it probably does not matter, not least because they rarely fall into any middle ground between being far too distant to be relevant or recent enough to be well understood.

Except when there are "moral" or behavioral directives that attempt to justify themselves on those stories, of course.

But that is a specific case of the more general problem of attempting to justify lack wisdom with the presence of belief.

The purpose of any religious text is to bring us closer to God and to help us become better people. I don't think a text needs to be historically accurate to accomplish that. In fact, I think fiction is actually an excellent way to teach moral values.

 

[LuisDantas]

The purpose of any religious text is to bring us closer to God and to help us become better people.

No, that is not always the case, unless you bring serious restrictions or reinterpretations to the table to make it so.

I don't think a text needs to be historically accurate to accomplish that. In fact, I think fiction is actually an excellent way to teach moral values.

Here I agree.

 

[metis]

Those seem fake, if you consider what happened inside the building. Or how would you explain the peaceful walking in the building at the same time there was allegedly violent riot trying to overthrow the government?

If you had watched the January 6th hearings, you would have not only seen much the same coverage but also what many former Trump appointees saw and have condemned through their testimony. Even many of those involved have pled guilty and tesitfied that they were obeying Trump's words.

So, how could YouTube supposedly fake this?

Never mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understood it was ended sooner than normally, which is why the result is not trustworthy.

It still went through all of the steps. The results were trustworthy.

It went far more quickly because they did not have to wait for funding and were able to do more than one step at a time.

Traditionally the first step was get funding for preliminary research. Find an answer. Then test that answer completely for the first step. Once the testing was done evaluate and then go beg for more money. This was repeated three or four times with long waits for the money. This was much faster because number one: They did not have to wait for the money. As long as things looked promising the money was there for the next step. And second, the steps were overlapped a bit. They got to start Step Two before Step One was finished being tested. They still finished each step, but they began the next step in testing once the prior step was "good enough". The vaccines were released before the last step was finished, but they still finished all the steps of testing. They were found to be trustworthy.