Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Is it true there was a person called Job and that this is an accurate narrative of his life.
Yes or no?
If no, then this myth is not true.

Myths don't need to be true to have value. Oddly, you even quoted me on this, an answer I'd just offered to you, at the end of your post. Look, here it is:

The point of myth is not that it isn't true — some myths are, e.g., 'true' stories — but what can be learned from it. Sometimes, of course, there is nothing to be learned; a story is sometimes just a story, an entertainment. But other stories carry messages, some of them useful, others offer advice (like Aesop's fables, or Christian parables). But this topic is about God, not myth, so I'll leave my comment there.

Myths teach us nothing, but the false credibility of another's opinion.

So Aesop's fables have no educational value? I won't ask you about Jesus' parables, but others have found, over the years, that they have educational value too. Many fairy stories teach social values and morals, even though they are mostly concerned with unicorns. I'm sure there are many other examples.

Are you sure that "myths teach us nothing"?

Aesop is not claiming that the events are true.

[Pattern-chaser]

Aesop is not claiming that the events are true.

So, when you said "myths teach us nothing", you meant that myths can teach us something, even though not everything they mention is 'true'?

[Sculptor1]

Aesop is not claiming that the events are true.

So, when you said "myths teach us nothing", you meant that myths can teach us something, even though not everything they mention is 'true'?

No, I meant fables are not in the same category as myths.

[LuckyR]

There is nothing to be learned from this myth, except to give a true rendering of it.
To do otherwise is to pretend that it is not mythical but true.

THe only thing we can learn from it is that whoever invented the story had an opinon about faith. If you shose to ignore the story because it does not match your picture of faith, then there are plenty more to chose from.

The story of Job may be complete and utter fiction as far as I know, but I can see a meaning in it. I am not particularly interested in why anyone in the twenty-first century has faith in The Bible as God's holy word, and I think of that as a question for sociologists and psychologists. I am interested in The Bible as literature.

Works of literature are sometimes reworked for the stage or film play, or have sequels and prequels added. Fiction is a way we express how the world seems to us and how it may be different.

I guess you are reading The Book of Job for its anthropological/historical source material in particular its "opinion about faith". This is also interesting .

Sadly people attach their personal opinions about a thing and try to give it credibity by selecting and reinterpreting some myth or other as if that brngs credibility to that opinion. Even more sadly there are those that are stupis enough to be taken in by such a strategy to the point where they are willing to put money in a collection plate.
Such are the follies of a weak minded civilisation

Well that is not what I do. I use myths for my own purposes , not how some priest or politician says I ought to use them.

Of course you do. We all use things that aren't real (are myths). Amazon Corp, the EU and the dollar are just as mythical (dependant on human belief for their existance) as gods and their scriptures.

[Pattern-chaser]

Aesop is not claiming that the events are true.

So, when you said "myths teach us nothing", you meant that myths can teach us something, even though not everything they mention is 'true'?

No, I meant fables are not in the same category as myths.

Ah, I think I might finally have worked out what you're getting at. You are concerned that the persuasive and memorable mythical story-form might be used to peddle untruths. As an active atheist, you believe that God does not exist; to you, proclaiming the existence of God is an untruth. And so you object to a 'myth' proclaiming something you consider to be a lie.

You could've said, much more clearly, that you disapprove of myths being used to promote untruths. Then I, and anyone else who takes the trouble to follow this exchange, would've known what you meant.

[Sculptor1]

Aesop is not claiming that the events are true.

So, when you said "myths teach us nothing", you meant that myths can teach us something, even though not everything they mention is 'true'?

No, I meant fables are not in the same category as myths.

Ah, I think I might finally have worked out what you're getting at. You are concerned that the persuasive and memorable mythical story-form might be used to peddle untruths. As an active atheist, you believe that God does not exist; to you, proclaiming the existence of God is an untruth. And so you object to a 'myth' proclaiming something you consider to be a lie.

You could've said, much more clearly, that you disapprove of myths being used to promote untruths.

I did.

Then I, and anyone else who takes the trouble to follow this exchange, would've known what you meant.

See above.

[Sculptor1]

...

A person with some opinion or other, rather than merely and honestly stating it, chooses to select some cock and bull story so has to lend it greater credence. He either selects from a range of existing myths, or invents a new one of his own, such as a fake story or parable.
Briober, or is it Broubert recently lied that she had been denied the use of contraceptives through some legislation, and the happy result was a child. No one believes the story being something made up on the spot.
Trump comes up with the "fact" that during the American War of Independence, the colonial army fought amongst the airports. Such gems might seem absurd but this is the basis of Job and many other "true" or "just-so" stories that we are polluted with as children.

I know this is all true because Socrates said this much to Plato and he agreed. In a debate between a donkey and an elephant the donkey also took the side of Socrates and the elephant was forced to agree that such things are disingenuous.

[Joshua10]

Can anyone answer the question why anyone should believe an atheistic science that is based upon -/+…+/- half logic when even nature does not agree with this half logic.

The 4 off electromagnetic force interactions have confirmed full logic exists in nature because the 4 off electromagnetic force interactions -/-….-/+….+/-…+/+ are not the same and do not cancel out.They vibratory balance.

The electromagnetic fields were in place at the same time or before any of the multiple big bangs and big crunches contrary to what atheistic science claims

There never was a single Big Bang and there never will be a Big Crunch.Observations have definitively confirmed this.There are mature galaxies no matter how far you look back in time.

This means that the gravity theory is a myth and this why they have no idea what it is.

It’s true.Don’t let atheists loose with science that haven’t got a clue.

[Dea Ann Bridegroom]

I believe God is perfect; therefore, he has actually done nothing wrong in his existence.

[Joshua10]

I believe God is perfect; therefore, he has actually done nothing wrong in his existence.

Well who would want an imperfect God?

[LuckyR]

I believe God is perfect; therefore, he has actually done nothing wrong in his existence.

Well who would want an imperfect God?

Essentially everyone during the heyday of polytheism. Omniscience and the concept of perfection came about relatively recently when monotheism was invented.

[Pattern-chaser]

Omniscience and the concept of perfection came about relatively recently when monotheism was invented.

Is that really so? I found this quote, although I'm not 100% happy with its correctness: "The oldest monotheistic religion is called Zoroastrianism because evidence of its practice dates back to 10,000 – 7,000 BC."

And Wikipedia offers this: "Quasi-monotheistic claims of the existence of a universal deity date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten from the 14th century BCE."

So monotheism seems to have been around for quite some time...?

[LuckyR]

Omniscience and the concept of perfection came about relatively recently when monotheism was invented.

Is that really so? I found this quote, although I'm not 100% happy with its correctness: "The oldest monotheistic religion is called Zoroastrianism because evidence of its practice dates back to 10,000 – 7,000 BC."

And Wikipedia offers this: "Quasi-monotheistic claims of the existence of a universal deity date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten from the 14th century BCE."

So monotheism seems to have been around for quite some time...?

It is my understanding that Zoroastrianism is dualism (the immediate precursor to monotheism).

Worship of Aten is considered the first monotheistic religion, but it didn't even last a single human lifetime, ie it was a complete failure. Judaism is an example of "local" monotheism as it doesn't have a missionary aspect and thus stayed small and insignificant. Christianity was the first successful, proselytizing religion, which is of relatively recent vintage.

[Joshua10]

If God is perfect then how can he be imperfect?

He must allow imperfection to fulfill its part within that perfection.

How is this philosophy symmetrically balanced though other than by the formula:

Perfection/Imperfect=Perfection/Imperfection

In other words ........Perfection overlapping Imperfection.

[LuckyR]

If God is perfect then how can he be imperfect?

He must allow imperfection to fulfill its part within that perfection.

How is this philosophy symmetrically balanced though other than by the formula:

Perfection/Imperfect=Perfection/Imperfection

In other words ........Perfection overlapping Imperfection.

Yeah, and what if gods are imperfect?