/siberia/ - Off-topic

wouldnt it be really hard to find primary sources for a writer from antiquity though? i imagine most of what we have are secondary sources

>>822145
You have failed the test. The correct line of attack against the OP's reasoning is that Epicurus's quote is correct whether or not he actually said it. Would "2+2=4" be wrong if it was a misattributed quote?

>>822146
he's not disputing the quote, only if it was actually said by the historical figure

>>822139
It is a good point, but like a lot of quotes attributed to Greek figures it was probably some guy making a source up to make their saying look more wise.
Another reason why I don't treat the
<the churches preserved ancient Greek knowledge!
with much respect.

>>822139
it could've been said by sasuke the edgelord kid ninja for all I care, it's still fire and irrefutable.

>>822139
Its a blatant fake. The Greeks didn't view their gods that way. They did not view their gods as either omnipotent or inherently good, and certainly had no expectation that their gods loved them. In fact, I don't believe there's any record of Epicurus or any of the ancient Epicureans denying the gods. They denied the existence of the afterlife, which wasn't the same thing as denying the gods in Greek paganism, though its synonymous with denying God in Christianity. Its likely that Epicurus's denial of the afterlife turned him into some big theological devil's advocate figure via some kind of big medieval game of telephone.

>>822146
Not really. It's only a critique of one aspect of the Christian God. And not only do the Christians already have their own ready-made answer to this question, which is why they were sharing it around to begin with, but it snot just that. None of these things are disqualifying. If God isn't truly omnipotent, that wouldn't stop him from being God. The vast majority of gods and other divine figures worshiped by humanity were not omnipotent. If God were not truly good, or was even malicious, not only would this not disqualify him from being God, but could arguably make it all the more important to worship him. You could take the pagans for example. The pagans worshiped many malevolent gods. In fact, these were the most important gods to worship, as you would want them to stay their wrath upon you and, preferably, vent it on your enemies instead. You didn't worship Poseidon and Set because you thought that they were benevolent and loved you, you worshiped them because you going to travel across the sea or desert respectively and wanted them to turn a blind eye to you while you traveled across their realm.

The issue is you're assuming something that invented the mechanisms from which sapience would emerge from is itself sapient.

Why would God even have a concept of evil? Why would it even understand what pain is?

>>822194
the very idea of denying the existence of the gods would probably sound ridiculous to a greek audience. it'd be like saying you don't believe in water, or rain

>>822146
Are you a minor or do you have an ideological reason to be as illiterate as you claim to be?

>>822197
>it'd be like saying you don't believe in water
Water isn't real. It is merely the illusion created when hydrogen and oxygen atoms are arranged in a particular configuration.An atom isn't real. It is merely the illusion created when electrons occupy a probability distribution around a nucleus. An electron isn't real. It is merely the illusion created when a quantum field produces a localized excitation. A quantum field isn't real. It is merely the illusion created by the mathematical structure we use to describe possible interactions. A particle isn't real. It is merely the illusion created when an interaction is sufficiently localized that we decide to call the event a “particle.” An interaction isn't real. It is merely the illusion created when one configuration of the underlying system transitions into another .A configuration isn't real. It is merely the illusion created by assigning distinguishable states to something that, fundamentally, may not have separable parts. A state isn't real. It is merely the illusion created when we freeze a process and pretend it has a particular condition at a particular moment. A moment isn't real. It is merely the illusion created by dividing continuous change into discrete slices. Change isn't real. It is merely the illusion created when successive descriptions fail to be identical. Identity isn't real. It is merely the illusion created when we decide that two successive arrangements are “the same thing.” Sameness isn't real. It is merely the illusion created by ignoring differences small enough to be inconvenient. Difference isn't real. It is merely the illusion created by drawing boundaries between portions of an undivided system. Boundaries aren't real. They are merely the illusion created by our decision to stop counting at a particular point. Points aren't real. A point is merely the illusion created when we reduce an extent to zero. Zero isn't real. Zero is merely the illusion created by declaring an absence to be a quantity .Quantity isn't real. Quantity is merely the illusion created by counting. Counting isn't real. Counting is merely the illusion created when one nonexistent distinction is placed beside another nonexistent distinction and we call the accumulation “more.” Distance isn't real. Distance is merely the illusion created when matter is not occupying the same coordinates in whatever underlying structure we pretend coordinates are. Matter isn't real. Matter is merely the illusion created when fields and forces enter stable patterns that humans label “things.” Things aren't real. A “thing” is merely the illusion created when a temporary pattern persists long enough for another temporary pattern (a brain) to name it. Brains aren't real. A brain is merely the illusion created when matter arranges itself into a configuration capable of thinking. Thoughts aren't real. Thoughts are merely the illusion created when a brain enters a particular configuration. The concept of illusion isn't real. Illusion is merely the illusion created when a sufficiently complicated nonexistent system decides that some nonexistent things are less nonexistent than others.

>>822211
The accusation of being illiterate should at least make you re-read and see that the post never claimed to refute the quote, they are quite literally talking about the oddness being only from secondary, christian sources.

god built the earth to flex, god is using us to show off

>>822254
>god is using us to show off
To who? Asherah?

>>822194
>And not only do the Christians already have their own ready-made answer to this question, which is why they were sharing it around to begin with, but it snot just that. None of these things are disqualifying
christian philosophers of religion take the problem of theodicy very seriously and consider it the best argument against a christian god.

>>822232
if you want someone to re-read something they already read, just ask them to. don't accuse them of being unable to.

What independent criteria determine when a religious text should be interpreted literally, metaphorically, historically, symbolically, or allegorically, and are those criteria applied consistently even when the result is unfavorable to the believer's preferred conclusion?

If Genesis for example is a mythic story intended to communicate truths about human beings, then you don't necessarily need to demand that every detail function as literal history. But then you should be willing to say that plainly and consistently. It's contradictory if you simultaneously say, “The story is metaphorical when the literal reading creates problems, but the historical Fall really happened when I need it to establish a doctrine about humanity.” That's exactly the sort of interpretive asymmetry that deserves criticism.

>>822394
i mean if we had perfect knowledge of the circumstances in which the texts were written we could probably answer that question. it's not necessarily true that if parts of the story are symbolic none of it can be treated litetally, plenty of other kinds of text especially artistic ones freely mix figurative and literal writing

>>822394
most of the bible is misinterpreted by christians because it has a strong relation to ancient hebrew culture which no longer exists and thus no one is capable of fully understanding the text

God works in mysterious ways, OK?

>>822409
The real truth nuke is there is no "ancient hebrew culture" What we call Judaism started out as Canaanite Polytheism, and it was only a unique combination of henotheistic purges by Kings in the iron age Israelite kingdoms and influence from the Zoroastrians which led Canaanite Polytheism to evolve first into proto-Yahwism, then Yahwism, then Judaism. What we call "Hebrew culture" was basically just the Second Temple period between the end of the Babylonian Captivity and the Destruction of the Second Temple.

>>822394
>What independent criteria determine when a religious text should be interpreted literally, metaphorically, historically, symbolically, or allegorically, and are those criteria applied consistently even when the result is unfavorable to the believer's preferred conclusion?
There is no independent criteria. The only criteria is the needs of the religious institutions at any given moment. And religoids either don't know what those words mean, or they are part of the priesthood and they know that religion is social engineering.
>>822409
>most of the bible is misinterpreted by christians
there is no static correct interpretation. Correct interpretation changes with the times based on the needs of the religion.
>>822406
>i mean if we had perfect knowledge
no such thing
>of the circumstances in which the texts were written
the old testament was written in the iron age by a city dwelling priesthood, well after the legendary exodus would have taken place. it was not written by "bronze age goat herders" like the 00s neckbeard atheists insisted. the new testament was written in late antiquity by greek speaking judeo-roman aristocrats with an interest in spreading a pacifistic 5th jewish philosophy that would be more compatible with the needs of the roman client state in judea than the esoteric essenes, the militant zealots, the fussy pharisees, since the sadducees were the most compatible with roman imperial rule, christianity probably had its origins as an result of that group's cooperation with romans.
>we could probably answer that question. it's not necessarily true that if parts of the story are symbolic none of it can be treated litetally, plenty of other kinds of text especially artistic ones freely mix figurative and literal writing
none of it is particularly figurative or literal. what is considered figurative and literal changes with the particular conversation and what the needs of the religious institution are. this flexibility is a feature, not a bug. things are allegories when they need to be. they are literal when they need to be. this allows them to contradict themselves but always be on top of things. the problem is never them contradicting themselves, the problem is you just don't understand their slippery and flexible theology.