| Blogs > PaqMan |
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On October 17 2013 10:31 sam!zdat wrote: well, no. that's what modern printed editions look like. I still fail to see the relevance, so until you enlighten me, I see no reason to discuss the format of the thing. It could be a pdf or multiple large rocks for all I care. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On October 17 2013 10:26 Djzapz wrote: Well forgive me. The Bible is referred to dogmatically to explain to us how we should behave and what we should think and why God exists (rather than does not). And now when I happen to mention that the Bible, often considered to be the "word of God", you tell me that it's not the word of God. Doesn't that put the whole thing into question? Not really. It puts nothing into question. Billions of people read the Bible. Billions of people interpret it, some more honestly/consistently than others. To use an obviously loaded, symbolic phrase like "word of God" (which, coming from logos actually means something closer to "message" than a dictation) as an argument that the Bible is actually God speaking in a direct, explicit fashion, is well, just kinda reaching. I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, honestly. Some people refer to the Bible dogmatically in dumb ways. The Bible is not a book of science, nor a book of systematic theology, nor a book of analytic philosophy. These are indisputable facts, and they have always been indisputable facts, and even the authors would, with rare exception, have held these things to be indisputable facts. At this point, I'm just confused. The Bible is a big deal and it's the word of God or at least contains the word of God, except when people point out objectionable content, in which case well, it's all up for debate, which is what allows you to pick and choose the parts you like and discard the ones you don't. All parts of the Bible are up for the debate, in the sense that you are perfectly free to make a contextual argument against, say, the resurrection being integral to Christianity (this is actually distantly possible) or that Jesus, say, discouraged charity. If you'd prefer to use "logos" of God, then I would agree. As for the fact that the Bible is a collection of books, I don't see how that's relevant to what I was saying, nor would it be silly for someone to think it's one big book. It's incredibly relevant (since it undercuts your claim that people are applying contradictory interpretations) because the way one looks at Isaiah is different from the way one looks at Revelation; not because of theology, but because of the content, style, author(s), and historical contexts which characterize the works. The Psalms, for instance, are largely poems. It would be moronic to interpret them as prose. That's a very obvious example of what scriptural interpretation (historical critical, I mean) actually is at the academic level. It's not picking and choosing; it's trying to actually piece everything together in a way that gives insight as to the environment out of which the work came. Before I learned, I assumed it was one big book, because that's what it physically looks like. Unless you're told, it's not immediately noticeable. It's noticeable the moment you open it up and read from a couple of different books. The style, tone, subject matter, and, really, everything, are so different from book to book that it would be ludicrous to read the Bible and think it was one big long tome. That aside, it's absolutely ignorant and silly to think of the Bible as one, big, continuous book, because that's not what it is. I'm not sure how one could defend the idea that being provably wrong isn't silly, but whatever. It's tangential. I didn't assume anything, I'm still confused about what you meant when you said "His moral proscriptions about homosexuality and women being subservient, and all that, are actually just not true in the context of the modern world." Are God's words invalidated by our greatness? Why are his moral proscriptions now irrelevant? Edit: Were you talking about Paul? Perhaps I got confused there because there are passages in the Bible where God himself is credited for some serious heinous shit towards homosexuals. I was referring to Paul. Also, the putting words in God's mouth thing was a very common device used in so-called "prophetic" books to give the prophet's words legitimacy. See, the prophets were essentially (in the context of pre-Christian Judaism) interpreters of the Torah (the OT didn't even exist in a closed form until like the 2nd century AD) and people who applied it to the contemporary era. Their "prophecies" are not (and were never) intended to be literal predictions of some specific future event; rather, they are warnings/cautions to a (perceived) wayward audience which has strayed from the teachings of the Torah. The Levitical laws (from which the anti-gay stuff mostly comes) are another brand of literature entirely, probably composed by the priestly tradition (except Deuteronomy, if you count that, which was composed by another group entirely). These were not the same people as prophets, were not accorded the same status as prophets, and, in general, should not be viewed in the same sense as prophetic books. That's not to say that the writers of Leviticus didn't really believe that homosexuality is wrong. But that they put those words in the mouth of God is part of the genre; a Christian is not committed to the claim that, for instance, it is "more relevant" when the Bible precedes a line with "thus says the Lord," because, fundamentally, the same person is writing the thing. Distinctions between self-reflection on the part of the author and proclamation of divine mandates are important, but they're important to understand the meaning of the passage, not as delineating between infallible statements and opinions. Again: all I hold is that the Bible, insofar as it is, contains the fullness of the message of salvation, and that that is inerrant. I also think that its portrayal of the character of Jesus is, while probably not exactly accurate, not in conflict with who Jesus actually was as a person. I'm not disputing that there are (a lot) of people who use the Bible as justification for some horrible things, but, honestly, that's a problem with those people. Even if they took the NT absolutely literally, they wouldn't be able to do any of the stuff they want to, because Jesus is so obviously pacifist, tolerant, and non-condemning that it would be absurd to pass laws shaming homosexuals in his name. They are the ones picking and choosing, not me. If someone reads the NT and comes away with the impression that sexual morality (in general) is one of the "main themes," then they are wrong, and their impression is not supported by density of said issue within the text, nor by any reconstruction of early Christian society. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On October 17 2013 10:36 Shiori wrote: It's noticeable the moment you open it up and read from a couple of different books. The style, tone, subject matter, and, really, everything, are so different from book to book that it would be ludicrous to read the Bible and think it was one big long tome. That aside, it's absolutely ignorant and silly to think of the Bible as one, big, continuous book, because that's not what it is. I'm not sure how one could defend the idea that being provably wrong isn't silly, but whatever. It's tangential. Do I need to remind you of the part where I said I'm aware that the Bible is not one big book, I have no idea what made you think I was unaware of this, and more importantly, I fail to see how it is relevant. It's incredibly relevant (since it undercuts your claim that people are applying contradictory interpretations) because the way one looks at Isaiah is different from the way one looks at Revelation; not because of theology, but because of the content, style, author(s), and historical contexts which characterize the works. The Psalms, for instance, are largely poems. It would be moronic to interpret them as prose. That's a very obvious example of what scriptural interpretation (historical critical, I mean) actually is at the academic level. It's not picking and choosing; it's trying to actually piece everything together in a way that gives insight as to the environment out of which the work came. I still don't see why it's relevant to the point I made, frankly. It's just that from my point of view, when you start finding flaws in something like that and you interpret it inconsistently, perhaps you're just trying to fit yourself between the pages more so than you're trying to gain something from the pages. I was referring to Paul. What do you think of passages where God condemns homosexuality as an "abomination" of all things then? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 17 2013 10:35 Djzapz wrote: I still fail to see the relevance, so until you enlighten me, I see no reason to discuss the format of the thing. It could be a pdf or multiple large rocks for all I care. please tell me you're kidding | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Sam, forgive me for the tough words but kindly please make a fucking effort. Speak thy mind for one liners don't do shit for me. I am not kidding (and you know I'm not). Write something + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d113/DJZapZ/Samsamsam_zpsf7e8ef3b.jpg) | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On October 17 2013 10:40 Djzapz wrote: Do I need to remind you of the part where I said I'm aware that the Bible is not one big book, I have no idea what made you think I was unaware of this, and more importantly, I feel to see how it is relevant. It's relevant because it renders It's just that from my point of view, when you start finding flaws in something like that and you interpret it inconsistently, perhaps you're just trying to fit yourself between the pages more so than you're trying to gain something from the pages. invalid. There's no inconsistency of interpretation. You would not interpret Exodus as you would 1st Peter. It would be ridiculous, from every angle. I was referring to Paul. What do you think of passages where God condemns homosexuality as an "abomination" of all things then? I think that the authors of those texts, as was the nature of the literary form, appended or prepended "Thus says the LORD" to all teachings they perceived to be authoritative. This does not mean that God literally said these words. The Bible, to my mind, is less about God making statements and more about the character transmitted between the lines over the course of thematic evolution and adversity for the Hebrews. Interestingly, Jesus actually does say something to the effect that the Law, as written, was the best the people were able to handle at the time, but that it's time to up the ante, as it were. Much like you would not hold a child responsible for things in the same way as you would an adult, so, too, does morality evolve. It wouldn't have made any sense for people to go from prehistoric agrarians to sophisticated 21st century analytic philosophers. It wouldn't actually have been conceivable for such a thing to happen. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 17 2013 10:45 Djzapz wrote: Sam, forgive me for the tough words but kindly please make a fucking effort. Speak thy mind for one liners don't do shit for me. I am not kidding (and you know I'm not). Write something + Show Spoiler + how could you not be kidding? "the bible" is a collection of vastly different writings written by vastly different people in vastly different times and social contexts. of course it is not "a book." Nor does it have a single coherent viewpoint about much of anything at all, despite what ironman might tell you. if "the bible" is "a book", then the norton anthology of poetry is "a book." | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On October 17 2013 11:06 sam!zdat wrote: how could you not be kidding? "the bible" is a collection of vastly different writings written by vastly different people in vastly different times and social contexts. of course it is not "a book." Nor does it have a single coherent viewpoint about much of anything at all, despite what ironman might tell you. if "the bible" is "a book", then the norton anthology of poetry is "a book." I'm aware that it's relevant in many ways but not for the purposes that we were discussing, at least IMO. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 17 2013 11:22 Djzapz wrote: I'm aware that it's relevant in many ways but not for the purposes that we were discussing, at least IMO. because your criticism is that scripture should be dismissed because it is not consistent, and that it is an illegitimate exegetical practice to discard or privilege sections of it as you see fit. but that doesn't really make sense, because that's what people have been doing with it from the Redactor to Jesus to Nicaea to Luther. On October 17 2013 11:41 IgnE wrote: Guys. Guys. Guys. What about the Quran? Isn't it divinely inspired? ugh. let's not go there. most unfortunate piece of doctrine, that... | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On October 17 2013 11:43 sam!zdat wrote: because your criticism is that scripture should be dismissed because it is not consistent, and that it is an illegitimate exegetical practice to discard or privilege sections of it as you see fit. but that doesn't really make sense, because that's what people have been doing with it from the Redactor to Jesus to Nicaea to Luther. I'm not saying that scripture should be dismissed (not necessarily anyway). But I think that given the large spectrum of interpretations, it's strange that so many people are convinced that their own is the right one. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 17 2013 11:51 Djzapz wrote: I'm not saying that scripture should be dismissed (not necessarily anyway). But I think that given the large spectrum of interpretations, it's strange that so many people are convinced that their own is the right one. well, everybody thinks their interpretation is the right one, including you. but yes | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On October 17 2013 11:41 IgnE wrote: Guys. Guys. Guys. What about the Quran? Isn't it divinely inspired? Well yeah, it was written by Allah's greatest Prophet. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 17 2013 13:02 ninazerg wrote: Well yeah, it was written by Allah's greatest Prophet. Or, more accurately, transcribed by the Prophet, from the lips of the angel Gabriel. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On October 17 2013 12:54 sam!zdat wrote: well, everybody thinks their interpretation is the right one, including you. but yes Well I don't interpret the Bible very much at all so I don't pretend that my interpretation of it is right. I think it's strange to equate my disbelief in the scripture to the various interpretations of people who believe it to have to do with a deity that exists. I don't try to derive reality from the text because any interpretation would lead me to a fictitious, man-made story. And I have no way to know what's historically correct and what isn't. The fact that I don't believe in God is pretty much entirely external to the Bible. So we all believe our interpretations about the world to be correct, some of us with more modesty than others, but yeah, I don't interpret the Bible. On that note, off to bed. Cheers. | ||
|
Myrkskog
Canada481 Posts
On October 17 2013 10:08 packrat386 wrote: Since there is no evidence otherwise, I can't reject that as an explanation. The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 17 2013 13:17 Myrkskog wrote: The rational thing to do is to not believe the claim that god was the cause until there is evidence. the rational thing to do is to attempt to sympathize with something that you find strange in order to understand it better | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 17 2013 13:56 sam!zdat wrote: the rational thing to do is to attempt to sympathize with something that you find strange in order to understand it better What happens if you understand a good bit of it and still find it silly? | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Invitational
herO vs GuMiho
Clem vs Solar
MaxPax vs SHIN
ByuN vs Dark
Replay Cast
Online Event
Replay Cast
Master's Coliseum
Maru vs Lancer
herO vs Lancer
GuMiho vs herO
Korean StarCraft League
Master's Coliseum
Maru vs GuMiho
Lancer vs GuMiho
herO vs Maru
CranKy Ducklings
Defiler Tour
CranKy Ducklings
|
|
|
EPT
