Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 01:39:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
536 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > The people of the world were prideful, and attempted to construct the tower
> > in their efforts to physically reach heaven. Such a plan would have
> > defeated the entire plan of creation, and so the Lord stopped their efforts.
> > The method described in Genesis was to confound their speech and scatter
> > them across the world.
> In that case, it's even more absurd than spiteful. Did God really think
> they'd reach Heaven? If so, then why doesn't he smite every satellite we
> launch?
I dunno -- why not ask Him? ;-)
*IF* I were to second-guess the guy, I would imagine that He wasn't fearful
of the tower builders actually succeeding. Rather, He was probably aware of
the dangers of a prideful-then-disappointed people at such an early stage in
the program. I personally tend to think that the scattering and confounding
was sort of a "reset switch", where He could realign some important
parameters without scrapping the whole job.
*HOWEVER*, as I stated before, I'm sure that some (perhaps important)
aspects of the story have been lost to time and/or misinterpretation. Also,
I feel that it's rather silly to ponder so heavily on a small item in what
is likely the oldest and most poorly-assembled book in the Old Testament --
especially when there are more pertinent lessons to be learned from the more
recent stuff.
> > The document this story is from is literally THOUSANDS of years
> > old. I'm willing to bet that something was lost along the way. Any takers?
> Nonsense! Any fundamentalist will tell you that the Bible is literally true
> word for word and has survived substantially unchanged since the first oral
> traditions.
> I don't hold you to that literal standard [...]
What the--?! Whoa, Nelly! Slow down, you wacky buckaroo sailing your
dangerous way through the twisting tunnels of logic! Sit back and enjoy the
warm savory taste of the pumpkin pie of truth and reason while I pull back
the parking brake lever of conversation just a squinch. (1)
Since when did I mark myself as a fundamentalist? And if you don't hold me
to that standard, then why even bring it up? It seems like you're trying to
troll an already-trolled discussion. A little disingenious, perhaps, given
my previous message's footnote describing my feelings towards the Bible's
accuracy.
And this is all I'm going to contribute to your "fundamentalist" sub-thread.
> [...] if your assertion above is
> correct, then the burden of proof is on those who claim that the Bible is a
> completely true document.
As for the burden of proof, I'm not here to prove or disprove anything.
More on that in a minute.
> > Then there's the God-works-in-mysterious-ways aspect. Perhaps this was a
> > clever ploy to get people to populate the entire world, and engage in more
> > productive activity (such as not building towers of dubious purpose).
> Ah, the God-of-the-gaps argument; we don't know why such-and-such happened,
> so God must have done it for His reason. Not a very persuasive argument except
> to those who already believe in Him and his Word.
True. It would have been foolhardy for me to try to use that to persuade
you or anyone else so opposed to the idea. I'm flattered you may think so,
but my intent is not to convert you or anyone else; I'm merely offering my
interpretation of the events Larry was asking about.
Any attempt to prove matters of religion to another person (especially in
the context of an internet forum) would be utter foolishness, as you don't
recognize my authority on these matters any more than I recognize yours, and
our definitions of "research", "proof" and "evidence" are certain to
conflict. There is nothing to prove, really, only to discuss. If my words
help propel someone into studying these things a bit more, then great --
otherwise, it's not my place to tell you what to do.
Cheers,
- jsproat
1. Okay, so the Tick affected me more than I like to admit... But then I
don't like to change horses in mid-stream...
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
