Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 03:35:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
494 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > Any fundamentalist will tell you that the Bible is literally true
> > word for word [but] I don't hold you to that literal standard...
> 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.
Yikes--easy there, fireball. Since this is an open forum, I address my
comments to any who care to respond. With this in mind, I specifically stated
that I don't hold you to the literal standard, but I don't excuse others. If
you perceive it as a troll, I'm sorry, but the topic is still ripe for
discussion, especially when the discussion begins with an exchange about the
relevance of context as it pertains to a single portion of the whole bible.
> And this is all I'm going to contribute to your "fundamentalist" sub-thread.
Again, I think you need to recognize that I was specifically *not* addressing
that point to you but was rather discussing the problem of biblical
interpretation. Further, accusing me of trolling is simple ad hominem; my
questions are valid.
Therefore, since it's only a "fundamentalist" subthread insofar as you've
decided to call it that, would you care to describe how you determine which
parts of the bible are true and which are myth? If someone's not comfortable
with certain parts, such as, say, the resurrection, why shouldn't that part be
discarded as non-literal myth along with the Tower of Babel? Do you identify
this basic, reasonable, and essential question of truth to be solely province
of "fundamentalists?" That's a pretty liberal definition of fundamentalist.
> my intent is not to convert you or anyone else; I'm merely offering my
> interpretation of the events Larry was asking about.
Exactly, and I'm discussing the ramifications of those events. Why is my
discussion less valid here than yours or Larry's?
> 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.
Nor mine to tell you, of course. Fortunately, that's not what I was doing; I
merely asked for an explanation of an obvious contradiction and an apparently
arbitrary standard of judging biblical truth versus myth. I don't intend to
convert anyone either, though I would greatly like to make people realize that
certain self-contradictory notions (such as, say, an omnipotent, benevolent,
all-wise deity who is nonetheless petty, vindictive, and spiteful) provide
dreadfully poor foundations of reason, much less eternal faith.
Dave!
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
