Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:57:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
608 times
|
| |
|
|
This is a helluva lot more rambling than I'm comfortable with...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > Since when did I mark myself as a fundamentalist?
> 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.
Ah -- I think I see what happened. You had replied to my message, in a
fairly (imho) personal kinda way ("personal" as though one person addressing
another, not "personal" as in insulting.) In this message, you had used the
proverbial or collective "you", though I interpreted it as the 2nd-party "you".
Specifically, you had dismissed my comments as nonsense, the effect of which
was two-fold: you had addressed me directly and personally; and you had
directly cast my own statements in a light which I had perceived as negative.
This led me to believe that you were indeed addressing me directly, and were
labelling my beliefs as fundamentalist against your protestations to the
contrary. I am not one to pretend ownership of a thread; I merely
misunderstood your intentions.
I apologize for this misunderstanding, but it raises the question: when
should your ("you" == Dave Schuler) usage of "you" be interpreted as
2nd-party, and when should it be recognized as proverbial? I ask this to
further my understanding of this discussion, and for future reference.
> [...] 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.
Oh, I agree 100%. I just don't feel that I can contribute much to the
"bible is all true or all false and what are the ramifications" debate.
> Further, accusing me of trolling is simple ad hominem; my
> questions are valid.
Oh, I disagree. Trolling is a valid debate tactic that most of us here have
used (you and I included); I was merely the pot calling the kettle black.
If you've taken it as a personal attack, then again I apologize. Rest
assured that it wasn't the first misunderstanding between you and me today. :-,
> 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?
Against my better judgement, and indeed my
not-dead-yet-feeling-better-thinks-it'll-go-for-a-walk declaration that I
would stay out of this...
I personally can't tell you which parts of the Bible are true and which are
myth. (Even if I did know, I wouldn't proudly declare them as proof in some
discussion with strangers for the sake of trying to prove someone else
wrong. That just seems...icky.) There are several places where I got a
pretty good hunch, indeed some I feel good enough about to stake the way I
live by them.
How do I get that way? Well, how do you learn stuff? Read on it, ponder on
it, discuss it, read some more, rinse and repeat as necessary. I have
personally done this in regards to learning things which have become aspects
of my faith; IOW I've studied up on it and I am quite satisfied with the
results I got.
Faith fills in some of the gaps that conventional research doesn't, and
grows with time. If you are of the type who requires undeniable proof of
something before you'll give it any credibility, then I can see how this may
seem confusing to you. It may take you (proverbial) a long, long time
before you get it, and at any rate the results are almost never immediate.
However -- before you draw a distinction between modern scientific knowledge
and religion, I'd want to add that some of the currently-accepted notions in
physics and medicine (1) seem pretty screwy to me. However, they describe
models in which we perceive how the world works, and by and large these
models seem to fit the bill. When Einstein formulated the theory of
relativity, did it change how the world worked? Of course not. It merely
changed the models. Such a paradigm shift is a wonderful example of just
how nebulous our grasp on these models are. In my beliefs, I work with
different models, and they seem to do the job just fine.
> 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.
Good question. Not really. This essential question of truth is the basis
of my own faith. If you don't question it, you'll never get answers, and
you'll never learn. So no, this is not a good definition of
bible-fundamentalism for me.
Professing a belief that declares the Bible as 100% true with no exceptions,
that definition works pretty well for me. This seems to fit the American
Heritage Dictionary's definition ("characterized by a return to fundamental
principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance
of other views and opposition to secularism").
I'm still trying to figure out how you perceived that my definition was so
broad as to include people who questioned the veracity of the Bible.
Reading back now, I'm trying to figure out how I perceived you referring to
me as fundamentalist. Arg.
> [...] 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.
Well, that'a relief. Although...you seem to be working with the false
assumption that I'm basing reason on faith. I try to keep them separate; I
see no contradiction in doing this as the two provide understanding for
different issues. Furthermore, faith, in my view, is not eternal. Faith is
there to keep one company until proof makes it dissolve -- that proof will
come in time, I believe. The standard of proof, as you describe it, may
seem arbitrary to you because you haven't invested enough time in
researching it for your own enlightenment. This can take more time for some
(see above).
It's clear that we're both too set in our beliefs to try to meet halfway.
You've clearly already made up your mind in this matter; your words flatly
describing a god who is "petty, vindictive, and spiteful" seem to indicate
this. That's really too bad; it is my personal hope that I would some day
learn the flexibility to do so.
Cheers,
- jsproat
1. mostly in psychology, quantum mechanics, some core physics involving
chaos theory, and the joke they call automobile design (2)
2. just came back in from trying to change the oil in my truck... *@#&@!
jerks placed the oil filter directly above the u-joint on the driveshaft, so
it's of course impossible to remove without skinning at least three nuckles,
and oil goes EVERYWHERE... :-P
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
