Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:48:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1578 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Robinson writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom McDonald writes:
> Well I have to admit to being impressed by the effort you've made to
> reconcile
> those accounts.
In context, I just tried to follow the accounts to show where and how they
relate to each other. And basically I listed the obvious points made in the
verses.
> Trouble is there's a point where what you are doing ceases
> to look like a legitimate and reasonable interpretation and starts to look
> more
> like you're trying to fit what it says round to match your prior
> beliefs.
> I'd say your analysis goes way beyond that point.
Obviously I have prior beliefs: everyone does. To be perfectly fair my
analysis did include some ideas about my prior beliefs. Please explain where I
departed from "legitimate and reasonable".
> Those two stories are quite clearly *different* stories.
Please explain this. Clearly *different* stories, as in two different guys
named Judas, two fields, etc.? Or two different accounts of one man's tragic
end?
> Wouldn't it be
> reasonable to assume that if they were intended to be the same story, then
> you'd
> be able to see how they matched without having to go through the kind of
> mental
> contortions you've just achieved?
Not necessarily. They weren't contortions for me. Police detectives do this
kind of work everyday to establish many simple connections.[1] And yes,
detectives do use their common sense, but sometimes clues seem to defy common
sense.
> Yes there are many
> ways you can hang yourself. But I don't know of any way that involves
> your intestines falling out!
Why wouldn't there be a way that had that effect? With sufficient and
appropriate force from falling it could happen.
> Here's another interpretation - which seems a lot more sensible to me.
>
> Assuming that the Bible is the word of God[1] then perhaps the point of
> having these two apparently contradictory accounts in it is this:
> It is God's way of showing
> us that we should not take everything in the Bible literally, but should be
> more
> careful to think about what is said and try to see the real meaning behind
> the stories.
>
> Does that sound any better?
Your assumption above I also (obviously) assume.
But details and specifics comprise good arguments while generalities rarely
do. In the current JW flap in .admin.general the "prosecution" of the case
showed a ton of evidence all painstakingly gathered and arranged. A big part
of the case against JW literally hangs upon the (mis)use of several words, and
well as what wasn't said. To interperet the case against him properly, do I
have to take everything literally? In this case, yes.
Which things in the bible wouldn't you take literally? Just those things that
seem contradictory or not reasonable? Can you list examples?
My concern about this is that our perspective is limited because each person
lives on this world for only a short period, so the bigger picture is often
difficult to see. Old testament prophets painted metaphorical pictures of
things to come many years later, often to the point of being extremely
literal, though at the time of writing such thoughts made no sense to the
readers.
If you mean not taking the bible literally in the case of metaphors and
symbolism then I can agree. But such metaphors and symbols do represent
things, and study must be made to determine where and what such literary
devices are, and they cannot be dismissed or generalized away simply because
they don't seem sensible. For example, books such as Revelation and Ezekiel,
which have long been noted for their outlandish imagery, contain a mixture of
literal pictures, metaphors and symbols.
Please note that it's not my intention to beat up on anyone for thinking this,
but as many people that have ever studied the bible (atheists included) can
tell you there's a lot of things that don't seem sensible about the bible, but
sensibility can be relative.
For example: if we look at the story of Christ feeding the 5000 with just 5
loaves of bread and 2 fish, someone else might say "Preposturous! 5000? Pah!"
And "sensibly" so. If I am reading you correctly, you might say, "The number
of people is irrelevant. The main point is that Christ takes care of us." Well
said.
While (for the sake of this argument) this truth is literal, why wouldn't the
example of feeding those people be literal? Does a non-literal view of
scripture discard the importance of the example, in this case the number of
people? Why?
> [1] I'm pretty dubious about that but I'll accept it for the sake of
> argument.
Well, thanks for going this far with me :-) Few do.
-Tom McD.
when replying, the few, the proud: Spamcake Academy.
[1] Please note that in my lifetime I've been accused of being flippant but
I've never been flippant: I've only tried to put friendly faces on things that
sometimes don't need to be portrayed as very serious or disturbing.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
277 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
|
|
|
|
