Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Aug 1999 05:16:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1424 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom McDonald writes:
> > 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".
Yes you're right that we all inevitably get influenced by our prior beliefs.
We also all have our own ideas about what counts as reasonable - and
in most cases we'd be hard put to explain why we draw the line where we do.
I *think* the problem for me is related to this.
(1) A story of someone dying is a fairly factual occurrance. There is no
reason why it could not be simply and easily described all in one place. It's
not
like a moral judgement that could be illustrated by many different situations
and therefore might be expected to be alluded to in different manners in
different parts of a book.
(2) Suppose your analysis was correct, and Judas did die by hanging. In
that case the passage that says that he died as a result of falling over
and his innards falling out, but which does not add any other explanation,
is misleading. I've heard many Christians say things to the effect that
the Bible contains subtle meanings etc. which can only be understood
by reading it as a whole - but your analysis would go one
stage further and imply that the Bible contains stories that are by themselves
actually misleading (and unnecessarily so).
>
> > 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?
What I mean is that if - say - I had to write an account of some event.
Then with the same knowledge I had to write another account of the same
event, then those accounts would match up far more closely than the Bible
passages I quoted.
My feeling is that those passages were written by two people, at least one of
whom
was working from a fairly distorted account of what happened. I can't see how
you could sensibly come to any other conclusion. (My personal sense of
reasonable-ness <grin>)
> > 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.
The difference is detectives are working in a situation in which they have
to make connections from the few clues are available, because noone kindly
left a full and accurate account of the crime.
> > 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.
I guess anything's possible - but that doesn't really sound very likely to me.
Countless people have been hanged in the past. I think that if intestines
falling out was an occasional side effect then that would be documented in
a few places.
> Which things in the bible wouldn't you take literally? Just those things • that
> seem contradictory or not reasonable? Can you list examples?
Ooooh that's a big question. I've spent far too long in this discussion group
so I'll answer the rest of your posting by giving you a very quick statement
of where I'm coming from and I'll elaborate if I get requested to do so :)
If there is a God of love (I'm actually quite happy to accept that) and the
Bible
contains stuff about how to serve that God (I'm being more careful on that one,
but as before I'm carrying on for the sake of argument. May learn something
by seeing where that leads us...)
then the Bible should be read as guidance on how to express that love.
Human beings are always distorting messages - there's noone alive who
doesn't do that - and no one would dispute
that the Bible was written *through* human beings. So we have to allow
for that and be willing to accept that some things may have more to do with
describing or expressing the various prejudices of the people at the time.
We also have to accept that many factual accounts may be inaccurate by
today's standards due to the limited understanding of the people of the time,
and should therefore look not to the factual accounts themselves but to the
implied advice for how to conduct our lives.
So the test of how to interpret any passage would be very roughly this:
Does interpreting it this way increase the amount of love
and selflessness in the world or
does it cause unnecessary suffering?
Is there any other evidence from our lives that would
help decide that?
That is the test that leads us to realize that it is not appropriate to burn
prostitutes at the stake, or to stone people to death for proposing a different
theology to our own. From my point of view, it's also the test that
leads me to the conclusion that traditional Christian attitudes to sex and
sexuality are completely mistaken, and that it is people like Larry and the
Libertarians[1] who have got it right.
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
[1] Has a nice ring to it don't you think? 'Larry and the Libertarians'.
Or perhaps I'd better shut up before he starts thinking he's even more
perfect <evil grin>
>
> 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 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
