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 17:57:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1441 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Robinson writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom McDonald writes:
> 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.
No, you're right. It could been easily described in one place. I do not
attempt to explain or to justify why there's more than one account - there
just is.
Given that both accounts are correct, I'm merely attempting to show that they
do not necessarily contain mutually exclusive facts, however difficult to
explain.
> (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).
I can see that. Yet the bible itself likens what it says to a mystery.
For example, if I wrote a mystery and you read it, I wouldn't want you to read
only part of it, even if I gave you my book in installments (perhaps by
chapters). I'd want you to read the whole thing. If the "butler did it" in my
mystery, you could certainly know the main points of why and how if you read
only passages about the butler and not any other character. But I'd certainly
want to you to read the part about the Mistress of the house, the maid and the
poolboy anyway because it makes for a balanced portrayal of what occurred.
> 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.
Yeah, if it were up to me I probably would too.
> 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>)
<grin> Yep no one here was there to know how those guys got their info.
> > > 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.
Are you admitting that the bible is a full and accurate account? :-) Yet
atheists and agnostics could claim that God hasn't left enough clues (or
proof) to prove His existence.
> > > 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.
It does sound far-fetched. Yet I can't term it as a contradiction like some do
because it hasn't been disproven or shown that it can't happen. Occasionally
single historical occurences happen, and methods used long ago forgotten.
Judas could have also been fat, thereby making his middle previously
"stressed" :-) Admittedly, that's one more thing against sensibility, but it's
not insensible that he could have been fat.
> > 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 :)
Yeah, admittedly, I was hoping you would :-) and you're not dancing around
stuff (and I hope I'm not either), and so the debate remains civil and
logical. And yes, I'm asking you to elaborate though you don't have to give
every example at once. I'm also not going to attempt debate on each point you
give, unless you want. :-)
> 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...)
Servitude does cover a *wide* area..
> 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.
I agree. It's important to isolate those cases and know how they flavor the
scripture.
> 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?
That's certainly a valid way of looking at it, especially when you apply the
2nd Commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself".
> Is there any other evidence from our lives that would
> help decide that?
I'm not sure what this means.
> 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.
Agreed. Those folks were certainly not following the 2nd Commandment.
> 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.
As far as my attitude goes, I can be either for or against an
idea/lifestyle/morality/whatever and still love the person. It might not be
easy because of my own shortcomings but I still can and should.
> [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>
Maybe a big band group? They're back in vogue.. :-D
-Tom McD.
when replying, www.spamcakedelivered.com
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
