To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 25621
25620  |  25622
Subject: 
Re: The Brick Testament: A Family Stoned and a City Massacred
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:52:49 GMT
Viewed: 
1772 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

   Just because the OT is written in plain English doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be plainly understood IMO.

Any God who would be so deliberately vague (which is to say deceptive (which is to say evil)) as to prevent easy comprehension of the correct meaning of his One Word on Earth is unworthy of my worship.

That is why Jesus summed it up nicely into: “Love God with all of your heart, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

That’s all you really need to know and do.

But I think you are being a little disingenuous WRT to worshipping a God. If you could describe an ideal God whom to worship, what would He be like? I have an idea what you will say, but I want to hear about the God of Dave!

  
  
   So any criticism of the bible is a joke?

No, I said historical, literary, etc criticisms are good and help clarify the Bible. Criticism not intended for deepening understanding is either malicious or mockery or both.

Do you accept that the examination of contradictions, shortcomings, and textual inconsistencies qualifies as “deepening understanding?”

Absolutely.

   Surely you must recognize that an honest reader can criticize the bible in these terms without mocking the work?

Of course. And I even understand that my personal understanding of the Bible might even be considered heretical by some fellow Christians.

   Just because some adherents don’t care for the result of honest critical inquiry, that doesn’t mean that such criticism is malicious.

Agreed. But it can be insensitive, among other things. It all depends upon how it is used. There are many who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Fine. They haven’t studied it very closely, but so what? That stuff really doesn’t matter in my mind. You can believe the sky is yellow (or that God doesn’t exist), but as long as you respect others and are a good person, what’s the big, ahem, deal? God is much more interested in how we treat each other WAAAY more than what we believe IMO.

  
  
   I don’t think it perverts the bible at all - it just tells the stories told within. I think people find it interesting because it makes many of the stories easier to comprehend.

Comprehend? Or easier to read/access, because they are too lazy or wouldn’t bother to actually open the Bible to find the stories themselves. It’s like a comic book version of the Bible, but with the cartoonist being an atheist.

Well, don’t assume that an atheist will automatically mock the bible. I may not believe that the book was inspired by a deity, but a secure believer should hardly consider a differing viewpoint to be mocking.

Hmmm. Most atheists I know have a pretty condescending attitude towards religion.

  
   Frankly, for Christians, the action mostly occurs in the Gospels of the NT. The OT is considered important, but more as a history of the relationship of God and People of God, the Israelites. There isn’t much in Leviticus to which a Christian (or any Westerner) can relate. Though Leviticus and Song of Solomon are a part of the Christian Bible, they certainly don’t carry the importance of a Gospel, or even a Pauline epistle. This is not any set policy, just my observations to which I bet many Christians would agree.

Leviticus is still commonly invoked to condemn homosexuality or excesses of alcohol consumptions. I note with interest once again that condemnations of shellfish consumption are less common, as are entreaties not to touch menstruating women. Hmm...

Look, just because one is a Christian doesn’t mean that they are necessarily clear thinkers. There is great confusion among Christians WRT to understanding the OT in context of the NT.

   And the Lord said, Thou Shalt pick and choose which parts of My Word be valid, as dictated by convenience and political efficacy.

‘O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits in Thy mercy.’

JOHN



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: The Brick Testament: A Family Stoned and a City Massacred
 
(...) Actually, I think the current situation with regard to a rea/ideal god does exist. I don't bother him and he doesn't bother me. But if I were to answer: He would show himself. He would provide a quid pro quo deal that I can understand. He (...) (20 years ago, 13-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
  Re: The Brick Testament: A Family Stoned and a City Massacred
 
(...) How so? (And I ask this sincerely!) (...) My spider-sense tells me that this is an attempt to trick me into formulating an ontological argument for God's existence, but I'll give it a try anyway. First of all, I'm not sure that I would worship (...) (20 years ago, 13-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: The Brick Testament: A Family Stoned and a City Massacred
 
(...) Any God who would be so deliberately vague (which is to say deceptive (which is to say evil)) as to prevent easy comprehension of the correct meaning of his One Word on Earth is unworthy of my worship. (...) Do you accept that the examination (...) (20 years ago, 10-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

62 Messages in This Thread:



















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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR