Well, because (using Christian terminology) we have the gift of Reason. We can use our judgement and experience to tell us what the useful morals are, the ones that make sense for today's world. Our brains are "wired" in such a way that we are able to understand that a fictional fable (a la Aesop) might still have a highly relevant moral to it, and what that moral is, and how to best put it into action.
Why have I never seen the Bible presented this way? Am I just in an isolated minority?
Why have I never seen the Bible presented this way?
Probably because that's my personal view on it, one not shared or condoned by any church that I know of!
Kirth, are all of the Buddhist's sacred text stories with morals or are there actual rules laid down in any of them?
There are a lot of helpful hints, interspaced with the Buddha saying, in essence, "But don't believe me... go see for yourself!"
The thing is, most of them are along the lines of "If you want to become enlightened, don't do X, Y, and Z," or "Doing Q and R leads to unhappiness and suffering." I can't think of any examples of commandments that you're supposed to make everyone else follow. The core teachings of the Buddha deal with the nature of suffering and how to end it; they don't deal with any particular deity or deities telling worshippers what to do.
|
If modern sensibilities can not be applied to it, how is it relevant to us now? If you are going to say that slavery had to be put into context, what is to stop me for saying the ten commandments need to also be put into context and really do not apply anymore?
You're mixing stories with rules/laws. There is a fairly big difference between "Thou shalt not..." and "Once upon a time there was this guy who built a big boat."
The slavery thing is a rule/law and it is incredibly important to look at it in context of the society, where they came from, how they were living, the neighboring societies and so on before casting judgement on the Bible.
Slavery in the Old Testament (especially in the first few books where it is often sited) was not the whips and chains, bondage, selling situation that we are still trying to stop today. It was much more along the lines of punishment and indentured servitude than the slavery that we know today. They didn't have jails. They were largely nomadic. But they still needed a system of law in place in spite of the lack of these institutions -- and there were VERY specific rules for this for both the "master" and the "slave". If there isn't a system in place, then what's to prevent someone from killing their neighbor to take their livestock?
And yet, even with that, we can use "modern sensibilities" to gain more insight into how we should behave and so on. There is a big celebration (every 7 years I believe) where all debts forgiven, all wrongs forgotten, and so on. So let's say you steal one of my sheep and you get caught and become my "slave". Every day until this celebration you will wake up and look at the face of the person who you did wrong to knowing what you did and trying to make it right. Then on the other side, I have to wake up every day looking at the person who did something wrong to me knowing that no matter what happens, they will be "free" and that I need to forgive and forget what was done. Sometimes I wonder how much more effective our justice system would be if the wrong-doer had to look at the faces of all the people they hurt or affected every day for seven years as they worked off their crimes. I also wonder how much better it would be if we all understood that no matter what was done to us we need to forgive, forget and move on.
There are some things with the Old Testament Law that I still have some issue with. I don't ignore them -- I just don't have the answer for them yet.
|
|
Well, because (using Christian terminology) we have the gift of Reason. We can use our judgement and experience to tell us what the useful morals are, the ones that make sense for today's world. Our brains are "wired" in such a way that we are able to understand that a fictional fable (a la Aesop) might still have a highly relevant moral to it, and what that moral is, and how to best put it into action.
Why have I never seen the Bible presented this way? Am I just in an isolated minority?
A few thoughts about this.
It's a very fine line with calling the Bible full of "fables". It's really not written that way and that's not the purpose of it. While you can take any individual story and apply that "rule" and it won't hurt that much, it shouldn't be applied to the whole.
No you are not an "isolated minority". Too many people feel that if the Bible is exagerated a little or that one of the stories are little more than a "fable" or that if the Bible isn't exactly as it has been translated into the English language word for word literal, then it makes it "false" or "wrong" -- and no one likes being wrong. ;-)
It's also this idea of picking and choosing what we like and discarding what we don't. That's not what the Bible is about either.
That's interesting. Are Buddhists "encouraged" to experience everything -- good and bad -- and make a judgement for themselves?
The story is that the Buddha tried asceticism, and tried hedonism, and found both to be lacking, so his way is often referred to as the "middle path." So, if anything, moderation is encouraged. There's no overt prohibition on either extreme (some Zen monasteries lean pretty far towards the ascetisism end of the spectrum), just a note that "I tried those and they didn't work. I'm sure you'll find the same."
It's a very fine line with calling the Bible full of "fables"... It's also this idea of picking and choosing what we like and discarding what we don't. That's not what the Bible is about either.
I should hasten to add that I don't mean "fables" in any perjorative sense -- only that I personally don't believe in a virgin birth, but still find a lot of value in the teachings of Christ. As for picking and choosing, well, it's not so much the parts we "like," as much as the parts that the current state of our experience and reason allow us to perceive the message in. Maybe later on, when we've learned more, we can go back and tackle some of the more ambiguous passages -- maybe you already have, but the state of my reasoning isn't quite up to them yet, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Buddhist stories aren't literal? You mean I shouldn't have killed Buddha when I met him on the road?! Aw, man!
And I believe that there are those that that "simply" say "That REALLY sucked -- Let's not EVER go there again." (Like the end of Judges.)
"Let's not go to Hebron; it's a silly place."
Buddhist stories aren't literal? You mean I shouldn't have killed Buddha when I met him on the road?! Aw, man!
He'll be back. Then you get to kill him again. Killing Buddha is fun for the whole family. I think Nirvana is really where you're assimilated by the Borg and get to kill Buddha with them for all eternity. :)
Then there are the stories that are like the relative in prison....we just don't talk about that. I don't recall hearing much in Sunday school about God ordering kids and babies to be mass-murdered. Imagine how surprised I was when I started reading the KJV years later and saw what was really in there.The parts you agree with literally are to be taken literally, and the rest is to be seen as ‘just stories’. And if there isn’t a denomination of your faith that agrees with you then just create your own. Seems to be the way things work.Which one is better story...Which parts of the bible are just stories and which parts are meant to be taken literally?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the- Creator-claims-academic.html
Translations such tricksy little devils...
Yes God certainly orders or commits quite a few murders in the old testament. Of course someone could argue that since they were committed in his name they don't count.
It still boils down to Genesis and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Not including how things work does not discount from reality. Keep in mind the Bible includes zero information about the Earth being round, Orbiting a Sun, other planets, other galaxies?How ever if we were to claim that evolution is junk based on the fact that God created man with no real explanation? Wouldn't we also have to discount the facts we know that also aren't in the bible?
Evolution and a literal reading of genesis are mutually exclusive. You consider the bible to be contain alagory and metaphor, but many do not.
People some people, based on there religious faith, reject the helocentric solar system, some believe the world is flat and some believe nibiru is falling through sp[ace towards us even now with legions of alien demons and the LHC is designed to tear a hole in the van Allen belt. The fact that these people are clearly 'on wheels so they can move about' doesn't come into it. Surely such examples, along with creationists, who's claims are no less crazy, are a graphic warning about the dangers of basing ones world view on faith, rather than reason.
You know zombie, there are crackpots and monsters in the scientific world, but we do not as a general practice embellish them as you are doing with religious persons.
We all know the nutbags that faith attracts, but should we regularly post vivid descriptions about them, push them right over the top? It doesn't really seem necessary and I think it may not be in the friendly spirit of debate that we've been trying to practice on this thread.
In fact, you might consider that your hyperbole and choice of worst examples isn't just poking fun at crazies, but perhaps also at religious persons in general, many of whom are reasonable people, some of whom are nontheistic believers who also have to put up with your kind of debate from God-whacked theistic literalists on the other side as well.
Just sayin'.
The parts you agree with literally are to be taken literally, and the rest is to be seen as ‘just stories’. And if there isn’t a denomination of your faith that agrees with you then just create your own. Seems to be the way things work.Which one is better story...Which parts of the bible are just stories and which parts are meant to be taken literally?I actually think that a better question to ask is "What is the point to the story?"
Far too often, it seems like people get hung up on what is "literal" and what isn't. When the answer to that question doesn't change the point of the story.
And the "point" is never to kill babies.
And, yes -- there are a lot of stories that have been largely overlooked or ignored. It seems lik most people who bring them up seem to have those one or two stories in their bag of tricks to try and point out just how wrong the Bible is. I really think that a large reason for people not dealing with them or addressing them (or bringing them up in Sunday School) is because most people don't have enough background to understand what the passages are really talking about. We read it as though it's American literature and try and apply 20th century American ideas and practices to a middle eastern passage that's thousands of years old. When that doesn't work, Christians often choose to ignore said passages for something easier and others point it out jumping up and down as though it's "proof" that the Bible is "bad" or "wrong".
Just a quick point, between examples of slavery and genocide, of the top of my head the count is closer to 100+ than 1 or 2. When you bring in violence against woman, racism, pedophilia, ext all. the figure rises much further.
Sure an individual will tend to focus on a specific examples, i happen to like the bit in the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, where Lot, the only 'rightous man' in the city is spared in part because he offered his daughters up to be raped, rather than let harm come to his guests.
I don't thinks that it is a case that we are trying to point out how wrong the book is. I think it is more that we are trying to point out that it is weird that you don't see how aweful it is.
There is a wonderful anacdote about winston churchhills nephew. One summer, churchills private securatry and a freind discovered that the young man had not read the bible so they set him a challange to read it cover to cover. Well, several days later, churchills nephew returns to them beaming with delight. The first out of his mouth, are 'This is an amazing read, god is a real shit.' To people who have not been taught to accept without thought that god is good, it is very clear that he is atleast morally gray, if not pretty damn evil. Given his reported behaviour, i am not sure that should even be a controversial statement, but you can't question gods morality, the religious take it as a grave insult, in my experience.
You know zombie, there are crackpots and monsters in the scientific world, but we do not as a general practice embellish them as you are doing with religious persons.
We all know the nutbags that faith attracts, but should we regularly post vivid descriptions about them, push them right over the top? It doesn't really seem necessary and I think it may not be in the friendly spirit of debate that we've been trying to practice on this thread.
In fact, you might consider that your hyperbole and choice of worst examples isn't just poking fun at crazies, but perhaps also at religious persons in general, many of whom are reasonable people, some of whom are nontheistic believers who also have to put up with your kind of debate from God-whacked theistic literalists on the other side as well.
Just sayin'.
Okay. Please provide me an example of a crackpots from modern science.
There are many valid reason for raising the subject of the crackpots.
Firstly, the crackpot ideas are not inherently that much more crazy that the mainstream ones.
Believing in Nibiru without evidence is not inherently more unreasonable, than believing in the virgin birth or the resurrection without evidence.
Many of the 'crack pot ideas' are mainstream beliefs. Polling consistantly places beliefs based around biblical literalism at around 1/3 of the us population. When somewhere in the region of one hundred million people in america alone believe that the world was literal created in seven days, that adam was made from earth and god's breath, eve was made with from his ribe, it is not hypobole to raise it in discussions of religion.
Given that the very way of thinking that allows one to accept biblicial literalism is required also to base one's life around any form of religious faith, is it not reasonable to question the accuracy, if not the validity of such faith.
...It's also this idea of picking and choosing what we like and discarding what we don't. That's not what the Bible is about either.
I am uncomfortable hearing that you know the purpose of the bible. I do not. There is no preface in which a purpose is outlined. No hermeneutic guidebook written by Jesus himself. Nothing at all like that. All I have to go on are the traditions passed on down 15-20 generations of fanatics. As far as I'm concerned this is quite problematic for anyone citing scriptures.
As for picking and choosing citations: that's exactly how 99.99% of the bible quoting that goes on in daily life is done...
And not to mention that those who wrote the bible clearly picked and chose to cast things in a particular light, the gospels are clear evidence of that. They also just plain made some stuff up, too, judging by the glaring contradictions we know to exist in the NT.
Anyways. I do agree that the fable/myth label does not fit the bible as a whole. It does fit a lot of the bible--by my reckoning. More importantly though the key followup to such allegations is not, in my opinion, a defensive argument to establish the factual veracity of the bible, but a question: "If it's a myth, so what? Do myths not reveal truth?"
When I asked myself that question I actually started, for the first time in my life may I add, to believe in the bible as a useful source of ethical knowledge.
Okay. Please provide me an example of a crackpots from modern science.
Have you never spent any time in a social sciences department?
"Polling consistently..." blah blah. Do you really think polling entitles you to generalize about believers in any way? Does it do you any good to dwell on crazies in a thread where most people are quite reasonable. If you represent modern science my friend then, Houston, we have a problem.
BTW, of course fundamentalism is whacked. Fundamentalists are not mainstream in the Christian world, sorry. Nor are they mainstream in Islam. What is mainstream, do you know? I don't. I don't think there is a "mainstream" in religion. I'm not seeing it.
Polling consistantly places beliefs based around biblical literalism at around 1/3 of the us population.
...sorry I had to go home in the middle of trying to kick you around. Let me resume my whacking:
How much of that polling that you cite acknowledges that many of those literalists can't even define the difference between figurative and literal?
And have the pollsters, or you for that matter, ever seen a fundamentalist preacher tell his congregation that figurative truth is synonymous with lies? Tell me zombie, have you ever really tried to do anything about this, among the very people suffering from the ignorance that drives you so mad? Me? Yes to both of those.
And as you read my post, have you caught my implication that social sciences are rife with crackpots tossing around statistics to prove their own so-called "scientific" presuppositions?
Look, all I was suggesting to you when I began was that you may be coming across as a jerk to people around here. We are trying to be civil and I think your at times radical approach is possibly stretching the confines of civil discussion. You have a right to your opinions. It's cool. Science is totally schwang! I agree. I just think you'd stand a better chance of fighting ignorance by taking a moderate tack.
...and by the way, 99% of statistics are proven to be bullshit.
Peace!
Okay. Please provide me an example of a crackpots from modern science.
Have you never spent any time in a social sciences department?
"Polling consistently..." blah blah. Do you really think polling entitles you to generalize about believers in any way? Does it do you any good to dwell on crazies in a thread where most people are quite reasonable. If you represent modern science my friend then, Houston, we have a problem.
BTW, of course fundamentalism is whacked. Fundamentalists are not mainstream in the Christian world, sorry. Nor are they mainstream in Islam. What is mainstream, do you know? I don't. I don't think there is a "mainstream" in religion. I'm not seeing it.
Where have i generalised? I'd argue that even asking anything, even making a statement like 'If you represent modern science my friend then, Houston, we have a problem', comes far closer to generalisation than any of my statements.
As for your apparent scorn for quantitative data, tell me what exactly is wrong with drawing a conclusion from studying data from numerous large sample size, non-self selecting, random polls, taken over a variety of times and dates, across the entire country, over a number of years? It is not ideal data, but it is far from anacdote, which seems to be what your basing your argument on. Numerous polls into religious belief, over the last decade have consistantly shown that btween 30% and 40% of all americans are biblicial literalists.
Your argument for not raising this issue regarding christian belief demographics seems to be, 'i find it offensive to have people talk about the fact that the data suggests a sizeable minority, or possibly even a majority of people who share my faith are fundimentalists.'
Sure, it isn't your experience of your faith, but your experience of your faith community is filtered through your own perceptions. You faith community is small statisitically speaking, there for more likely to be statistically biased. You haven't even done a study of the beliefs of members of it, so your view is acadotal.
Numerous polls into religious belief, over the last decade have consistantly shown that btween 30% and 40% of all americans are biblicial literalists.
I don't scorn quantitative data. I scorn poorly defined quantitative data.
I'm not making an argument other than telling you how I see you. You're reactive, you're distorting.
I'd just like to get some more civility in here. It's getting sticky with BS.
Your argument for not raising this issue regarding christian belief demographics seems to be, 'i find it offensive to have people talk about the fact that the data suggests a sizeable minority, or possibly even a majority of people who share my faith are fundimentalists.'
Sure, it isn't your experience of your faith, but your experience of your faith community is filtered through your own perceptions. You faith community is small statisitically speaking, there for more likely to be...
I don't believe I said your statistics were offensive. I said they show nothing about the state of the literal beliefs that they describe, and indeed that IS important in science as you should very well know. Also, my point, if I may reiterate, was that you are distorting vast numbers of religious people by dwelling on crackpots. You choose only crazies for your examples--that is generalizing.
And what do you know about my faith if in fact I have any?
You faith community is small statisitically speaking, there for more likely to be statistically biased. You haven't even done a study of the beliefs of members of it, so your view is acadotal.
Your spelling is appalling and I prefer to call them observations, not anecdotes, because that's usually where I start when I'm using strict scientific methodologies. As do many scientists.
Moff, Kirth,
Help me out guys, have I lost perspective on this?
Seriously.
Peoples perceptions of my engagement are there own. I attempt to keep a civil tone at all times. Are some of the things I say offensive to some readers? Almost certainly, critism of religion is taboo after all.
Does that mean that they should not be said? Who am I to judge that, but allowing censorship on grounds of offense is a slippery slope.
But if civility is the issue here...
...sorry I had to go home in the middle of trying to kick you around. Let me resume my whacking:
Hardly falls with in my definition. Those in glasshouses should not throw stones, or as one moral philosipher is reputed to have said, 'judge not lest ye be judged'.
How much of that polling that you cite acknowledges that many of those literalists can't even define the difference between figurative and literal?
Since there is a variety of polls, there are a number of wordings of the questions involved. I don't have the papers to hand so i can't talk about specifics. However, I suspect the methodologies of those involved will have covered this complaint.
And have the pollsters, or you for that matter, ever seen a fundamentalist preacher tell his congregation that figurative truth is synonymous with lies? Tell me zombie, have you ever really tried to do anything about this, among the very people suffering from the ignorance that drives you so mad? Me? Yes to both of those.
The reasons for a congrigations belief that the bible is literal, is irrelivant to the issue at hand. All that matters for the discussion is that it is the belief they hold.
With regards to my activities combating ignorance and the worst aspects of religious organisations, they are many and varied. From protest, to discussion.
You faith community is small statisitically speaking, there for more likely to be statistically biased. You haven't even done a study of the beliefs of members of it, so your view is acadotal.Your spelling is appalling and I prefer to call them observations, not anecdotes, because that's usually where I start when I'm using strict scientific methodologies. As do many scientists.
Yes my spelling is bad, congratulations. So is my grammar. My mental arthimatic is also pretty poor. Would you like to kick me while i am down? Here, please have a pair of size 12 DcMartins to wear while you do it. Perhapes a baseball bat? Your accusing me of argueing without civility, yet your laying into me with ad hominim attacks, based on something largely beyond my control. My troubles with written language come not from ignorance, not even from poor general language skills(the difference between my spoken and written language skills is statistically significant), but from the fact that i am heavily dyslexic. The vailed insults within the statement speak nothing of the truth. There is a lot more i would say to this point, but frankly, i wish to try to remain civil.
Your not using the scientific method. Your making an argument, and basing it on acadote. Scientific observation is not the same as the observation that occures in day to day life. Being charitiable, i suppose i would allow you to argue the point, however it only digs you further into the mire. If you are trying to present your observations as scientific observations, i would have to ask you what your question was, what hypothesis you have formed, and how you intend to test it. I would also have to ask what you methodology for data gathering was.
WTF? Tell me what my argument is again?
Dude (or dudette) I didn't say it was a scientific observation, I said that it was an observation, and then reminded you that this is what precedes a great deal of scientific research. I made this remark because you attempted to marginalize anecdotal observation. Also, I did not claim to be using scientific method. Please stop putting words in my mouth, I find that to be all too much like dealing with Samuel Weiss.
And pointing out your crappy spelling is not an ad hominem (yes, ad hominem has an e)--it's just an observation of fact. Were I to refer to you as a mouth-foaming atheist that would be argument ad hominem. But I have not referred to you as such, so we don't need to worry about that do we...
As for methodology, if I were doing the poll you cited I would make sure that my questions were semantically sound. To ensure this I would first want to determine the respondent's conception of literal of figurative meaning. Why would I do this? Because I have anecdotal evidence that suggests that the concepts of 'figurative' in faith communities are not homogenous (and are infact quite debased from common usage), and this I think anyone sensible will admit could have a radical effect on the reliance by such persons on their literal truths. It would add, as I see it, significant qualitative information to the quantitative data.
May I jack my train of thought here and remark that anecdotal evidence is not ignored by most scientists, Zombie..., and that it often leads to further experimentation and insight? I would have thought you were aware of this?!? Medical research? Hello?
Anyway, this data, both quantitative and qualitative, should make the poll more informative and useful--this remains to be seen of course. Also, I would have to consider the matter further before I decide if any other baseline questions are necessary. Whatever: I'm a copywriter and graphic designer--it's not my job.
That aside, my personal opinion of your statistic on those 1/3 of Americans is that it shows these folks are just being the sheep/robots they were brought up to be. They, like all human beings myself included, are supporting contradictory beliefs which they are not aware of (ED: or they're just ignorant of the science--and I also have anecdotal evidence for this). Do I care? Not really. I'm not American and I don't consider 100 million American fundamentalists worth as much time as they have now cost me on this thread.
So you go right ahead and cast out your humorous characterizations of nutcase belief communities, I can't seem to give a shit anymore.
Moff, Kirth, Help me out guys, have I lost perspective on this?
Obviously I agree with your main tenet here, Kruel, but the thing to remember is that not everyone is from Canada, where your "crazy fundies" are more or less equivalent to southern U.S. moderates. You have to remember that something like 40 to 50% of the U.S. population fits most or all of the following:
These are the people Zombieneighbors is ranting against. Characterizing them as "a few crackpots" is true, but ignores that fact that there are something like 80,000,000 of them in the U.S. alone.
I do sort of wish you'd both tone it down a notch; this seems to be one of the few threads I can go to without getting into an argument nowadays.
|
|
I'm going to ignore many of the last few posts for the most part. I'll talk briefly about the following...
Sure an individual will tend to focus on a specific examples, i happen to like the bit in the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, where Lot, the only 'rightous man' in the city is spared in part because he offered his daughters up to be raped, rather than let harm come to his guests.
Here is a prime example that we cannot simply apply modern day ideas and ideals to the text. And we have to take the whole thing in context. The story starts off with these two guys who come into town and meet up with Lot. Lot invites them to his home. The two guys refuse and say that they don't want to impose. Lot insists -- strongly. Eventually the two guys acquiesce and go to his house. Later that night a mob appears outside his door and demands that Lot release his guests so they can have sex with them. Lot refuses but tries to appease the crowd by offering his daughters which doesn't work. It's a passage that is difficult to read and difficult to fully understand. We Westerners don't really get it. In that culture, when you have a guest at your house, they become the most important thing to you and your entire household. It's hard to really compare it to anything we have. Absolutely no harm must come to your guests. Which means that you do whatever is in your power to protect your guests. It's easy to read it as though he cared so little about his own daughters that he was willing to offer them. But it's really meant to read that these guests were so important to him that he would eventually offer something as important to him as his daughters.
I'm probably not doing this justice. Genesis 19 verse 8 where Lot says "...for they have come under the protection of my roof." really means that he has made a vow (which was taken incredibly seriously) that he will do whatever it takes -- including sacrificing the lives of him and his family -- to ensure the safety of his guests. We really don't have anything comparable in our society. So when we read the story today, it makes Lot look like a bastard.
Lot didn't offer himself. Humble ye them is a bit of a strange invitation. Don't look for morality in the bible.
|
|
...It's also this idea of picking and choosing what we like and discarding what we don't. That's not what the Bible is about either.I am uncomfortable hearing that you know the purpose of the bible. I do not. There is no preface in which a purpose is outlined. No hermeneutic guidebook written by Jesus himself. Nothing at all like that. All I have to go on are the traditions passed on down 15-20 generations of fanatics. As far as I'm concerned this is quite problematic for anyone citing scriptures.
As for picking and choosing citations: that's exactly how 99.99% of the bible quoting that goes on in daily life is done...
And not to mention that those who wrote the bible clearly picked and chose to cast things in a particular light, the gospels are clear evidence of that. They also just plain made some stuff up, too, judging by the glaring contradictions we know to exist in the NT.
Your point is well taken. I'm going to probably ramble a bit -- hope that some of it makes sense...
What I was kind of talking about was the difference between expectations of Christians and expectations of other people who look at the Bible. If you're not a Christian, then all the Bible is, is just a collection of ancient stories. Some of them possibly useful. Some of them a bit disturbing. But in any case it isn't wrong. But Christians should be looking at the Bible as both a collection of individual works as well as a whole unit. If you're not a Christian, feel free to pick out the bits you like and throw away the other parts, but for Christians, I feel that if they just pick out the bits they like, they don't really understand what God, Jesus or the Bible is all about. They end up making the Bible something that it isn't.
I try and quote the Bible while setting it up in context. I know that so many people just pick and choose the verse(s) they like and stick with those. If I ever do that, call me on it.
And as far as casting things in a particular light -- I would think that many things (especially in the Old Testament) would have been cast in a better light. The Hebrews messed up rather consistently -- I mean, did they ever do anything right as a people?
|
|
Lot didn't offer himself. Humble ye them is a bit of a strange invitation. Don't look for morality in the bible.
If you die, how do you protect your guest?
I'm not saying that the situation is moral. I'm not saying that the practice is something we should be doing in America. If anything, the point of the story is to show just how awful things had gotten there. Pretty much nothing in the story is saying "this is good".
I'm also still trying to point out that we don't have the cultural understanding of the passage.
You have to remember that something like 40 to 50% of the U.S. population fits most or all of the following:
Rejects outright that evolution happens at all (never mind that natural selection is one of the driving mechanisms);
Is sure that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old;
Believes that the "end times" and the rapture will occur within our lifetime;
Accepts it as "obvious" that Bubba Joe's totally uninformed and downright falsifiable opinion on a variety of scientific topics is automatically more valid than the opinions of people who study those topics professionally;
Feels strongly that atheists should be denied citizenship and sent to live with the "commies" in Europe or Canada.
Do you have any documentation to back up these stats?
Yes God certainly orders or commits quite a few murders in the old testament. Of course someone could argue that since they were committed in his name they don't count.
Interesting comment. Aside from hinting at the old philosophical/theological debate over whether something is right because God does it or done by God because it is right, it suggests to me the question of whether or not it is possible to decouple belief in the Hebrew Bible God and worship of the Hebrew Bible God. Of course, you could argue that people like me work backwards to reach a comfortable conclusion, but if I came to believe that the god of the Hebrew Bible existed I would be in a difficult position. The idea that the king of the universe is an omnipotent Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin/& so on is hard to stomach and presents me with an enormous dilemma: do I bow down to him or not? Should I appease him as I would an evil fantasy RPG god, grit my teeth and honor him just to propitiate him (knowing that he knows that I find his actions reprehensible)? What are my options? Rely on his whimsical nature, ignore him and hope that he isn’t in the mood to smite me? Worship one of the other gods of the Hebrew Bible? [Tangential observation: the Abrahamic religions are always referred to as monotheistic because their adherents only worship one deity. However, you could argue that they are polytheistic because the Hebrew Bible mentions a number of other deities (and I don’t believe-have to go back and check-that they are treated as make-believe gods worshiped by the deluded).]
Then there are the stories that are like the relative in prison....we just don't talk about that. I don't recall hearing much in Sunday school about God ordering kids and babies to be mass-murdered. Imagine how surprised I was when I started reading the KJV years later and saw what was really in there.The parts you agree with literally are to be taken literally, and the rest is to be seen as ‘just stories’. And if there isn’t a denomination of your faith that agrees with you then just create your own. Seems to be the way things work.Which one is better story...Which parts of the bible are just stories and which parts are meant to be taken literally?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the- Creator-claims-academic.html
Translations such tricksy little devils...
Yes God certainly orders or commits quite a few murders in the old testament. Of course someone could argue that since they were committed in his name they don't count.
It still boils down to Genesis and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Not including how things work does not discount from reality. Keep in mind the Bible includes zero information about the Earth being round, Orbiting a Sun, other planets, other galaxies?How ever if we were to claim that evolution is junk based on the fact that God created man with no real explanation? Wouldn't we also have to discount the facts we know that also aren't in the bible?
Interesting comment. Aside from hinting at the old debate over whether something is right because God does it, or done by God because it is right, it suggests to me the question of whether or not it is possible to decouple belief in the Hebrew Bible God and worship of the Hebrew Bible God. Of course, you could argue that people like me work backwards to reach a comfortable conclusion, but if I came to believe that the god of the Hebrew Bible existed I would be in a difficult position. The idea that the king of the universe is an omnipotent Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin/& so on is hard to stomach and presents me with an enormous dilemma: do I bow down to him or not? Should I appease him as I would an evil fantasy RPG god, grit my teeth and honor him just to propitiate him (knowing that he knows that I find his actions reprehensible)? What are my options? Rely on his whimsical nature, hope that he isn’t in the mood to smite me? Worship one of the other gods of the Hebrew Bible? [Tangential observation: the Abrahamic religions are always referred to as monotheistic because their adherents only worship one deity. However, you could argue that they are polytheistic because the Hebrew Bible mentions a number of other deities (and I don’t believe-have to go back and check-that they are treated as make-believe gods worshiped by the deluded).]
Then there are the stories that are like the relative in prison....we just don't talk about that. I don't recall hearing much in Sunday school about God ordering kids and babies to be mass-murdered. Imagine how surprised I was when I started reading the KJV years later and saw what was really in there.The parts you agree with literally are to be taken literally, and the rest is to be seen as ‘just stories’. And if there isn’t a denomination of your faith that agrees with you then just create your own. Seems to be the way things work.Which one is better story...Which parts of the bible are just stories and which parts are meant to be taken literally?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the- Creator-claims-academic.html
Translations such tricksy little devils...
Yes God certainly orders or commits quite a few murders in the old testament. Of course someone could argue that since they were committed in his name they don't count.
It still boils down to Genesis and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Not including how things work does not discount from reality. Keep in mind the Bible includes zero information about the Earth being round, Orbiting a Sun, other planets, other galaxies?How ever if we were to claim that evolution is junk based on the fact that God created man with no real explanation? Wouldn't we also have to discount the facts we know that also aren't in the bible?
"Of course someone could argue that since they were committed in his name they don't count."
Interesting comment. Aside from hinting at the old debate over whether something is right because God does it or done by God because it is right, it suggests to me the question of whether or not it is possible to decouple belief in the Hebrew Bible God from worship of the Hebrew Bible God. Of course, you could argue that people like me work backwards to reach a comfortable conclusion, but if I came to believe that the god of the Hebrew Bible existed I would be in a difficult position. The idea that the king of the universe is an omnipotent Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin/& so on is hard to stomach and presents me with an enormous dilemma: do I bow down to him or not? Should I appease him as I would an evil fantasy RPG god, grit my teeth and honor him just to propitiate him (knowing that he knows that I find his actions reprehensible)? What are my options? Rely on his whimsical nature, hope that he isn’t in the mood to smite me? Worship one of the other gods of the Hebrew Bible? [Tangential observation: the Abrahamic religions are always referred to as monotheistic because their adherents only worship one deity. However, you could argue that they are polytheistic because the Hebrew Bible mentions a number of other deities (and I don’t believe-have to go back and check-that they are treated as make-believe gods worshiped by the deluded).]
Do you have any documentation to back up these stats?
Here's the easiest one. Note that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" comes out consistently way ahead of the alternatives (44% in 2008), including Moff's (and John Paul II's) more moderate theistic evolution. Scrolling down, 55% want Creationism taught in public schools, and 35% believe that science and religion inherently conflict with each other.
Will keep looking for the rest.
Thanks! I'm surprised most of the stats haven't changed that much since 1982.Do you have any documentation to back up these stats?Here's the easiest one. Note that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" comes out consistently way ahead of the alternatives (44% in 2008), including Moff's (and John Paul II's) more moderate theistic evolution.
Will keep looking for the rest.
Thanks! I'm surprised most of the stats haven't changed that much since 1982.
Yeah; honestly I had assumed that the "pro-Creationist" numbers would show a recent upswing (over the last decade or so). Maybe my perception has been influenced by my own location over time (ever deeper into the Bible Belt), more than by shifts in overall percentages.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Moff, Kirth,
Help me out guys, have I lost perspective on this?
Seriously.
I declare you to be completely unreasonable and with no perspective whatsoever for failing to call me out in this. Pfft. Just asking the calm reasonable people if you're being reasonable is, itself, unreasonable!
Do you have any documentation to back up these stats?
This is intresting, too: "About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word." By region, 41% of Southerners agree, compared with 26% of Easterners.
Thanks! I'm surprised most of the stats haven't changed that much since 1982.Yeah; honestly I had assumed that the "pro-Creationist" numbers would show a recent upswing (over the last decade or so). Maybe my perception has been influenced by my own location over time (ever deeper into the Bible Belt), more than by shifts in overall percentages.
I thought the numbers would have gone down by now, mainly because I don't know anyone that is deeply religious. It's strange how our own perceptions can fool us at times.
... I don't know anyone that is deeply religious. ...I'm hurt. (I think).
;-)
LOL! I mean people that I know in everyday life. ;)
|
|
LOL! I mean people that I know in everyday life. ;)... I don't know anyone that is deeply religious. ...I'm hurt. (I think).
;-)
It's kind of odd. On one hand, I feel that I am "deeply religious", yet on the other hand, I hear about (and see) the freakazoid "Christians" that are described here (and elsewhere) and feel that I want to be as far removed from them as possible.
Knock knock, Moff.
|
Thanks! I'm surprised most of the stats haven't changed that much since 1982.Yeah; honestly I had assumed that the "pro-Creationist" numbers would show a recent upswing (over the last decade or so). Maybe my perception has been influenced by my own location over time (ever deeper into the Bible Belt), more than by shifts in overall percentages.
You need to get out more. Houston is hardly part of the "Bible Belt". 250 miles north (Dallas) and you're talking about the buckle, sure, but considering over 70% of Houston isn't from Texas (or even the American South)....