quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The righeous were spared... this is a common theme throughout the bible.

but Lot (was it Lot? i forget) offered his daughter to the rapists. doesn't sound particularly 'righteous' to me and then god turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for having the temerity to look over her shoulder. what a nice bloke!!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN though to be fair, its a bit hard for me to provide non-knowledge in return for all the wonderful info i glean from you

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i'll preface this by saying i completely agree with you. BUT, all i have to say is that 'no, you're wrong. leviticus is the word of the lord our god' and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. we both know there are plenty of people that DO believe this as well :/

Unfortunately, you are correct... there are many people who believe all that they are told without giving it any critical thought or seeking deeper understanding. I can't stand these people. In fact I have very little tolerance for them and will take any opportunity to tear them down and illustrate just how little they understand about their own faith. I'd rather a person believe nothing then have faith in something simply because they were told to.

quote:

but doesn't the nature of the passage(s) really depend upon one's own interpretation? you might call something 'historical' and i might swear that it is theological. neither of us are wrong (or right) are we?

Given that anyone interpreting a passage today has no way of actually knowing what the intent of it was then I suppose right and wrong is not discernable. That said, one who possesses a greater knowledge of the collective books of the bible and the context in which they were written is better equiped to delve deeper into any one passage and correctly interpret the meaning. In truth, very little of the bible is as simple as the words on the page, particularly the New Testimate (as it was written as a historical record, instruction to believers, and theology... generally any gospel story holds at minimum two meanings... this was intentional). I suppose my point is; the opinion and interpretation of some crackpot who has never actually read the bible and bases his faith on what he hears when he's in an arena with hundreds of other recovering alcoholics crying while the only idiot in the place who has read the bible pretends to heal people because the holy spirit flows through him (and him alone) warrents far less consideration then that of someone possessing a Doctor of Divinities (Rev.) who has spent his/her life studying the bible, biblical history, and para-biblical records.

quote:

yeah ok. that's more like it! for me though, there are enough problems with the document that i have experienced that im less than enthused with the idea of dicovering more about it.

While I can appreciate not wanting to read a book that you dislike, the bible is not something that you can understand if you only read bits and pieces. If you read only one book you will get a partial understanding of that book only. If you read all of the books then you will gain a deeper understanding of each and every one of them. This is the only way to even come close to understanding the Bible. It's something that you really have to commit yourself to doing because it's one of the most difficult reads ever (Mein Kampf may actually have it beat... Damn that thing was needlessly wordy and circular); however, it's unfair to criticize something that you don't understand.

quote:

however, even if there is a god i have serious doubts that the bible is an adequate representation of him (which to me is the whole point of a holy book)

This may shock you... I agree, presuming there is a god I am certain that the Bible is not an adequate representation of it. If there is a god we are most certainly incapable of understanding it's nature (as our understanding is limited by our experience). Despite the Bible's claims of being devinely written or, alternatively, devinely inspired it is - ultimately - the product of man. Since man is incapable of understanding god then nothing we could produce could be an accurate or adequate representation of god. Where I disagree with you is that a holy book is meant to offer insight to the devine... not to explain it in full... it is a guide for further thought, not a end to it.

quote:

and i don't think that further study is a responsible use of my time given this opinion. if its not the undisputable word of god then its lustre is gone, and i may as well read the iliad or ulysses etc for historical knowledge.

The epics you cite have actually provided a good deal of insight into the Helenic peoples of the time thus they have some value. Even if you discount all the theology in the Bible it could be worth reading for that; however, the more important reason for you to read it will be addressed below.

quote:

my "railing" is still based on a certain level of understanding of the bible, though obviously it will never approach yours. how much of the text should i have read/studied in order for me to legitimately rail against it? i've read some, and i found it wanting. why would/should i continue studying something i find unconvincing? i haven't read the entirety of mein kampf either, but i don't think that is necessary to discount it or criticise it. if i read and studied the bible more, its likely that my criticisms of it would merely increase, both in volume and in tone.

Since your opinion on both religion in general and the existance of god is already well solidified, I would expect that your objections to the bible would become more robust in both substance and magnitude if you took the time to better understand the bible. If for no other reason a study of the bible would be useful for you in order to better argue your positions.

quote:

given that most of my issues with religion stem from sociology and political theory, why struggle with the text just so i can have a fuller appreciation of theology?

You can't understand the sociology and political theory without understanding the theology. You cannot intelligently debate the sociology and politics without understanding it first. I'll let you in on a secret... I had objections to organized religion well before I started studying religious beliefs. Since I have been exploring both the theology and history of various religions many of my objections have deepened. There is a tremendous amount of stupidity done in the name of religion by way of practices and beliefs that simply are not supported by the theology. The whole catholic masturbation thing for example... that stems from a story where God commanded a man to inpregnate his brother's wife (brother either dead or unable to knock her up, I can't recall)... dude decided that knocking up his brother's wife was kinda fucked up so he did the old withdraw trick and spooged on the floor... god saw this and killed him. Chances are this is one of those stories that's more fable then real; however, the early christians interpreted this story as God killing the man because he blew his load in such a way that conception was not possible; however, a more reasonable interpretation is that God struck him down for disobeying a direct commandment... the latter interpretation is more consistant with the actions of God as described in the OT then is the former; otherwise there'd be all sorts of stories of God killing people for banging their wives post menopause. That's the type of thing an understanding of the bible can provide a non-believer... now, because of that you have a theological reason to explain why the prohibition on masturbation is bollocks, which would go a long way in debating someone who is a believer. Trust me, there is nothing more fun then using sound theology to confuse the fundimentalists!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This may shock you... I agree, presuming there is a god I am certain that the Bible is not an adequate representation of it. If there is a god we are most certainly incapable of understanding it's nature (as our understanding is limited by our experience). Despite the Bible's claims of being devinely written or, alternatively, devinely inspired it is - ultimately - the product of man. Since man is incapable of understanding god then nothing we could produce could be an accurate or adequate representation of god. Where I disagree with you is that a holy book is meant to offer insight to the devine... not to explain it in full... it is a guide for further thought, not a end to it.

It sounds a little like your position lies somewhere between deist and theist to be honest.
From what you said a bit, I'd be interested to know what role you think the bible plays if it can't offer an adequate representation of god?
I somewhat agree with you in that the bible does not adequately represent god, however I'd go further and say that if there is a god, then I'd be confident that it isn't the god of the bible.

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM It sounds a little like your position lies somewhere between deist and theist to be honest. From what you said a bit, I'd be interested to know what role you think the bible plays if it can't offer an adequate representation of god? I somewhat agree with you in that the bible does not adequately represent god, however I'd go further and say that if there is a god, then I'd be confident that it isn't the god of the bible.

I think the Bible offers great advice on living well. I further think the Bible offers great insight into the nature of god; however, certainly not an adequate representation. I don't think it's possible for us to know god... to really know god, as a whole, as we are mearly part of god and only capable of understanding god as it relates to our own experience. The theology in the Bible (as with the Vedas) should be treated as an introduction to god, basic insight that should be used as a jumping off point for further reflection on god.

If one takes the view that the Biblical representation of god is a complete picture then I'd say the god of the Bible is not god (presuming existance thereof). In my view God as revealed in the bible is only the infinately small portion of God that we can understand... like how one would explain something complex to a child... you tell them as much as they can understand, enough for them to get the general idea and to develop that idea further as there capacity to understand grows.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Unfortunately, you are correct... there are many people who believe all that they are told without giving it any critical thought or seeking deeper understanding. I can't stand these people. In fact I have very little tolerance for them and will take any opportunity to tear them down and illustrate just how little they understand about their own faith. I'd rather a person believe nothing then have faith in something simply because they were told to. Given that anyone interpreting a passage today has no way of actually knowing what the intent of it was then I suppose right and wrong is not discernable. That said, one who possesses a greater knowledge of the collective books of the bible and the context in which they were written is better equiped to delve deeper into any one passage and correctly interpret the meaning. In truth, very little of the bible is as simple as the words on the page, particularly the New Testimate (as it was written as a historical record, instruction to believers, and theology... generally any gospel story holds at minimum two meanings... this was intentional). I suppose my point is; the opinion and interpretation of some crackpot who has never actually read the bible and bases his faith on what he hears when he's in an arena with hundreds of other recovering alcoholics crying while the only idiot in the place who has read the bible pretends to heal people because the holy spirit flows through him (and him alone) warrents far less consideration then that of someone possessing a Doctor of Divinities (Rev.) who has spent his/her life studying the bible, biblical history, and para-biblical records. While I can appreciate not wanting to read a book that you dislike, the bible is not something that you can understand if you only read bits and pieces. If you read only one book you will get a partial understanding of that book only. If you read all of the books then you will gain a deeper understanding of each and every one of them. This is the only way to even come close to understanding the Bible. It's something that you really have to commit yourself to doing because it's one of the most difficult reads ever (Mein Kampf may actually have it beat... Damn that thing was needlessly wordy and circular); however, it's unfair to criticize something that you don't understand. This may shock you... I agree, presuming there is a god I am certain that the Bible is not an adequate representation of it. If there is a god we are most certainly incapable of understanding it's nature (as our understanding is limited by our experience). Despite the Bible's claims of being devinely written or, alternatively, devinely inspired it is - ultimately - the product of man. Since man is incapable of understanding god then nothing we could produce could be an accurate or adequate representation of god. Where I disagree with you is that a holy book is meant to offer insight to the devine... not to explain it in full... it is a guide for further thought, not a end to it. The epics you cite have actually provided a good deal of insight into the Helenic peoples of the time thus they have some value. Even if you discount all the theology in the Bible it could be worth reading for that; however, the more important reason for you to read it will be addressed below. Since your opinion on both religion in general and the existance of god is already well solidified, I would expect that your objections to the bible would become more robust in both substance and magnitude if you took the time to better understand the bible. If for no other reason a study of the bible would be useful for you in order to better argue your positions. You can't understand the sociology and political theory without understanding the theology. You cannot intelligently debate the sociology and politics without understanding it first. I'll let you in on a secret... I had objections to organized religion well before I started studying religious beliefs. Since I have been exploring both the theology and history of various religions many of my objections have deepened. There is a tremendous amount of stupidity done in the name of religion by way of practices and beliefs that simply are not supported by the theology. The whole catholic masturbation thing for example... that stems from a story where God commanded a man to inpregnate his brother's wife (brother either dead or unable to knock her up, I can't recall)... dude decided that knocking up his brother's wife was kinda fucked up so he did the old withdraw trick and spooged on the floor... god saw this and killed him. Chances are this is one of those stories that's more fable then real; however, the early christians interpreted this story as God killing the man because he blew his load in such a way that conception was not possible; however, a more reasonable interpretation is that God struck him down for disobeying a direct commandment... the latter interpretation is more consistant with the actions of God as described in the OT then is the former; otherwise there'd be all sorts of stories of God killing people for banging their wives post menopause. That's the type of thing an understanding of the bible can provide a non-believer... now, because of that you have a theological reason to explain why the prohibition on masturbation is bollocks, which would go a long way in debating someone who is a believer. Trust me, there is nothing more fun then using sound theology to confuse the fundimentalists!

i will finish this conversation just by pointing out that if god does exist then i will have all of eternity to study the bible, and if he doesn't then im not gonna waste my mortal life reading something that isn't true.

squirm your way out of that analysis canuck!!

___________________

I hate the term "Evolutionist". Makes me feel like I'm a crazy person or something, just sticking to one idea. Tunnel vision at it's worst.

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie http://www.marriedtothesea.com/060807/show-tunes.gif

LOL. Married to the Sea is awesome.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles LOL. Married to the Sea is awesome.

Seriously. There's a comic for every situation, lol.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i will finish this conversation just by pointing out that if god does exist then i will have all of eternity to study the bible, and if he doesn't then im not gonna waste my mortal life reading something that isn't true. squirm your way out of that analysis canuck!!

Tell ya what... if I'm right then you owe me a beer in the afterlife. If you're right then... I suppose it doesn't matter

I'll still maintain that if you want to have even more fun arguing over the Abrahamic faiths then you should give the bible another go; however, I understand it's a lot to ask.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down