Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

On the interpretation of religious texts by The Lords of Distortion

Options
  • 17-03-2015 8:34pm
    #1
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,131 ✭✭✭✭


    silverharp wrote: »
    Sure :) Deuteronomy 22:28-29 states: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” In other words, you break it, you buy it.

    What happens if they are not discovered?


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    looksee wrote: »
    What happens if they are not discovered?

    They die. Apparently, blame the victim was one of God's favourite games back in the day, and if the woman screamed but no one came...then she must've done something wrong and needs to die.


  • Options
    #3
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    They die. Apparently, blame the victim was one of God's favourite games back in the day, and if the woman screamed but no one came...then she must've done something wrong and needs to die.


    Sounds like something only an infinitly wise and merciful mind could come up with.


  • Options
    #4
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    They die. Apparently, blame the victim was one of God's favourite games back in the day, and if the woman screamed but no one came...then she must've done something wrong and needs to die.

    it was ok apparently for daughters to rape their dads :confused: , apparently God then gives the sons of this unholy union land formally owned by the Giants



    Genesis 19
    19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
    19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
    19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
    19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
    19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
    19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
    19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #5
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,133 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    silverharp wrote: »
    it was ok apparently for daughters to rape their dads :confused: , apparently God then gives the sons of this unholy union land formally owned by the Giants



    Genesis 19
    :confused: indeed. I look in vain in the text you quote for anything that suggests either that what the daughters did is regarded as OK, or that God gave anything at all to the offspring.

    Not even the most fundamentalist biblical literalists reads scripture with a hermeneutic which assumes that the mere narration of an event implies its approval. It's hard to produce a reading that's even more simplistic than the readings of a Young Earth Creationist, but you have managed it. Congratulations!


  • Options
    #6
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    :confused: indeed. I look in vain in the text you quote for anything that suggests either that what the daughters did is regarded as OK, or that God gave anything at all to the offspring.

    Not even the most fundamentalist biblical literalists reads scripture with a hermeneutic which assumes that the mere narration of an event implies its approval. It's hard to produce a reading that's even more simplistic than the readings of a Young Earth Creationist, but you have managed it. Congratulations!

    I look in vain for anything in the text that suggests it is not ok? And is hermeneutic meant to do anything other than make us think "oh my, he knows big complicated words?" Can you give an example of science believers in boards.ie who use big science words in an attempt to show off?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    :confused: indeed. I look in vain in the text you quote for anything that suggests either that what the daughters did is regarded as OK, or that God gave anything at all to the offspring.

    Not even the most fundamentalist biblical literalists reads scripture with a hermeneutic which assumes that the mere narration of an event implies its approval. It's hard to produce a reading that's even more simplistic than the readings of a Young Earth Creationist, but you have managed it. Congratulations!

    And god apparently gave them the the gift of accepting what they had done was not too bad. Otherwise he would have zapped them.


  • Options
    #8
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,133 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    obplayer wrote: »
    And god apparently gave them the the gift of accepting what they had done was not too bad. Otherwise he would have zapped them.
    Are you trying to win the prize for taking an approach even more simplistic than silverharp's? ;) If so, I commend your enthusiasm, but you're up against some pretty stiff competition!


  • Options
    #9
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    obplayer wrote: »
    I look in vain for anything in the text that suggests it is not ok? And is hermeneutic meant to do anything other than make us think "oh my, he knows big complicated words?" Can you give an example of science believers in boards.ie who use big science words in an attempt to show off?

    The palpable reluctance of our co-correspondent to acquiesce to your request would speak to me either of his antipathy to engagement in such verbiage or to his inefficaciousness in identifying a suitable candidate. :pac:

    For what it’s worth, the word ‘hermeneutic’ is listed in the dictionary as ‘of or relating to the interpretation of Scripture’; and what IS a ‘science believer’?;)


  • Options
    #10
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Is it possible to specify what what 'big science words' are, before someone has to go looking for them?
    I would be surprised if there weren't a few eleven or more character words being used here and there on boards.ie.... obplayer has used the words complicated, investigation, fascinating, and scientifically (surely that's a big science word?) quite recently, so it can't be the big that's the problem.... must be something else!


  • Options
    #11
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Absolam wrote: »
    Is it possible to specify what what 'big science words' are, before someone has to go looking for them?
    I would be surprised if there weren't a few eleven or more character words being used here and there on boards.ie.... obplayer has used the words complicated, investigation, fascinating, and scientifically (surely that's a big science word?) quite recently, so it can't be the big that's the problem.... must be something else!

    Titin is a big science word.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    pauldla wrote: »
    Titin is a big science word.

    CERN is arguably even bigger....


  • Options
    #13
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,133 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Oh, come now. Atheists, as a class, are supposed to be both better educated and more intelligent than the general run of the population. Or so Richard Dawkins keeps assuring me. They should hardly need to have English words explained to them. In the (wildly unlikely) event that they are both unfamiliar with a word and unable to deduce it's meaning from contextual and etymological clues, they should at least know how to google it.

    "Hermeneutic" means "Of, relating to, or concerning interpretation or theories of interpretation; a method or theory of interpretation; a particular interpretation". It's from the Greek hermeneuein, to interpret. It's often used with reference to the interpretation of scripture but it's certainly not confined to that context. Post-modernist critical thinkers never shut up about hermenuetics, frankly - just google "Derrida hermeneutics" for more examples that you could possibly want. On a board populated by people who profess to be interested in critical thinking, I don't think it's an outlandish word to use. Still, there you go.


  • Options
    #14
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    :confused: indeed. I look in vain in the text you quote for anything that suggests either that what the daughters did is regarded as OK, or that God gave anything at all to the offspring.

    Not even the most fundamentalist biblical literalists reads scripture with a hermeneutic which assumes that the mere narration of an event implies its approval. It's hard to produce a reading that's even more simplistic than the readings of a Young Earth Creationist, but you have managed it. Congratulations!

    Well, when read along with other OT stories, there is an implied God-approval for incest. What about Abram's marriage to his half-sister, Sarai? The resultant sons of the father/daughters union are listed as the ancestors of nations, the Moabites and another one I can't remember the name of.
    Remember, what had happened just before Daddy Lot got it on with his daughters? That's right, God dropped meteors on the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah for perverse sexual practices. So after reading that story about how God likes to really show his displeasure, when he fails to act, then there's an implied approval for incest. What's stopping him?


  • Options
    #15
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    :confused: indeed. I look in vain in the text you quote for anything that suggests either that what the daughters did is regarded as OK, or that God gave anything at all to the offspring.

    Not even the most fundamentalist biblical literalists reads scripture with a hermeneutic which assumes that the mere narration of an event implies its approval. It's hard to produce a reading that's even more simplistic than the readings of a Young Earth Creationist, but you have managed it. Congratulations!

    well read on , from my oringal genesis quote
    19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
    19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.


    Deuteronomy 2
    /

    2:9 And the LORD said unto me, Distress not the Moabites , neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.
    2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;
    2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims.

    God gave the Moabites and the Ammonites special protection since they were the descendents of Lot's drunken, incestuous affair with his daughters? how else do I read that?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #16
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,133 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    You don't have to read too much of the OT histories to realise that all kinds of things, good, bad or morally indifferent, are narrated there, and the purpose of the narration is frequently not to point to the goodness, badness or moral indifference of the event concerned, but simply to explain or contextualise some other event, or to present a complete narrative. Contrary to what silverharp and obplayer seem to assume, there is no hermeneutical tradition, either in Christianity or in Judaism, which treats the mere narration of an event, or the narration of that event without explicit moral condemnation, as signifying moral approbation.

    As for Sarai being Abram's half-sister, yes, she was (according to Genesis). But far from treating the Genesis story as signifying approval of incestuous relationships, the Jewish interpretive tradition on this point is largely devoted to considering the implications of the relationship, given that incest is not morally permissible, and indeed later in the scriptures is explicitly forbidden. In other words, the only people I see invoking this story in support of an argument for the permissibility of incest are silverharp and obplayer and yourself.

    In support of your interpretation, you assume that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a punishment for "perverse sexual practices", and argue that by recording the punishment for one sexual practice and the lack of punishment for another, the scripture must be taken to imply the approval of the latter. Again, though, you can't attribute your interpretation to others. The scriptures do not say anywhere that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual practices; in fact it is stated flatly in Ezekiel that they were destroyed for arrogance, greed, indifference to the needs of others and inhospitality. You are choosing to focus on a contrast between homosexual rape and incestuous rape, while the contrast that the scriptures explicitly point to is between the hospitality shown by Abraham versus the inhospitality shown by Sodom.

    It's undeniable that Genesis does present an event of incest between Lot and his daughters - initiated, apparently, by the daughters. And of course it also presents, just before that, the event of Lot offering his daughters to the mob in Sodom , which equally goes unpunished by God. These are obviously morally problematic acts, to put it no higher. But there in no warrant at all for saying that believers treat this, or ought to treat this, as signifying approval of the acts concerned. All the people I see drawing that conclusion are unbelievers. So is a loss of the ability to engage in thoughtful critical reading one of the hazards of unbelief? ;-)


  • Options
    #17
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    In support of your interpretation, you assume that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a punishment ....

    One thing here, today this would be described as a war crime. God murdered newborns, infants and children. Why have respect for such a callous entity?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #18
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,133 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    silverharp wrote: »
    One thing here, today this would be described as a war crime. God murdered newborns, infants and children. Why have respect for such a callous entity?
    It's a story, silverharp. When you read the story, it's your prerogative, and your responsibility, as reader to determine what the story signifies. If you think that the significance of the story is to communicate to the reader the personality or characteristics of god, you might then conclude that you shouldn't have respect for such a god, or such a conception of god. That's fine.

    Its just that, for obplayer, the significance of the story is what it communicates to the reader about the morality of homosexuality. For the mainstream Jewish interpretive tradition, it's about the importance of hospitality. If either of those readings (or of many others) are valid, could the role god plays have been framed in order to make the primary point? Or could the point of the story be, not what god is like, but what Lot (and his culture) thought god was like?

    This story is one of a number of "texts of terror" in which god is variously presented as genocidal, murderous, bigoted, hate-filled or generaly psychopathic in one way or another. Obviously, these texts are problematic for believers, and a variety of hermeneutic(!) approaches have been adopted to engage with them.

    Undoubtedly one possible approach is a simplistic literalism which says that, yes, God really does things that seem monstrously immoral, but since "moral" = "what God wants", when God does them they can't be immoral, even though they would be immoral if we did them.

    But, equally obviously, there are many other approaches, and this simplistic reductionism is not the dominant approach that finds favour in either the Jewish or the Christian traditions.

    The point I have been trying to get across in this exchange, though, is that there is an approach among some atheist critics of belief - apparently including yourself - which treats this approach as normative, authentic, etc. You don't criticise biblical literalists for adopting the interpretation of scripture that they do; rather you criticise the scriptures as morally indefensible, operating on the assumption that the simplistic literalist interpretation of the scriptures is valid and correct. Intellectually, you're togging out for a team that you ought to despise; you're aligning yourself with some of the notoriously most obscurantist thinkers on the planet. You and, say, Fred Phelps actually take the same approach to reading and interpreting scripture, an approach which the bulk of believers (and, I like to think, the bulk of unbelievers) regard as batsh!t insane.

    Still, necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows, or something like that.


  • Options
    #19
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Peregrinus wrote: »

    The point I have been trying to get across in this exchange, though, is that there is an approach among some atheist critics of belief - apparently including yourself - which treats this approach as normative, authentic, etc. You don't criticise biblical literalists for adopting the interpretation of scripture that they do; rather you criticise the scriptures as morally indefensible, operating on the assumption that the simplistic literalist interpretation of the scriptures is valid and correct. Intellectually, you're togging out for a team that you ought to despise; you're aligning yourself with some of the notoriously most obscurantist thinkers on the planet. You and, say, Fred Phelps actually take the same approach to reading and interpreting scripture, an approach which the bulk of believers (and, I like to think, the bulk of unbelievers) regard as batsh!t insane.

    Still, necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows, or something like that.

    My assumption is that the bible is man made by a primitive culture so I for don't believe it contains much in the way of history except including real places or made up interactions with real cultures like the Egyptians say.
    So depending on the topic I can either argue that its all made up or try to see what a believer makes of it by questioning what episode x tell them about the character of God.
    One thing Im attempting to understand for myself is what believers make of the ot. So if I take say a minor incident like god telling moses to kill a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. Do they believe this actually happened? Or its just a fable and the spiritual message is to obey god? Or the Jews didn't really understand god when this stuff was written? Or some other explanation

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #20
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    The point I have been trying to get across in this exchange, though, is that there is an approach among some atheist critics of belief - apparently including yourself - which treats this approach as normative, authentic, etc. You don't criticise biblical literalists for adopting the interpretation of scripture that they do; rather you criticise the scriptures as morally indefensible, operating on the assumption that the simplistic literalist interpretation of the scriptures is valid and correct.

    I don't know about the others, but this literalistic approach I take is because with it, I give the theist side the best possible position and then proceed to dismantle it. I give them the position that the text they cite as evidence/justification for their beliefs is true as read. That way, you don't end up doing mental gymnastics. I show them how, even in the best possible case, their position still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
    Jesus died for our sins? Okay, let's run with that, I'll dismantle it by showing how it doesn't make sense to be grateful to an omnipotent, immortal god being for taking what is from his point of view, a very short nap that was completely unnecessary to accomplish the stated goals.
    Oh wait, that was symbolic or non literal? Then there's nothing for me to believe. There wasn't a god man who died for me, thus the threat of hell (in whatever way hell is described) holds no weight at all.

    As for not criticising them for adopting the interpretation that they do...I remember myself on numerous occassions on the existence of God thread pointing just that very thing out. I remember saying to the theists that whenever I talk to a Roman Catholic, I can very easily find a Methodist or a Baptist or a Calvinist and get their interpretation and examine both and critique both.
    and this simplistic reductionism is not the dominant approach that finds favour in either the Jewish or the Christian traditions.
    In my view, this is because this allows the believer to believe in the nice things and not have to deal with the baggage of the obviously not-nice things. I don't find it peculiar at all that in the modern era, even the most strict orthodox Jewish communities don't practice slavery as it is described in the Torah/OT. Christians have a theological reasoning to get around that - they say Jesus somehow did away/negated/fulfilled/<insert-favoured-term-here> with the OT laws, but the strictest most orthodox Jews don't. They don't go around to the foreign nations around them buying and selling slaves.
    I think it's because they realise that the world wouldn't stand for that, even if they cried "God said so!" The civilized world is doing that with ISIS, who claim that Allah said so as justification for all their acts.
    You and, say, Fred Phelps actually take the same approach to reading and interpreting scripture,
    I of course take umbrage at this. Fred Phelps (he's dead now, in case you haven't heard, so there's no need for you to speak about him "taking the same approach" in the present tense, as if he's still alive) believed in his god, took this one book to be the infallible word of his god and concentrated pretty much on the one thing he didn't like.
    Compare that with me, where I read the whole text, and am aware of the strengths and weaknesses of both symbolic and literal interpretations. The reason I don't spend much, if any time, on the symbolic is because at it's core, there's nothing there really to attack. Any time I look at a given passage or verse and criticise it, the theist always has the option of saying "That's not what I believe it says, I believe it means something else than what it says, there's a different meaning". In other words, constant goalpost shifting. I also have to remember that when Theist A says this, any number of other theists can say the exact same thing, but say every other theist is wrong (or imply it).


  • Options
    #21
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You don't have to read too much of the OT histories to realise that all kinds of things, good, bad or morally indifferent, are narrated there, and the purpose of the narration is frequently not to point to the goodness, badness or moral indifference of the event concerned, but simply to explain or contextualise some other event, or to present a complete narrative. Contrary to what silverharp and obplayer seem to assume, there is no hermeneutical tradition, either in Christianity or in Judaism, which treats the mere narration of an event, or the narration of that event without explicit moral condemnation, as signifying moral approbation.

    As for Sarai being Abram's half-sister, yes, she was (according to Genesis). But far from treating the Genesis story as signifying approval of incestuous relationships, the Jewish interpretive tradition on this point is largely devoted to considering the implications of the relationship, given that incest is not morally permissible, and indeed later in the scriptures is explicitly forbidden. In other words, the only people I see invoking this story in support of an argument for the permissibility of incest are silverharp and obplayer and yourself.

    In support of your interpretation, you assume that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a punishment for "perverse sexual practices", and argue that by recording the punishment for one sexual practice and the lack of punishment for another, the scripture must be taken to imply the approval of the latter. Again, though, you can't attribute your interpretation to others. The scriptures do not say anywhere that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual practices; in fact it is stated flatly in Ezekiel that they were destroyed for arrogance, greed, indifference to the needs of others and inhospitality. You are choosing to focus on a contrast between homosexual rape and incestuous rape, while the contrast that the scriptures explicitly point to is between the hospitality shown by Abraham versus the inhospitality shown by Sodom.

    It's undeniable that Genesis does present an event of incest between Lot and his daughters - initiated, apparently, by the daughters. And of course it also presents, just before that, the event of Lot offering his daughters to the mob in Sodom , which equally goes unpunished by God. These are obviously morally problematic acts, to put it no higher. But there in no warrant at all for saying that believers treat this, or ought to treat this, as signifying approval of the acts concerned. All the people I see drawing that conclusion are unbelievers. So is a loss of the ability to engage in thoughtful critical reading one of the hazards of unbelief? ;-)

    Ok, so we are not to take the OT literally but to learn from the stories it tells. Well what I have learned is that while sodomy is bad, incest, rape, slavery, mass murder and genocide are all fine and dandy. I think I prefer Little Red Riding Hood as a metaphorical story.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    Ok, so we are not to take the OT literally but to learn from the stories it tells. Well what I have learned is that while sodomy is bad, incest, rape, slavery, mass murder and genocide are all fine and dandy. I think I prefer Little Red Riding Hood as a metaphorical story.
    I think you missed the initial point then; just because something isn't explicitly condemned doesn't necessarily mean it's condoned.
    An absence of zapping doesn't have to convey approval, I think is what was being said?


  • Options
    #23
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think you missed the initial point then; just because something isn't explicitly condemned doesn't necessarily mean it's condoned.
    An absence of zapping doesn't have to convey approval, I think is what was being said?

    In fairness pick a topic and you find rewarding and condemning or simple shrugging of shoulders. See below for an example of God going all ISIS on war captives. Its not really a moral God



    It's OK to have sex with "women children" that are obtained in war.

    And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #24
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,133 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    obplayer wrote: »
    Ok, so we are not to take the OT literally but to learn from the stories it tells. Well what I have learned is that while sodomy is bad, incest, rape, slavery, mass murder and genocide are all fine and dandy. I think I prefer Little Red Riding Hood as a metaphorical story.
    Well, interpretation is the reader's prerogative, ob. If that's how you read the Judeo-Christian scripture, that tells us more about you than it does about the scriptures, I'm afraid. But if you want to use the scriptures to criticise or attack beleivers, you have to do so on the basis of what they make of the scriptures, not on the basis of what you make of them.

    All you have demonstrated so far is that biblical literalism, and the mindset which leads to it, is found among unbeleivers as well as among believers, which is probably not a point you want to make or, still worse, exemplify.


  • Options
    #25
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    In fairness pick a topic and you find rewarding and condemning or simple shrugging of shoulders. See below for an example of God going all ISIS on war captives. Its not really a moral God It's OK to have sex with "women children" that are obtained in war.
    So... since we're aware that there are instances of behaviour being explicitly condoned in the bible, we can determine that failing to condemn isn't condoning, as finding instances of explicit condoning implies that where condoning occurs it is explicit rather than implied? Fair enough. Not that I'm attributing that logic to anyone who lives by the bible, but I'd agree that they're more likely to go with that perspective than the one offered by obplayer and yourself. Except for the more out of the box thinkers, as Peregrinus has pointed out. Which I guess just shows it takes all sorts, even amongst the religious :)


  • Options
    #26
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, interpretation is the reader's prerogative, ob. If that's how you read the Judeo-Christian scripture, that tells us more about you than it does about the scriptures, I'm afraid. But if you want to use the scriptures to criticise or attack beleivers, you have to do so on the basis of what they make of the scriptures, not on the basis of what you make of them.

    All you have demonstrated so far is that biblical literalism, and the mindset which leads to it, is found among unbeleivers as well as among believers, which is probably not a point you want to make or, still worse, exemplify.

    but what you make of them now is not that important, its more important to understand what the people who wrote the OT were thinking.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #27
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Absolam wrote: »
    So... since we're aware that there are instances of behaviour being explicitly condoned in the bible, we can determine that failing to condemn isn't condoning, as finding instances of explicit condoning implies that where condoning occurs it is explicit rather than implied? Fair enough. Not that I'm attributing that logic to anyone who lives by the bible, but I'd agree that they're more likely to go with that perspective than the one offered by obplayer and yourself. Except for the more out of the box thinkers, as Peregrinus has pointed out. Which I guess just shows it takes all sorts, even amongst the religious :)

    If the book is no more than a bunch of 3 little piggy stories with occassional nuggets of wisdom , thats fine I dont care. If the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind and by implication people will use to try to effect things in the real world, I care. As I see it the OT is a collection of musings and local lore from a backward civilisation and is no more useful then putting together a bunch of writings from religious people in Afghanastan today.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #28
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    obplayer wrote: »
    Ok, so we are not to take the OT literally but to learn from the stories it tells. Well what I have learned is that while sodomy is bad, incest, rape, slavery, mass murder and genocide are all fine and dandy. I think I prefer Little Red Riding Hood as a metaphorical story.

    It always amazes me the way christians have such facility for taking the bible literally when they want the literal meaning to be enforced, and taking it allegorically when the absurdity of the passage is pointed out to them. Quite often you see them take both approaches to the exact same passage! The cognitive dissonance must surely be giving them massive migraines.


  • Options
    #29
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, interpretation is the reader's prerogative, ob. If that's how you read the Judeo-Christian scripture, that tells us more about you than it does about the scriptures, I'm afraid. But if you want to use the scriptures to criticise or attack beleivers, you have to do so on the basis of what they make of the scriptures, not on the basis of what you make of them.

    All you have demonstrated so far is that biblical literalism, and the mindset which leads to it, is found among unbeleivers as well as among believers, which is probably not a point you want to make or, still worse, exemplify.

    Well what I stated is pretty well backed up by the OT. What does the OT teach you? Give us the verses and the moral learning's you have taken from them please and we can discuss.


  • Options
    #30
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    silverharp wrote: »
    If the book is no more than a bunch of 3 little piggy stories with occassional nuggets of wisdom , thats fine I dont care. If the OT is presented as somehow tapping into God's mind and by implication people will use to try to effect things in the real world, I care.
    Why care? If you don't believe in God in the first place, you're hardly under an obligation to believe any part of the bible is somehow tapping into God's mind. Whether or not it's true won't change the fact that people will use it to justify their actions, and it seems unlikely an atheist telling them they must believe it says one thing, when they already know they believe it says another, is going to change their minds?
    silverharp wrote: »
    As I see it the OT is a collection of musings and local lore from a backward civilisation and is no more useful then putting together a bunch of writings from religious people in Afghanastan today.
    Which is all very well and good, but doesn't really give you any particular credibility when you pontificate on the meaning of the contents?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,133 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    silverharp wrote: »
    but what you make of them now is not that important, its more important to understand what the people who wrote the OT were thinking.
    Why would you think that was the important thing? Serious question. Judaism and Christianity as we encounter them today are clearly based much more on what contemporary believers take from the scriptures, not on what the original authors intended when they produced the text.

    For example, it's entirely possible that the people who first wrote down the creation story in Genesis understood it to be a more-or-less historically accurate account of the origins of humanity, for example. But, then, they didn't have the insights we have based on the findings of geology, archaeology, etc, so we wouldn't pass the same judgment about their creationism as we would about modern creationism. \

    The intentions and understandings of the original authors, editors, etc, in so far as we can divine them, may be interesting, but I don't see that they're all that important. Christianity and Judaism today have very little to do with that.


Advertisement