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
Bibles-for-porn stunt draws crowd at UTSA
Options
Comments
-
Both seem to exhibit a similar chemical reaction in the brain
They do?
Can you show me scientific evidence of this? The quotes you provided earlier don't support this conclusion by the way. They show that pornography triggers a natural high in the brain, but not that this leads to addiction or dependency, like alcohol does.
Ok, plenty hereSo where can you show me how alcohol addiction is not an ideological concept thought up by groups with an anti-alcohol agenda?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlcoholismPeople will confess to exhibiting all of the above in relation to pornography abuse.. see Fanny's link for one man's testimony.
People will confess to lots of things, particularly when the seed that something is inherently bad has been planted by ideological groups, which is why medical and scientific definitions tend not be based solely on what people think is wrong with them.
A good example of this is gambling "addiction". There is no such thing as gambling addiction. What there is are people with various forms of impulse control disorder where the sufferer is drawn to gambling and can't stop.
This is why when you get them away from gambling they often simply target something else, because gambling isn't the actual issue, impulse control disorder is.
So someone claiming they were addicted to pornography is rather irrelevant unless they have some how properly diagnosed themselves which if they could do that you would be pretty impressed.0 -
I will when I get a chance, but anecdotal stories of his experiences talking to people about pornography are rather here nor there. If he is supporting or contradicting my assertions that doesn't matter unless he can back it up.
Just a thought. But perhaps you should listen to the talk before poo-pooing it and assuming that either stories shared are contradicting your assertions.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Just a thought. But perhaps you should listen to the talk before poo-pooing it and assuming that either stories shared are contradicting your assertions.
I didn't. If the person supports "my assertions" it is neither here nor there either.0 -
Can you show me scientific evidence of this? The quotes you provided earlier don't support this conclusion by the way. They show that pornography triggers a natural high in the brain, but not that this leads to addiction or dependency, like alcohol does...
So show me how alchohol scientifically leads to addiction or dependency...0 -
I didn't. If the person supports "my assertions" it is neither here nor there either.
Of course you did! You set the boundaries of what you will and wont find find acceptable before you have listened to the talk. That is fine - at least you admit it - but other than knowing the talk is about porn and presumably how bad it was for these two people, you don't know a great deal about the specific content. In fact, I actually think that the main speaker would agree with you that porn itself doesn't create a rapist or murderer or whatever.
It is a perspective on porn. So take it as such. If you are left unmoved then so be it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Of course I did, I've no problem admitting that.Fanny Cradock wrote: »Of course you did! You set the boundaries of what you will and wont find find acceptable before you have listened to the talk. That is fine - at least you admit it
What I didn't do is dismiss the talk before hand simply because it was suggested that the conclusions reached contradicted my position.
Other than the abstract I read on the web page, no I don't.Fanny Cradock wrote: »you don't know a great deal about the specific content.
That is irrelevant. I don't care if he agrees that everything I've been saying is correct.Fanny Cradock wrote: »In fact, I actually think that the main speaker would agree with you that porn itself doesn't create a rapist or murderer or whatever.
You really seem to be missing the point here Fanny.0 -
So show me how alchohol scientifically leads to addiction or dependency...
Did you read the Wikipedia article or any of the references?
How about this
http://www.chemcases.com/alcohol/alc-11.htm0 -
it was suggested that the conclusions reached contradicted my position.
Yes, but that wasn't all I said, was it? What I actually said was: I think it both supports and contradicts certain assertions you have made. Your above quote suggests that you have missed the "support" bit and have focused on the "contradict" bit.Other than the abstract I read on the web page, no I don't.
That is irrelevant. I don't care if he agrees that everything I've been saying is correct.
You really seem to be missing the point here Fanny.
Fine. I'm missing the point. You are not dismissing it. I withdraw the accusation.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Yes, but that wasn't all I said, was it? What I actually said was: I think it both supports and contradicts certain assertions you have made. Your above quote suggests that you have missed the "support" bit and have focused on the "contradict" bit.
No, again it doesn't matter if the piece supported or contradicted my position.
You all seem to think I'm dismissive of this talk because it is given by a religious person and you think I think they are going to end up drawing a different conclusion to me.
I'm not.
If they drew exactly the same conclusion as me I would be dismissive of it because it seems (based on the abstract) to be based on anecdotal stories about pornography.0 -
No, again it doesn't matter if the piece supported or contradicted my position.
And yet you previously only mentioned that I had suggested that it might contradict your position. But it's fine if you say that it makes no difference either way. If you are looking for a cold, hard analysis of the effects pornography can have then I suggest you look elsewhere. You'll save yourself 1hr 30 minutes.You all seem to think I'm dismissive of this talk because it is given by a religious person and you think I think they are going to end up drawing a different conclusion to me.
Fine! But forgive me for being less than optimistic. After all we have already entered into an argument before you have listened to the bloody thing.If they drew exactly the same conclusion as me I would be dismissive of it because it seems (based on the abstract) to be based on anecdotal stories about pornography.
How do you know any conclusion is being reached? While they are there to share their story, the main guy is quite explicit in that the listener draws his or her own conclusions. Listen to it or don't. I really don't care at this stage.0 -
Advertisement
-
No Fanny I didn't. The very first time I commented on it (after you told me I really should listen to it) I saidFanny Cradock wrote: »And yet you previously only mentioned that I had suggested that it might contradict your position.
I will when I get a chance, but anecdotal stories of his experiences talking to people about pornography are rather here nor there. If he is supporting or contradicting my assertions that doesn't matter unless he can back it up.
And that is still my position.
I am looking for cold hard analysis of the effects of pornography, as emotional analysis is often inaccurate and flawed.Fanny Cradock wrote: »If you are looking for a cold, hard analysis of the effects pornography can have then I suggest you look elsewhere. You'll save yourself 1hr 30 minutes.Fanny Cradock wrote: »How do you know any conclusion is being reached?
I don't, but again, not relevant either way.
I certainly will listen to the audio, but I think we should probably move on, the damage of pornography is not even the topic of this thread.0 -
Agreed.0
-
As a stunt I think this was well conceived, but that is about it. Essentially they have found a perfectly legal thing to do that will annoy people, safe in the knowledge that they can sit back and go “We are not doing anything wrong. Bibles are legal here. This porn is legal here. Barter is legal here. So what’s the problem?” and the detractors are left looking silly while the media latch on.
It also highlights that there is a lot of sex etc in the bible. Again, so what?
If the detractors of this stunt had had any sense they would have calmly looked it over, grinned knowingly and said “These students are devoid of any business sense whatsoever. They are bartering a product that can mostly be obtained for free and trading it for a relatively high cost per word consumer product. How foolish. What are you guys teaching them over there in San Antonio? Clearly its not business studies.” and just moved on.
Then again retrospect is a wonderful thing. Nothing else was likely to happen but people over reacting and playing right into the hands of the stunt.
Atheist Ireland is currently in support of a “Read the Bible” campaign and I agree with it. People should have a bible. No home set of book shelves should be without it. Removing bibles from peoples homes as this trade has been doing is counter productive I think.
But still funny. It gave me a giggle.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Atheist Ireland is currently in support of a “Read the Bible” campaign and I agree with it. People should have a bible. No home set of book shelves should be without it. Removing bibles from peoples homes as this trade has been doing is counter productive I think.
I think that is the point thought. The campaign is not trying to remove Bibles, it is trying to highlight what is actually in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.
As campaigns like this one and AI's one seem to have latched on to is that a lot of young "theists" haven't actually read the Bible or other holy book.
They get their notions of what the Bible or holy book is supposed to be all about from parents, or priest, or suit and tie evangelists on the TV.
When they have had the idea that their religion is all about love and caring firmly implanted in their brains by these people they may then go back and read the Bible or holy book within that context and compartmentalize away all the horrible things they read about.
What this campaign is doing is trying to say to young people before his happens look at what is in your religious book. It is smut. It is violence. It is immoral. It is horrible.
Thankfully it seems to be working pretty well.0 -
I think that is the point thought. The campaign is not trying to remove Bibles, it is trying to highlight what is actually in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.
As campaigns like this one and AI's one seem to have latched on to is that a lot of young "theists" haven't actually read the Bible or other holy book.
They get their notions of what the Bible or holy book is supposed to be all about from parents, or priest, or suit and tie evangelists on the TV.
When they have had the idea that their religion is all about love and caring firmly implanted in their brains by these people they may then go back and read the Bible or holy book within that context and compartmentalize away all the horrible things they read about.
What this campaign is doing is trying to say to young people before his happens look at what is in your religious book. It is smut. It is violence. It is immoral. It is horrible.
Thankfully it seems to be working pretty well.
I love it when atheists pretend to be puritanical.
Anyone who reads what the Bible has to say about sex and ends up viewing it as 'smut' must be extraordinarily repressed as regards their sexuality.
The Bible, in various parts, celebrates the gift of sex as something wonderful to be enjoyed between a husband and wife. It also records how sexual immorality, abusing that gift, produces bad consequences. Hardly 'smut'. You can find more smut in any great literature.0 -
Anyone who reads what the Bible has to say about sex and ends up viewing it as 'smut' must be extraordinarily repressed as regards their sexuality.
You don't think God sanctioned sex slavery as smut?
Must be my repressed views of sexuality and women. :eek:
Let me guess, I'm reading the Old Testament "wrong"
It also describes the God telling the Hebrews to take for themselves the captured women of their war torn neighbors as plunder. Those passages are over flowing with respect for women and the "gift of sex"The Bible, in various parts, celebrates the gift of sex as something wonderful to be enjoyed between a husband and wife.
Oh that's right, I need to read the New Testament first, believe in God, and then read (and reinterpret) the Old Testament within the context of the New Testament. Otherwise I'm doing it "wrong". Silly me. :rolleyes:
And around and around we go.
Thankfully these groups are getting to people before the usual Christian double-think about the Old Testament has time to sink in. They are asking people to read the Old Testament for what it is, before the usual compartmentalization that goes on has established itself.0 -
No, neither do I think that history books that refer to sex slavery are smut. These are the kind of things adults can talk about sensibly, but I guess spotty teenagers (the kind who think catalogues with pictures of women in underwear should be kept in the bathroom) may find that smuttyYou don't think God sanctioned sex slavery as smut?
Those passages barely mention sex. Again, it is implicit in the record of what happened, but hardly 'smut' in the eyes of anyone aged over 14.It also describes the God telling the Hebrews to take for themselves the captured women of their war torn neighbors as plunder. Those passages are over flowing with respect for women and the "gift of sex"
Your trolling at least used to be mildly amusing. What happened?Oh that's right, I need to read the New Testament first, believe in God, and then read (and reinterpret) the Old Testament within the context of the New Testament. Otherwise I'm doing it "wrong". Silly me.
And around and around we go.
If people are Jews then they would naturally want to read the Old Testament as a stand alone. If people are Christians then they naturally want first to read about Jesus Christ (the centre of their faith - the clue is in the name Christian) in the New Testament, and then follow that up by reading the Old Testament to understand the context better.
That is a perfectly reasonable position and hardly merits muppetry or rolling eyes.
And, as usual, you resort to the usual nonsense of accusing anyone who doesn't subscribe to your biased views as engaging in double think or compartmentalisation.Thankfully these groups are getting to people before the usual Christian double-think about the Old Testament has time to sink in. They are asking people to read the Old Testament for what it is, before the usual compartmentalization that goes on has established itself.
I'm getting tired of you.0 -
No, neither do I think that history books that refer to sex slavery are smut. These are the kind of things adults can talk about sensibly, but I guess spotty teenagers (the kind who think catalogues with pictures of women in underwear should be kept in the bathroom) may find that smutty
Groan .. more Christian double think. :rolleyes:
The Bible does not simply refer to historical sex slavery PDN. That is like saying porn is just the historical record of a studio where a woman happened to be naked on that day.
This is why it is pointless to discuss this topic with such a fundamentalist like yourself, you have come at this in such as way as to totally skew your view of these books (Accept God, read New Testament, read Old Testament, rationalise away Old Testament in light of New Testament's "message" and the concept of God you have in your head from step 1)
It is like the old joke about the German who is hit by a car going the wrong way down a one way street. He thinks, but it is a one way street, therefore a car can only go this way down it, therefore a car cannot go that way down it, therefore I wasn't hit by a car.
The point is, thankfully, a lot of people are reached before they get to this stage, which is what this campaign is trying to do. You are beyond saving.If people are Christians then they naturally want first to read about Jesus Christ (the centre of their faith - the clue is in the name Christian) in the New Testament, and then follow that up by reading the Old Testament to understand the context better.
That is a perfectly reasonable position and hardly merits muppetry or rolling eyes.
It is not a reasonable position at all, which you would see if you applied that nonsense logic to anything else:
If someone is a Scientologist they naturally want to read the official biography of L Ron Hubbard first and then apply that to reading how Hubbard said to make a million bucks you should invent a religion and process that phrase within the context of the truth of modern Scientology
Or as it is also known, double think. Hubbard can't mean what it appears he means because we are processing this earlier comment within the context of the later doctrine of Scientology. Hubbard must have meant something else because Scientology must be true and Hubbard must be a prophet.
Totally reasonable :rolleyes:
It is this sort of nonsense that this atheist campaign is attempting to highlight, and by the sounds of it, not a minute too soon.0 -
Groan .. more Christian double think. :rolleyes:
The Bible does not simply refer to historical sex slavery PDN. That is like saying porn is just the historical record of a studio where a woman happened to be naked on that day.
Nonsense. Porn is produced for the purpose of sexual gratification. For a Christian, the Old Testament is a divinely inspired record of God's dealings with Israel. This includes a provision (no graphic details or material for titilation) that women widowed by war need not be killed but might be taken as wives by the Israelites. That certainly grates on our modern sensibilities - but only a malicious troll or a total moron would claim that represents anything to Christians other than a historical record of what the Israelites did 3400 years ago.
You do yourself no favours whatsoever when you twist logic and truth in this way. It simply destroys your credibility so no-one listens to you on any other subject.
Hey, way to go. I am presenting a position (that Christians read the Old Testament in the light of the New) which makes sense to Christians of various hues (liberals and conservatives alike) and also to many non-Christians. You dismiss it by an ad hominem attack in applying a pejorative term like 'fundamentalist' to me.This is why it is pointless to discuss this topic with such a fundamentalist like yourself, you have come at this in such as way as to totally skew your view of these books (Accept God, read New Testament, read Old Testament, rationalise away Old Testament in light of New Testament's "message" and the concept of God you have in your head from step 1)
Oh, the irony!The point is, thankfully, a lot of people are reached before they get to this stage, which is what this campaign is trying to do. You are beyond saving.
Stop your nonsense. Scientologists are free to read books in whatever order they want. Much as I might disagree with them, I, for one, wouldn't be arrogant enough to insist otherwise.If someone is a Scientologist they naturally want to read the official biography of L Ron Hubbard first and then apply that to reading how Hubbard said to make a million bucks you should invent a religion and process that phrase within the context of the truth of modern ScientologyOr as it is also known, double think. Hubbard can't mean what it appears he means because we are processing this earlier comment within the context of the later doctrine of Scientology. Hubbard must have meant something else because Scientology must be true and Hubbard must be a prophet.
Totally reasonable
No, it's hardly reasonable to dismiss my points on the ground that I am a 'fundamentalist' and then to prattle on about scientologists instead. Classic evasion technique.
Let's hope they do a better and more convincing job of highlighting it than you do.It is this sort of nonsense that this atheist campaign is attempting to highlight, and by the sounds of it, not a minute too soon.0 -
For a Christian, the Old Testament is a divinely inspired record of God's dealings with Israel.
You are (spectacularly) missing the point. :rolleyes:
I know that is what you believe. What you believe isn't the point. You are already convinced of the correctness of Christianity and the New Testament and are thus forced by this belief to view the Old Testament in a particular context.
But you are claiming that anyone who reads the Bible and sees it as smut has an issue with their repressed sexuality or some such nonsense.
There is no point then turning around and saying well Christians interpret the Old Testament in this particular way in light of the New Testament and as such we don't see it like that and that is totally valid way of looking at it.
You just made a claim about how everyone should interpret the Old Testament, not just Christians.This includes a provision (no graphic details or material for titilation) that women widowed by war need not be killed but might be taken as wives by the Israelites.
Except that isn't what is actually written in the Old Testament, and you know it. How you get from plunder the women and take them for yourselves to a provision to help widowed war victims just highlights the sort of double think I'm talking about.
But that is actually some what beside the point. The point isn't about how you interpret the Old Testament as a Christian, it is how you seem to expect others to interpret it or dismiss them with silly little comments.
I seem to remember we had this problem with you before, a number of times actually.0 -
Advertisement
-
You are (spectacularly) missing the point. :rolleyes:
I know that is what you believe. What you believe isn't the point.
Actually, this being the Christianity Forum, what Christians believe is the point.
So says the poster who, any time any biblical passage is discussed, automatically parrots his ideological line.You are already convinced of the correctness of Christianity and the New Testament and are thus forced by this belief to view the Old Testament in a particular context.
Where we differ is that I have taken the time to study the Old Testament with a genuine desire to understand it. I am not bound to any predetermined interpretation.
Now who's spectacularly missing the point?But you are claiming that anyone who reads the Bible and sees it as smut has an issue with their repressed sexuality or some such nonsense.
There is no point then turning around and saying well Christians interpret the Old Testament in this particular way in light of the New Testament and as such we don't see it like that and that is totally valid way of looking at it.
You just made a claim about how everyone should interpret the Old Testament, not just Christians.
You can disagree with my interpretation of Old Testament passages if you choose (even though your disagreement is obscurantist) but that does not make it 'smut'.
You remind me of a schoolboy who sniggers everytime sex is mentioned and thinks a photo of a bare breasted Amazonian woman in National Geographic is a dirty picture. There is a world of difference between material produced for sexual titillation and that which deals with sexual issues from a historical or cultural standpoint.
That isn't what I said - but since when did that make a difference to you? Even if you choose to interpret those passages differently, it is not 'smut'.Except that isn't what is actually written in the Old Testament, and you know it. How you get from plunder the women and take them for yourselves to a provision to help widowed war victims just highlights the sort of double think I'm talking about.
And I definitely remember us having this problem with you on many occasions. I'm not interested in going down the same road again where you try to argue semantics and reinterpret 'smut' to give it a peculiar Wicknightian meaning that is not shared with the rest of the English-speaking world.I seem to remember we had this problem with you before, a number of times actually.0 -
You just made a claim about how everyone should interpret the Old Testament, not just Christians.
This is perhaps because Christians believe that all can benefit eternally by knowing, and living according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
The Biblical text, contains subnarratives, and a metanarrative, or an overriding theme. When we interpret the Old Testament in light of the New, we start to see the metanarrative rather than the subnarrative. We see the whole picture for all humanity, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, for they are all one in Christ Jesus.
The Abrahamic covenant makes sense. We have come to inherit it and become His heirs through Jesus Christ. Numerous other incidents in the Bible which seem strange at a first glance, all start to fit into the metanarrative. Why do you think this is?0 -
Actually, this being the Christianity Forum, what Christians believe is the point.
No, not when you make proclamations about what non-Christians believe. Then what they actually believe is the point.
Unless you hold to the idea that what Christians believe is correct because it is what Christians believe?So says the poster who, any time any biblical passage is discussed, automatically parrots his ideological line.
Intelligent PDN. Er, lets see, I'm rubber your clue :rolleyes:You can disagree with my interpretation of Old Testament passages if you choose (even though your disagreement is obscurantist) but that does not make it 'smut'.
No, what makes it smut is that it is smut.
Saying anyone who things it is smut is sexual repressed isn't an argument why it isn't smut.
Totally misrepresenting what is actually said in stories about sex slaves and women treated as plunder isn't an argument why it isn't smut.
Saying this is the Christian forum and here the Christian position is that it isn't smut isn't an argument why it isn't smut.
In my humble opinion, shared apparently by a lot of people, it is smut because it glorifies the sexual abuse of women at the hands of God's choose people.
Of course you don't agree with that interpretation, and I'm happy to debate back and forth until the cows come in.
What is ridiculous though is simply saying that is wrong because it isn't the Christian position, or that is wrong because you are sexual repressed or an idiot or any of the other insults you regularly use to dismiss people who have a different view of the Old Testament than your "correct" one.You remind me of a schoolboy who sniggers everytime sex is mentioned and thinks a photo of a bare breasted Amazonian woman in National Geographic is a dirty picture. There is a world of difference between material produced for sexual titillation and that which deals with sexual issues from a historical or cultural standpoint.
I agree, but then I reject your assertion that the Bible is merely historically recording accounts of sex slavery.And I definitely remember us having this problem with you on many occasions. I'm not interested in going down the same road again where you try to argue semantics and reinterpret 'smut' to give it a peculiar Wicknightian meaning that is not shared with the rest of the English-speaking world.
Well currently I and a whole load of other people think what is referred to in the Bible is smut. If you Google "smut" and "Bible" you get a lot of responses, only some from this current campaign.
And on the other hand you don't think what is in the Bible can be considered smut.
So at the moment, apparently, it is the PDNian meaning of the word we are debating.
Though I imagine the response will be this is your forum so you get to decide what smut means, or we are using "smut" in the Christian context, or some other nonsense.
And we get dragged down another rabbit hole of pointless semantics. What fun :rolleyes:0 -
This is perhaps because Christians believe that all can benefit eternally by knowing, and living according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Ok ... and how does what PDN said do that exactly?When we interpret the Old Testament in light of the New, we start to see the metanarrative rather than the subnarrative. We see the whole picture for all humanity, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, for they are all one in Christ Jesus.
The Abrahamic covenant makes sense. We have come to inherit it and become His heirs through Jesus Christ. Numerous other incidents in the Bible which seem strange at a first glance, all start to fit into the metanarrative. Why do you think this is?
Because you guys reject interpretations, often the most painfully obvious interpretations, if it doesn't fit with the "meta-narrative" you believe must exist in the Old Testament based on reading the New Testament? And then stand back amazed that the interpretation of the Old Testament fits perfectly with the New Testament? And then criticise people who don't reach the same conclusions as being biased or just plain idiots?
That is the wrong answer, right? :P0 -
Thank you for that enlightening contribution to the debate.Intelligent PDN. Er, lets see, I'm rubber your clue :rolleyes:In my humble opinion, shared apparently by a lot of people, it is smut because it glorifies the sexual abuse of women at the hands of God's choose people.
Of course you don't agree with that interpretation, and I'm happy to debate back and forth until the cows come in.
Glorifies it? Hardly. It simply records the laws that applied back then. And I have never heard any scholar, Christian Jewish or atheist, suggest that those laws apply today or are of anything but historical interest.
It still doesn't make it smut. But I have no doubt you will argue until the cows come home. We've been here before with such classics as you insisting that a retaining wall is actually a building etc.
You know what, I'm not interested in indulging your muppetry any more. You think the Bible is smut. Some of your atheist fellow-travellers, being such unbiased people, also choose to call the Bible smut. I really don't care how you choose to twist language to suit your point of view, but I'm not going to give you the oxygen of publicity. Take it elsewhere please.0 -
I really don't care how you choose to twist language to suit your point of view, but I'm not going to give you the oxygen of publicity. Take it elsewhere please.
Er, I think Fanny gave it the "oxygen of publicity" when he started this thread. :rolleyes:
You, replying to my post btw, dismissed off hand as the ridiculous ramblings of sexually repressed people the idea that anyone could think the Bible contains smut.
Fair enough, your opinion.
You seem to have absolutely no interest in defending or discussing that position properly though, or any interest in actually understanding where the atheists group is coming from, there seems to be little point in continuing with you so I'm happy to drop this discussion as well.
You do know Boards.ie gives you a blog where you can post your position without reply....0 -
-
Because you guys reject interpretations, often the most painfully obvious interpretations
You mean face-value interpretations? Generally, there is more to a passage than what first meets the eye. If one went on face-value one would be making assumptions without considering context.
I suppose it depends on what you want from it. If I am going to honestly claim that I want Christianity to inform my living, then yes, I'm going to consider it deeper than if I didn't.
The Christian position is that the Jewish Scriptures were a shadow of what was to come. If you want to discuss Orthodox Judaism or any other view of the Jewish Scriptures one would need to argue clearly for a Jewish forum.if it doesn't fit with the "meta-narrative" you believe must exist in the Old Testament based on reading the New Testament?
I think you know this by now Wicknight, but I and probably most of the other Christians on this forum would believe that every subnarrative has some form of relevance to the metanarrative. I can give you numerous Biblical examples where this is the case.And then stand back amazed that the interpretation of the Old Testament fits perfectly with the New Testament? And then criticise people who don't reach the same conclusions as being biased or just plain idiots?
I don't think I have referred to people as being idiots. Views are posted to be criticized. My views are criticized on this forum regularly. Criticism facilitates thought.That is the wrong answer, right? :P
I believe so as a Christian.0 -
You mean face-value interpretations?
No, not exactly. Interpretations that fit perfectly fine except that they cause trouble for other parts of the Bible, or cause trouble for doctrine
An example off the top of my head, it is often discussed what actually happened to the captured women given to the Hebrews. The most obvious, and historically likely, idea is that they were take as forced marriage sex slaves.
This interpretation is disputed by some Christians on this forum because obviously it has some theological issues.
I've heard excuses that it never mentions they have sex or that it never mentions that they have sex unwillingly.
This is actually the opposite of what you are talking about, Christians (and Jews some times) taking only the face value of the story and saying that we can't say anything more about it and thus we can't say that something quite horrific (and unexplainable in the context of God) is described to be happening.
Another example is how the Bible describes the sun. Given that very few civilisations understood how the sun works it seems totally plausible that neither did the Hebrews, and incorrect reflected this ignorance in their writings. But if you believe the information on these passages is described from God then it can't be wrong, so another explanation, less plausible, has to be found, such as that it was written not as a description of what was happening but as a description of what it looked like from the view of the observe was happening.
Possible, sure. But the most plausible explanation from a completely neutral position? Hardly.
Now I don't really want to get into a rabbit hole of whether or not these captured women were forced to have sex with the the soldiers who captured them or not.
My point is simply that the interpretation that seems the most obvious to everyone else who are not invested either way in these stories (lots and lots of cultures, from different places and different times captured and raped victims of wars) is often rejected by believers due to a requirement that everything fit a particular narrative that they already think must exist in the stories.
They then, more often than not, turn around and accuse everyone else of trying to distort the "true" interpretation of these stories.
Or to put it another way.
Most Christians believe that the Bible does not contain errors, contradictions, or mistakes.
From a purely neutral point of view, not a position of faith, this seems some what implausible. It is hard to think of any work of literature, particularly one as long as the Bible, that doesn't contain errors, contradictions or mistakes.
Mistakes and errors crop up in all other works, so why not the Bible.
It should be no surprise, and certainly not worthy of derision, that people find errors, mistakes and contradictions in the Bible.
I always find it odd that Christians attack with such aggression and often bile, non-Christians who think they have found errors and say they are biased and have an agenda.
Why would they not find mistakes and errors in the Bible? This would be the expected norm, it is to be expected if we treat the Bible from a neutral position as just a book.
Often a rather convoluted explanation is given as to why it isn't actually an error or mistake. Which is fair enough, you can explain anything if you are prepared to accept any explanation.
By why not simply accept the most obvious explanation?
Christians are required by their faith to not see contradictions in the Bible. And thus an explanation that turns a contradiction into a non-contradiction is take above simply concluding it is a contradiction.I don't think I have referred to people as being idiots.
No, others have though. I do not refer to you specifically in any of this.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement