The bible - one book at a time?

Tim Robbins

Hi,
Got this idea from Fanny's thread (that sentence sounds ambiguous when you read it out load). Anyone fancy doing this?

Reason I proppose one here is that I'd like to encourage the atheist angle here which might seem a bit irreverant and I don't want to offend Christians.

Ok let's start with Paul or St. Paul, Corinthians 1 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/1.html)

I just read the KJV. My overriding memory of Paul, Corinithans 1 is his obsession with fornication. Don't fornicate here, don't fornicate there, don't fornicate before your dinner, don't fornicate after your dinner. Don't fornicate in the east, don't fornicate in the west. This book reminded me of some weird bloke you'd meet that you didn't know that well and started talking to you about sex.

Of course there's also the famous passage you hear at every wedding.
Anyone else? have you read it and what you think of it?

Cheers.

Dave!

I don't see the point myself What are we analysing it for? I can understand Christians wanting to, but if you think it's just another bullsh*t superstitious tome then it seems pointless to me, save for either analysing it from a historical, literary or moral point of view! Or maybe for the sake of educating yourself on religious stuff?

But again I don't see the point really -- the specific books of the Bible are irrelevant when it comes to the question of god's existance

robindch

Dave! wrote: »

But again I don't see the point really

I think it's certainly useful to read bits of the bible just to get a feel for what it really does say.

The stuff that gets read out in churches tends to be less controversial and more mealy-mouthed, concentrating where it can, on the lovey-dovey side of the text. Whereas, a full reading of say some of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul paints a very different, and a far less flattering, picture of what the bible is and what it says.

Rev Hellfire

Why pick the bible as opposed to any other book ?

liah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Why pick the bible as opposed to any other book ?

Because it's the most common, I would assume..?

How many people of a religious persuasion that aren't Christian do you really run into in Ireland, in fairness?

Rev Hellfire

liah wrote: »

Because it's the most common, I would assume..?

How many people of a religious persuasion that aren't Christian do you really run into in Ireland, in fairness?

What of the Koran, I know quite a number of Muslims ?
Or is it a case of picking an easy safe target ?

Ghost Buster

I never tire of this
The local Muslim head frock wearer isnt chairman of my local school.

Rev Hellfire

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I never tire of this
The local Muslim head frock wearer isnt chairman of my local school.

Thats nice for you.

But it doesn't change the fact you don't need to perform an in depth study of any of these books to conclude they're works of fancy.

Added to which what exactly do you think wasting your time time reading these things will accomplish ?

The Mad Hatter

The weight of influence of the bible on western literature and philosophical thought over the past two thousand years is incalculable, so if you have any interest in those things it's more-or-less an essential read.

Truley

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What of the Koran, I know quite a number of Muslims ?
Or is it a case of picking an easy safe target ?

The Bible and the Qur'an are virtually the same book.

Rev Hellfire

Truley wrote: »

The Bible and the Qur'an are virtually the same book.

So why pick one work of fiction over the other.

Its a totally pointless exercise, which beyond wasting your limited time on this earth accomplishes nothing.

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So why pick one work of fiction over the other.

Its a totally pointless exercise, which beyond wasting your limited time on this earth accomplishes nothing.

We'll do the bible first and the Quaran. Look I didn't intend for a thread derail and why it should be done. If you are not into sharing your opinions with fellow atheists who actually wouldn't mind reading the bible fair enough. But please don't derail.

Go and read Paul and see how mental, eccentric, intense, sex obsessed and off the wall it is.

Dades

Rev Hellfire, like you I have no interest in reading the Bible (have just been given Iain M Banks' Matter), but if others want to engage in this exercise why not let them?

Each to their own.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

Rev Hellfire, like you I have no interest in reading the Bible (have just been given Iain M Banks' Matter), but if others want to engage in this exercise why not let them?

Each to their own.

Hey I'm not saying they can't, I was simply question the wisdom.
But like you say its their life. Knock yourselves out, you have my blessing

5uspect

Can we read the Lego Bible?

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What of the Koran, I know quite a number of Muslims ?
Or is it a case of picking an easy safe target ?

I don't think reading the Bible precludes reading the Koran. I would personally find the Koran thread more interesting as I've read the Bible far more than the Koran, but I'm not sure why anyone would object to Tim's thread, it seems like a perfectly reasonable request.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I just read the KJV. My overriding memory of Paul, Corinithans 1 is his obsession with fornication.

Hmm, 'It is reported commonly' that there is fornication among the Corinthians. Paul writes a letter to this congregation, and part of it accentuates the problems with such behaviour.

This counts as obsessive does it?

If you were manager of a company, and you hear that in your London office there is a bit of a culture of stealing IT equipment. Would you consider it obsessive to send a letter to this office accentuating this as a problem?

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Hmm, 'It is reported commonly' that there is fornication among the Corinthians. Paul writes a letter to this congregation, and part of it accentuates the problems with such behaviour.

This counts as obsessive does it?

Yes. Fornication (sex between unmarried persons) is common today and if someone wrote me a letter about it, I'd think they're a bit weird or they had issues. Especially if they were going into great detail and thinking really intensely about it.

If you were manager of a company, and you hear that in your London office there is a bit of a culture of stealing IT equipment. Would you consider it obsessive to send a letter to this office accentuating this as a problem?

Yes I appreciate there are thousands of apologetics who can justify every word of the Bible, I am hoping for some fresher and more objective ideas here.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Fornication (sex between unmarried persons) is common today

Of what relevance is that?

and if someone wrote me a letter about it, I'd think they're a bit weird or they had issues.

Again, what does this have to do with Paul writing a letter to a congregation of Christians?

I am hoping for some fresher and more objective ideas here.

So the analogy does not work for you then? Could you point out where it lets you down?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Paul writes a letter to this congregation, and part of it accentuates the problems with such behaviour. This counts as obsessive does it?

Inasmuch as one's sex life is one's own business, yes, it is obsessive and prying.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Inasmuch as one's sex life is one's own business, yes, it is obsessive and prying.

So a CHRISTIAN congregation (A group of people who alledgedly want to follow Christ. i.e turn away from sin and walk in his ways etc), has a reputation for behaviour that is completely against Christ, and you think it is obsessive for this to be addressed by a man who was considered to be an aposltle of this Christ?

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Of what relevance is that?

We obviously mix in different circles.

Again, what does this have to do with Paul writing a letter to a congregation of Christians?

That question doesn't make any sense.

So the analogy does not work for you then? Could you point out where it lets you down?

Because it's the companies business what you do with their equipment. I do not consider it Paul's business to be telling people in very intense detail how they conduct their s*x lives.

Here's a better analogy for you. And it's much closer to what is happening. You go to Church one Sunday and you are read out a letter from some other Christian who tells you in very intense detail how to have s*x with your wife. I mean really intense. For example, he goes through 64 positions that are not ok and 3 that are ok.

Would you not think it odd?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

So a CHRISTIAN congregation (A group of people who alledgedly want to follow Christ. i.e turn away from sin and walk in his ways etc), has a reputation for behaviour that is completely against Christ, and you think it is obsessive for this to be addressed by a man who was considered to be an aposltle of this Christ?

Was fornication the main thing the Corinthians were doing that was against Christ?

Genuine question BTW, I'm tending to your side on this one, I think Christianity as a whole is obsessed with sex but your point that all Paul was doing was tailoring his letter to his audience seems valid.

That point might fall down though if the Corinthians were doing lots of sinful stuff but Paul, due to his own obsessions rather than theres, singled out fornication as something to have a particular go at.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

So a CHRISTIAN congregation (A group of people who alledgedly want to follow Christ. i.e turn away from sin and walk in his ways etc), has a reputation for behaviour that is completely against Christ and you think it is obsessive for this to be addressed by a man who was considered to be an aposltle of this Christ?

Well, Paul/Saul did consider himself a follower of Jesus, but as I'm sure you're aware, Paul never met Jesus, so his claim to be able to speak on his behalf is shaky at best.

Given that Jesus didn't really have much to say about sex anyway, and Paul had plenty to say, I'm inclined to think that Paul was simply somebody who enjoyed sticking his nose into other people's private business and simply used his unsupported claim to speak on Jesus' behalf as a means of acting out his nosiness.

But who knows what the Corinthians were up to anyway? Could it have been malicious gossip that somebody passed onto Paul that prompted him to write the letter?

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote: »

but your point that all Paul was doing was tailoring his letter to his audience seems valid.

Have you read it?

strobe

JimiTime wrote: »

Hmm, 'It is reported commonly' that there is fornication among the Corinthians. Paul writes a letter to this congregation, and part of it accentuates the problems with such behaviour.

This counts as obsessive does it?

If you were manager of a company, and you hear that in your London office there is a bit of a culture of stealing IT equipment. Would you consider it obsessive to send a letter to this office accentuating this as a problem?

Jimi weren't you the one that immediately posted that you would only have an interest in taking part in the Christianity forum version of this thread if all non-Christians were banned from posting in it?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Well, Paul/Saul did consider himself a follower of Jesus, but as I'm sure you're aware, Paul never met Jesus, so his claim to be able to speak on his behalf is shaky at best.

Given that Jesus didn't really have much to say about sex anyway, and Paul had plenty to say, I'm inclined to think that Paul was simply somebody who enjoyed sticking his nose into other people's private business and simply used his unsupported claim to speak on Jesus' behalf as a means of acting out his nosiness.

But who knows what the Corinthians were up to anyway? Could it have been malicious gossip that somebody passed onto Paul that prompted him to write the letter?

I am inclined to agree with this. Paul has no magic power, why should he be in a better position to issue dictats. The style of writing is really important here. He's not just making mild references to fornication. He's obsessed with it.

He's also communicating very dogmatically as if he understands the mind of God - unquestionably. He seems like he is twisting someone else's message completely either deliberately or accidentally.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Was fornication the main thing the Corinthians were doing that was against Christ?

Firstly, Tim rather overstates the time given over to sexual matters in the letter, and secondly, here is a passage:

1 Corinthians 5
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?
......

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Then Chapter 7 deals with marriage, and rather than giving details of sexual postions etc, which Tim was for some reason going on about, It goes on about how to support each other within the marriage framework. A husband should make sure he is not neglecting his wife sexually and vice versa, as this can lead to a desire for, shall we say, some outside help:)

Pauls 'obsession' (Word has negative connotations), is with keeping sin far from ones heart. All kinds of sin. Like all Christians, he see's its destructive power etc, and that is the message he gets accross in alot of his letters.

I think Christianity as a whole is obsessed with sex .

Indeed, Christianity's view on sex is different issue.

but your point that all Paul was doing was tailoring his letter to his audience seems valid

I'm quite surprised it is not obvious to everyone

That point might fall down though if the Corinthians were doing lots of sinful stuff but Paul, due to his own obsessions rather than theres, singled out fornication as something to have a particular go at.

You'll find he didn't single it out. He devoted 1 chapter (of 16) (Or one part of his letter as chapters, verses etc were a later edition as I'm sure you know) to an issue that pertained to the congregation, and another to marriage/celibacy etc.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Have you read it?

Corinthians or Jimi's point? Yes, and yes

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Well, Paul/Saul did consider himself a follower of Jesus, but as I'm sure you're aware, Paul never met Jesus, so his claim to be able to speak on his behalf is shaky at best.

Again, Pauls authenticity is not what is being discussed.

Given that Jesus didn't really have much to say about sex anyway,

Again, this moves the discussion.

But who knows what the Corinthians were up to anyway? Could it have been malicious gossip that somebody passed onto Paul that prompted him to write the letter?

Again, the authenticity of Paul etc is not what was being attacked. Does it not go without saying that you guys believe its all rubbish anyway? Do you not think I know that you obviously would not believe in a premise that Paul met a risen Jesus?

Paul is being singled out though as hard on sexual immorality. Yet, from the time of Sodom, sexual immorality has always been given serious attention. Also, as Paul was an apostle to gentile nations, he would be dealing with folk with cultures that would not have been founded on the Laws of Moses etc like they would in Judea. Paul is telling the flock, what they should know about God and his ways, and iterating to them not to let sinful desire (not just of a sexual nature) give birth to sin etc. As I said to wicknight, his 'obsission' is to get it through to the flock the destructive power of sin.

Jesus went to a more private place than the bedroom in his teachings. He actually went to ones own heart.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, Tim rather overstates the time given over to sexual matters in the letter, and secondly, here is a passage:

1 Corinthians 5
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?
......

I think you are looking through this through Christian goggles. Do you understand that someone who is not a Christian might have a very different impression to you?

I suspect if you read the Koran, you'd find parts of it very violent and unusual. And I'd also suspect you'd find similar apologetics who come up with strange explanations for it.

You are coming at it from an angle which has plenty of apologetics bending over backwards to try to rationalise it. But you should have an appreciation to how a non Christian would read this text. These apologetics reasons might be good enough for you but they are not for other people. I just think you should try to appreciate the perspective of other people a bit Jimi.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

You'll find he didn't single it out. He devoted 1 chapter (of 16) (Or one part of his letter as chapters, verses etc were a later edition as I'm sure you know) to an issue that pertained to the congregation, and another to marriage/celibacy etc.

Well I think we will have to agree to disagree there. I agree the letter is not all about complaining about the sin of fornication and sexual purity. But the bits that are about giving out about behavior that is the central theme. The later chapters do not move on to complain about other sins, they move on to the resurrection of Jesus and what it means to be Christian

JimiTime

strobe wrote: »

Jimi weren't you the one that immediately posted that you would only have an interest in taking part in the Christianity forum version of this thread if all non-Christians were banned from posting in it?

I did indeed. Here is my posting there:

I think of posters like Charco etc that have frequented this forum. They present arguements very 'matter of factly' and frame them as historic facts etc. Then someone like PDN usually has to write an essay to correct him etc. I'd rather just cut stuff like that out completely, and save folk like PDN the hassle of rebuttal. This is a Christian discussion IMO, and there'll be enough hammering out of details between the faithful without throwing others into the mix. This is more than just an intellectual or academic discussion IMO.

Of course, thats just me. I can choose to take part or not to. If people want to be diplomatic, thats fine, but I thought I'd throw in my two cent.


Is that a problem?

strobe

JimiTime wrote: »

I did indeed. Here is my posting there:

I think of posters like Charco etc that have frequented this forum. They present arguements very 'matter of factly' and frame them as historic facts etc. Then someone like PDN usually has to write an essay to correct him etc. I'd rather just cut stuff like that out completely, and save folk like PDN the hassle of rebuttal. This is a Christian discussion IMO, and there'll be enough hammering out of details between the faithful without throwing others into the mix. This is more than just an intellectual or academic discussion IMO.

Of course, thats just me. I can choose to take part or not to. If people want to be diplomatic, thats fine, but I thought I'd throw in my two cent.


Is that a problem?

No problem here boss. I just found it interesting that the within the first ten posts of that thread http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66397639&postcount=7 "Sounds great, but would only be interested in it if its Christian only tbh. I don't mean 'Christian spirited' neither. Thats just diplomacy for diplomacy's sake IMO" you jumped in to say you didn't want non-Christians involved in the discussion and you were the first one to charge into the thread on here. It amuses me. I am amused. I find it amusing.

Is that a problem?

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Do you understand that someone who is not a Christian might have a very different impression to you?

Ha ha, yes I do.

I suspect if you read the Koran, you'd find parts of it very violent and unusual. And I'd also suspect you'd find similar apologetics who come up with strange explanations for it.

But I'm not trying to justify Pauls position I'm pointing out to you, that Paul is delivering a message to Christians about sin. This particular sin is contextual to the Corinthians it would seem as he states that there is a 'crisis' in this congregation:

25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.


Why do you pick on Paul, when right through the bible there is an 'obsession' with sexual immorality? Your objection seems to be about Christianity and its teachings on sex, rather than anything specific to Paul.

You are coming at it from an angle which has plenty of apologetics bending over backwards to try to rationalise it.

I am not, and have no desire to, rationalise it. Its not about rationalising the message he brings. If thats what you are trying to discuss, why pick out Paul? Surely its all of the bible you have an issue with. Paul is working in the context of God, from Abraham to Jesus. There is nothing new in condemning sexual immorality. The bizarre thing, is that for some reason you just picked on Pauls contextual letter to a congregation alledgedly in some kind of crisis.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Is that a problem?

No. Different forum, different rules. Shouldn't have been brought up, tbh.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, the authenticity of Paul etc is not what was being attacked.

Attacked?

Questioned :rolleyes:

JimiTime wrote: »

Does it not go without saying that you guys believe its all rubbish anyway? Do you not think I know that you obviously would not believe in a premise that Paul met a risen Jesus?

Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. If he didn't just fake it, then he either suffered the kind of vivid hallucination that many people suffer from, or he was the first person to meet and talk with a dead guy. I'm inclined to think that he probably didn't, particularly since what Jesus says and what Paul says are quite different.

Jesus is (mostly) moderately relaxed and not all that articulate, while Paul is a mostly articulate control freak and Paul's portrait of the man he never met is far more similar to a reflection of himself than it is of the Jesus portrayed by the gospels.

Which beings us back to the original question -- somebody coming at this text for the first time, and unaware of the libraries that have been written justifying this enormous difference, would naturally be suspicious of it.

And that's one of the reasons why I think it's useful to read the bible.

JimiTime

strobe wrote: »

No problem here boss. I just found it interesting that the within the first ten posts of that thread http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66397639&postcount=7 "Sounds great, but would only be interested in it if its Christian only tbh. I don't mean 'Christian spirited' neither. Thats just diplomacy for diplomacy's sake IMO" you jumped in to say you didn't want non-Christians involved in the discussion and you were the first one to charge into the thread on here. It amuses me. I am amused. I find it amusing.

Is that a problem?

Not at all, the problem is that you are implying something? Something that is amusing alledgedly. But if I have made you happy, then, you're welcome;)

strobe

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all, the problem is that you are implying something? Something that is amusing alledgedly. But if I have made you happy, then, you're welcome;)

Capital.

JimiTime

Maybe I've completely missed something here, so I'll leave yee to it. Thanks for helping me pass the last bit of a VERY slow day at work. have a nice Bank Holiday weekend.

rational

Dave! wrote: »

I don't see the point myself What are we analysing it for? I can understand Christians wanting to, but if you think it's just another bullsh*t superstitious tome then it seems pointless to me, save for either analysing it from a historical, literary or moral point of view! Or maybe for the sake of educating yourself on religious stuff?

But again I don't see the point really -- the specific books of the Bible are irrelevant when it comes to the question of god's existance

Aggree with your first paragraph.


However if you are a christian theses books have central relivence. You are not so I guess it does not matter to you.

Gregor Samsa

rational wrote: »

Aggree with your first paragraph.

However if you are a christian theses books have central relivence. You are not so I guess it does not matter to you.

Well, this is the A&A forum, so it's pretty much a given that most of what's discuss here is not from a Christian perspective. Besides, there's already a thread like this over on the other forum for those that do attach such importance to these books.

On a more general note, this thread was pretty much destined to descend into a lesson in exegesis from our Christian friends from the get-go - and it hasn't disappointed in this regard - which renders it pretty much irrelevant to me.

rational

phutyle wrote: »

Well, this is the A&A forum, so it's pretty much a given that most of what's discuss here is not from a Christian perspective. Besides, there's already a thread like this over on the other forum for those that do attach such importance to these books.

On a more general note, this thread was pretty much destined to descend into a lesson in exegesis from our Christian friends from the get-go - and it hasn't disappointed in this regard - which renders it pretty much irrelevant to me.

Agreed the premis of the thread is misguided and pointless. Dont know why I bothered.

antiskeptic

phutyle wrote: »

On a more general note, this thread was pretty much destined to descend into a lesson in exegesis from our Christian friends from the get-go - and it hasn't disappointed in this regard - which renders it pretty much irrelevant to me.

You obviously didn't spot verse 18 of the first chapter of the book under discussion which predicts (2000 years ago no less!) what else the thread would descend into.

antiskeptic

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I just read the KJV. My overriding memory of Paul, Corinithans 1 is his obsession with fornication.

I remember reading Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. I wasn't interested in existential issues but was interested in motorcycles. So I skimmed over the boring bits and went to the bits involving the motorcycle.

Perhaps that's the reason why some folk in the thread have this notion that Paul was obsessed with sex in 1 Corinthians. Not so much because he is but because they are?

Of course there's also the famous passage you hear at every wedding.

Interesting juxtaposition huh - seeing as sexual immoralithy of the type Jesus was obsessed with (he must be obsessed with it - equating mere lustful looks with adultery) is the acid which corrodes many a marriage).

Tim Robbins

antiskeptic wrote: »

I remember reading Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. I wasn't interested in existential issues but was interested in motorcycles. So I skimmed over the boring bits and went to the bits involving the motorcycle.

Exactly we all read books different ways. That's why it is interesting to share opinions. Biblical based Christians will bend over backwards to rationalise everything in the Bible, otherwise they wouldn't be Biblical based Christians. I am sure some Muslims do the same.

It could be the case the Holy Spirit was guiding Paul here and that everything Paul was saying is the word of God.

I seriously doubt it though. But, rather than get back to that chestnut we should be allow to discuss it as literature.

My overriding memory of Albert Camus' 'The Outsider' was of a socio-path who refused to put a façade around himself. My overriding memory of Corinthians is of a man who is obsessed with other people's sex habits. The other parts had very little impact on me.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Ha ha, yes I do.



But I'm not trying to justify Pauls position I'm pointing out to you, that Paul is delivering a message to Christians about sin...

Two questions:
1.
I read the KJV do you think other versions are watered down?
2.
As was eluded to earlier by Robin, when you go to Mas some parts of the Bible are never read. It can come across as a bit of a shock that some parts in it actually exist - well it did to me. I never thought the NT was as crazy as Paul Corinthians. In the Protestants faiths which place more emphasis on reading the Bible and less on tradition and church rituals at what age would people be exposed to passages such as Paul's intense opinions about fornication?

It can really be discussed until the facts of life are well understand so I assume they keep this away from the kids?

What age were you when you first read it?

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

at what age would people be exposed to passages such as Paul's intense opinions about fornication?

It seems you don't want to deal with the facts, but rather soap box about your ill informed and muddled opinions and preconceptions. I have no intention of indulging you. You reiterate on many occasions your feelings about knowledge and logic. You should try tempering such things with some wisdom.

antiskeptic

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Exactly we all read books different ways. That's why it is interesting to share opinions. Biblical based Christians will bend over backwards to rationalise everything in the Bible, otherwise they wouldn't be Biblical based Christians. I am sure some Muslims do the same.

I was suggesting the way in which you were reading the book wasn't to..

discuss it as literature.

... for discussing it as literature wouldn't involve concentrating only on the bits that had

impact on me

Discussing only what had impact on you would say more about you than about the literature (which consists of far more than the bits that impacted you). If you look at the whole of the letter (and indeed, the sum of Pauls writings) you see Paul concerned with and instructing the church on, growth in grace and godliness. In amongst that would be the issue of sexual morality. Sex then is as sex now - something the world is obsessed with and something the world (from a Christian perspective) stumbles over.

It's a seriously impaired analysist who would look at the totality of Paul and conclude him obsessed with sex.

Tim Robbins

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a seriously impaired analysist who would look at the totality of Paul and conclude him obsessed with sex.

It's a seriously impaired analysis to think Paul is not obsessed with Sex.
Welcome to the world of subjectivity.

rational

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's a seriously impaired analysis to think Paul is not obsessed with Sex.
Welcome to the world of subjectivity.

All I will say is do some research on the context of that obsession.