The Bible (a discussion)

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I'm sorry, Spendius, where you saying something?

Yes. I'm sorry it went over your head but I can't say I'm surprised. Perhaps I toned it down too much.

I don't really think that it is in your interest to understand such matters. I only addressed it to you as a polite gesture for providing the springboard for the execution of such a fancy dive.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
I'm sorry, Spendius, where you saying something?

Yes. I'm sorry it went over your head but I can't say I'm surprised. Perhaps I toned it down too much.

I don't really think that it is in your interest to understand such matters. I only addressed it to you as a polite gesture for providing the springboard for the execution of such a fancy dive.

Damn...I am so easily distracted, Spendius.

Were you saying something again?

Anything important?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Too easy. It always is when you mark your own exam paper.

Do you really think that A2Kers think you are saying anything with that New Joisey repartee?

How many other non important matters do you waste your very precious time in responding to.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Too easy. It always is when you mark your own exam paper.

Do you really think that A2Kers think you are saying anything with that New Joisey repartee?

How many other non important matters do you waste your very precious time in responding to.

Damn...you always start to babble just as I am starting to do something important. I was sorting socks.

Were you saying anything worthwhile...or was it your usual stuff?

0 Replies

@spendius,

I agree the Bible is some serious work, very influencial and to a degree, rightly so.

(Of course, to the victor the spoil, and if say the Hindus would have invented guns first and conquered the world, instead of Christians, the vedas would be the most influencial, printed and studied works in the world. The historical proeminence of Europe on the world stage from the 17th to the 20th century is a factor in the Bible being so influencial)

Where I disagree is in the idea that serious work cannot be mocked. Unless you re-instate the crime of blasphemy, and repell freedom of speech, everybody is allowed to poke fun at the Bible. I agree it can be facile, and I understand it can be annoying, but mocking religion and the clergy is a time-honored tradition in some parts of the world, and sometimes it leads to great comic effect. E.g. the Life of Brian is pure genius IMO.

0 Replies

The Bible cannot stand on its own as an important work these days. With no organization to push it it would be forgotten in a generation or sooner.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

The Bible cannot stand on its own as an important work these days. With no organization to push it it would be forgotten in a generation or sooner.

I believe a scholar named Gamaliel made a similar assertion about Christians in 33 CE. He at least attempted to provide facts. Where are yours?

1 Reply

@neologist,

In 33 he had less to go on as did the populace and the leaders. These days the proof is self evident, in the light of science, history and simple observation. I don't need to write dissertations on the subject, as to put a finger in the wind.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

The Bible cannot stand on its own as an important work these days. With no organization to push it it would be forgotten in a generation or sooner.

You will never be a writer ed.

What do you mean by "forgotten"? Jane Austen was "forgotten" for many years and a faithful few kept her works going and she is now a thriving industry as American and English ladies, try to forget the dreadful circumstances they are enduring by allowing Jane's magical mists to enfold them in the vain hope that when the mists disperse something better will appear.

I think the brilliant metaphor is in Emma but I'm not sure.

"Fanny, at what time would you have the carriage come round?"

Is it an Orwellian "forgotten" you mean?

Remember Canticle for Leibowitz. The Dead Sea Scrolls were "forgotten". Evolution theory was forgotten for about 1700 years. It is in the Bible. In 30 words.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You can torture and hornswoggle this all you like, spendi. There is lost forgotten and abandonment forgotten, among others. Twisting the context is an old game. Old and unalluring.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

In other words you don't want to offer proof; you just want to vote yea or nay. We understand. We just hoped you had something of intellectual merit to offer.

I'm disappointed.

1 Reply

@neologist,

There are realms of wonderfully written books and papers out there, which at your age you could have at least sampled by now. Don't expect me to do your work for you.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

There are realms of wonderfully written books and papers out there, which at your age you could have at least sampled by now. Don't expect me to do your work for you.

Don't expect me to do your work for you! You are the one making the assertion.

1 Reply

@neologist,

In short, you don't have any curiosity to know beyond what you push. That's fine. Have at it.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

There are realms of wonderfully written books and papers out there, which at your age you could have at least sampled by now. Don't expect me to do your work for you.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of changing the context!!

The Bible will not be forgotten until this old earth, which some people say is round, becomes a cinder. It is almost as oxygen is to hydrogen to give us the substance we depend upon.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

In short, you don't have any curiosity to know beyond what you push. That's fine. Have at it.

You make a huge mistake to assume credulity on my part. I can assure you I have read as much as you.

I am never surprised when intelligent people view the Bible with suspicion, it having been used as an ambidexter implement of control by those claiming God's authority. But what makes perfect sense turns to perfect folly when intelligent people use the sins of the priest to impeach the text and its author. I am tempted to conclude their confirmation bias is a head in the sand attempt to deny possible obligation to a creator.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Author? You're alleging a single author? If you're going to suggest that the entire text was divinely inspired, and therefore god was the author, then i'd be willing to assume a huge credulity on your part. You need to demonstrate that there ever was some anthropomorphic creator before you can trot out your silly claims about obligation.

There is enough internal contradiction, blatant superstition and non-historical allegations of historical fact in the text to impeach it.

1 Reply

If you have read it already why are you trying to draw me out? Setanta's post pretty well covers what ought to come next.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Author? You're alleging a single author? If you're going to suggest that the entire text was divinely inspired, and therefore god was the author, then i'd be willing to assume a huge credulity on your part. You need to demonstrate that there ever was some anthropomorphic creator before you can trot out your silly claims about obligation.

There is enough internal contradiction, blatant superstition and non-historical allegations of historical fact in the text to impeach it.

According to o Paul at 2 Timothy 3:16 ". . . All Scripture is inspired of God . . ."

You know me. How would you expect me to evaluate that text?

If I'm lazy,I can ignore it and cherry pick parts of the Bible to suit my personal taste. Nominal christianity is populated by many who do just that.
Perhaps they are correct. But it seems shaky ground on which to build faith.

Another lazy dodge: I could abandon the Bible entirely as soon as I discovered an internal contradiction not explained by full examination of the text, thus disproving Paul's claim. Instead, I chose to spend time resolving your "internal contradiction, blatant superstition and non-historical allegations of historical fact" to my satisfaction. Admittedly, I haven't resolved them to the point where I have converted any members of this board; but they certainly work for me.

I'm willing to discuss any of the instances to which you refer. I may resolve some - or not. I remember many a discussion with you in threads past that ended in no avail. But as far as I can tell, we still are friends. So have at it.

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

According to o Paul at 2 Timothy 3:16 ". . . All Scripture is inspired of God . . ."

And you find that convincing?

1 Reply

The Bible (a discussion)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know