People are narrow-minded. There is no other way for them to be. Christians and Jews are not special in this respect.
Look up the word tautology.
Does that mean you agree with me? I see nothing innately tautological about that.
Most of what it contains, which wasn't borrowed from other sources, was made up from whole cloth--you won't find any historical corroboration for the fairy tales therein. Before the Babylonian captivity, it is doubtful that it even existed in any form which we would recognize, beyond portions of what now constitutes Genesis.
And, actually, most of the rest of it as well. From what I've read, most of the OT is made up of short segments that were written by different people long before it was collaborated together into a single story. The collaborater added some things as well, but the majority of at least the first four books was written prior to that.
After the captivity, the Jews returned to Palestine with all kinds of nifty new ideas like monotheism and a world-wide flood.
Monotheism was probably a new idea (and throughout the text, God is occasionally referred to in the plural), but the flood is not - it comes up in many myths worldwide.
by and large, though, it is rather a dull docuent, with very little of much use for the student of history.
This is what I mean by you not caring about the content of it. Although I suppose if you are only interested in the facts history and not the people of history, it is of little use to you.
I neither distance myself from it, nor embrace it.
Than it is not correct to say it is 'mine' alone. If you truly do not care, than it belongs to history, in which we all have a share. Even you.
As ancient texts go, is is pretty unreliable for any other use than to know what sort of bigotry motivated the Jews of two and half millenia ago.
Again, you assume that bigotry was all that motivated them.
Apart from that, it's too unreliable for history, and too unoriginal for a source on Semitic culture.
It was written by members of that culture, which makes it just as valid an artifact in its study as anything else. Cultures are not distinct entities - they interact with other cultures, religions, and with history. You can't disregard something simply because it is 'unoriginal'.
For instance, look at some of the things produced by American culture. We have millions of media dedicated to the myth of King Arthur. Original? Not really. Culturally American? Definitely. We take the original story and weave threads of American idealism into it, and when you compare it to the older versions, it becomes glaringly apparent.
You make this series of statements on the basis of your offended rage, not on the basis of any knowledge of me.
I make my statements based on statements that you have made. I am not angry; I am just disagreeing that the OT has anything to do with the modern perception of homosexuality.
It is certainly bigoted.
Everything human beings produce is biased because they come from a particular perspective. If all you can take out of it is that it is 'bigoted and unoriginal' you are not seeing all of it.
From the American Heritage Dictionary, big·ot, n., One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. You won't find a better description of the old testament Jews than that.
Or of people in general.
The "meat" of it? How very silly. Come up with some substantitve, unique contribution to the culture of humanity which it provides, and which was not borrowed from another source, and i might buy that.
All of your words were borrowed from someone else who used them in a different way, and in a different context, to say something different. Does the fact that you did not make them all up on the spot make your use of them unsubstantive?
You are just throwing phrases around, you have provided no substance.
If you're really interested in what the OT can tell us now about ancient people, may I suggest this book
? It has plenty of substance. I took a class on the OT a few semesters ago, and have other books to recommend to, if you really are interested in reading them. Somehow, though, I really doubt that.
All that the study of derivative material will teach anyone is how the material was treated after it was derived. It teaches nothing about anything other than what the Jews thought of what they had borrowed. The only "evolution" involved is the tailoring of the borrowed material to a spurious Jewish history.
Just so. What more do you want? Information the cultures that came before, which had little to do with the Jews themselves?