Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

truth
Good going, Cephus. I admire your scholarship but more than that your generallly successful refusal to be lowered to a level of fundamentalist/literalist thinking and argumentation.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

you should go and do your own research, just as I have.

Forgive me, Cephus, for I have sinned... Laughing

Quote:

Unfortunately, the church doesn't want you thinking on your own, they have a vested interest in keeping you hoodwinked and lied to.

Delciously ad hominem. :wink: Why would you waste your time talking to someone that has been trained not to think? Perhaps you hope to redeem religious types like me? Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Even Jewish scholars don't accept that anyone in the Torah prior to Abraham was real...

Did your exhaustive research help you discover other Jewish scholars that think differently? Or they don't count?

Quote:

They are all stories, fables taken from other cultures, intended to explain the Hebrew world view.

Bold, daring, youthful assertions... I'm sure that's a theory among others. I don't see why you should commit your life to it--unless we are taking a leap of FAITH (not unusual among skeptics... ) :wink:

Quote:

Moses is simply a retelling of the Syrian Mises...

The problem is in the "simply" (reductionism, they call it). Even IF the telling of a given story followed the model of other stories in other cultures, that wouldn't be proof that the story itself didn't take place. Has your extensive research opened your eyes to this little fact?

Quote:

Even Jesus, if there was a real kernel at the center of the myth...

The problem for historians is: where does the historical fact end, and where does the moral tale begin (I'm sure your favorite scholars acknowledge this). But the moral tale is not to be dismissed just because... The Bible is much more than a historical-literary collection of books.

But you, recklessly, preach that there is no historical "kernel" (for everything is invented or copied). As a result, you assume that the moral element is, ipso facto, false. Too much to claim.

Cephus wrote:

maliagar wrote:
Can you tell me of ONE mistake made by God in the Bible? :wink:

If the Bible is supposedly God-inspired... all of them.

You have a youthful spirit... Again: Can you tell me of ONE mistake made by God in the Bible?

:wink:

0 Replies

He regretted the flood. HE fell short of calling it a mistake but showed all other indications (promising never to do it again etc).

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

refusal to be lowered to a level of fundamentalist/literalist thinking and argumentation.

That's Frankie's level, remember? :wink: Or you didn't notice? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

God thinks he only made one mistake and that's when he thought he'd made a mistake but hadn't.

0 Replies

truth
Maliagar, I agree that "frankie" does too often descend to your level. And he does it for the regrettable reason that he wants to humiliate you. You have held yourself up well. I just wish you would be more adult in your style. I sometimes wish the same for Frank.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

refusal to be lowered to a level of fundamentalist/literalist thinking and argumentation. ...
Maliagar, I agree that "frankie" does too often descend to your level.

Just one thing, JLNobody:

Do you recall me ever defending or advocating a fundamentalist-literalist approach to the Bible (which is what we're talking about)?

For, as I recall, I opposed such an approach...

Question

0 Replies

Fundamentalist, yes. Literalist, no. Wink

0 Replies

peach + beach + leech = ad hominem

0 Replies

Re: truth

maliagar wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
refusal to be lowered to a level of fundamentalist/literalist thinking and argumentation.

That's Frankie's level, remember? :wink: Or you didn't notice?

Ah, you are mentioning me again.

Perhaps you will soon have the balls to engage me in debate on the issues that I have raised -- and for which you obviously have no rebuttal.

But I love ya whether you do or don't.

You're tops in my book.

0 Replies

truth
Maliagar, while your theological thinking is more sophisticated (i.e., clever) than that of my fundamentallist preacher brother, I see little difference in the level of literalism you both practice. Thanks C.I..

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Maliagar, while your theological thinking is more sophisticated (i.e., clever)...

Well, well, well...

The time of reckoning is suddenly upon us! Justice! Truth! Beauty! It was written, it had been foreseen by the sages before the age. Amen I say unto thee: All rigtheousness has been fulfilled!

:wink:

Quote:

...I see little difference in the level of literalism you both practice.

I don't see how you can conclude that I practice literalism, when I've been opposing it all along.

Perhaps one day you'll be able to explain...

:wink:

0 Replies

Here's the problem for Maliagar and other apologists for the god of the Bible's conduct in the matter of Adam and Eve and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil:

It can be argued that putting the tree in the garden where Adam and Eve could get at it was a mistake -- IF -- the intention of the god was to prevent Adam and Eve from eating of its fruit.

That argument would not be hard to make and to sustain.

Of course, as Maliagar argues, it is possible that the god of the Bible did not have that as his intentions at all -- and the tree being there was merely a test of obedience.

IF -- that is the case, though, we are then left with a scenario that has the god not only leaving the tree in an accessible place (in furtherance of the test), but also allowing the Tempter of all Tempters to influence the way Adam and Eve eventually dealt with temptation and the occasion of disobedience.

AND -- we are left with the fact that the god of the Bible withheld an important ingredient in the decision-making process for the couple - exercising their free will, so to speak -- by manufacturing the two without the knowledge of what is good or evil -- what is right or wrong -- what value is to be placed on obedience or disobedience.

The god denied Adam and Eve an indispensable ingredient in being able to reasonably be expected to make the "right" (desired) choice as to obedience.

And that can be considered a mistake.

It can also be consider an indication of a ruthless set-up artist intent on creating beings that he could "get his jollies" by tricking them and punishing them inappropriately.

I think the arguments Maliagar is making against a mistake having been made by the god of the Bible in the incident of Adam and Eve are inadequate.

I think "a mistake was made" prevails.

Maliagar's challenge to "show me even one mistake that the god of the Bible made" is met.

That's the way I vote.

0 Replies

Me too! But then, I don't believe in that fairy tale. c.i.

0 Replies

Tartarin: Thanks for the tip on Elaine Pagels. I just browsed some of her work online regarding the role of women in the early church - it's no wonder those with an agenda of male dominance have worked so hard to suppress the gnostic writings.

0 Replies

truth
I like to think of myths as stimulants to thought, as oracles that must be interpreted to obtain what wisdom they afford. The myth of Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden is absurd when taken literally (where is Eden, someplace near Bagdad? gasp). I like the insightful question: how can Adam and Eve be held accountable for an action taken BEFORE they knew of right and wrong and good and bad? In our courts they would be excused on grounds of mental incompetence. One interpretation that comes to mind--and remember, I don't think this actually happened; it's a myth--is that Adam and Eve (symbolic representations of human beings) were AUTOMATICALLY expelled from the paradise of mystical unity with all things and blissful ignorance. Once they acted to differentiate between this and that, to evaluate between right and wrong, and judge according to good and bad, they lost their mystical unity with X. They were not cast out of heaven by God (or his servants); they cast themselves out as a natural consequence of their discriminating minds.

0 Replies

I wouldn't recommend anybody to base their conclusions on one author, from one point of view, and one very explicit agenda.

But hey... that's just me.

:wink:

angie wrote:

Tartarin: Thanks for the tip on Elaine Pagels. I just browsed some of her work online regarding the role of women in the early church - it's no wonder those with an agenda of male dominance have worked so hard to suppress the gnostic writings.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

I like to think of myths as stimulants to thought, as oracles that must be interpreted to obtain what wisdom they afford.

Agree. And to be able to distill their wisdom, we need to know how to interpret them.

Quote:

The myth of Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden is absurd when taken literally...

Say it to... those who advocate literalist readings of the Bible... :wink:

Quote:

I like the insightful question: how can Adam and Eve be held accountable for an action taken BEFORE they knew of right and wrong and good and bad?

Actually, the story of Adam and Eve can be approached from a variety of points of view. In any case, I don't think you're being careful in your interpretation: The DID know the difference between right and wrong. God gave them a commandment. They had a standard right there.

Quote:

One interpretation that comes to mind... is that Adam and Eve... were AUTOMATICALLY expelled from the paradise of mystical unity with all things...

Unity, primarily, with their Creator. Also with nature.

Quote:

Once they acted to differentiate between this and that, to evaluate between right and wrong, and judge according to good and bad, they lost their mystical unity with X.

Not when they differentiated (they already knew that that particular tree was different from all the others). When they disobeyed, they broke with the Creator.

Quote:

They were not cast out of heaven by God (or his servants); they cast themselves out as a natural consequence of their discriminating minds.

I'd say: They cast themselves out of the presence of their Creator out of their voluntarily undiscriminating minds. They knew that that particular tree was different, and yet, they treated it the same, disregarding God's commandment.

:wink:

0 Replies

truth
Maliagar, regarding your literalism: you say that Adam and Eve "knew that that particular tree was different, and yet, they treated it the same, disregarding God's commandment."
I rest my case.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Maliagar, regarding your literalism: you say that Adam and Eve "knew that that particular tree was different, and yet, they treated it the same, disregarding God's commandment."
I rest my case.

Don't rest your case too quickly. :wink:

You're just quoting me, but you're not explaining anything. So, for those of us who are slow:

Why is that line a "proof" of literalism, if you please?

JLNobody wrote:

Adam and Eve's expulsion... an action taken BEFORE they knew of right and wrong and good and bad? ... Adam and Eve... were AUTOMATICALLY expelled from the paradise... Once they acted... They were not cast out of heaven by God (or his servants); they cast themselves out as a natural consequence of their discriminating minds.

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know