6
   

When has religion irked you personally and why?

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 07:29 pm
There's a religion based on "Hamlet?" I missed that one.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 07:31 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
He charges what it's worth.

Well, obviously, he's in this just for the tips. Its us who are leaving coins on the bar.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 07:31 pm
maliagar wrote:
maliagar wrote:
maliagar wrote:
Laughing We are not discussing my own beliefs, but what the Bible is and how it ought to be read. You can pose that question a thousand times if you like. It just proofs how off the mark you are.

We may talk about my beliefs or your religion later. But now, we're talking about Genesis, whether you like it or not.

Craven wrote:
We? Maliagar, please note that I am asking you a question about your beliefs


Yes, we. Or you forgot already your questions about Genesis being "right" or "wrong", "fallacious" or not? (how convenient...).


I have not forgotten it at all. I do indeed think Genesis to be fallacious. You tried to evade so I gave you less wiggle room. So you are still backpedalling.

Quote:

Now, one last time: do you see why neither Hamlet nor Genesis 1-3 can be "wrong"?

Rolling Eyes


Of course not. They can both be wrong.

The Bible says God created the universe in seven days. If that is not correct it is wrong.

Again, the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days. Do you believe that?
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 07:44 pm
sozobe wrote:
There's a religion based on "Hamlet?" I missed that one.


Hamlet is a drama/tragedy that presents very powerfully certain basic drives in the human psyche.

It is pointless to say that Hamlet is "false" because it is "fiction". Hamlet and other classic pieces of literature reach to the true depths of the human experience, and that's why they remain timeless works to which generations return time and time again.

In the same way, some Biblical stories touch the essence of the human relationship with God, their fellow humans, and the world. It would be equally pointless to say that those stories are false because they may be to some extent fictional.

Only a positivist-fundamentalist myopic would read sections of the Bible as if they had been written by Carl Sagan gone nuts (7 days? 7 billion years?). That's the same mistake made by scores of fundamentalist sects all over the U.S. The correct interpretation of any text REQUIRES knowledge of the author's intention, his cultural framework, and his intended audience.

But some people are so unaware of these truisms, that they want to find inside their brains speculative answers for everything. That's the illusion sold by democratic egalitarism: Everybody believes to be qualified to talk about everything on earth and in heaven.

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 07:46 pm
maliagar,

The last sentence sounds like projecting. :wink:
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 07:47 pm
The bible rocks as literature. (Well, often. Not always. The begats drag a bit.)

But you don't seem to be saying it's just literature.

I've gotten curious; the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days. Do you believe that?
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:06 pm
sozobe wrote:
The bible rocks as literature.


True.

Quote:
(Well, often. Not always. The begats drag a bit.)


That's a translation issue.

Quote:
But you don't seem to be saying it's just literature.


Of course not. But don't forget that literature, as a form of art, is a very powerful expression of mankind's ability to touch the depths of reality. So there is "just literature" (airport fiction that you throw away as soon as you get off the plane), and classical literature, which is something totally different.

Quote:
I've gotten curious; the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days. Do you believe that?


That is a common question, Sozobe.

I don't take my information about how the physical world operates from the Bible. There are other sources for that. Since in our natural world, a day is a time measure related to the earth rotation and the sun, no "days" (in our sense) could exist before time, light, the sun, and the earth were created. In addition, numbers are highly symbolic throughout the Bible, so it would be risky (and unwarranted) to take "seven" literally.

What I take from the Bible is information about our relationship with God. For example, from Genesis 1-3: That God is the source of everything, that He created the universe, that He created man and woman, that all his creation is good, that man and woman broke with God, etc.

By the way, I don't just decide on my own how to interpret Scripture (at least, try not to). These things were never meant to be decided individually. As a Christian, there is a history and community within which these things are to be made sense of. Nobody becomes a Muslim just by reading the Koran without reference to the historical and actual world-wide community of Muslims. Nobody becomes a Jew just by reading the Torah without reference to the historical and actual world-wide community of Jews.

The same with Christianity. To fully understand the Christian Bible we have to situate ourselves in the context of the historical (tradition) and actual (Church) community. For both the authors and the intended audience were part of that community.

It makes no sense to claim the authority to interpret truthfully a sacred text, when one stands outside the community that generated it. Unfortunately, too many people try to do just that (in Christianity, not as much in Judaism or Islam). And there are those who follow them.

Hope this helps.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:07 pm
maliagar
Question: How many days do you personally believe it took for "God" to create the Earth?
Just for variety, I won't mention how many days the Bible claims.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:09 pm
It seems maliagar has the inside dope on the author's intention when the bible was written, and understands the correct interpretation. Okay, maliagar, what is the "exact/correct" meaning of "God created the world in seven days?"
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:09 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Question: How many days do you personally believe it took for "God" to create the Earth?


Read my response to Sozobe (carefully, so that you don't miss it).

Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:16 pm
I noticed he hasn't made a comment on JH's murdering children.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:17 pm
maligar wrote: A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF TEXT INTERPRETATION IS: LOOK FOR THE AUTHOR'S INTENT. AND TO DO IT, YOU NEED TO PLACE YOURSELF IN HIS CULTURAL MILIEU.

Dys writes: perhaps if you explained your MILIEU as well as your INTENT we of the never-never would comprehend you.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:19 pm
maliagar wrote:
I don't take my information about how the physical world operates from the Bible. There are other sources for that. Since in our natural world, a day is a time measure related to the earth rotation and the sun, no "days" (in our sense) could exist before time, light, the sun, and the earth were created. In addition, numbers are highly symbolic throughout the Bible, so it would be risky (and unwarranted) to take "seven" literally.


You fell into the most common creationist-through-intelligent-design trap that there is.

If the seven days were not literal how did the plant life survive with no sun?

There are easy explanations Maliagar, the trick is to make them sound believable. Hopefully you will not play the evasion game.

maliagar wrote:
What I take from the Bible is information about our relationship with God. For example, from Genesis 1-3: That God is the source of everything, that He created the universe, that He created man and woman, that all his creation is good, that man and woman broke with God, etc.


As long as you are recognizing taht it's fiction deriving inspiration from it is no biggie.

maliagar wrote:

It makes no sense to claim the authority to interpret a sacred text outside the community that generated it.

Hope this helps.

:wink:


It does help. It does indeed make no sense to both call a work ficticious and then use it to defend your feelings about homosexuality. You had natuuralistic fallacy and Scripture and that was it.

Your claims that only the community that generated the fiction can ahve an opinion on it are altogether too convenient.

I have an opinion on it. I think the Bible is false when it says God created the world in seven days.

I think it's wrong to advocate killing homosexuals because they are gay.

And so on and so forth. Your last argument is a fallacious appeal to authority.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:26 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Wilso wrote:
...stupid assertion it is to claim that the universe was created by an omnipotent fairy waving his magic hand.


Hey, Wilso, no reason to bring homosexuality into this thread. There are other threads for that! :wink:


Makes me think about a guy named Ian Roberts. Manly, NSW and Austalian international rugby league player. About 6'4", 230 pounds-the first Rugby League player to "come out". I certainly wouldn't call him a fairy. Don't think many people would. Shocked
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:30 pm
Craven, It's not only the plant life; all life forms wouldn't have a chance in hell - as it were.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:33 pm
The Ian Roberts Picture Gallery
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:37 pm
Rolling Eyes

Craven,

I responded to Sozobe's question, not yours. So don't bother to answer as if the dialogue continued.

It is exceedingly obvious that your training in the liberal arts (specially, classical literature, poetry, cultural studies and comparative religion) is null. And reading a couple of things on your own, while praiseworthy, is far from enough.

In short, too many computers, man.

You indulge too much in your usual youthful nonsense (as in claiming that "ficticious" equals "fictional", which in turn equals "fallacious"). As always, I would love to dissect all the BS you utter (and, as always, a train would run over you, and you wouldn't even notice).

But you're denying me that pleasure: You haven't explained your own personal opinions about "right" and "wrong" applied to Genesis 1-3, and I won't shift topics according to your inability to deal with an issue thoroughly.

Take care.

:wink:
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:41 pm
Ah, so you responded to MY question:

sozobe wrote:
the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days. Do you believe that?


rather than Craven's:

Craven de Kere wrote:
the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days. Do you believe that?
0 Replies
 
maliagar
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:44 pm
That's right. :wink:

Any comments?

:wink:

sozobe wrote:
Ah, so you responded to MY question:

sozobe wrote:
the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days. Do you believe that?


rather than Craven's:

Craven de Kere wrote:
the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days. Do you believe that?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2003 08:45 pm
maliagar wrote:


Craven,

I responded to Sozobe's question, not yours. So don't bother to answer as if the dialogue continued.


It's no bother. :wink:

maliagar wrote:

It is exceedingly obvious that your training in the liberal arts (specially, classical literature, poetry, cultural studies and comparative religion) is null. And reading a couple of things on your own, while praiseworthy, is far from enough.

In short, too many computers, man.


Aww, a wittle ad hominem. It falls flat since you know little about me. Try to challenge what I say instead of using another fallacious ploy. :wink:

maliagar wrote:
You indulge too much in your usual youthful nonsense (as in claiming that "ficticious" equals "fictional", which in turn equals "fallacious"). As always, I would love to dissect all the BS you utter (and, as always, a train would run over you, and you wouldn't even notice).


Woulda, coulda, shoulda. You seem upset and the ad hominem continues. This is usually the sign of those who are incapable of dealing with arguments and seek to personalize the issue.

You are far too obvious my friend. :wink: Bring on the "train". I think it's hiding.

maliagar wrote:

But you're denying me that pleasure: You haven't explained your own personal opinions about "right" and "wrong" applied to Genesis 1-3, and I won't shift topics according to your inability to deal with an issue thoroughly.

Take care.

:wink:


I don't believe in creation. 'twasn't hard.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/20/2025 at 07:42:36