Warp wrote:
>   Yes. Take one single verse, remove it from the rest of the book, and
> state that single verse, all by itself, is absolute, without even
> understanding the context in which it has been written.

Well, I think I'm pretty familiar with the context around the ten 
commandments, for example. They *still* seem pretty absolute.

>   You have to take *everything* that is written about the subject. 

I've read the entire old and new testaments. What more is there about 
the subject that I'm missing for context? Given that the bible is the 
only place Moses or Jesus is mentioned in contemporary (to the Bible 
that is) times, what context don't I have?

>> And one would hope that the 
>> creator of the universe and the font from which all morality flows would 
>> be capable of making his desires clear to those who believe in him. 
> 
>   If someone doesn't *want* to understand, or *wants* to understand it
> in the wrong way, he will do exactly that, no matter how it is written.

One would hope the all-powerful omniscient omnipotent creator of the 
universe and worker of miracles would be able to get around that 
problem. :-)

Or, to put it another way, there are very, very few people who 
disbelieve in the chair they're sitting in. Most of them we call 
"insane". Why can't the all-powerful creator of the universe and 
everything in it manage to be at least as clear?

>> Especially given the kind of punishments JHVH seems to dole out to those 
>> who piss him off.
> 
>   Right. Just look at the punishments without even trying to understand
> the reasons behind, and then declare that they are unfair and make no
> sense.

Oh, I know the reasons behind them. Tell me what you think is the reason 
behind punishing the Romans for Adam having eaten the apple, or the 
reason behind punishing modern day serpents?

Don't just say "You don't understand, hence you're wrong."  Show me that 
you *do* understand. Because otherwise you're just bluffing.

Explain to me what the serpent did wrong, other than simply telling the 
truth when God had lied?  And don't start quoting stuff outside the 
Bible to back up your interpretation. Nobody you cite could possibly be 
as authoritative as the Word of God Himself, don't you think?

(Again, if one admits the Bible is simply allegorical fiction, on par 
with Zeus, Muhammed, and Qutezycoatl, then I'm cool with that. I only 
argue against people who somehow think their religion is more real than 
someone else's, or more real than actual experience as actual science, 
for example.)

>   How could it not be context-dependent?

I dunno. Maybe because HE'S GOD!?  ;-)

I mean, if the message is so important you're going to condemn every 
single animal, plant, and human to eternal torture, you could manage to 
be clear about what you want.

>   For example, if a message has been written to all priests, does that
> mean that the message is intended for non-priests?

Dude, there were only two humans in the entire f'ing world. Who could 
the message possibly be for that I'm missing out on? :-)

>   Of course messages are always context-dependent.

You're trying to be reasonable. Religion usually doesn't work that way. 
:-)  Given he created the entire universe, why would God's messages be 
context-dependent? Wouldn't the context be His Entire Creation?

>   What excuse? How is God getting weaker if he gives messages to certain
> people in certain situations? What else should he do in your opinion?

If God wants all people to behave a certain way, wouldn't you think he'd 
express his messages in a way that all people would understand it? If 
not, why not?

>   Or maybe if you try to understand the message instead of trying
> deliberately to misunderstand it to attack people.

I'm not attacking any person or people. And I *do* understand the 
message. I just don't understand it the same way you do.

Tell me what you think the message is, in the Adam and Eve Get Kicked 
Out story? What message do you think Ken Ham thinks is in that story? 
Because the message I see is "even though you didn't know you were doing 
anything wrong, you disobeyed me, so rather than being forgiving, or 
understanding, or simply take away what you took that I told you not to, 
I will bring down misery and pain on you, your children, your relatives, 
and every being of your entire species forever and ever." I'd be curious 
to hear your interpretation and why you think yours is more accurate.

Of course, yours is the traditional religious chant, which I've heard 
hundreds of times. "You'd agree, if only you *understood* the message. 
The only possible reason for reading it differently than I do is your 
ignorance." This seems to be a very common fall-back stance for people 
who are unable to convince others to have the same sort of faith they 
do. Of course, the basic flaw is trying to *convince* someone to have 
faith. It's really almost an oxymoron.

Note that I'm not trying to insult you or your apparently-reasonable 
beliefs. If you have a personal faith that you're right, I'm confident I 
won't shake that, and more power to you. I'm sure it's a great comfort 
in times of distress, and since you seem to be a good person, you 
haven't let bad interpretations of your beliefs cause too much trouble.

I, however, have no personal interaction with any dieties, so when I 
talk about them, I tend to treat them as fictional. This isn't intended 
to be any more insulting than if I tell you I don't like the same kind 
of music you do or enjoy the same style of novels that you do. If I said 
"Band X sucks" and they're your favorite band, would you feel insulted? 
Nor should you when I point out flaws in the literal interpretation of 
religious texts that you believe or don't.

I simply use other routes to get to the place from which I make my 
decisions, and I take comfort in other forms of knowledge when problems 
arise.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message