I am not always happy with the style of Patrick but I myself have never 
been able to let two persons that seem to take the bible as the Word of 
God admit that there is a context to the bible. Not even that but even a 
condemnation of selective quoting. So, a deep bow to Patrick by me. And 
of course a deep bow of respect to Warp and Saul. I never fully realized 
that even the theists are different in p.o-t.

On 14-Jan-09 1:46, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> "Try reading the Bible honestly, cover to cover, 
>> without someone 'helping' you interpret it, then read some stuff from 
>> other religions too. That is how most of us lost all faith in it."
> 
>   Quite ironically, that's probably the easiest way of understanding it
> in the wrong way in many parts.
> 
>   You just can't go and simply read such a book out of the blue, from a
> *modern* background, without first understanding the culture and customs
> of the time, without having the correct perspective. For example, there
> are many sayings and similes which were normal and common at the time and
> the place, but which can be completely misunderstood when read without
> understanding that historical context, from a purely modern western point
> of view, especially if the simile is taken literally.
> 
>   Unlike many want to think of it, the Bible is not a completely
> self-contained text. In order to fully understand it you need to know
> something else as well. You just can't approach it from the scratch, without
> "someone 'helping' you to interpret it" and expect to understand it
> correctly. Doing that will only lead to misinterpretations and wrong
> conclusions.
> 
>   But of course radical atheists like that. They have a marvelously good
> excuse: "But I *have* read the Bible, from cover to cover, with an open
> attitude and without preconceptions, without anyone telling me how I should
> or shouldn't interpret it. And I have came to the conclusion that it's
> bollocks." Then they love to quote random passages, taken out of context
> (both the textual context and the historical/cultural context) to show how
> screwed the Bible is. Then they will ignore any attempt at an explanation
> and dismiss it as a "rationalization".
>

Post a reply to this message