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".
> 

Oh, sorry, did I fail to mention that part of "reading it cover to 
cover", usually entails them going, "This makes no sense", and thus... 
reading the contextual data about the time periods and ideas people had 
when its parts where written? Silly me. I kind of assumed that was a given.

That said, why is some modern priests claims about what people thought 
or believed back then more valid than the people that wrote back then, 
or the historical and archaeological evidence from then, or... pretty 
much 100% of everything that both the average church goer, *and* 90% of 
the priesthood never *ever* read either? You will find that, in most 
case, if someone brings up a quote, those "radical atheists" you seem to 
think don't get it can not just quote a passage, they can tell you when, 
how, under what circumstances, and fairly often, even what the 
"original" untranslated text said, and why thus the modern version 
contradicts, in many cases, the original meaning, not to mention how 
little sense the ancient version made itself, in context of anything 
other than its own mythology.

Case in point, somethings as simple as "taking the lords name in 
vein."/cursing The modern interpretation is Protestant, and lumps 
anything from references to bodily functions, to saying 'damn it', into 
the same category. Its the interpretation that almost all Christians 
support are factual, including nearly all priests. A few take an older 
variation of it, which makes cuss words just some category of things 
"God" doesn't like, while "real" cursing is reserved for using gods 
name, but again, in "any" context that doesn't involve praising him. A 
tiny few actually understand the original context, and, despite still 
being all fainty over cuss words, apply prayers to the purpose of... I 
am not sure what, since I never understood what the point of going, "I 
lost my job, have cancer, will probably die in less than five years, but 
praise you for being up there and let thy will be done!", does that is 
at all useful. In that old "original" context, the kinds of 
interventionist prayer that nearly all Christians follow, in which they 
pray to their god to help them find a new crib for the coming baby, or 
cure their cancer, or ask god to put a stop to the actions of some 
terrorists, or even for him to "strike down those who are unjust", 
**all** fall into the original principle of "taking his name in vein and 
cursing", by which you attempt to cajole, conjure, command, or demand of 
ones god that he "do something" for you. You are not supposed to do 
that, according to the *original* meaning, but probably less than 20% of 
supposed Christians bother to understand the original text, context, or 
meaning, so as to realize this, and that *includes* priests.

So, yeah. You are absolutely right. Its not a self contained text. The 
problem is, examining it in the "correct" context tends to make it a) 
more obviously a myth, b) more obviously made up to support tribal 
ambitions, not as a factual source, and c) often "undermines" all modern 
presumptions about what its god is like, wants people to do, or his 
willingness to reward/forgive various actions. Not that (a) isn't 
sufficient reason, by itself, to set in on the shelf next to Tolkien's 
books, instead of your copy of "How to Build a Shelf".

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message