Quoting the Bible
Moderator: Moderators
-
Flail
Quoting the Bible
Post #1It is as if this book has it's own voice? I know of very few other books(the dictionary, the encyclopedia, the almanac) that are quoted extensively yet without reference to speaker,author or context. Isn't it important "WHO" made the statement referred to in the Bible? Who were they, what were their circumstances, what was their culture and their motivation and credibility? How easily we take this book out of context...because of this and the fact that the bible contains very little about the actual teachings of Jesus, He gets thrown in with all the rest...Paul and the Old Testament....crazy don't you think? Surely it is not based on the "Divinely inspried theory", which was only mentioned by Paul in one of his self-serving rants and has no basis other than his say so..
-
OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
- Contact:
Post #3
That's why he's here asking these questions.jeremiah wrote:Those are very good and worthwhile questions, Flail. Have you tried looking for the answers to them?
Post #4
That might be so, OnceConvinced, but no matter who answers those questions, or how seriously they might answer them, the person asking those questions will never be satisfied with the answers given till they chose to believe it themselves, or even seek the answers for themselves. People seek truth and answers to life in different ways. Who is one to think they can mock others in the way they search? To quote Flail, "...crazy don't you think?"
And Flail, if Paul was so self-serving, how should he have written those letters in response to the churches' letters he was writing in to? And in which ways has the Bible been taken out of context?
And Flail, if Paul was so self-serving, how should he have written those letters in response to the churches' letters he was writing in to? And in which ways has the Bible been taken out of context?
-
OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 67 times
- Contact:
Post #5
I think you'll find he has already spent a lot of time searching for answers, but just hasn't found any convincing ones yet.jeremiah wrote:That might be so, OnceConvinced, but no matter who answers those questions, or how seriously they might answer them, the person asking those questions will never be satisfied with the answers given till they chose to believe it themselves, or even seek the answers for themselves. People seek truth and answers to life in different ways. Who is one to think they can mock others in the way they search? To quote Flail, "...crazy don't you think?"
Maybe you should ask all those fat rich pastors who are in charge of large churches?And Flail, if Paul was so self-serving, how should he have written those letters in response to the churches' letters he was writing in to?
-
Fallibleone
- Guru
- Posts: 1935
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:35 am
- Location: Scouseland
Post #6
jeremiah wrote:That might be so, OnceConvinced, but no matter who answers those questions, or how seriously they might answer them, the person asking those questions will never be satisfied with the answers given till they chose to believe it themselves, or even seek the answers for themselves. People seek truth and answers to life in different ways.
Having just re-read, you seem to be saying that no matter how someone answers a question, the questioner will not be satisfied until they ignore everyone's answers and tries to find the answer independently...
In this case, why bother with the Bible at all? Why not just go to 'the source', as they say?Or are you saying that the person asking a question will never be satisfied until he chooses to believe the answer? If you're saying this, then 1) why not try answering the question and then seeing what the response is? 2)I don't think you can 'choose' to believe. You can believe the answer, you can not believe the answer and leave it at that or you can not believe the answer and ask further questions in order to clarify, until you arrive at a point where you can say that you do.
One can certainly mock the method used to search. If you want to know more about the moon, ignoring information from people who are knowledgeable about the moon in favour of talking to it and waiting for it to talk back is a ridiculous way to go about it.Who is one to think they can mock others in the way they search?
Post #7
Exactly Fallibleone. It was the second one. I am asking Flail why he is saying what he is saying about Christianity. I want to find out his point of view so I can understand it better. Isn't that one part of debating? Or better yet, having a conversation? So far he hasn't answered, just OncedConvinced has been responding.
I can say that I do agree with Flail where he talks about knowing the context of the Bible: the time it was written in, the language used, etc. I find those very important aspects to understanding a book that is so controversial. And since so far Flail chooses not to expound upon what he is saying, why should I answer his criticism?
I ask these things to people who are critics so I can understand where they are coming from, where I might have to change, if need be on my approach and understanding of the Bible, the world, etc.
I can say that I do agree with Flail where he talks about knowing the context of the Bible: the time it was written in, the language used, etc. I find those very important aspects to understanding a book that is so controversial. And since so far Flail chooses not to expound upon what he is saying, why should I answer his criticism?
I ask these things to people who are critics so I can understand where they are coming from, where I might have to change, if need be on my approach and understanding of the Bible, the world, etc.
-
Fallibleone
- Guru
- Posts: 1935
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:35 am
- Location: Scouseland
Post #9
Again, you are right Fallibleone. I had that myself.
~~~~~~~~
"It is as if this book has its own voice?"
Yes, the Bible does have a voice of it's own. So does every other book written out there. Question is, what kind of voice? People will respond to it in different ways according to who they are, what they do in life, etc., because that is where this voice is speaking to. Some people will understand it and some will not. Some people will feel condemned by it, others will not.
"I know of very few other books(the dictionary, the encyclopedia, the almanac) that are quoted extensively yet without reference to speaker, author or context."
That is because those are different kinds of books. They are called reference books. That is why they are called an encyclopedia and almanac and dictionary. They hold knowledge of the world around us. Some of them do not have a "speaker", "author" or even "context". So the comparison that you made is unjust not just to the Bible, but to the reference books. Those books are where you go to for information, not just to read about stories or history or even doctrines of two faiths, Judaism and Christianity. Although the reference books that you imply might hold some information, but not the extent which the Bible does. Please, to do justice to yourself next time, research your comparisons.
"Isn't it important "WHO" made the statement referred to in the Bible?"
Yes, it is important "who" made "the statement(s) referred to in the Bible." Now which statements are you referring to?
"Who were they, what were their circumstances, what was their culture and their motivation and credibility?"
Like I said before, those are good questions. Bible scholars, historians even people who are not "academically trained" are able to have access to that kind of information so that they can know the who, what, when, where, why and how of the Bible. My questions are to you, what is your motivation for reading it? For critiquing it? Do you have your facts straight? Are you lumping all Christians into one category and thereby cheating yourself out of knowledge? What is your idea of what Christianity is or isn't? Are your questions biased? Even a scientist knows that to have a good interpretation of data and a worthwhile experiment, they are to be unbiased.
"How easily we take this book out of context...because of this and the fact that the bible contains very little about the actual teachings of Jesus, He gets thrown in with all the rest...Paul and the Old Testament....crazy don't you think? Surely it is not based on the "Divinely inspired theory", which was only mentioned by Paul in one of his self-serving rants and has no basis other than his say so.”
Yes, how easily. But what is even easier is your own self-serving rant. For example, not understanding the congruency and context of what Jesus, Paul and even the Old Testament is saying. To answer that question would take more then posts. What exactly is this "Divinely Inspired Theory"? What makes you think that Jesus got "thrown in with all the rest"? What exactly is the "actual teachings of Jesus"?
~~~~~~~~
Flail: All you've done is shown your own bias. You have not shown any facts, references, information as to where you received your knowledge. Since you are just showing your own frustration with Christianity, I'm sorry that you feel that way. Maybe we can talk and reason together. I am more then happy enough to listen to you.
OnceConvinced, please allow Flail to respond to this since I am responding to his questions. It is unfair to him and to yourself. It also shows respect to Flail's intelligence that he is able to answer what I am asking and respond to my own critique. You have talked for him quite enough.
~~~~~~~~
"It is as if this book has its own voice?"
Yes, the Bible does have a voice of it's own. So does every other book written out there. Question is, what kind of voice? People will respond to it in different ways according to who they are, what they do in life, etc., because that is where this voice is speaking to. Some people will understand it and some will not. Some people will feel condemned by it, others will not.
"I know of very few other books(the dictionary, the encyclopedia, the almanac) that are quoted extensively yet without reference to speaker, author or context."
That is because those are different kinds of books. They are called reference books. That is why they are called an encyclopedia and almanac and dictionary. They hold knowledge of the world around us. Some of them do not have a "speaker", "author" or even "context". So the comparison that you made is unjust not just to the Bible, but to the reference books. Those books are where you go to for information, not just to read about stories or history or even doctrines of two faiths, Judaism and Christianity. Although the reference books that you imply might hold some information, but not the extent which the Bible does. Please, to do justice to yourself next time, research your comparisons.
"Isn't it important "WHO" made the statement referred to in the Bible?"
Yes, it is important "who" made "the statement(s) referred to in the Bible." Now which statements are you referring to?
"Who were they, what were their circumstances, what was their culture and their motivation and credibility?"
Like I said before, those are good questions. Bible scholars, historians even people who are not "academically trained" are able to have access to that kind of information so that they can know the who, what, when, where, why and how of the Bible. My questions are to you, what is your motivation for reading it? For critiquing it? Do you have your facts straight? Are you lumping all Christians into one category and thereby cheating yourself out of knowledge? What is your idea of what Christianity is or isn't? Are your questions biased? Even a scientist knows that to have a good interpretation of data and a worthwhile experiment, they are to be unbiased.
"How easily we take this book out of context...because of this and the fact that the bible contains very little about the actual teachings of Jesus, He gets thrown in with all the rest...Paul and the Old Testament....crazy don't you think? Surely it is not based on the "Divinely inspired theory", which was only mentioned by Paul in one of his self-serving rants and has no basis other than his say so.”
Yes, how easily. But what is even easier is your own self-serving rant. For example, not understanding the congruency and context of what Jesus, Paul and even the Old Testament is saying. To answer that question would take more then posts. What exactly is this "Divinely Inspired Theory"? What makes you think that Jesus got "thrown in with all the rest"? What exactly is the "actual teachings of Jesus"?
~~~~~~~~
Flail: All you've done is shown your own bias. You have not shown any facts, references, information as to where you received your knowledge. Since you are just showing your own frustration with Christianity, I'm sorry that you feel that way. Maybe we can talk and reason together. I am more then happy enough to listen to you.
OnceConvinced, please allow Flail to respond to this since I am responding to his questions. It is unfair to him and to yourself. It also shows respect to Flail's intelligence that he is able to answer what I am asking and respond to my own critique. You have talked for him quite enough.
-
Fallibleone
- Guru
- Posts: 1935
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:35 am
- Location: Scouseland
Post #10
I hate to keep popping up here to say things that have nothing to do with the OP, but (and I am fairly new around here, so I could be wrong) I thought that anyone could respond to another's post. There is a special section for head-to-head debates, where only two people may post.
Anyway, that's quite enough out of me for now.
Anyway, that's quite enough out of me for now.
