Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I think the "deeper message" we should get from reading the Bible carefully and paying attention to context, etc., is that it is not written by an all-knowing, loving God. It is written by people in different times and places who understand/misunderstand God to varying degrees, and who are sometimes wise, sometimes foolish, sometimes consistent, sometimes not - cuz that's just how people are.?"
Bears repeating. Taking a book as authority is just foolishness. Jesus promised something better.
if you don't find wisdom in something then set it aside, it is not for you.
It sounds like that is the case.
if you don't find wisdom in something then set it aside, it is not for you.
It sounds like that is the case.
If there is contradiction in messages and perceptions in a book the book itself is NOT a basis of wisdom no matter how much it might contain. The point here is NOT to make the BOOK out to be authority.
I'm open to arguments either way on whether the Exodus/Ezekiel quotes are literal contradictions. When something seems to be a contradiction, the burden of proof is on someone who claims that there is no contradiction to show how it is possible for the statements to be logically consistent. So far, you have not shown me any convincing reason to think that they are not contradictory. As it stands, these passages seem to reinforce the view that different people wrote these words in the context of their own beliefs, biases, cultural circumstances, etc., and thus it is not surprising that they have different views on whether God does or does not punish future generations for the sins of their ancestors.
I'm sure everyone agrees that, as a matter of plain old physical causation, there is no doubt that future generations are hurt or rewarded based on the faults or accomplishments of the previous generations. But the Exodus passage clearly shows God proclaiming himself to be a jealous God, and in various other passages he reminds people that he is a vengeful God. When a Being who clearly admits to being jealous and vengeful says that he will punish future generations for the sins of the past generations, you need to do some rhetorical gymnastics to spin that in such a way that the suffering of the children is not in some sense divinely purposeful, rather than merely the mechanical grinding of cause and effect. Earlier I mentioned the Great Flood because it, too, provides some context. If that story is literally true (which I'm fairly certain it is not), then God has clearly demonstrated his vengeful nature and his willingness to purposefully inflict great suffering on innocent human beings when he gets pissed off.
Obviously a bunch of mechanical cause/effect happens. The question is whether or not God purposefully imposes suffering on people because of the sins of their previous generations. Exodus clearly indicates "yes" and "Ezekiel" clearly indicates "no".
I think the "deeper message" we should get from reading the Bible carefully and paying attention to context, etc., is that it is not written by an all-knowing, loving God. It is written by people in different times and places who understand/misunderstand God to varying degrees, and who are sometimes wise, sometimes foolish, sometimes consistent, sometimes not - cuz that's just how people are.
Gaylen's post illustrates the correlations and connections between how a person's beliefs link one to another and how modifying one can upset the whole apple cart ("if this is true, then what about this") with a pronounced domino effect. It also shows how our purpose or intention or what we value drives what we expect (demand?) from others in a conversation or discussion, but may be totally irrelevant to the person we are having the conversation with.
it sounds like these are important to Gaylen and this is what he seeks/requires/expects: arguments, burden of proof, convincing reason, logically consistent. "for me to be convinced you need to provide xyz and since you can't i am not convinced and therefore the statements are contradictory."
so we have:
the statements are contradictory for Gaylen,
the statements are not contradictory for me.
the statements are not logically consistent for Gaylen,
they are logically consistent for me.
Gaylen values convincing and requires burden of proof
Those have no value for me whatsoever
i have no desire to convince anyone of anything, or prove anything to anybody because those are not important to me. All I can say is this is my understanding, this makes sense to me, these are my views, this is how i see it. So what Gaylen is asking for (burden of proof, convincing, debate) is not something i have any interest in so I don't do it. What we see as the "purpose" of the discussion differs in that regard.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-08-2017 at 12:26 PM..
if you don't find wisdom in something then set it aside, it is not for you.
It sounds like that is the case.
Personally, I wouldn't really mind if some people want to take holy books as sources of wisdom and moral authority for themselves. In principle, I am totally fine with that. I appreciate diversity of thought. Unfortunately, in reality, most people don't react to holy books as being just "true for me." The wisdom people find in them spills over into public policies, "scientific" debates (that are not really scientific at all), varieties of social stigma, and so on. And THAT is the core reason that I feel a need to speak out and object whenever I find someone quoting a holy book in defense of public policies, etc. If people could simply believe what they believe and not impose these beliefs on others, then I wouldn't engage in much debate at all, except maybe for the pleasure and idle amusement of all parties involved. (Philosophical debate "for the fun of it" is something that I enjoy, but I fully realize that most people don't find it all that fun).
Realistically, the stakes of belief - and debates over these beliefs - are generally higher than just friendly competition for amusement. It is virtually impossible for people to avoid imposing their beliefs on others - even when they try not to do it. Support for tolerance and diversity, for example, is felt as an imposition of liberal beliefs and seen, ironically, as a sort of intolerance by people who think differently. It is a brute fact of life that holy books have social and political impact and, for the most part, I don't like the larger-scale social impacts that they have.
If there is contradiction in messages and perceptions in a book the book itself is NOT a basis of wisdom no matter how much it might contain. The point here is NOT to make the BOOK out to be authority.
so then are these accurate statements?
you nate don't find wisdom in the book
others do find wisdom in the book
something that is a contradiction for you
is not a contradiction for someone else
what is logically consistent for someone else
is not logically consistent for you
parts of the book you value
other parts of the book you don't value
you find wisdom in part of the book
others find wisdom in all of the book
"better" for you or "true" for you
does not mean it is "better" for others or "true" for others.
since all of that is a function of what the person brings to the table, then it varies from person to person, based on what they value, what they understand, what they believe.
I don't get this, this does not make sense to me.... "the book itself is NOT a basis of wisdom no matter how much it might contain"
....because for me if a book contains wisdom, then it is a source of wisdom. Are you saying the whole book is invalid if there is a contradiction? Something bothers you but it is not clear to me what it is.
I have no idea what this sentence means. It does not make sense to me. "The point here is NOT to make the BOOK out to be authority."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-08-2017 at 01:19 PM..
you nate don't find wisdom in the book
others do find wisdom in the book
something that is a contradiction for you
is not a contradiction for someone else
what is logically consistent for someone else
is not logically consistent for you
parts of the book you value
other parts of the book you don't value
you find wisdom in part of the book
others find wisdom in all of the book
"better" for you or "true" for you
does not mean it is "better" for others or "true" for others.
since all of that is a function of what the person brings to the table, then it varies from person to person, based on what they value, what they understand, what they believe.
I don't get this, this does not make sense to me.... "the book itself is NOT a basis of wisdom no matter how much it might contain"
....because for me if a book contains wisdom, then it is a source of wisdom. Are you saying the whole book is invalid if there is a contradiction? Something bothers you but it is not clear to me what it is.
I have no idea what this sentence means. It does not make sense to me. "The point here is NOT to make the BOOK out to be authority."
1 no, there is wisdom as well as contradictions and vicious barbarity in thwe book;
2something that nis a rational contradiction is just a contradiction no matter how many time you call it an opinion.
3 see #2
4I find wisdom in the book, others excuse barbarity in the book.
5 see #2
6 see #2
7 and 8If a book is unreliable historically or morally as the Bible is, it should not be taken as authoritative. How hard is that?
1 no, there is wisdom as well as contradictions and vicious barbarity in thwe book;
2something that nis a rational contradiction is just a contradiction no matter how many time you call it an opinion.
3 see #2
4I find wisdom in the book, others excuse barbarity in the book.
5 see #2
6 see #2
7 and 8 If a book is unreliable historically or morally as the Bible is, it should not be taken as authoritative. How hard is that?
i still don't know what you mean by a book being authoritative. is it what Gaylen and I have been calling a "reliable source" ? (which of course varies from person to person.)
if a book is not a reliable source for you then set it aside. like people do all the time with books that aren't their cup of tea. it sounds like you are saying not just that you don't find the book a reliable source, but it bothers you (in a big way) that other people do find the book a reliable source. it sounds like at some primal level you are incensed and deeply disturbed that someone likes a book that you don't.
that to me is not reasonable or rational.
unless there is more to it than just "she likes Shakespeare, he likes Tolkien." If there is something more, can you identify what it is that really bothers you about the book or the people who value the book?
(I asked Mystic the same question a few months back, i give him credit for having the honesty and self-awareness to provide a reply about what the "something more" was for him, at the root of his upset. Props to Mystic.)
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-08-2017 at 05:09 PM..
you nate don't find wisdom in the book
others do find wisdom in the book
something that is a contradiction for you
is not a contradiction for someone else
what is logically consistent for someone else
is not logically consistent for you
parts of the book you value
other parts of the book you don't value
you find wisdom in part of the book
others find wisdom in all of the book
"better" for you or "true" for you
does not mean it is "better" for others or "true" for others.
since all of that is a function of what the person brings to the table, then it varies from person to person, based on what they value, what they understand, what they believe.
I don't get this, this does not make sense to me.... "the book itself is NOT a basis of wisdom no matter how much it might contain"
....because for me if a book contains wisdom, then it is a source of wisdom. Are you saying the whole book is invalid if there is a contradiction? Something bothers you but it is not clear to me what it is.
I have no idea what this sentence means. It does not make sense to me. "The point here is NOT to make the BOOK out to be authority."
Aint nothing logical about a husband and a wife selling all they own to give to the poor and to begin living common amongst the homeless, or when somebody hates you, you turn in love. Following God gives a person a choice to give all things up or to become prosperous. The people who never give it all up will never find the how God changes you, they can never realize that they own the world because they wont let go.
Personally, I wouldn't really mind if some people want to take holy books as sources of wisdom and moral authority for themselves. In principle, I am totally fine with that. I appreciate diversity of thought. Unfortunately, in reality, most people don't react to holy books as being just "true for me." The wisdom people find in them spills over into public policies, "scientific" debates (that are not really scientific at all), varieties of social stigma, and so on. And THAT is the core reason that I feel a need to speak out and object whenever I find someone quoting a holy book in defense of public policies, etc. If people could simply believe what they believe and not impose these beliefs on others, then I wouldn't engage in much debate at all, except maybe for the pleasure and idle amusement of all parties involved. (Philosophical debate "for the fun of it" is something that I enjoy, but I fully realize that most people don't find it all that fun).
Realistically, the stakes of belief - and debates over these beliefs - are generally higher than just friendly competition for amusement. It is virtually impossible for people to avoid imposing their beliefs on others - even when they try not to do it. Support for tolerance and diversity, for example, is felt as an imposition of liberal beliefs and seen, ironically, as a sort of intolerance by people who think differently. It is a brute fact of life that holy books have social and political impact and, for the most part, I don't like the larger-scale social impacts that they have.
exactly. I always ask those people to state the reason without "god says so". If they can I may agree with them or I may not agree with them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
