The god of the old testament has . . . . issues

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


No, you are assuming that there is not some coherent thought, or purpose to the Bible. That is why you feel comfortable decontructing it into parts, and interpreting them seperately. If you had an open mind, you would consider the possibility that the Bible did have a unifying purpose and would read it as such. Which wouldn't (according to some groups, there are deconstructionists) include reading and interpreting a small section independently to the rest.

Is what I am saying that hard to understand? Let's say if you had some novel that had been broken up to fit in a magazine or something (was common for Sci Fi and other such things back in the day, I think Dickens had some of his work done similiarly). Then you went, and made conclusions based upon one 'chapter' about what was going on/what the message was without reading the other chapters. Hence, you are assuming that the Bible isn't one coherent book when you do so.

Jon Miller

There is a fundamental disconnect between us on this, Jon. I honestly believe that I'm the one bringing no assumptions to the table, whereas you honestly believe YOU are the one with the open mind and *I* am the one who is assuming things.

I think we must simply agree to disagree on that.

With regard to breaking down a novel into chapters... first off, a novel typically purports to be nothing but a work of fiction. It doesn't tell me how to live. Thus I'm unlikely to subject a novel to as much analysis, except perhaps if it's for a class, and I've been out of college for 8 years now.

Now, Dickens is an interesting example b/c his works tended to be social commentary. I read some of his work for classes, and thus did subject it to critical thinking. Because Dickens was indeed pushing a message (not as strongly as the Bible, but really, not too many books do, do they?). Would I deconstruct it chapter by chapter? YES.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No, you are assuming that there is not some coherent thought, or purpose to the Bible. That is why you feel comfortable decontructing it into parts, and interpreting them seperately. If you had an open mind, you would consider the possibility that the Bible did have a unifying purpose and would read it as such.

So how exactly does Leviticus fit into this great 'coherent & unifying purpose', John? I notice you didn't have a word to say about it when it was being discussed earlier in the thread.

It's funny how, in your world, people who don't agree with the bible don't have an open mind, wheras, presumably, those who believe it all do have an open mind.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Arrian


There is a fundamental disconnect between us on this, Jon. I honestly believe that I'm the one bringing no assumptions to the table, whereas you honestly believe YOU are the one with the open mind and *I* am the one who is assuming things.

I think we must simply agree to disagree on that.

With regard to breaking down a novel into chapters... first off, a novel typically purports to be nothing but a work of fiction. It doesn't tell me how to live. Thus I'm unlikely to subject a novel to as much analysis, except perhaps if it's for a class, and I've been out of college for 8 years now.

Now, Dickens is an interesting example b/c his works tended to be social commentary. I read some of his work for classes, and thus did subject it to critical thinking. Because Dickens was indeed pushing a message (not as strongly as the Bible, but really, not too many books do, do they?). Would I deconstruct it chapter by chapter? YES.

-Arrian

And further to the point, if a book is supposed to have an overarching message or theme, you might start to wonder why some parts of it don't seem to fit with that theme. If enough parts don't, you might start to wonder if there really is a theme at all.

And of course, you're engaged in deconstruction as well, just after the fact. You see a cohesion and theme and then go back and manage to dismiss those parts which seem to disagree with it as "figures of speech" or the faults of mortals trying to describe something they don't really understand.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian


There is a fundamental disconnect between us on this, Jon. I honestly believe that I'm the one bringing no assumptions to the table, whereas you honestly believe YOU are the one with the open mind and *I* am the one who is assuming things.

I think we must simply agree to disagree on that.

With regard to breaking down a novel into chapters... first off, a novel typically purports to be nothing but a work of fiction. It doesn't tell me how to live. Thus I'm unlikely to subject a novel to as much analysis, except perhaps if it's for a class, and I've been out of college for 8 years now.

Now, Dickens is an interesting example b/c his works tended to be social commentary. I read some of his work for classes, and thus did subject it to critical thinking. Because Dickens was indeed pushing a message (not as strongly as the Bible, but really, not too many books do, do they?). Would I deconstruct it chapter by chapter? YES.

-Arrian

In which case I, and most criticism people I beleive (but it has been a while...) would disagree with you. You would definitely be losing out on Dickens.. and why does the requirement of being a powerful work, or of being a moral work, or etc, require different behavior then a 'normal' story. You know that most stories have interpretations (most interpretations) that include telling you how to live (in a way)?

And I know that I make assumptions (beleifs). But I can step outside my beleifs better than you and look at things critically.

Jon Miller
(or perhaps I just disagree with your critical school, but I think that you are losing out on a lot of stories then, not just the Bible (of course, apparently you don't read other stories..))

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kontiki




And further to the point, if a book is supposed to have an overarching message or theme, you might start to wonder why some parts of it don't seem to fit with that theme. If enough parts don't, you might start to wonder if there really is a theme at all.

And of course, you're engaged in deconstruction as well, just after the fact. You see a cohesion and theme and then go back and manage to dismiss those parts which seem to disagree with it as "figures of speech" or the faults of mortals trying to describe something they don't really understand.

No. Once more, there are many interpretations of things. If it is one work, if it has one theme, then you pick the interpretation that fits together, not the one that doesn't fit together.

Those books of the Bible are the only ones that have God hardening peoples hearts. And in later books the people are said to be hardening their hearts against God. Which is more reasonable?

Also, it is definitely understood by scholars that the Biblical 'fear God' is much different then the 'fear' used in everyday speach (in English), but that 'figure of speach' (which just means an alternate definition) still remains in most Bibles.

Parts don't fit only if you don't want them to fit.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


So how exactly does Leviticus fit into this great 'coherent & unifying purpose', John? I notice you didn't have a word to say about it when it was being discussed earlier in the thread.

It's funny how, in your world, people who don't agree with the bible don't have an open mind, wheras, presumably, those who believe it all do have an open mind.

No, I am not saying that people in general who don't agree with the Bible don't have an open mind. I am saying that based upon Arrian's posts, that his disagreements with the Bible (that he has posted) shows that he doesn't have an open mind.

This is in general true of many atheists that I have met. There are also many atheists that do have an open mind, but still don't agree with the Bible.

And I know of my beleifs and assumptions.

Jon Miller

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


No. Once more, there are many interpretations of things. If it is one work, if it has one theme, then you pick the interpretation that fits together, not the one that doesn't fit together.

Those books of the Bible are the only ones that have God hardening peoples hearts. And in later books the people are said to be hardening their hearts against God. Which is more reasonable?

Also, it is definitely understood by scholars that the Biblical 'fear God' is much different then the 'fear' used in everyday speach (in English), but that 'figure of speach' (which just means an alternate definition) still remains in most Bibles.

Parts don't fit only if you don't want them to fit.

Jon Miller

But often it can be the other way round, i.e. all of the parts fit only because interested parties try their best to make them fit
(even if they weren´t meant to fit first place)

One example could be the prophecies of Michél de Notredame (Nostradamus).

There are lots of interpretations fitting many is prophecies to certain historic events.
But, as all of these interpretations only occur in hindsight, after the events have taken place and there AFAIK was not a single case in which the prophecies of Nostradamus have been successfully used to really foretell the future,
it is just as plausible to think, that his prophecies didn´t really point at the events and that they fit to the historical events only, because the people want to believe that they do so.

Same goes for the bible.
Those who will believe the bible is the word of god (i.e. literally true or at least, although written by men in all parts inspired by him) will, of course, try to find interpretations of the books within the bible which make the bible fit to this theory and of course they will find these interpretations.

On the other side people who believe that the books of the bible the bible contains just stories (or theories about the universe) and rather have to be seen in historic context (without really being the word of god) will also find enough evidence for this theory.

I think there is enough evidence to say that not all parts of the bible can be literally true (for example the flood or the two contradicting stories about creation of man, woman and the universe).
As for the bible being at least inspired by god (and, certain events, such as Moses and the pharao point to real events and real actions taken by god).
Well, as arrian said, just agree that both of you disagree, I don´t think there will any evidence brought by anyone of you which will convince the other one that he is wrong.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
So how exactly does Leviticus fit into this great 'coherent & unifying purpose', John? I notice you didn't have a word to say about it when it was being discussed earlier in the thread.

[Jon Miller]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Proteus_MST

Same goes for the bible.
Those who will believe the bible is the word of god (i.e. literally true or at least, although written by men in all parts inspired by him) will, of course, try to find interpretations of the books within the bible which make the bible fit to this theory and of course they will find these interpretations.

On the other side people who believe that the books of the bible the bible contains just stories (or theories about the universe) and rather have to be seen in historic context (without really being the word of god) will also find enough evidence for this theory.

I think there is enough evidence to say that not all parts of the bible can be literally true (for example the flood or the two contradicting stories about creation of man, woman and the universe).
As for the bible being at least inspired by god (and, certain events, such as Moses and the pharao point to real events and real actions taken by god).
Well, as arrian said, just agree that both of you disagree, I don´t think there will any evidence brought by anyone of you which will convince the other one that he is wrong. [/QUOTE

Umm, I am not claiming that from reading the Bible, with no beleif, that you will (definitely) come to the conclusion that it was inspired by God. I am maintaining that there are valid/reasonable/critical interpretations that give coherent ideas... I agree that there are other interpretations.. And I will even agree that the interpretations that Arrian has presented are reasonable from the deconstructionist school of thought, but I don't think that that school of thought is valid (which is at a lit crit level, not based upon a discussion of religion or the Bible).

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Honestly I haven't read or thought about Leviticus much recently. Maybe I should..

Jon Miller

[Arrian]

And I know that I make assumptions (beleifs). But I can step outside my beleifs better than you and look at things critically.

Jon Miller
(or perhaps I just disagree with your critical school, but I think that you are losing out on a lot of stories then, not just the Bible (of course, apparently you don't read other stories..))

First off, I'm not saying that I would only read one chapter of Dickens and decide he's crap. But at the same time, if I read a chapter that was crap, it would impact my view of his work. I'm not saying you can read Genesis, decide the Bible in its entirety is crap, stop there and think you've given it a fair shake.

You think you do a better job of setting aside your beliefs/assumptions than I. Um, ok, if you say so. I don't concede that, but there's no real good way of testing it either, so let's just leave it at that.

I don't read other stories? What? I've read lots of 'em, and will read lots more. I don't know where that came from.

...

Parts don't fit only if you don't want them to fit.

That's precious. I rather think that the parts fit only if you want them to fit.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Regarding my openmindedness...

I have pretty much made up my mind w/regard to religion, yes (agnostic, leaning atheist). That is not the same as having never had an open mind, however, and it doesn't mean my mind is currently *completely* closed at this point either. I didn't decide as a kid that I didn't like the idea of God and thus stack the deck against belief. I thought this through. It's pretty clear to me that religion was made up by humans for humans.

Frankly I wish I could believe in a kindly, forgiving God and a heavenly afterlife. Those are, after all, rather nice things (the Good News, as Christians would say, right?). But I've never been able to bring myself to believe it, Jon. There's just too much that doesn't add up.

The nitpicking on one part of the Bible you perceive in this thread, by the way, has something to do with the fact that the OP was about God's violence in the Old Testament (or Torah). So obviously that's the part we got to discussing.

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Arrian
I didn't decide as a kid that I didn't like the idea of God and thus stack the deck against belief.

This little factoid is important, for me. How many of the Christians on this board who argue fervently for their faith would still hold the beliefs they have had they not been born Christian?

While many here have obviously thought about why they are Christian, and what they think about being Christian, how many here have thought about whether or not they should be Christian, and whether or not other faiths might have more value or truth?

I should add that this really shouldn't be targeted at Christians, and that most people born into a particular faith are probably the same.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Arrian
Regarding my openmindedness...

I have pretty much made up my mind w/regard to religion, yes (agnostic, leaning atheist). That is not the same as having never had an open mind, however, and it doesn't mean my mind is currently *completely* closed at this point either. I didn't decide as a kid that I didn't like the idea of God and thus stack the deck against belief. I thought this through. It's pretty clear to me that religion was made up by humans for humans.

Frankly I wish I could believe in a kindly, forgiving God and a heavenly afterlife. Those are, after all, rather nice things (the Good News, as Christians would say, right?). But I've never been able to bring myself to believe it, Jon. There's just too much that doesn't add up.


-Arrian

And I expect your position in not beleiving in God or the Bible. I disagree with it, but I respect it as a position. I am countering your position that parts of the Bible don't add up (just period). I agree with the positions that parts of the Bible don't add up under some interpretations.

I guess I just disagree heavily with the deconstructionist school of thought. (and my comments with respect to stories is based upon your apparent ignorance thereof.. I am well aware that one can read and not study.. (in fact, that is what I usually do))

I would probably get into as big of argument if you picked any book I like and used the deconstructionist approach on it.

peace,
Jon Miller

[Arrian]

Upbringing is obviously huge. My parents aren't religious. They are nominally protestant. My mom was raised Catholic, didn't buy into it, and happily switched over when she married my dad.

They didn't push religion on me. They did expose me to it at least a little - they sent me to Sunday School once, and told me I could go back if I wanted, or if I didn't like it I could come home. I asked irritating questions and things didn't go that well. I never went back.

My father is admittedly a fairly irreverant man. He pokes fun at things, especially zealotry. It doesn't have to be religious zealotry, either:

When he moved down to the States from Canada in the 1960s, he says he used to have fun with Americans in arguments/debates by randomly throwing out "well, now you're talking like a communist." It apparently shut people up almost without fail What's funny is that my dad is quite anti-commie. Loves Thatcher & Reagan and all that. But he thought Americans were crazy in their anti-commie zealotry, and just had to poke at it.

-Arrian