Do poly atheists know the Bible?

[Ban Kenobi]

Praising a good poem because you agree with the message does not mean your agreement with a poem means that you think it is a good poem.

For a contra example - I may enjoy Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines", but I'm not going to be praising it because I think the message is abhorrent.

I will praise a song that I like and I think the message is a decent one. However, that doesn't mean that if I think the message of a song is good, I'm going to think that the song itself is good (ie, most Christian praise music).

Just to be clear, I never said anything about people praising something solely because they agree with it.

We can infer from the fact that Tennyson praised Job that:
1. Tennyson thought Job is good writing
2. (according to you) Tennyson accepted the message as a good one

By citing Tennyson you're either appealing to him as an authority on what good writing is, or what good morals are, or both. No one is really asserting Job was written poorly, it's the message that is being criticized. Unless you see Tennyson as some great moral and/or philosophical teacher, which I don't have any reason to believe he was, your citation is kind of pointless.

[Kidlicious]

FYI we have every kind of immorality today tha existed in the past.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My point was that Tennyson's praise indicates that the Book of Job tells its lesson well, does a very good job of poetry and revealing an essential message. Thus in contrast to kentonio's point, the poem is likely not "idiotic and contradictory" nor devoid of nuance - otherwise why would a great poet praise its poetry?

[Ban Kenobi]

My point was that Tennyson's praise indicates that the Book of Job tells its lesson well, does a very good job of poetry and revealing an essential message. Thus in contrast to kentonio's point, the poem is likely not "idiotic and contradictory" nor devoid of nuance - otherwise why would a great poet praise its poetry?

The message itself might be idiotic and have contradictory aspects. I'm not sure what contradictions in the book he's referring to, however.

[Kidlicious]

Still haven't identified a legit criticism of the moral.

[Ban Kenobi]

You need a legitimate criticism of the notion that if a god created someone, he has the right to do whatever he wants to his creation and his creation should shut up, accept whatever is thrown at him, and not question him? Tell me again why you have a problem with abortions when the fetus clearly only exists on account of the whims of its parents, and by the logic of Job the fetus would have no right to complain (if it even could complain) about being killed?

[Kidlicious]

Show me a serious criticism that says that the message is God is a bully.

[Ban Kenobi]

You won't accept any opinion as being "serious" unless it agrees with you.

[Kidlicious]

You need a legitimate criticism of the notion that if a god created someone, he has the right to do whatever he wants to his creation and his creation should shut up, accept whatever is thrown at him, and not question him? Tell me again why you have a problem with abortions when the fetus clearly only exists on account of the whims of its parents, and by the logic of Job the fetus would have no right to complain (if it even could complain) about being killed?

This is bull****. Show me something scholorly.

[Kidlicious]

You won't accept any opinion as being "serious" unless it agrees with you.

If it's someone who depends on their rep I will.

[kentonio]

You mean things that people of Faith helped to end (*ahem* William Wilberforce)? One cannot understand the morality of today without realizing the morality of the past - and one cannot uncontextualize people in the past. Everyone before 1900 isn't a moral monster.

Compared to today, yes everyone born before 1900 would almost certainly be considered a bigoted immoral monster today. That's why judging history through moral relativism is so utterly foolish.

My point was that Tennyson's praise indicates that the Book of Job tells its lesson well, does a very good job of poetry and revealing an essential message. Thus in contrast to kentonio's point, the poem is likely not "idiotic and contradictory" nor devoid of nuance - otherwise why would a great poet praise its poetry?

Praising a good poem because you agree with the message does not mean your agreement with a poem means that you think it is a good poem.

For a contra example - I may enjoy Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines", but I'm not going to be praising it because I think the message is abhorrent.

Why would you be unable to praise a good piece of art or music or poetry just because you disagree with the message or theme? Also why in the name of all that is ****ing holy do you like Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines?

[Sava]

Nobody cares about Tennyson. And nobody should.

[kentonio]

Show me a serious criticism that says that the message is God is a bully.

Ok, Book of Job. Either you believe it literally in which case God is a total ****, or you take the message about bad things happening without fault, which if you believe in god makes no sense, thus again making god a ****. Or you take it as an allegorical tale about acceptance of suffering through faith, in which case you're a ****.

[Ban Kenobi]

This is bull****. Show me something scholorly.

So only experts are qualified to interpret the Bible? Then shut up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Compared to today, yes everyone born before 1900 would almost certainly be considered a bigoted immoral monster today. That's why judging history through moral relativism is so utterly foolish.

Because you enjoy sitting on your high horse and judging previous generations for not being so morally advanced? In that case, you should just get it over with and call yourself a bigoted immoral monster, because you great, great grandkids sure will because of some position you hold that will become morally repugnant a few decades from now (it may be eating animals, who knows?).