BMaker11 said:
Slimebeast said:
Damn what a long post.
I like to discuss on the internet, but it's a pity that it takes much more time and energy to type than it takes to talk. And since my native language isn't English it takes me twice as long.
I will probably reply to each paragraph above in more detail later, but I just wanna comment something in general here.
I understand the point you are trying to make, that the interpretation of the Bible becomes radically different depending on what preconceptions you go in with. Obviously if you are already a Christian more or less, you will interpret it differently than if you have a blank and open mind and just read and analyze this ancient book. Also your approcah might be not just purely theological but scientifical, historical and cultural. Of course, it's so obvious and natural, I am aware of all that. But instead, to me it seems that you take the other extreme. You come with a heavy preconception too (just like Reza Aslan and the myriad of religious and historical scholars with an agenda. Please don't refer to Reza Aslan as an authority, his analysis is piss poor even from a scholar POV).
Now I understand that this is a debate, everyone takes kind of the extreme stand to make a point, for clarity's sake. But even if I try to be aware of that and filter that out, you come across as someone who only wants to twist the Bible and Christianity into something negative, something that it is not. For every interpretation you automatically seem to assume the most unfavorable is true. And that just ain't intellectually honest. It's just not believable. It becomes far too easy to write off every atheist critic as an ignorant layman. Seldom I hear any sophisticated criticism being put forward from the non-theist side.
|
I don't refer to Aslan as an authority, because I haven't looked at much of his work. That said, he has been studying religions for a long time, and like I said, he just put Jesus in the context of verifiable history. The fact that this makes you angsty should make you reanalyze your beliefs.
Now, you are wrong that I take the "other" extreme. I don't believe everything in the Bible is bad, and then twist every possible verse. All I'm saying is that there's gruesome stuff in it. Love thy neighbor is great. The meek shall inherit the earth is great. Concession of that alone shows that "For every interpretation you automatically seem to assume the most unfavorable is true" is a false statement. But like I said, I call it like I see it. There's nothing wrong with "love thy neighbor". There is something very wrong with "kill every man, woman, and child, but to the girls who have not known a man, spare them and keep them for yourselves". I don't look at a verse and then try my damndest to put a negative spin on it. If Jesus saying "I have come to put the father against the son. Mother against daughter. If you are to have enemies, they will be in your own home", and me taking that to mean exactly what it says is "most unfavorable" interpretation, then what, pray tell, is the "favorable" interpretation?
I never said there wasn't any good in the Bible. But people on the theist side (I guess we'll call it that) truly think that it is all good, so when someone like me points out something that can be viewed as bad, they say, as you've done, "you're twisting scripture". I don't "only want to twist the Bible" because there are good bits in there. I'm just presenting you the coal in what you think is a perfectly pure diamond. You can't sit here and think it's "The Good Book" with no flaws and is all goodness, and then when I point out that it condones slavery (and even tells you how to obtain them), turn around and say I'm the bad guy with an agenda.
|
About Aslan. Yes yes I know he is a historian. I know he has a scientific method. If I write him off, that doesn't mean I reject his field, religious/historical scholars in general or the scientific method. You can't assume that just because I am a theist. Just like you, I have the right to dismiss and judge somebody based on the quality of his work and estimate if his results are influenced by an agenda. And this guy has an agenda. All scholars have, obviously, it's natural. But sometimes, and we see this very often, it affects the scientific process too much.
I quote you: 'If Jesus saying "I have come to put the father against the son. Mother against daughter. If you are to have enemies, they will be in your own home", and me taking that to mean exactly what it says is "most unfavorable" interpretation, then what, pray tell, is the "favorable" interpretation?'
- The favorable interpretation is the message Jesus wanted to send, that God is so important that it even can split families. He is taking an extreme example in order to make a point. That if it would come to that point for a human individual, that a family member stood in the way to reach God, the individual should disregard his family and choose God.
That is in my opinion, radical from a worldly, "ordinary life", point of view, yes certainly, but it's a bad example to use if you want to sell the idea that Jesus is a bad person. It's fine though, if you think it's a good example of Jesus/God being an ego-maniac and not a loving and good person, that's totally fine by me. It's exactly what the world is expected to think. One of the biggest problems for a sinner is to accept God's authority, so for heathens to have the opinion that God is a cruel ego-maniac, it's not something strange to us Christians at all, it is expected.
The big clash, at least in this thread (it started it all, when another poster, a christian, claimed Jesus was good and you claimed he does not just appear good and lobing) are such statements as "the Good book", an "all-loving God". It sets up or misunderstandings. It's tricky.
Like I said, as an example. From a worldly point of view (rational, modern, intellectual, whatever you want to call it), if I have those neutral "blank state" glasses on me, I admit that Bhuddism is more innocent and "good" than Christianity. That's a popular opinion by ordinary people. But to a Christian, from a Christian perspective I obviously don't feel like that. Now I don't describe my God as only a good all-loving good, because he also has other characteristics like anger, jealousy (sp?) and other character feats that are regarded "lower" by modern human standards, but in general I will describe God as a good and loving god.
Partly it's a case of communication. What terms you use, and how they are received, will depend on whether you communicate with your own flock or with the unbelievers and it depends on which glasses you have put on when you discuss. Of course I can take on the "worldly glasses" and see that the Biblical God seems quite cruel at first glance. In discussions such as these I often try to put on my worldly glasses. It depends on the topic.
This becomes complex I realize. Because it actually ties in with the whole salvation process, how a Christian after having received the faith comes to interpet the nature of God, the Bible and everything.How it transforms morality and everything. Yeah, I understand that an atheist easily writes it off as brainwash and delusion. And that's fine.
We, Christians, often throw ourselves in these discussions because we imagine we can correct some misunderstandings. Sometimes we fool ourselves and even forget that it is mainly we ourselves who teach that the world will never have the same glasses as believers have. It's deeply built in the Christian doctrine. It's core doctrine.
