Purgatory : Healing - a sign of the Kingdom.

13468911

Comments

  • mousethief wrote: »

    That's not an answer to "why are you posting on this thread." I don't think I name-checked you into the thread. You were already here.,

    What's the real reason you're spewing forth opinions on something you claim to have no interest in?

    Nope. Just checked all five pages and the first mention of my name was in your post.
  • I must have been thinking about something foolish you said in some other thread.
  • I don’t know about anyone else, but this thread and the Divine Punishment and the Coronovirus thread have run together for me. Similar points have been raised in both, and I have more than once last track of who said what in which thread.

  • I'm actually very interested in Mousethief's summoning spell. Could we use it to summon Cthulhu to the thread, for instance?
  • I'm actually very interested in Mousethief's summoning spell. Could we use it to summon Cthulhu to the thread, for instance?

    Only if he eats you first.
  • Why, that's mercy.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    You have not read our replies if you think that either of us has said we have not read the bible.
    She might have read some of ours, though.

    The last time I challenged you on this, you admitted to not having read the Bible in its entirety. Has that changed?
    Not having read the whole thing is irrelevant because it is not a constant narrative. Unless there is something like Paul's letter to the Apologists in there that I missed.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I'm quite sure lots of people who've expressed an opinion on the Game of Thrones TV series have never watched it.
    I’m sure there are. And such uninformed opinions, were they to go beyond “doesn’t sound like my kind of thing,” would typically be dismissed as worthless, and possibly indicative of prejudice.
    TBF, there is enough info* floating around on both to have a decent idea of what they are about. The bible is a bit more difficult to have a handle on all the particulars than GoT, precisely because it is not a coherent work. Nothing Colin has said has fallen outside of what I have heard Christians say, and yet they would not so be challenged.

    *Reviews, discussions, complaints, hot takes, parodies, etc.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    You have not read our replies if you think that either of us has said we have not read the bible.
    She might have read some of ours, though.

    The last time I challenged you on this, you admitted to not having read the Bible in its entirety. Has that changed?
    Not having read the whole thing is irrelevant because it is not a constant narrative. Unless there is something like Paul's letter to the Apologists in there that I missed.

    I would think that its not being a constant narrative makes it more important to read it all. If it were uniform throughout you could read a tiny bit and get the feel and be sure you weren't missing anything. The more homogeneous the population, the smaller the sample can be, and still be representative.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I'm quite sure lots of people who've expressed an opinion on the Game of Thrones TV series have never watched it.
    I’m sure there are. And such uninformed opinions, were they to go beyond “doesn’t sound like my kind of thing,” would typically be dismissed as worthless, and possibly indicative of prejudice.
    TBF, there is enough info* floating around on both to have a decent idea of what they are about. The bible is a bit more difficult to have a handle on all the particulars than GoT, precisely because it is not a coherent work. Nothing Colin has said has fallen outside of what I have heard Christians say, and yet they would not so be challenged.

    Whoa, who are you and what have you done with lilbuddha? The real lilbuddha has been around here long enough to know that's absurd.
  • I reckon Dread Cthulhu has indeed been summoned onto this thread, and has devoured lilbuddha...
    :scream:
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    You have not read our replies if you think that either of us has said we have not read the bible.
    She might have read some of ours, though.

    The last time I challenged you on this, you admitted to not having read the Bible in its entirety. Has that changed?
    Not having read the whole thing is irrelevant because it is not a constant narrative. Unless there is something like Paul's letter to the Apologists in there that I missed.

    I would think that its not being a constant narrative makes it more important to read it all. If it were uniform throughout you could read a tiny bit and get the feel and be sure you weren't missing anything.
    Only if there are bits that explained why the other bits should be viewed differently.
    If the bible were a set of different stories intentionally designed to work together, then yes. But it isn't.
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I'm quite sure lots of people who've expressed an opinion on the Game of Thrones TV series have never watched it.
    I’m sure there are. And such uninformed opinions, were they to go beyond “doesn’t sound like my kind of thing,” would typically be dismissed as worthless, and possibly indicative of prejudice.
    TBF, there is enough info* floating around on both to have a decent idea of what they are about. The bible is a bit more difficult to have a handle on all the particulars than GoT, precisely because it is not a coherent work. Nothing Colin has said has fallen outside of what I have heard Christians say, and yet they would not so be challenged.

    Whoa, who are you and what have you done with lilbuddha? The real lilbuddha has been around here long enough to know that's absurd.
    Do you challenge each other on interpretations? Yes. Do you use percentage of the bible read as a challenge? Not that I have seen. The far more typical is referencing chapter and verse to counter, which is what I am asking.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Only if there are bits that explained why the other bits should be viewed differently.
    From this it is clear that you have never read, or at least never digested, the Sermon on the Mount, perhaps one of the most famous bits of the Bible, which is devoted almost exclusively to doing precisely that (aka the Six Antitheses). Even Wikipedia tells you as much. You are way out of your depth.
  • Is the issue the fact that a couple of non-believers who have barely read the Bible think the god described in the OT is different to the god described in the NT or is the issue the fact that anyone has ever thought that they are different?

    Only I get the idea that a couple of non-believers who have barely read the Bible might easily have misunderstood things and a desire to correct their misapprehension is totally understandable. But to attempt to correct them while ignoring the long history of Christians who have read the Bible concluding that the god described in the OT is different to the god described in the NT is odd.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    No, the issues are that this question is not the one originally being discussed on this thread.

    Plus, it's a bit difficult to explain how constant reinterpretation the Bible is a feature of the Bible from the Pentateuch onwards to people who aren't very familiar with it.

    Neither of which means that we haven't considered these questions before.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    No, the issues are that this question is not the one originally being discussed on this thread.

    Plus, it's a bit difficult to explain how constant reinterpretation the Bible is a feature of the Bible from the Pentateuch onwards to people who aren't very familiar with it.

    Neither of which means that we haven't considered these questions before.

    I agree it shouldn't be on this thread and I don't know how it got here. I'm more than happy to drop it.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Only if there are bits that explained why the other bits should be viewed differently.
    From this it is clear that you have never read, or at least never digested, the Sermon on the Mount, perhaps one of the most famous bits of the Bible, which is devoted almost exclusively to doing precisely that (aka the Six Antitheses). Even Wikipedia tells you as much. You are way out of your depth.
    I have read the sermon on the mount. It does not contradict my position.
    Jesus says* he didn't come to destroy the laws of the prophets, but he does a few verses later in the Eye for an Eye bit, clearly contradicting Exodus 21:22-25.


    *For a certain value of who said what
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    There are "bits that explained why the other bits should be viewed differently". "You have heard it said... but I say unto you" in the Sermon on the Mount is literally doing that.

    Now that I've shown you a blindingly obvious such bit, which you inferred didn't exist, you seem to want to argue that any such bits are in fact "clearly contradicting".

    In summary, your view is that the Bible would only be worth reading throughout if there were "bits that explained why other bits should be viewed differently", but if there are any bits like that, well, then whole thing is clearly self-contradictory, and so not worth reading.

    We get that, apparently based largely on having read a few reviews, you think the Bible is not worth reading, and that the whole thing is a poorly-compiled work of fiction so riddled with internal contradictions as to make it not worth your time doing so. Okay. Message received.

    Just what that contributes to a discussion based on the assumption that it's rather more than that escapes me, though.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    My understanding of God is that any attempt to relate to him in transactional terms ('what do I get out of this?'; 'is he worth following?') is about as doomed to failure as any non-business human relationship conducted on the same basis.

    Then why bother with him?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Is the only reason you ever bother with a relationship that you think you're going to get something out of it?
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    There are "bits that explained why the other bits should be viewed differently". "You have heard it said... but I say unto you" in the Sermon on the Mount is literally doing that.

    Now that I've shown you a blindingly obvious such bit, which you inferred didn't exist, you seem to want to argue that any such bits are in fact "clearly contradicting".

    In summary, your view is that the Bible would only be worth reading throughout if there were "bits that explained why other bits should be viewed differently", but if there are any bits like that, well, then whole thing is clearly self-contradictory, and so not worth reading.

    We get that, apparently based largely on having read a few reviews, you think the Bible is not worth reading, and that the whole thing is a poorly-compiled work of fiction so riddled with internal contradictions as to make it not worth your time doing so. Okay. Message received.

    Just what that contributes to a discussion based on the assumption that it's rather more than that escapes me, though.
    You have not been paying attention or you are conflating Colin Smith and I. He is the one who has not read much. I did say that that one can learn much about the bible without directly reading it, but it I did not say that is what I have done.
    The point I made is that your example is not internally consistent, so it does not stand as a proper apologia. It is an example of the contradictions in the work, not a refutation of it.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Is the only reason you ever bother with a relationship that you think you're going to get something out of it?

    Yes, for me that's the case. But 'something' covers an awful lot of ground.
  • BullfinchBullfinch Shipmate Posts: 33
    Lilbuddha if the apparent contradiction comes in the space of a few sentences and relates to words spoken by the same person it suggests that it's not a real contradiction surely.

    Otherwise either Jesus speaking or the writer of the gospel later who was putting Jesus' words down would have noticed it themselves....
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Is the only reason you ever bother with a relationship that you think you're going to get something out of it?

    Yes, for me that's the case. But 'something' covers an awful lot of ground.

    I think it's a big reason for many people.
  • Is the issue the fact that a couple of non-believers who have barely read the Bible think the god described in the OT is different to the god described in the NT or is the issue the fact that anyone has ever thought that they are different?

    The issue is that you are shooting your mouth off about a subject without having done the most basic amount of research into it. That's class-one laziness and/or foolishness. And THAT (not your personal beliefs) is why I've been riding you. It's a sin against logic and really, against everybody who reads a thread hoping to get intelligent discussion. "Go and sin no more."

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Only if there are bits that explained why the other bits should be viewed differently.
    From this it is clear that you have never read, or at least never digested, the Sermon on the Mount, perhaps one of the most famous bits of the Bible, which is devoted almost exclusively to doing precisely that (aka the Six Antitheses). Even Wikipedia tells you as much. You are way out of your depth.
    I have read the sermon on the mount. It does not contradict my position.
    Jesus says* he didn't come to destroy the laws of the prophets, but he does a few verses later in the Eye for an Eye bit, clearly contradicting Exodus 21:22-25.


    *For a certain value of who said what

    And THIS is precisely why I told you, Lilbuddha, to take your issues with me to Kerygmania. I knew you were going to do this, and lo and behold. We're having a Kerygmaniacal discussion on this thread.
  • Is the issue the fact that a couple of non-believers who have barely read the Bible think the god described in the OT is different to the god described in the NT or is the issue the fact that anyone has ever thought that they are different?

    The issue is that you are shooting your mouth off about a subject without having done the most basic amount of research into it. That's class-one laziness and/or foolishness. And THAT (not your personal beliefs) is why I've been riding you. It's a sin against logic and really, against everybody who reads a thread hoping to get intelligent discussion. "Go and sin no more."

    That's what I suspected. Rather than deal with what I said you went for the ad hominem approach. I suggest you look at your own conduct.

    Now, can we stop buggering up this thread?
  • Look up "ad hominem" first.
  • Bullfinch wrote: »
    Lilbuddha if the apparent contradiction comes in the space of a few sentences and relates to words spoken by the same person it suggests that it's not a real contradiction surely.

    Otherwise either Jesus speaking or the writer of the gospel later who was putting Jesus' words down would have noticed it themselves....
    ISTM, in trying to make the bridge, there will be issues. But looking at Jesus' message as a whole, he definitely took a left turn from the direction of the OT. At least as far as the focus.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Only if there are bits that explained why the other bits should be viewed differently.
    From this it is clear that you have never read, or at least never digested, the Sermon on the Mount, perhaps one of the most famous bits of the Bible, which is devoted almost exclusively to doing precisely that (aka the Six Antitheses). Even Wikipedia tells you as much. You are way out of your depth.
    I have read the sermon on the mount. It does not contradict my position.
    Jesus says* he didn't come to destroy the laws of the prophets, but he does a few verses later in the Eye for an Eye bit, clearly contradicting Exodus 21:22-25.


    *For a certain value of who said what

    And THIS is precisely why I told you, Lilbuddha, to take your issues with me to Kerygmania. I knew you were going to do this, and lo and behold. We're having a Kerygmaniacal discussion on this thread.
    I am looking at the thing as a whole, not really interested in nitpicking verse fights.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But looking at Jesus' message as a whole, he definitely took a left turn from the direction of the OT. At least as far as the focus.
    That, in your vocabulary, can fairly be described as some of the "bits that explained why the other bits should be viewed differently".

    What's important though, is that while Jesus may have "taken a left turn" from the OT, he didn't dismiss it either. If you want to invoke that as a "contradiction", then there is no useful discussion to be had with you here. You might however want to consider that it could be an invitation to look at the OT (for instance) in a new light, and consider Jesus' approach as legitimising the practice, within the pages of Scripture itself.

    I think the Bible positively invites us to continuous reinterpretation, but if you're intent on seeing it as self-contradictory fictional dogma then I can see you'd find that hard to countenance.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But looking at Jesus' message as a whole, he definitely took a left turn from the direction of the OT. At least as far as the focus.
    That, in your vocabulary, can fairly be described as some of the "bits that explained why the other bits should be viewed differently".

    What's important though, is that while Jesus may have "taken a left turn" from the OT, he didn't dismiss it either. If you want to invoke that as a "contradiction", then there is no useful discussion to be had with you here. You might however want to consider that it could be an invitation to look at the OT (for instance) in a new light, and consider Jesus' approach as legitimising the practice, within the pages of Scripture itself.

    I think the Bible positively invites us to continuous reinterpretation, but if you're intent on seeing it as self-contradictory fictional dogma then I can see you'd find that hard to countenance.
    ISTM, the problem is you want to see it as consistent and I don't care if it is or not.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    ISTM, the problem is you expect it to be consistent in a way it isn't (and was never intended to be). You're actually making a very simliar mistake to the inerrantists.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    ISTM, the problem is you expect it to be consistent in a way it isn't (and was never intended to be). You're actually making a very simliar mistake to the inerrantists.
    It was not intended to be anything. It is a collection over time. And it should be consistent, Murderous, spiteful God in the first half, Loving God in the second. Doesn't work without a load of work. I won't go as far as Marcion, but the OT is a bit rough.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Is the only reason you ever bother with a relationship that you think you're going to get something out of it?

    Yes, of course.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And it should be consistent
    Why?

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Is the only reason you ever bother with a relationship that you think you're going to get something out of it?

    Yes, of course.

    And if you come to the point where you think you're not getting anything out of a given relationship, what happens then?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    ISTM, the problem is you expect it to be consistent in a way it isn't (and was never intended to be). You're actually making a very simliar mistake to the inerrantists.
    It was not intended to be anything. It is a collection over time. And it should be consistent, Murderous, spiteful God in the first half, Loving God in the second. Doesn't work without a load of work. I won't go as far as Marcion, but the OT is a bit rough.

    "The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases. His mercies never come to an end."

    Which part of the Bible do you think that is from?
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Murderous, spiteful God in the first half, Loving God in the second.
    Would you describe Judaism as a religion that worships a murderous spiteful God? And say Christianity would be loving if it jettisoned the murderous and spiteful Jewish bits?
    No?
    Then matters are more complex than you are allowing.

    I think the Bible is a collection of different documents written from different points of view. But that goes for the OT as well. The idea that the Bible is inconsistent but the OT and the NT are each separately consistent basically has its roots in Christian antisemitism.


  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And it should be consistent
    Why?
    Good question.
    I would argue that modernism and postmodernism's interest in simulating heteroglossia, that is, writing in such a way as to resist imposing a single central voice and point of view, but to let in a diversity of voices and points of view, is derived directly from imitating the Bible: the important texts being Rabelais who begat Swift and Sterne and Melville, and then Dostoyevsky.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Chris
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    ISTM, the problem is you expect it to be consistent in a way it isn't (and was never intended to be). You're actually making a very simliar mistake to the inerrantists.
    It was not intended to be anything. It is a collection over time. And it should be consistent, Murderous, spiteful God in the first half, Loving God in the second. Doesn't work without a load of work. I won't go as far as Marcion, but the OT is a bit rough.

    "The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases. His mercies never come to an end."

    Which part of the Bible do you think that is from?

    Given the other bits that are also in the same testament though, it can still feel like the protestations of love from an abusive spouse. Actions speak louder than words and even then no amount of flowers can make up for a cracked rib.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Is the only reason you ever bother with a relationship that you think you're going to get something out of it?

    Yes, of course.

    And if you come to the point where you think you're not getting anything out of a given relationship, what happens then?

    End the relationship. It's happened before.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    @Dafyd fascinating, thank you!

    @KarlLB I find the possibility that God is in fact the instigator of the most abusive relationship ever to be one of the most compelling arguments put forward for not seeking to serve him or indeed for being an atheist (although according to the reasoning behind Roko's basilisk, this would not help much if one turns out to be right; similarly, agnosticism would not be an option).

    However, if God exists and he were to be truly like that, one has to ask oneself where the concept of a non-abusive relationship might come from.

    [righted a "wrong"]
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    End the relationship. It's happened before.
    Would you apply that reasoning to next of kin, too? Parents? Children? Does "ending the relationship" really cause it to cease to exist?
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    End the relationship. It's happened before.
    Would you apply that reasoning to next of kin, too? Parents? Children?

    It's never come up. I'd have to stop loving them first, of course, because loving someone means the relationship itself is something I'm getting.
    Does "ending the relationship" really cause it to cease to exist?

    As the song has it, they're just somebody that I used to know. In the absence of any interaction whatsoever between us, what relationship could be said to exist?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Do you think love, in such circumstances, is triggered solely because of an expected gain, or a calculation that the relationship is worth your while?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    @Dafyd fascinating, thank you!

    @KarlLB I find the possibility that God is in fact the instigator of the most abusive relationship ever to be one of the most compelling arguments put forward for not seeking to serve him or indeed for being an atheist (although according to the reasoning behind Roko's basilisk, this would not help much if one turns out to be right; similarly, agnosticism would not be an option).

    However, if God exists and he were to be truly like that, one has to ask oneself where the concept of a non-abusive relationship might come from.

    [righted a "wrong"]

    Aye. And I'm quite aware (pace Dafyd) that many people taking the OT seriously do not see things this way. But every time I read it it's the impression I get, and stuff I read about other interpretations just doesn't convince.

    I have perhaps a fundamentalist's brain with a liberal's heart.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And it should be consistent
    Why?
    Good question.
    I would argue that modernism and postmodernism's interest in simulating heteroglossia, that is, writing in such a way as to resist imposing a single central voice and point of view, but to let in a diversity of voices and points of view, is derived directly from imitating the Bible: the important texts being Rabelais who begat Swift and Sterne and Melville, and then Dostoyevsky.

    Very interesting, I've never heard that lineage. Postmodernism is sometimes traced back to Nietzsche, and other varieties of skepticism, and post-Enlightenment thought, not to say anti-Enlightenment. I always thought Cubism was influential as destroying the single point of view, but the literary lineage is fascinating. Joyce?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    @Dafyd fascinating, thank you!

    @KarlLB I find the possibility that God is in fact the instigator of the most abusive relationship ever to be one of the most compelling arguments put forward for not seeking to serve him or indeed for being an atheist (although according to the reasoning behind Roko's basilisk, this would not help much if one turns out to be right; similarly, agnosticism would not be an option).

    However, if God exists and he were to be truly like that, one has to ask oneself where the concept of a non-abusive relationship might come from.

    [righted a "wrong"]

    Aye. And I'm quite aware (pace Dafyd) that many people taking the OT seriously do not see things this way. But every time I read it it's the impression I get, and stuff I read about other interpretations just doesn't convince.

    I have perhaps a fundamentalist's brain with a liberal's heart.

    The old phrase used by atheists was Stockholm syndrome, meaning I suppose that theists are in hock to an abuser. However, it's not really conducive to a temperate discussion! The point about a non-abusive relationship sans God sounds like C. S. Lewis, how does a nihilist find order and happiness without God? One of Lewis's fake arguments, really.
  • One could argue that it was one of the wildfires the Reformation ignited, through the Enlightenment and beyond.

    I'm not sure I'd chart the lineage quite so sequentially or causally ... more a case of interweaving and overlapping influences.
Sign In or Register to comment.