@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.
I really understand where they're coming from with Stockholm Syndrome. I've said the same thing here myself.
I read 'And Death Shall Have No Dominion' at my wife's funeral.
Clearly, the relationship no longer exists. She is in her grave. I would strongly argue that the love endures. I see examples of it all around me.
Sure, one could argue that this is a 'benefit' I continue to enjoy as a legacy, as it were, the long trail left from 25 years of marriage. There is something 'transactional' about that but if we get all reductionist about these things then things could get sticky ...
I pray for her and yes, I talk to her at the graveside too - irrational as that might sound.
I'm not saying it should be like that for everyone nor that the relationship was perfect - we had our ups and downs. But I do think there is something indelible about these close relationships.
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.
Why is it "fake"?
Recognising that the Stockholm syndrome is an inappropriate response similarly requires some notion of what right and healthy looks like.
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.
Why is it "fake"?
Recognising that the Stockholm syndrome is an inappropriate response similarly requires some notion of what right and healthy looks like.
Lewis often leaves out not knowing. It's like the old argument about order in the universe, does it imply an Orderer? Not really. Similarly, Lewis seems to say that nihilism is built on shaky ground, because the nihilist accepts some elements of morality. Or the nihilist might be happy. But that doesn't presuppose God.
Would you apply that reasoning to next of kin, too? Parents? Children? Does "ending the relationship" really cause it to cease to exist?
I suspect one can no more end a relationship with a relative than one can stop not liking and not drinking tea. Tea doesn't go away.
But what you can do, and which I have done with my relations, is reduce the time, energy, and commitment spent on the relationship to close to zero. My mother's funeral in February was the first time I had seen and spoken to my brother, other than by a handful of terse emails, in six and a half years. I had also not seen my Alzheimer suffering mother in that time or seen my father, who, fortunately, was not at the funeral.
I had concluded that there was simply nothing more of use to me in the relationship: no emotional, creative, or material gain to be had from continuing to see anyone, and actually quite a lot of emotional negativity. Do I feel guilty? Yes of course. Guilty enough to go through the emotional negativity of reconnecting? No.
I think Francis Schaeffer follows a similar line to Lewis, but more crudely. It's a nuisance, as I have a ton of books packed in boxes a 100 miles away, including Lewis and Schaeffer.
I find discussions of social animals interesting. Thus, we find ideas of proto-morality in various animals, including primates, and many species employ cooperation. Is this an argument for God?
Which suggests to me that if one acknowledges love as a dimension of some relationships, it follows that those relationships are not merely or consciously transactional. That's certainly how I feel about the relationship between the Creator and the creature.
Lewis often leaves out not knowing. It's like the old argument about order in the universe, does it imply an Orderer? Not really. Similarly, Lewis seems to say that nihilism is built on shaky ground, because the nihilist accepts some elements of morality. Or the nihilist might be happy. But that doesn't presuppose God.
If on this side of the argument one suggests "not knowing" as an option, it is thrown back in one's face as a cop-out.
In terms of pure reasoning, I suppose it's possible to hypothesise some source of a sense of justice, or goodness, or discern order in the universe, other than in a divine origin, but such arguments have never made much sense to me personally (certainly no less sense than that the argument for God based amongst other things on the Bible). I can't deny the (theoretical) existence of a happy nihilist, but I have no idea how they can reasonably be happy.
When I studied Camus and Sartre, I was never very convinced by their attempts to establish morality without God. Camus seemed a bit unsure of himself (the doctor in The Plague notes the priest's death as "cause uncertain"), and Sartre is notably incapable of fleshing out his portrayal of his ideas without resorting to the backdrop of life after death (The Chips are Down and The Devil and the Good Lord).
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?
As I understand it the influence of Dostoyevsky on Nietzsche is generally accepted. That said, postmodernism is a capacious term, and Nietzsche is not particularly representative of the literary phenomenon I'm talking about. At least, those books of Nietzsche I've read are written in a single voice, even if perhaps not the same voice in each one.
Joyce in Ulysses is an example of what I'm talking about, although I'd be surprised if he hadn't read all the authors I mentioned.
Well, you can argue that animals are moral, after a fashion. If you then ask, where does that come from, you might as well ask the old chestnut, why is there something rather than nothing. There are some interesting arguments that nothing cannot exist, depending of course, on one's view of nothing.
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?
As I understand it the influence of Dostoyevsky on Nietzsche is generally accepted. That said, postmodernism is a capacious term, and Nietzsche is not particularly representative of the literary phenomenon I'm talking about. At least, those books of Nietzsche I've read are written in a single voice, even if perhaps not the same voice in each one.
Joyce in Ulysses is an example of what I'm talking about, although I'd be surprised if he hadn't read all the authors I mentioned.
Well, postmodernism is a broad church, and one of its elements is an aversion to grand narratives, but oddly, some of the French authors were friendly to Christianity, I can't remember why. So it's not just about multiple voices, also a veneration of the surface, and an aversion to depth. Hence, Jeff Koons, maybe, although his "Puppy" is beautiful, I suppose that's allowed!
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.
I can ascribe whatever attributes to myself or someone else that I want, doesn't make them true.
As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words and the actions of the OT god are less than loving.
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.
NO. Of course there are anti-Semites that have used this, but it is rubbish to say the concept is only from that source.
ISTM, Judaism and Christianity frame God differently. I am talking about the Christian frame, not the Jewish one.
@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!
I do not think it is accurate either. But I do think that people do read through a filter of subjectivity rather than objectivity.
Very few wander into Christianity by only reading the bible and then develop their view of it from the reading.
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?
I agree. If I am arguing with someone and start asking about their qualifications, that is an ad hom and is a distraction. However, it's extremely difficult to discuss such a topic as the bad Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible and the good Jesus of the NT.
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?
I agree. If I am arguing with someone and start asking about their qualifications, that is an ad hom and is a distraction.
When someone makes a claim about what a text says, there is absolutely nothing ad hominem about asking whether they’ve actually read the text. And that’s what was being challenged here—not credentials as such, but basic familiarity. It’s not an attack on the person; if it’s an attack, it’s an attack on the foundation of the assertion made.
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.
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.
Few Christians proudly state they have never read the damn thing then hold forth on what it says. BUT YOU KNEW THAT.
@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.
By "fake argument" do you mean one you don't like, or one he puts forth as an example of a stupid argument?
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?
I agree. If I am arguing with someone and start asking about their qualifications, that is an ad hom and is a distraction.
When someone makes a claim about what a text says, there is absolutely nothing ad hominem about asking whether they’ve actually read the text. And that’s what was being challenged here—not credentials as such, but basic familiarity. It’s not an attack on the person; if it’s an attack, it’s an attack on the foundation of the assertion made.
Well, LC said "without having done the most basic amount of research on it", I suppose that might mean reading it.
The idea that the Bible is inconsistent but the OT and the NT are each separately consistent basically has its roots in Christian antisemitism.
NO. Of course there are anti-Semites that have used this, but it is rubbish to say the concept is only from that source.
Yeah, yeah, and lots of white people think they aren't racist.
Sadly, antisemitism has been quite common and influential within Christianity. Disentangling the two is tricky. You can't dismiss the idea of antisemitic influence as rubbish out of hand, although it's rather flattering of you to try.
ISTM, Judaism and Christianity frame God differently. I am talking about the Christian frame, not the Jewish one.
You mean, the Christian frame in which the whole Bible, NT and OT, point to Jesus and they are both about the same God? Or some other Christian frame?
Supersessionism is a Christian frame that is widespread, influential, and also generally agreed to be antisemitic.
When someone makes a claim about what a text says, there is absolutely nothing ad hominem about asking whether they’ve actually read the text. And that’s what was being challenged here—not credentials as such, but basic familiarity. It’s not an attack on the person; if it’s an attack, it’s an attack on the foundation of the assertion made.
That would be relevant if I had claimed something totally outrageous - something that could only be claimed by someone completely ignorant of the text. However, a) That the god of the OT is not the god of the NT has been claimed by many who are familiar with the text. b) I was making the claim on the basis of the accounts of The Flood, the destruction at Sodom and Gomorrah and the murder of Lot's wife, the destruction of Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea, the Seven Plagues of Egypt, and the death of the firstborn all of which are recorded in the Old Testament and all of which are thoroughly despicable acts. So far as I am aware there is nothing comparable in the New Testament.
No, it’s a relevant question—it is related to the discussion and to the basis of the assertion being made—regardless of whether what you asserted is “totally outrageous.”
No, it’s a relevant question—it is related to the discussion and to the basis of the assertion being made—regardless of whether what you asserted is “totally outrageous.”
And I answered the question. However, my point does not depend on having read the text. It depends on knowing that The Flood, the destruction at Sodom and Gomorrah and the murder of Lot's wife, the destruction of Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea, the Seven Plagues of Egypt, and the death of the firstborn are acts of God recorded in the Old Testament and there are no, or far fewer, comparable acts of God described in the NT.
@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!
I do not think it is accurate either. But I do think that people do read through a filter of subjectivity rather than objectivity.
Very few wander into Christianity by only reading the bible and then develop their view of it from the reading.
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?
I agree. If I am arguing with someone and start asking about their qualifications, that is an ad hom and is a distraction.
When someone makes a claim about what a text says, there is absolutely nothing ad hominem about asking whether they’ve actually read the text. And that’s what was being challenged here—not credentials as such, but basic familiarity. It’s not an attack on the person; if it’s an attack, it’s an attack on the foundation of the assertion made.
Well, LC said "without having done the most basic amount of research on it", I suppose that might mean reading it.
I hold a fucking doctorate. OF COURSE the most basic amount of research on a text is READING it.
@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!
I do not think it is accurate either. But I do think that people do read through a filter of subjectivity rather than objectivity.
Very few wander into Christianity by only reading the bible and then develop their view of it from the reading.
I did.
Which rather proves the point. Very few.
In fact, you are probably the only person I'm aware of who makes this claim.
I hold a fucking doctorate. OF COURSE the most basic amount of research on a text is READING it.
Did I really have to say that?
And my point did not depend on having read the text. It depended on knowing that The Flood, the destruction at Sodom and Gomorrah and murder of Lot's wife, the destruction of Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea, the Seven Plagues of Egypt, and the murder of the firstborn are appalling, vengeful, evil acts of God recorded in the Old Testament and there are no, or far fewer, comparable acts of God described in the NT.
Basically, I judge the god of the OT and think he's a nasty piece of work. The god of the NT, is not so bad.
@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!
I do not think it is accurate either. But I do think that people do read through a filter of subjectivity rather than objectivity.
Very few wander into Christianity by only reading the bible and then develop their view of it from the reading.
I did.
Which rather proves the point. Very few.
In fact, you are probably the only person I'm aware of who makes this claim.
Most people were not brought up in a virtual desert of Christian influences. Although probably more of them in Southern California than where you're living. I happen to be one.
The idea that the Bible is inconsistent but the OT and the NT are each separately consistent basically has its roots in Christian antisemitism.
NO. Of course there are anti-Semites that have used this, but it is rubbish to say the concept is only from that source.
Yeah, yeah, and lots of white people think they aren't racist.
Sadly, antisemitism has been quite common and influential within Christianity. Disentangling the two is tricky. You can't dismiss the idea of antisemitic influence as rubbish out of hand, although it's rather flattering of you to try.
Dude. That presupose I am making a value judgement on people who have those beliefs. I'm haven't done this. The reason that differentiating was anti-Semitism for some is that they were using the difference to make those value judgements.
Supersessionism is a Christian frame that is widespread, influential, and also generally agreed to be antisemitic.
Again, not what I am doing. You are seeing this through a particular Christian lens that does not match the ones in my specs.
@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!
I do not think it is accurate either. But I do think that people do read through a filter of subjectivity rather than objectivity.
Very few wander into Christianity by only reading the bible and then develop their view of it from the reading.
I did.
You'd never heard of Christianity or anything about it and just picked up the bible? Were you an atheist prior?
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?
I agree. If I am arguing with someone and start asking about their qualifications, that is an ad hom and is a distraction.
When someone makes a claim about what a text says, there is absolutely nothing ad hominem about asking whether they’ve actually read the text. And that’s what was being challenged here—not credentials as such, but basic familiarity. It’s not an attack on the person; if it’s an attack, it’s an attack on the foundation of the assertion made.
Well, LC said "without having done the most basic amount of research on it", I suppose that might mean reading it.
I hold a fucking doctorate. OF COURSE the most basic amount of research on a text is READING it.
Did I really have to say that?
He is referring to what you said about other people, not yourself.
Few Christians proudly state they have never read the damn thing then hold forth on what it says. BUT YOU KNEW THAT.
I'm not saying I have not read the thing. And the pushes against Colin Smith were before he said he hadn't read much. But you should know that.
Regardless, the refutation should be showing how he is incorrect, not challenging his scholarship, especially as bible reading Christians have asked the same questions.
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?
I agree. If I am arguing with someone and start asking about their qualifications, that is an ad hom and is a distraction.
When someone makes a claim about what a text says, there is absolutely nothing ad hominem about asking whether they’ve actually read the text. And that’s what was being challenged here—not credentials as such, but basic familiarity. It’s not an attack on the person; if it’s an attack, it’s an attack on the foundation of the assertion made.
Well, LC said "without having done the most basic amount of research on it", I suppose that might mean reading it.
I hold a fucking doctorate. OF COURSE the most basic amount of research on a text is READING it.
I don't see why the bad God/good God thesis (Hebrew Bible/NT), cannot be dealt with, until its proponents have demonstrated their knowledge. This is pure ad hom.
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?
I agree. If I am arguing with someone and start asking about their qualifications, that is an ad hom and is a distraction.
When someone makes a claim about what a text says, there is absolutely nothing ad hominem about asking whether they’ve actually read the text. And that’s what was being challenged here—not credentials as such, but basic familiarity. It’s not an attack on the person; if it’s an attack, it’s an attack on the foundation of the assertion made.
Well, LC said "without having done the most basic amount of research on it", I suppose that might mean reading it.
I hold a fucking doctorate. OF COURSE the most basic amount of research on a text is READING it.
Did I really have to say that?
How does holding a doctorate affect anything?
Cred to the claim she knows what basic research on a text constitutes, presumably.
Me: Hitler was an evil man who murdered six millions Jews.
LC: Sheesh! How many books have you read about Hitler?
That's not even close to accurate. More like if you'd opined about the second half of Mein Kampf contradicting the first and LC (who in this analogy is a professional historian with a specialism in 20th century far right movements) asks whether you've actually read Mein Kampf.
Me: Hitler was an evil man who murdered six millions Jews.
LC: Sheesh! How many books have you read about Hitler?
That's not even close to accurate. More like if you'd opined about the second half of Mein Kampf contradicting the first and LC (who in this analogy is a professional historian with a specialism in 20th century far right movements) asks whether you've actually read Mein Kampf.
It is accurate. That Hitler murdered six million Jews is ALL you need know about Hitler to decide that he is evil.
Similarly, if you know that The Flood, the destruction at Sodom and Gomorrah and murder of Lot's wife, the destruction of Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea, the Seven Plagues of Egypt, and the murder of the firstborn are all appalling, vengeful, evil things done by God and all are recorded in the Old Testament and there are no, or far fewer, comparable acts of God described in the NT then it is blindingly obvious that the god of the OT is characterised in a different way to the god of the NT.
And that's true no matter how much special pleading there is in the Bible that they are really the same god. They behave differently so they are different and no amount of Bible reading will change that.
You know, I'm announcing it here to avoid coming back and contradicting myself. I am fucking off from this thread, as it is raising my blood pressure to no good end. I may be back after Easter, if I choose, and if you all are still having at it. But the stupidity level, it BURNS.
You know, I'm announcing it here to avoid coming back and contradicting myself. I am fucking off from this thread, as it is raising my blood pressure to no good end. I may be back after Easter, if I choose, and if you all are still having at it. But the stupidity level, it BURNS.
If I were to come into a thread discussing some particular aspect of, say, psychotherapy and asserted that I'd skimmed a Wikipedia article on it and read a few Christian books and as a result declared the whole thing was nonsense and demonic in origin, would you patiently try to explain why I might be mistaken?
You know, I'm announcing it here to avoid coming back and contradicting myself. I am fucking off from this thread, as it is raising my blood pressure to no good end. I may be back after Easter, if I choose, and if you all are still having at it. But the stupidity level, it BURNS.
So why don't you shed some light on it?
Because it's frustrating her. Did you miss that part?
God does no such things in the book of Ruth or in the book of Jonah.
(Also, picking the first example to come to mind: the text does not say explicitly that God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. Secular literary scholars writing about the Bible note that it's often rather more reticent about causation than some Sunday school classes.)
Meanwhile I'm not exactly a fan of how God is portrayed in the majority of Revelation.
God does no such things in the book of Ruth or in the book of Jonah.
(Also, picking the first example to come to mind: the text does not say explicitly that God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. Secular literary scholars writing about the Bible note that it's often rather more reticent about causation than some Sunday school classes.)
Meanwhile I'm not exactly a fan of how God is portrayed in the majority of Revelation.
According to legend the Orthodox allowed Revelation only reluctantly and in exchange for Hebrews, which the Catholics didn't care for. We still don't use it (Rev.) in any services, even in monasteries, if I recall. But we get the whole dreary "women received their dead blah blah blah they were sawn in two yadda yadda" every time there's a major saint's day. Oy gevald.
Rather anachronistic, I think, Mousethief seeing as the agreement of the scriptural canon predates the Great Schism by a long chalk and that during the time you are referring to Orthodox and Catholic were coterminous.
But you knew that.
What I think you mean is that the Greeks (or Byzantines, Eastern Empire Christians) were said to have accepted Revelation as part of a deal in which the Latins (or Western Empire Christians) were asked to accept Hebrews.
FWIW, in my experience, Protestants just love Hebrews. I've probably heard almost as many sermons from it as I have from Romans. That's another story.
Regardless of whether Revelation should or shouldn't be in the Bible, it's a prophecy and no matter how much the Christian god isn't to my taste I don't think he should be judged according to what someone said he will do.
Me: Hitler was an evil man who murdered six millions Jews.
LC: Sheesh! How many books have you read about Hitler?
That's not even close to accurate. More like if you'd opined about the second half of Mein Kampf contradicting the first and LC (who in this analogy is a professional historian with a specialism in 20th century far right movements) asks whether you've actually read Mein Kampf.
It is accurate. That Hitler murdered six million Jews is ALL you need know about Hitler to decide that he is evil.
Similarly, if you know that The Flood, the destruction at Sodom and Gomorrah and murder of Lot's wife, the destruction of Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea, the Seven Plagues of Egypt, and the murder of the firstborn are all appalling, vengeful, evil things done by God and all are recorded in the Old Testament and there are no, or far fewer, comparable acts of God described in the NT then it is blindingly obvious that the god of the OT is characterised in a different way to the god of the NT.
And that's true no matter how much special pleading there is in the Bible that they are really the same god. They behave differently so they are different and no amount of Bible reading will change that.
And how do you know special pleading is going on if you haven’t read the special pleading? The fact that you would even suggest “special pleading . . . in the Bible that they are really the same god“ tells me you really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Regardless of whether Revelation should or shouldn't be in the Bible, it's a prophecy and no matter how much the Christian god isn't to my taste I don't think he should be judged according to what someone said he will do.
Comments
I really understand where they're coming from with Stockholm Syndrome. I've said the same thing here myself.
I read 'And Death Shall Have No Dominion' at my wife's funeral.
Clearly, the relationship no longer exists. She is in her grave. I would strongly argue that the love endures. I see examples of it all around me.
Sure, one could argue that this is a 'benefit' I continue to enjoy as a legacy, as it were, the long trail left from 25 years of marriage. There is something 'transactional' about that but if we get all reductionist about these things then things could get sticky ...
I pray for her and yes, I talk to her at the graveside too - irrational as that might sound.
I'm not saying it should be like that for everyone nor that the relationship was perfect - we had our ups and downs. But I do think there is something indelible about these close relationships.
'Deep calls to deep'.
Recognising that the Stockholm syndrome is an inappropriate response similarly requires some notion of what right and healthy looks like.
I have no idea how love works.
Lewis often leaves out not knowing. It's like the old argument about order in the universe, does it imply an Orderer? Not really. Similarly, Lewis seems to say that nihilism is built on shaky ground, because the nihilist accepts some elements of morality. Or the nihilist might be happy. But that doesn't presuppose God.
I suspect one can no more end a relationship with a relative than one can stop not liking and not drinking tea. Tea doesn't go away.
But what you can do, and which I have done with my relations, is reduce the time, energy, and commitment spent on the relationship to close to zero. My mother's funeral in February was the first time I had seen and spoken to my brother, other than by a handful of terse emails, in six and a half years. I had also not seen my Alzheimer suffering mother in that time or seen my father, who, fortunately, was not at the funeral.
I had concluded that there was simply nothing more of use to me in the relationship: no emotional, creative, or material gain to be had from continuing to see anyone, and actually quite a lot of emotional negativity. Do I feel guilty? Yes of course. Guilty enough to go through the emotional negativity of reconnecting? No.
If on this side of the argument one suggests "not knowing" as an option, it is thrown back in one's face as a cop-out.
In terms of pure reasoning, I suppose it's possible to hypothesise some source of a sense of justice, or goodness, or discern order in the universe, other than in a divine origin, but such arguments have never made much sense to me personally (certainly no less sense than that the argument for God based amongst other things on the Bible). I can't deny the (theoretical) existence of a happy nihilist, but I have no idea how they can reasonably be happy.
When I studied Camus and Sartre, I was never very convinced by their attempts to establish morality without God. Camus seemed a bit unsure of himself (the doctor in The Plague notes the priest's death as "cause uncertain"), and Sartre is notably incapable of fleshing out his portrayal of his ideas without resorting to the backdrop of life after death (The Chips are Down and The Devil and the Good Lord).
Joyce in Ulysses is an example of what I'm talking about, although I'd be surprised if he hadn't read all the authors I mentioned.
Well, postmodernism is a broad church, and one of its elements is an aversion to grand narratives, but oddly, some of the French authors were friendly to Christianity, I can't remember why. So it's not just about multiple voices, also a veneration of the surface, and an aversion to depth. Hence, Jeff Koons, maybe, although his "Puppy" is beautiful, I suppose that's allowed!
As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words and the actions of the OT god are less than loving.
ISTM, Judaism and Christianity frame God differently. I am talking about the Christian frame, not the Jewish one.
Very few wander into Christianity by only reading the bible and then develop their view of it from the reading.
I agree. If I am arguing with someone and start asking about their qualifications, that is an ad hom and is a distraction. However, it's extremely difficult to discuss such a topic as the bad Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible and the good Jesus of the NT.
Few Christians proudly state they have never read the damn thing then hold forth on what it says. BUT YOU KNEW THAT.
By "fake argument" do you mean one you don't like, or one he puts forth as an example of a stupid argument?
Well, LC said "without having done the most basic amount of research on it", I suppose that might mean reading it.
Sadly, antisemitism has been quite common and influential within Christianity. Disentangling the two is tricky. You can't dismiss the idea of antisemitic influence as rubbish out of hand, although it's rather flattering of you to try. You mean, the Christian frame in which the whole Bible, NT and OT, point to Jesus and they are both about the same God? Or some other Christian frame?
Supersessionism is a Christian frame that is widespread, influential, and also generally agreed to be antisemitic.
That would be relevant if I had claimed something totally outrageous - something that could only be claimed by someone completely ignorant of the text. However, a) That the god of the OT is not the god of the NT has been claimed by many who are familiar with the text. b) I was making the claim on the basis of the accounts of The Flood, the destruction at Sodom and Gomorrah and the murder of Lot's wife, the destruction of Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea, the Seven Plagues of Egypt, and the death of the firstborn all of which are recorded in the Old Testament and all of which are thoroughly despicable acts. So far as I am aware there is nothing comparable in the New Testament.
And I answered the question. However, my point does not depend on having read the text. It depends on knowing that The Flood, the destruction at Sodom and Gomorrah and the murder of Lot's wife, the destruction of Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea, the Seven Plagues of Egypt, and the death of the firstborn are acts of God recorded in the Old Testament and there are no, or far fewer, comparable acts of God described in the NT.
I did.
I hold a fucking doctorate. OF COURSE the most basic amount of research on a text is READING it.
Did I really have to say that?
Which rather proves the point. Very few.
In fact, you are probably the only person I'm aware of who makes this claim.
And my point did not depend on having read the text. It depended on knowing that The Flood, the destruction at Sodom and Gomorrah and murder of Lot's wife, the destruction of Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea, the Seven Plagues of Egypt, and the murder of the firstborn are appalling, vengeful, evil acts of God recorded in the Old Testament and there are no, or far fewer, comparable acts of God described in the NT.
Basically, I judge the god of the OT and think he's a nasty piece of work. The god of the NT, is not so bad.
Most people were not brought up in a virtual desert of Christian influences. Although probably more of them in Southern California than where you're living. I happen to be one.
Again, not what I am doing. You are seeing this through a particular Christian lens that does not match the ones in my specs.
Regardless, the refutation should be showing how he is incorrect, not challenging his scholarship, especially as bible reading Christians have asked the same questions.
How does holding a doctorate affect anything?
LC: Sheesh! How many books have you read about Hitler?
Cred to the claim she knows what basic research on a text constitutes, presumably.
That's not even close to accurate. More like if you'd opined about the second half of Mein Kampf contradicting the first and LC (who in this analogy is a professional historian with a specialism in 20th century far right movements) asks whether you've actually read Mein Kampf.
It is accurate. That Hitler murdered six million Jews is ALL you need know about Hitler to decide that he is evil.
Similarly, if you know that The Flood, the destruction at Sodom and Gomorrah and murder of Lot's wife, the destruction of Pharaoh’s army at the Red Sea, the Seven Plagues of Egypt, and the murder of the firstborn are all appalling, vengeful, evil things done by God and all are recorded in the Old Testament and there are no, or far fewer, comparable acts of God described in the NT then it is blindingly obvious that the god of the OT is characterised in a different way to the god of the NT.
And that's true no matter how much special pleading there is in the Bible that they are really the same god. They behave differently so they are different and no amount of Bible reading will change that.
So why don't you shed some light on it?
Because it's frustrating her. Did you miss that part?
(Also, picking the first example to come to mind: the text does not say explicitly that God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. Secular literary scholars writing about the Bible note that it's often rather more reticent about causation than some Sunday school classes.)
Meanwhile I'm not exactly a fan of how God is portrayed in the majority of Revelation.
According to legend the Orthodox allowed Revelation only reluctantly and in exchange for Hebrews, which the Catholics didn't care for. We still don't use it (Rev.) in any services, even in monasteries, if I recall. But we get the whole dreary "women received their dead blah blah blah they were sawn in two yadda yadda" every time there's a major saint's day. Oy gevald.
But you knew that.
What I think you mean is that the Greeks (or Byzantines, Eastern Empire Christians) were said to have accepted Revelation as part of a deal in which the Latins (or Western Empire Christians) were asked to accept Hebrews.
FWIW, in my experience, Protestants just love Hebrews. I've probably heard almost as many sermons from it as I have from Romans. That's another story.
And I see no point in talking about it with you.
As opposed to what someone said he did?