PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Why did you select these particular scenes from their larger story contexts?
Complex question. To answer it would be to imply I agree with your view on "larger story contexts" here.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why did you select these particular scenes from their larger story contexts?
It still, I think, revealed an element of truth, my friend: that you thought the assertions I made in the OP and beyond weren't me "Critically Thinking".
Alright. Well if the Bible is one big allegory that isn't literal, I might select a "better" book to get my allegories from.
To be honest, I did react some. A byproduct of evangelist humanist previous post against Christianity with his statement.
My apologies and asking forgiveness.
There is 1 difference ... the Divine paycheck you get once when you die, so until then no "factual experiences" ... unless being enlightened beforeSo, when you go to work and "believe" you will get a paycheck, no critical thinking is involved because you don't know if the company will close the very week that you are expecting a paycheck? You just "believe" it will remain open?
Complex question. To answer it would be to imply I agree with your view on "larger story contexts" here.
Is funny your reply just now ... about 30 minutes ago I was thinking "that's a long time ago I `spoke` with KenS"So, when you go to work and "believe" you will get a paycheck
Well to not answer it might imply that any expression of reasoning must be composed of a series of partial statements that stand alone in their reasoning. In a purely rational argument you may be correct. But in a story, whether historical or fictional, any implied moral may be seen in the sum of its parts rather than its parts.
In this case the audience needs to be drawn into the questions raised by the earlier parts of the story with some measure of doubt in order to more fully appreciate the message being told in the larger part. The ambiguity of the justice seen in these pieces of the story are resolved in the context of the larger story. The doubt one expresses towards the incidents one experiences in life should not divert one from ones faith in the broader experience of that same life. It is a deep truth of human experience that we are ready to condemn the whole for a perceived failure of a part, but in a systemic reality this is utter foolishness.
Alright. But there comes a point when someone has to think, "Only a skilled theologian knows which stories are literal and which aren't."
And I'm not interested in being a skilled theologian of a book I don't have a ton of faith in.
Alright. That resolves the OP I spent 20 minutes on finding the verses, and posting in debates for careful consideration and refutation.
Dispense with the theologian altogether and read the story.
Actually any of these old stories are greatly aided by those who through either knowledge of stories and story-telling (which is closer to my area of expertise) or though knowledge of the culture itself can lend a small hand in providing context for the story.
I would recommend to no one to read the Bible as literal history and each event evidencing God's justice as a full stand-alone example of the morality it is trying to teach.. In that, its truth is fundamentally flawed just as our experience of reality as favorable to morality apart from our own efforts to "make it so" is fundamentally flawed. But in the Jewish Testament at least we often see God as the author both of a harsh reality AND of a morality we are meant to represent in spite of that harsh reality. It requires a definite faith to see that us humans in our beliefs or attitudes can make of reality a stage upon which morality can prevail. The message of the Bible should be seen that it requires our efforts to make of God's creation an experience of God's and humanities sense of morality. That sense of morality is, after all, one and the same. This is true whether we see God as a personification of humanities' understanding of its own ultimate experience or whether we see any truth within the manipulative mouth of a talking snake in the verse Genesis 3:5:
"For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
And I should add lest we make the quick, safe conclusion regarding the untrustworthiness of the serpent as a way to dismiss this thought, we can consider the nearby verse Genesis 3:22:
And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”
Here God is both the author of an amoral reality and a promoter of the desire to act morally within that reality.
Yes.
Often it takes a lot of critical thinking, along with prayer and insight from the Holy Spirit, if one desires to get beyond superficial, surface reading and understand the point God is making in certain passages of the scriptures.
That is the dogma.
HAH!Keep in mind that it is impossible to be a well
informed and intellectually honest fundy.
Is funny your reply just now ... about 30 minutes ago I was thinking "that's a long time ago I `spoke` with KenS"
So thinking became true ... similar "believing might come true too" ... that I believe, but I am not sure 100% ... 90% sure max
(There used to be a teacher who never gave 100% on exams ... 90% max. ... the 100% he reserved for God alone; I like that idea ... keeps me humble)
HAH!
HAH!