Originally posted by Jesse
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
About Psalm 137
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostMmm. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God was preparing the clearest text He could for all time, or this the encultured writing of a people which needs to be understood in the way it was 'originally' intended.
The bit about David's sin, I actually get. The Bible records the heroes of God often had clay feet. Paradoxically, I think that's a positive message. But this writing is a Psalm, presumably a song used in worship, included in the Bible, ostensibly by God. Does the inclusion of this psalm indicate that God is ok with 'God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action?I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostMmm. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God was preparing the clearest text He could for all time, or this the encultured writing of a people which needs to be understood in the way it was 'originally' intended.
The bit about David's sin, I actually get. The Bible records the heroes of God often had clay feet. Paradoxically, I think that's a positive message. But this writing is a Psalm, presumably a song used in worship, included in the Bible, ostensibly by God. Does the inclusion of this psalm indicate that God is ok with 'God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostHas anybody claimed that here? I don't think I've seen it. I really don't see the problem with the need to understand the text the way it was originally intended. It seems to me that we treat any other text this way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostFair enough. I thought I was summarising at least SOME variations of a Christian view of inspiration. I do often get told that I can't understand the Bible properly without the Holy Spirit. I much prefer your view that the Bible can be understand if one pays attention to its original intended meaning.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI consider myself an inerrantist. But too many people have the idea that this means that the writers of the Bible were doing some kind of "automatic writing" like God took them over and made them write exactly what He said to write. Additionally, it's the original scriptures which I believe to be inerrant, and most of us recognize there were copying errors. That's why it's always important to go to the earliest manuscripts possible --- but you know this! I think most of us recognize that "context" includes understanding what the writer was saying to the people to whom he was speaking, and how they would interpret, in their own culture, what was being said.
I think it was a song -- perhaps like our "singing the blues" -- that reflected the mysery and the angst of God's people in captivity longing for retribution.
'Singing the blues' I get. I just get a little wary of apologists trying to 'explain away' such verses. And then saying 'typical atheist stupidity' if one should dare bring it up.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostUNLESS, of course, somebody comes at it, as Pixie did, with a preconceived agenda.
I rest my case, M'lud.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostThanks, I can actually agree with that line of thought and find it reasonable. I'm sure you know I was arguing against that other kind of view of Biblical inspiration.
'Singing the blues' I get. I just get a little wary of apologists trying to 'explain away' such verses. And then saying 'typical atheist stupidity' if one should dare bring it up.
There's a similar thought going on in Revelation 6:
It is the cry for retribution from those who have been injured / imprisoned / killed.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostI've seen perfectly reasonable comments dismissed on the basis of who made them. Me, I'd rather deal with the ideas themselves.Originally posted by pancreasmanI think that the likely quality of one's principled stands may be measured by the character of those who attack them. I'm satisfied."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostI'm not sure why you think so. I can see a pretty reasoned conversation going on here with no need for bile or being dismissive.Last edited by Jesse; 11-20-2014, 06:33 PM."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Comment
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostMmm. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God was preparing the clearest text He could for all time, or this the encultured writing of a people which needs to be understood in the way it was 'originally' intended.
The bit about David's sin, I actually get. The Bible records the heroes of God often had clay feet. Paradoxically, I think that's a positive message. But this writing is a Psalm, presumably a song used in worship, included in the Bible, ostensibly by God. Does the inclusion of this psalm indicate that God is ok with 'God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action?“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by whag View PostThis is the sort of verse you quietly skip over when reading Psalms to your son or daughter. It's just as brutish and animalistic whether it happened in ancient Israel or My Lai.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThere’s no doubt....The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
14 responses
44 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 03:30 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
78 responses
414 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 10:50 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment