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
See more
See less

About Psalm 137

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Jesse View Post
    This is all that needed to be said.
    I'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.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
      Mmm. 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?
      Has 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.
      I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
        Mmm. 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.
        I 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.

        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 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.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
          Has 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.
          Fair 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.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
            Fair 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.
            UNLESS, of course, somebody comes at it, as Pixie did, with a preconceived agenda.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              I 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.
              Thanks, 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.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                UNLESS, of course, somebody comes at it, as Pixie did, with a preconceived agenda.
                Well, I'm also a little wary of this 'preconceived agenda thing too'. I've seen perfectly reasonable comments dismissed on the basis of who made them. Me, I'd rather deal with the ideas themselves. Here, we've had a good reasonable discussion that basically proves my contention in the 'polarisation' thread.

                I rest my case, M'lud.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                  Thanks, 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.
                  Yup -- got that.

                  '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.
                  Yeah, I don't think they need to be "explained away", but understood in context.

                  There's a similar thought going on in Revelation 6:
                  Source: verse 9- 10

                  9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                    I'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 pancreasman
                    I 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


                    • #40
                      There are enough things wrong with the Bible that there's no need to invent controversy. The passage is clearly the feelings of one person and not the command or endorsement of God. The book of Psalms is literally a book of songs.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                        As with anyone else, I shall agree with you when you make a reasonable point. One of the difficulties with that is that your posts are so often filled with provocative and combative tinsel, that it's hard to see the wood for the trees. Like everyone, I am more likely to take seriously points of discussion when a number of people I respect make them. Since you and Epo are the only ones so far accusing me of hypocrisy I'm just letting that sit for a while. I certainly invite others to tell me I'm a hypocrite and keep my trap shut. I'm only hanging here by a slender thread anyway.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                          I'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.
                          Then you are obviously not familiar with Pixie's tactic here. This thread was a troll directed at me. And all trolls can be comfortably dismissed. Beyond that, Darth Executor made the same point I did. Just more succinctly. That is the end of it.
                          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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                            Mmm. 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?
                            There’s no doubt it was very much a case of: “God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action” - as you say. After all he was the tribal God of the Israelites and as such authorized, indeed demanded all sorts of cruel actions and genocides against the perceived enemies of His Chosen People.
                            “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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by whag View Post
                              This 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.
                              I believe that the Psalms is basically a Canaanite text, in the early history of the Hebrews they were closely related polytheistic cultures with yes instances of human sacrifice, also noted in other references in the OT.
                              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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                There’s no doubt....
                                Well, that settles it! The debate is over!
                                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 tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X