Thoughts in a Haystack

Absolutely agree. One Reverend I respect mightily once preached that you can't just take some of the bible - you have to take all of it. And of course, she's no literalist.
 

...And other parts of the bible argue for NOT killing foreigners and that God loves them and will save them as well, even Israel's greatest enemies (Book of Jonah, for example). The Bible does not speak with one voice, it argues with itself. It is a library of books, not a single book: this is a conversation compiled over more than a millennium, and it is neither simple nor safe reading -- it challenges all kinds of comfort zones.

Good pastors actually do not elide those passages, but push people to deal with them, re TB's example; and I can think of several other pastors who address offensive and/or difficult passages straightforwardly.

Can't remember the study, but one came out recently that claimed that those who actually read the Bible, and did so more regularly, tended to be more likely to support policies that aided the poor.

More biblical literacy would be a very good thing IMHO. It is a highly subversive set of books.

I agree that many people who claim to be "biblical" or live by "biblical" precepts hardly seem to have cracked the covers.

And King James prose is lovely, but if anyone is really going to get serious about reading/studying the bible, they ought to look into something with, oh, say, some modern scholarship behind it as well.

-- Bible reading pew sitter
 

@Anonymous pew sitter
And other parts of the bible argue for NOT killing foreigners and that God loves them and will save them as well,
Heh. I suppose one sees whatever one wants to see - but I wonder how you would feel about someone who advocated genocide in a speech to the republicans and then talked about not waging war when speaking to the democrats. Would you focus on one part of the message or on the entire message?

Good pastors actually do not elide those passages, but push people to deal with them,
really ? they actually deal with the things Bart Ehrman raises? i.e. questioning the authenticity of the passages?

I agree that many people who claim to be "biblical" or live by "biblical" precepts hardly seem to have cracked the covers.

Which precepts? The ones you like or the ones you don't? I'm sure the people who hate gays/creationists can point to biblical precepts, no?
Unless you do what Jefferson did , you can't make any claim to knowing "biblical" precepts.
 

Heh. I suppose one sees whatever one wants to see - but I wonder how you would feel about someone who advocated genocide in a speech to the republicans and then talked about not waging war when speaking to the democrats. Would you focus on one part of the message or on the entire message?

What is the "entire message" of the Bible, Deepak?

really ? they actually deal with the things Bart Ehrman raises? i.e. questioning the authenticity of the passages?

We've discussed Ehrman, Dawkins and others. We've discussed whether or not it matters if we know who wrote various passages, and whether or not it matters if they are factually true or myths.

Unless you do what Jefferson did , you can't make any claim to knowing "biblical" precepts.

Hmmmmm. What did Jefferson do, that convinces you that his is the only legitimate way to know "biblical" precepts?

-- pew sitter
 

What is the "entire message" of the Bible, Deepak?
Surely this question is to the wrong person? Im not the one who claims a timeless or eternal truth or deeper meanings in Genesis or labels himself after a questionable character in the book. Or is it your contention that there is no overall message in the bible?
but in any case I believe Harris covered this awhile ago - if you have a paragraph that supports genocide in the bible and one against it - how exactly are you so sure that God wants you to follow the against genocide paragraph? Surely you are using something other than the bible to come to that conclusion, in which case , what use is the bible? No good when it comes to history, no good when it comes to moral or ethics.

and whether or not it matters if they are factually true or myths.
oh good. Out of curiosity , the answer is ?

What did Jefferson do, that convinces you that his is the only legitimate way to know "biblical" precepts?
Well there was some degree of consistency. He said he didn't accept miracles and he cut it out (unlike old testament - ha ha metaphor - Jesus - literal camp). He didn't go the Old testament doesnt matter now (inspite of what Jesus says , because hey look , heres a paragraph which says the sabbath is made for man!). So if all the liberal Christians got together , and put out a new version of the Bible which cut out all the objectionable parts, then I personally, would feel no need to respond to "I can think of several other pastors who address offensive and/or difficult passages straightforwardly. "
 

Surely this question is to the wrong person? Im not the one who claims a timeless or eternal truth or deeper meanings in Genesis or labels himself after a questionable character in the book. Or is it your contention that there is no overall message in the bible?

To quote myself, as I wrote above:
The Bible does not speak with one voice, it argues with itself. It is a library of books, not a single book: this is a conversation compiled over more than a millennium, and it is neither simple nor safe reading -- it challenges all kinds of comfort zones.

but in any case I believe Harris covered this awhile ago - if you have a paragraph that supports genocide in the bible and one against it - how exactly are you so sure that God wants you to follow the against genocide paragraph? Surely you are using something other than the bible to come to that conclusion, in which case , what use is the bible? No good when it comes to history, no good when it comes to moral or ethics.

Harris is a black and white thinker. I am not. I disagree that the Bible is useless; I also do not think it is sufficient.

oh good. Out of curiosity , the answer is ?

All over the lot. It's a continuing discussion. We have people who think miracles literally happened, and we have people who think it is all a myth. But the life of the community does not depend upon its members having a unified view on the Bible. However, these things are openly discussed and have been, on an ongoing basis.

Well there was some degree of consistency. He said he didn't accept miracles and he cut it out (unlike old testament - ha ha metaphor - Jesus - literal camp). He didn't go the Old testament doesnt matter now (inspite of what Jesus says , because hey look , heres a paragraph which says the sabbath is made for man!). So if all the liberal Christians got together , and put out a new version of the Bible which cut out all the objectionable parts, then I personally, would feel no need to respond to "I can think of several other pastors who address offensive and/or difficult passages straightforwardly. "

Okay, so you favor censorship: cutting out all the parts we don't like and we don't trust others to read. Then we don't have to deal with them. That certainly protects us from having to think. We can all stay with our comfortable assumptions without having them questioned by texts that make us squirm. I guess that's one solution….

But who decides what the 'objectionable' parts are, anyway? Does Jefferson become the one-man editor of the canon? Isn't he a little antiquated? Did he cut out all the slavery stuff, too, and the stuff that oppresses women? What do we do with 200+ years of scholarship and cultural changes since Jefferson? Or do we go with some kind of pope or magisterium (that won't fly too well with Protestants) who decides what's 'objectionable' and snips it out? Or does everybody just cut out the stuff that offends them personally?

I think it is more interesting to take a difficult passage and deal with it rather than cut it out and pretend we didn't see that. I've heard pastors go well beyond what you quote of Harris, which is actually a good start to a necessary conversation: If we have two conflicting passages, how do we interpret them? How do we know what is and is not of God? What is the context we find that text in? How does it apply today, or does it? Do we see anything similar going on in the world today, and how are we called to respond to that?

-- pew sitter
 

it challenges all kinds of comfort zones.
Not really. you might feel that because you need to rationalize some of your God's actions.

Harris is a black and white thinker. I am not.
Probably untrue - the topics on which you are black and white on probably varies from what Harris is on.

I disagree that the Bible is useless; I also do not think it is sufficient.
Alright . what use is the Bible? What will i know from reading it that I wont know otherwise and which is useful to know?
Please note that I'm not referring to the historical importance of the Bible (where it obviously is) or the cultural importance (again where it obviously is) - but then so is Mein Kampf. So when I am referring to the use of the bible I will broadly put it as teaches me something about morals/ethics or perhaps you can start of with what it is useful for.

All over the lot. It's a continuing discussion.
What is the pastors/priests view? I'd like to check my powers of prescience. We already know that the lay people can believe completely contradictory things and still call themselves aligned with the official position.

Okay, so you favor censorship:
Ha ha. Because telling you to produce your own version will magically stop the current versions of the bible being printed , no?

We can all stay with our comfortable assumptions without having them questioned by texts that make us squirm
Im sure hearing about genocide and having to justify it , might make you squirm. Since I don't have to justify anything , I can simply state God is an evil schmuck or the people who wrote the Bible are evil schmucks. But in any case that's not the point - It's that if you think the bible has good and bad stuff why not cut out the bad stuff - Otherwise when you state the Bible is useful how is one to know which parts are being referred to?

Does Jefferson become the one-man editor of the canon? Isn't he a little antiquated?
Ha ha. So since you must be aware that there were many more gospels , and competing versions of the bible which were cut and some councils , many many years ago, created the versions that are most popular now - who elected them editors? aren't they antiquated now? why follow them?

Did he cut out all the slavery stuff, too, and the stuff that oppresses women?
Ah but you are being told to form your version. You can cut off whatever you don't like. Heck you can even add some parables(like some scribes did and which are now looked at as facts by some believers ) - and we already know that you are in discussion for "whether or not it matters if they are factually true or myths. "
So perhaps you can have a couple of the male apostles marry and Jesus can redo his wine trick at their marriage. And he can appoint Mary Magdalene as the head of the church. You know its the meaning that's important - not the facts.

I think it is more interesting to take a difficult passage and deal with it rather than cut it out and pretend we didn't see that
I think you confuse the word difficult (in the sense of a morally or ethically challenging dilemma - very few of which are found in the bible - but plenty can be found in secular literature and ethics) with just plain crazy/dumb/evil.
Or you can provide an example of what passage you find difficult (and why).
 

@John
I have my doubts about the "New Atheist" program of confronting religion in order to kill it
I must have missed this manifesto. Almost noone believes that religion can be "killed" - and most gnus would be satisifed with strict enforcement of separation of church and state and a reduction of religious influence in the public sphere (in matters not related to the state)
 

I must have missed this manifesto.

[Sigh] Semantic games again?

Since "religion" is something people practice and you didn't accuse me of claiming that Gnus want to set up extermination camps for all theists, you must have understood that I was using the term metaphorically ... and that I was using it as a shorthand purely to set up my approval of Dawkins' argument, right?

And are you really claiming that the Gnus wouldn't dearly love to see religion disappear or that confronting it is a step in that direction? Sure, Gnus, given our present situation in the US, would take strict enforcement of separation of church and state and a reduction of religious influence in the public sphere ... but would they be "satisfied" and "shut up" and stop being "strident" if that happened?

You are again treading close to being persona non grata around here.

Do you really have so little life that you have to pick every nit?
 

@john
you must have understood that I was using the term metaphorically
I didnt really accuse you of using violent metaphors or something like that , now did I?
The point is that people who complain about the term "accomodationist" shouldn't generalize about the term new atheist.

And are you really claiming that the Gnus wouldn't dearly love to see religion disappear or that confronting it is a step in that direction?
And I'd love to see discrimination and corruption and poverty disappear too. It's not going to happen. And most gnu's know and acknowledge that about religion.

but would they be "satisfied" and "shut up" and stop being "strident" if that happened?

I can speak for myself. If the world was a different place where religion was more private than public with close to zero influence in the public sphere - that most religious people were closer to the liberal forms of religion - then I personally , would feel no need to criticise it even if I would still think its stupid.


Do you really have so little life that you have to pick every nit?
If I find myself in the rare situation that I agree with a majority of your post , what else can I do.
Besides pot, kettle, black.
 

The point is that people who complain about the term "accomodationist" shouldn't generalize about the term new atheist.

I don't "complain" about the term. (I have complained about "faitheist" but that is a different argument.) I point out that it is used inconsistently and that it is just as arational in its way as the term "New Atheists" that Gnus have (but maybe no longer) complain about, leading them to invent "Gnu Atheists."

I can speak for myself.

So you can't give us, based on experience, what the New/Gnu Atheists are for? Then, of course, you can't give us what the "religionists" are for either.

I could hunt down numerous quotes by Coyne, PZ, Dawkins, Stenger and many other "New Athiests" to the effect that that the world would be a better place if religion disappeared and that confrontation is, at the very least, one way to move toward that end. I won't bother since you admit to nit picking.

If I find myself in the rare situation that I agree with a majority of your post , what else can I do.

Umm ... if all you are here to do is to mindlessly disagree, even if you agree with me, you are gone! This is not an intellectual dick measurement site.

Besides pot, kettle, black.

Next time try to justify that or you are banned!
 

So you can't give us, based on experience, what the New/Gnu Atheists are for?
In general, no. As far as I remember I prefer to criticise religion instead of religious people. I break that when Im annoyed/angry but hopefully thats rare.

that that the world would be a better place if religion disappeared
As mentioned , it would be a better place if poverty disappeared too , and people can work towards it , but I doubt anyone thinks they will "kill" poverty.

if all you are here to do is to mindlessly disagree, even if you agree with me, you are gone!
Whats mindless about it?
I rarely like to post +1 comments (and the only place I might do that is Jason's blog). There is a specific position you have - that gnu's have adopted the name so all generalizations and pejoratives are fine there - but faitheist, accomodationists etc are poorly defined generalizations. And its amusing to point out how often you do the same.

Next time try to justify that or you are banned!
Is it more palatable if it is framed as "do you have so little life that you must respond to every picked nit?"
 

There is a specific position you have - that gnu's have adopted the name so all generalizations and pejoratives are fine there - but faitheist, accomodationists etc are poorly defined generalizations.

Oh, please! The Gnus adopted the term for themselves. If you don't want to belong, that's your right but you can't deny they exist when they define themselves. The same "group", if it exists, labeled other people as faitheists and accomodationists and did it badly.

And its amusing to point out how often you do the same.

If you find it amusing to be illogical that's your business, but it doesn't recommend your welcome here.
 

The Gnus adopted the term for themselves.
Right - thats why you get Coyne's post of Mencken be a new atheist or people quote some Sagan stuff and say he must have been a new atheist , no?

Or just like accomodationist?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-asher/the-case-for-accommodatio_b_1298554.html

but it doesn't recommend your welcome here.
alright. So long, farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye.
 

thats why you get Coyne's post of Mencken be a new atheist or people quote some Sagan stuff and say he must have been a new atheist , no?

They are pointing out what they consider a gnu to be when they do that.

alright. So long, farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye.

Good. I was, after this display, on the cusp of banning you from my home. I would much prefer it if you agreed to go away.