If the entire Bible is inerrant, don’t skip these parts . . .
December 19th, 2006 by Erich ViethI’m getting so incredibly tired of hearing from the cherry-picking fundamentalists (yes, I admit. I shouldn’t have listened to fundamentalist talk radio on the way home from work tonight).
Here’s a challenge for each of them: If the entire Bible is inerrant, then read each of its passages closely. Don’t skip these parts. If the Bible is truly inerrant, give each passage equal opportunity. Every time you quote a part that suits your immediate needs, quote one of these passages. Quote them each slowly and let the words soak in, if you dare. Focus entire church services around each one of these passages, if you dare.
Put each of these principles into practice, if you dare. You’d better hope that the police don’t catch you in the act.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Erich, is that picture of a man eating a baby for real?? I’m feeling very ill from that and the other horrendous things that people do to each other that are pictured on that site. I understand and agree with the points being made, but I wish I could get those images out of my head!
December 20th, 2006 at 9:24 am
gatomjp: I ASSUME that some of those images were Photoshopped. I certainly hope so. That particular cited passage does not seem to actually ADVOCATE cannibalism. The setting was a time of great famine. I would not have included that passage (or photo) in the otherwise instuctive list.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Cherry-picking comes in all manners. The problem of assuming that the Bible is “The Word of God” is that this leaves no room for what the writers themselves wanted to say from personal aims. The Psalm 137 quote is a good case. The whole verse says,
This is a personal assualt on Babylon, based on the experiences of the Exile, and a plea for revenge against a conquering power. In my edition (The Jerusalem Bible, which dispenses with the poetry of the KJV and often reads much more clearly in key places as a result) this Psalm is not on attributed to David. Many Psalmists contributed to Psalms, but it is a common misperception that David wrote them all. He did not.
If seen in the context of a Hebrew really pissed at what has befallen his or her country, then the passage reads sensibly as a human cry for revenge. Ugly, but heartfelt. If seen as “divinely inspired” it becomes a real problem for the inerrancy crowd.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:56 am
I checked Snopes.com. I was relieved to read that picture is a fake.
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.htm
Just so you know…I was not offended that your post sent me to that site. Sometimes we need to be reminded of the atrocities that are committed in the name of war or religion. I also understand that the image was there to illustrate a certain passage from the bible and point out its unquestioned cruelty. For all we know, baby eating may be something that has happened at some place at some time…I’m just glad that I didn’t actually see it!
Gotta go watch the laughing baby again to clear my head!
December 20th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Can’t you tell the difference between documenting what actually happened and condoning what happens? If it was really cherry picking wouldn’t it all be cherries?
December 20th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Larry: Specific rules of conduct are specified in a supposedly inerrant book. Many (though not all) of these rules are hideous. They are therefore downplayed and ignored by the inerrant crowd, yet the entire book is claimed to be wise and true and just.
What don’t you understand?
December 20th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
I think what Larry is saying is that he views the bible as merely a record of ancient history whereas most believers use it as a system of rules to live by as Erich reiterates.
It would be like reading a book about the Germany during the second World War and then going out and trying to round up all the Jews in your neighborhood.
Is that what you meant Larry?
December 21st, 2006 at 6:08 am
The Commandments, Judgements and Statutes are, of course, “rules to live by”. Not living by them brings the things we are observing all around us. Man has had at least 6000 years to try and come up with something better, and is still failing.
Erich calls some of the rules “hideous”. Well, yeah; sin is hideous. And dealing with it, rather than ignoring it, might seem hideous. But not dealing with it is worse. Because then it spreads like a cancer and ends up destroying the whole society.
The judgements are spelled out so that people will learn to avoid sin, and it’s destructivness. No nation has ever survived once they embrace the wickedness that Americans seem to believe is their birthright. What is so special about us, that we may spurn God with impunity, while others are held accountable?
December 21st, 2006 at 8:35 am
Larry,
Your posts suffer from the same kind of diffuse style of speech that I find characterizes many passionate believers. I still don’t know if you agree with my above post. Did I misunderstand you or not?
I always try to write in clear, plain English, like Hemingway, Vonnegut and Twain. Please try to tone down the preacher-style ranting because, with all due respect, I don’t know what you are talking about most of the time.
So, if I understand you correctly…SOME of the bible is history and SOME is “rules to live by”? If so, how do we know which is which?
December 21st, 2006 at 9:06 am
Larry,
Slavery is condoned in the BIble. The commandment regarding theft and the one regarding covetousness includes a tacit approval of slavery. That one bit alone I think has been superceded and done better since. We cannot “own” people, which was perfectly fine under Yahweh’s rules.
There’s the bit of hypocrisy involved in Thou Shalt Not Kill which is overturned later by the unspoken addendum “except when I tell you to.”
The other aspects Erich and me and others like us has to do with God telling people to do things that are patently unethical not to say immoral.
Now, you can say that Yahweh has a perfect justification for doing such things because, after all, he’s the boss (in your view). But you can’t claim that we haven’t, in any event, come up with better. If not necessarily better laws, certainly better applications. And of course there are all those cultures where Yahweh was never heard of, much less the Ten Commandments, who managed to govern themselves by laws that worked quite well for them.
Eschew superlatives. They’ll undo you everytime.
Oh, and the specialness of Americans? It’s the same tendency every group of successful outcasts has for casting itself as God’s Chosen. I agree with you, without justification. The only thing Americans can claim as superior is our Constitution and our willingness to work our butts off for what we have, but none of that is god given.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:06 am
The errors of the errancy crowd are built upon the errors of the inerrancy crowd. These misperceptions cause the bitterness toward God that is apparent here.
. . .
Yes, you are absolutely right that we desperately need “better applications”. To me, this means leadership with a christ-like spirit applying the Law in Love, not in retribution. We must become “workmen that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”.
[Note from admin: edited for length and proselytizing]
December 26th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Larry wrote…who the hell knows??!
Erich wrote: “[Note from admin: edited for length and proselytizing]”
The guy can’t give a straight answer!
I have no “bitterness toward god”, Larry. I have only frustration with people who obfuscate and cloud the issue and give roundabout meaningless answers when asked a simple question.
So many many times have I gotten answerless answers from believers like Larry to simple, basic questions. Either their minds already work in a roundabout way, which makes them susceptible to the comfortable doctrines of religion, or it is the irrational religious dogma itself that makes their minds react that way. I haven’t figured it out yet.
I think that Larry means well, and he’s probably a nice guy who does good deeds, but as a conversationalist he leaves much to be desired.
December 27th, 2006 at 10:32 am
gatomjp wrote, “I have only frustration with people who obfuscate and cloud the issue and give roundabout meaningless answers when asked a simple question.”
The problem is your questions are based on false premises taught by religion that I refuse to support. I am not a fundamentalist, I am not an evangelical, I am not a creationist. The errors in versions of the Bible are the work of men. When I try to explain this our moderator throws out anything I say that keeps me from looking like an idiot. I will not be pigeon-holed so you can pretend I’m not answering since most of my answer is edited.
December 27th, 2006 at 11:22 am
I confess to having sympathy for Larry in this instance. I’ve participated on discussion boards in which I held the minority view on certain of these issues and found myself getting “edited for length” on several occasions. Perhaps I did run on long, but any points I may have been making never got to most of the people reading the board.
But on the issue at hand, the problem, Larry, is that both the crowd you seem to be distancing yourself from and yourself hold to a view of the universe which, regardless of provenance, I and others like me find unsupportable. You seem to believe there will be an apocalypse. You seem to think there is a heaven and, maybe, a hell. You seem to think the god of the Old Testament, though misrepresented by that very document, is real and that we ought to acknowledge and worship him. Some of your arguments in support of this and related positions are, to say the least, creative. Ultimately, though, I–and I will speak for myself alone here–just can’t swallow it. In my experience and opinion, the universe doesn’t work that way, and all gods are fables designed to scare children into being good citizens when they grow up.
But I do think you deserve to have your say.
December 27th, 2006 at 11:27 am
“The errors of the errancy crowd are built upon the errors of the inerrancy crowd. ”
BTW, this makes perfect sense. Translation–the arguments raised against the proposition that the Bible is inerrant are in part grounded on an assumption that those who freely intepret and treat the Bible as metaphor assume there is something of value in the debate. The people who argue the Bible is wrong usually do so by accepting the premise that those who believe the Bible is absolutely right have made a simple mistake with regards to the nature of truth. Both end up arguing over something that is beside the point (if I understand Larry’s observation correctly). I made allusion to this in my post The Real Issue. The debate ain’t got nothing to do with whether the translations are right/wrong/inside out/backwards/or inverted. It has to do with how we wish to live TODAY and denying the “inerrancy crowd” the right to dictate behaviors. The Bible at some point becomes irrelevant to this debate.
December 27th, 2006 at 11:54 am
I’ve struggled with how to handle Larry’s (often lengthy) comments. He is a thoughtful and creative fellow. When he’s on-topic and to the point, his comments are displayed in their entirety.
Based upon the vast amount of Larry’s writings that appear on this site, I hope it’s clear that I am not trying to censor the content of Larry’s writings.
On the other hand, I’ve been getting repeated feedback that Larry is tedious when he repeatedly embeds assumptions (see the partial list in the immediately preceding comment by Jason) that X, Y and Z are true RATHER than making it clear that HE believes that they are true. Whenever Larry assumes as fact that GOD is of such and such character, that the Old Testament that many of us find problematic is simply a false account (even though millions of people try to inject that “false” account into our political lives), and that Larry has the key to supernatural truth, it has the tendency of pulling us off topic. We now have to deal with Larry’s version of religious truth rather than the prevalent social reality that concerns most of us.
I have made suggestions to Larry regarding his posts: Keep them brief and on point. Don’t write in such a way that you are painting general truths when you are advocating your own idiosyncratic views–Instead of writing that “God is X,” write “I believe that God is X.” This will keep so many of us from feeling compelled to jump in to remind Larry (and other readers) that not everyone on this site believes that “God is X.” Until recently, many of us felt that we had to jump in every time Larry appeared to remind others that we don’t find Larry’s theological views helpful to resolving the points made in the posts.
If Larry will adhere to these rules, his comments to these posts will be much less repetitive and tedious. Hence, they will be published in their entirety.
In sum, Larry can have his say, but he needs to keep it short, fresh and non-repetitive. He has an open door here as long as he follows these rules and writes in such a way that it is clear that he is only speaking for himself and his own interpretation of the Bible (which runs counter to the commonly-held interpretations that are the subject of many of these posts). When he launches into the self-evidence of the theological beliefs he (sincerely) holds, however, I will feel compelled to trim back his comments, because those sorts of comments put the onus on too many of us to jump in (again and again) to say “You’re not speaking for me.”
I’m open to other suggestions from other readers and commenters.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Larry, it seems that you know a lot about God. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading all of your posts. Be assured that I have been able to understand most, if not all of your main arguments, responses, and ideas, in lieu of any *editing* for length. That is not to say that I agree with you or your logic.
How is it that you have gained access to so many hidden answers, and knowledge, and the wishes of God, if indeed the Bible is flawed?
I am equally impressed with your ability to formulate “excuses” for the mistakes in the Bible almost as quickly as we point them out. I realize that you may feel that you are being attacked, but it is only the logic which we disdain. In terms of your 6000 year old Earth defense, I solemly offer you some of what my eyes have seen and what my mind has learned on the subject of the age of the Earth. Please accept these links to wikipedia’s new section on evolution and creationism.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Age_of_the_Earth
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page
Excerpt: The oldest minerals which are found on earth are zircons in Australia and show an uranium-lead age of up to about 4.4 billion years. The oldest known minerals which formed in our solar system are CAIs (calcium aluminium-rich inclusions) which can be found within primitive meteorites. The uranium-lead ages of this CAIs were determined to 4.5672 billion years.
Of course, those who formulated the various bibles didn’t know this. Furthermore, people who lived just 150 years ago didn’t have this scientific knowledge either. Larry J. Carter, as a thinking member of the 21st century (who has access to science at his fingertips), you should be ASHAMED to have EVER supported the Dark Ages mentality.
December 27th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
I apologize, Larry, if I insulted you. On the other hand, I trust Erich’s intelligence and feel that he would not edit without good reason. Please, may I re-ask a question of you that I asked a few posts back and hopefully get a plain and straightforward answer?
If SOME of the bible is history and SOME is “rules to live by”, how do we know which is which?
Anyone…is this a stupid question? I know that I am not as well educated as some on this blog but if Larry answered that question somewhere in his posts I sure missed it!
So many times I ask what I think are simple yet interesting (I hope) questions of the believers only to have them ignored. Do they think that the questions are rhetorical? They are not.
Jason makes a good point about the inerrancy debate being somewhat beside the point but I would still be fascinated to hear from any believers out there who do not take all of the bible as literal and would like to know how you make the determination as to what to accept and what to reject. (I believe this is still on topic for this discussion.)
In Larry’s defense, this IS a personal question and one I would like to hear answered from a personal perspective.
December 27th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Erich,
Why don’t you post Larry’s edited post in it’s entirety so that we can decide for ourselves if he answered the questions or not? I fear that he may not return to DI if he feels that he is being unfairly treated. Your call. Just a suggestion.
December 27th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Given the concerns raised (legitimate freedom of expression concerns), I am reassing my handling of some of Larry’s comments.
I would have been happy to repost Larry’s comments in their entirety so you could compare, but I can’t. They come into the comments queue where I approve, disapprove or edit. Once I make any edit choices in WordPress, the original is gone.
Other than the spam, I’ve approved 99% of the comments received by this site in their entirety. If Larry will give us another chance, I will print his next couple of comments in their entirety, but I will also indicate the sorts of edits I would make, if any.
December 31st, 2006 at 3:37 pm
I’ve been over at http://www.edge.com reading Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the crew. I don’t find them saying “I believe” or “I think” or “In my opinion” when they are writing things that are obviously what they believe, think or have an opinion about. And I don’t find people accusing them of “proselitizing” when they are voicing an opinion about something. The whole reason for having a message board like this is so people can argue, reason together and debate. What are you so scared of?
Augustine introduced the idea of eternal punishment and it’s predictable companion “forced conversion”. His idea was; If God was going to punish unbelievers for eternity it would be better to convert them any way you could than to let them suffer forever, and once you got a few converted they would convert their children and grandchildren {to a religion!!}. He brought the idea of Hades in from paganism and the Greeks. But Hell is just a hole in the ground for dead meat and cannot contain our spirit.
“Slavery” in the Bible is about the ownership of a person’s productivity, not his person. You are projecting slavery as practiced much later onto an economic arrangment more similiar to our concept of employee/employer today. A person could sell his productivity for a set period of time, no more than six years {until the sabbath year} to raise funds to pay off a debt or whatever. Many of the people who came to America had to enter endentured servitude to finance their passage. There were {are} strict laws concerning redemption and the treatment of “slaves” and their rights. It is the ignorance of these laws that ever permitted slavery as we knew it in America, and the reason that we were disciplined severely with a civil war.
Now. concerning “which is which”. Be careful of setting up a false dichotomy by dividing the Bible into “history OR laws to live by”. It is all of this and more. The things that were written before time were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures {NOT a VERSION of the scriptures} might have hope. Every word of the original writings is there for a reason. We certainly have not discovered every reason yet. Many times the original writing is just about what happened; but it was also a way to set up a type so that a later anti-type could be fufilled. Men do not write this way. The teachings, doctrines and commandments of men are condemned over and over in the scriptures.
In the case of Psalm 137 and the grief and vengence wished upon the Babylonians: the Israelites did not realize that they had made themselves the enemies of God, and had disowned Him {in practice if not in words} and that He was using the Babylonians or Assyrians to get them to change their minds {repent} much as He is using the Iranians and Iragis now to try to change the church’s mind. We still have people like Augustine running things. I’ve been in a lot of churches where when you start speaking truth, you can see their eyes glaze over and {figuratively} witness their hands moving up to cover their ears.
There is a famine of HEARING the Word of God. It is not limited to http://www.dangerousintersection.com, it is worldwide. It is in the churches because many of them write their own versions to support their pet doctrines and ignore stuff they don’t want to think about. The only difference here is you people want to rationally ignore all of it. Two sides of the same coin. You pick out the stuff that the churches have made up and find fault with is so you can do your own thing. There is no new thing under the sun. I would challenge you to be different from your forefathers.
“Education is the organization of knowledge within the constraints of scarcity. Education “disciplines” knowledge, segregating it into homogenous fields, presided over by suitibly “qualified” gaurdians charged with policing th representation of the field. One may aquire an education, as if it were a thing, but one can only become knowledgable through a process of transformation.” McKinzie Wark
Maybe controversy is God’s corrective method.
December 31st, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Larry. I’m not scared of anything you write. Rather, I find it equally boring and frustrating. Your writings start, repeatedly, from the assumption that the Bible is inspired writing, written by a fairy tale being. Many people simple don’t buy into that assumption for detailed reasons that are set out in posts throughout this site. Many of us aren’t into proving the authenticity of the Bible by reference to the Bible itself. That is a stark logical fallacy called bootstrapping.
It’s as if I repeatedly asked you to assume that people were actually large green triangles, basing dozens of arguments on that assumption. What would you say to someone who keeps making arguments based on that highly questionable assumption? How much space would you want to give that person’s writings? What if respected others repeatedly raised the question of why we are publishing writings of someone who bases all of his arguments on a puzzling assertion that people were large green triangles?
The problem, Larry, is that your basic assumptions are disconnected from empirical experience. I don’t feel that your arguments are connecting with the posts. That makes them off-topic and tedious, in my opinion. Take, for example, a passage you just wrote:
This is preaching. You are not intellectually engaged with the focus of the post.
I have to wonder why you don’t start your own website and see whether anyone wants to come banter with you based on your operating assumptions. I’d be happy let you mention the link to your own site, if you start one. I’m willing to do this, even though this site might lose one or two readers (who would possibly become regulars of YOUR site) as a result.
I’m not trying to be hostile, but I’m utterly frustrated with your non-evidentiary approach to reality.
December 31st, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Larry,
If you can “sell” a person and/or their labor without their permission, that is slavery, I don’t care how long a time period you’re talking about. It’s like putting limits on evisceration. It’s repugnant, it’s immoral, it’s condoned (in more forms than the one you recount) in Scripture. Slavery is slavery. My point was that we have subsequently found a higher moral ground than what is allowed for in the Bible. That’s all, since you questioned our ability to do so.
As for God punishing Israel….gimme a break. Israel was the Poland of the Levant. The Hebrews, believing that God would make it all work for them, didn’t bother to learn how to run their country or properly defend it or make it more valuable in their hands than in a conquerors. They botched it, were conquered (repeatedly) and the result was exile and captivity. God didn’t have anything to do with it. The Hebrews were just lousy nation builders.
BUT THEY BLAMED IT ON FORCES OUTSIDE THEIR CONTROL AND YOU CLAIM THOSE FORCES TO BE GOD.
In a word, bullshit.
It’s been interesting.
December 31st, 2006 at 6:43 pm
I can see now why Erich edited Larry’s comments. In every paragraph, sometimes in every sentence, Larry talks about a different topic, with no transition — indeed, no coherent point — in going from one to the next. First he talks about Sam Harris, then Augustine, then slavery, then biblical apologetics, then the Babylonians…he’s all over the place.
December 31st, 2006 at 10:16 pm
“I’m not trying to be hostile, but I’m utterly frustrated with your non-evidentiary approach to reality.”
I’m sorry to be so frustrating. The subject we were discussing was the errancy/inerrancy of the Bible. I think it is appropriate to quote the Bible {the evidence} in order to consider it’s contents. Maybe you know a better way.
December 31st, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Larry: The topic of this post is that cherry-picking Believers believers of Bible inerrancy are embarassed by many ridiculous passages of the Old Testament, which they thus ignore. If you wanted to contest this point, you could argue that the practices advocated are NOT ridiculous (i.e., by arguing that they DO have application in the modern world) or you might argue that modern day Believers DON’T skip over these passages. Maybe there are other legitimate approaches as well.
Instead, you’ve argued that I’ve found fault with false teachings of churches rather than with the words of the Bible. That is incorrect. I’m considering the actual words of the Bible that many fundamentalists advocate to be inerrant.
Then you argue that slaves (as described in the Bible) are the modern equivalent of Wal-Mart employees (rather than anything like the slavery that Americans abolished as a result of the Civil War).
I don’t understand your point about hell and forced conversion.
I agree with Grumpy that you aren’t coherent and that you are barely on topic. I do fear that your comments (with notable exceptions) are generally off-topic, tedious and preachy distractions to the serious points raised by many of the posts on this site.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Some people get completely obsessed with one narrow concept. All of us know people like that. I had a brother in law who joined AA and from that point on, everything that ever happened was, to him, a result of that evil alcohol. I know of people that say all the evils upon us are a result of one single issue, be it gay rights, abortion, racism, illegal immigration, etc., depending upon their particular focus. No matter what the topic, these obsessive people think everything boils down to that one thing, and no matter how hard pressed, they cannot see the fundamental flaws in their logic. They have become so obsessed with their great single issue that they can’t reason, they can’t take in facts that don’t wholly support their position, they can’t argue their position logically. Even if it were proved, beyond a shadow of any doubt to a rational mind, that the position was wrong, these people won’t change their mind. They don’t even know what rational is. They are boring and self deceptive. They think they are logical, they think they have a logical progression in their arguments, but they don’t. Their minds are too full of roadblocks and detours. To analogize, if my goal is to always get to point B from point A, and I can never be deterred from that goal, then any pothole, detour, etc, is just going to be a hurdle for me to dodge. If presented with some fact I don’t like because it doesn’t support my issue, or some logical argument that leads to a conclusion I don’t like, I’ll hop over that pittfall, I’ll avoid it by going around it, or anything I can do, just so I’m sure to get to the result I’ve already determined.
I have absolutely no problem with people who have an opinion or belief and who take a stand they can support. I enjoy that back and forth (some say I like to argue). I expect people to be able to use logic and facts, and if necessary, to adjust their opinion or belief to conform to the facts, or at least admit they don’t know how that particular fact or argument fits in. I want those people to present arguments and facts that make me think rationally about my own particular beliefs, and I expect them to do the same about their own when I, or others, bring up different issues or opinions.
Larry’s obsession is religion. He has a few well thought out comments and questions, and occasionally the comments actually have something to do with the post. But he couldn’t effectively debate himself out of a paper bag, because he doesn’t understand that he has established certain absolute premises for himself and everybody else, and it is those very premises that we question and ask for proof. As a result, he has predetermined the answer no matter what the question. He’s getting to Point B, no matter how he gets there. His point B is that God said so and wrote it all down in a single book.
Larry makes it clear in his posts that he doesn’t understand (and I’m not sure he cares, it seems to be the ‘cross he bears’) why some of us, myself included, rag on him. I don’t believe he is capable of seeing where his logical flaws are. I’m one of those with lots more questions than answers. He doesn’t help me answer those questions, at least not often enough to make it worth sifting through his illogic for the gems. I for one, am not going to waste my time reading any more of his comments. If I see his name, I know his argument: God told me that, therefore I can’t be wrong. Even if he is right, and he may sometimes be, to use his vernacular, God gave me a mind to use it, not just to blindly follow.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:38 pm
In defense of Larry J, one has to admit that he expresses his (often circular) reasoning without the counterproductive invective that so plagues the blogosphere, especially in the emotionally loaded topic of faith.
I get the feeling from his posts that he is trying to understand why we don’t understand what is so obvious to him. It goes back to my Failure To Communicate post. When one has unexamined assumptions not held in common, it is hard to even see why communication fails. I’m afraid the double-negative is the only way to express that.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
At the risk of seeming like “an analyst without portfolio,” Larry’s deal is fairly straightforward: he has a view of god and all that entails which is to him wholly consistent and obvious and we who argue with him about it are only trying to negotiate with the mountain. The mountain (god) doesn’t care. Therefore, it is our problem. To Larry, god says “be this way because I say so” and when we seem to complain about the rules like small children, Larry points out that “well, he’s god, he can say that–and back it up. No point complaining. No point trying to negotiate.”
It is difficult to make a case with someone who does that. They are like single issue voters, who don’t care what else may be on the ballot.
When you study the lives of the members of the first Royal Soceity of Science in London (Hook, Boyle, Newton, et al) you see many trying to hang on to a religious world view in spite of what their new experimentalism was showing them. As a result, some could not step out of their habitual modes of seeing to grasp how new and how different science actually was–and became quaint footnotes in history. It is hard to leave behind a way of seeing. Very hard. Harder when that way includes peering into a mirror all the time.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I sense that Larry is in fact becoming more open minded. Compare his first posts to his more recent posts, and he seems to be developing the ability to see things from a broad(er) perspective. A good exercise for the mind is to pretend you are floating out of your body, up into the sky, past the clouds, past heaven, past the moon (i hope i didn’t get that backwards), past mars, past the sun, past jupiter, past pluto, then quiet for a while, then past a few galaxies, now very cold, but peaceful, gaze with your mind, gently up and around to earth and the other planets in the universe. Time is of the essence, we are lucky enough to be in a bubble of spacetime in which sentient beings exist, please do not spoil OUR limited time with delusions of grandeur.
Something which bothered me the other day was a radio show where
a caller was expressing a viewpoint about a recent court ruling. Seems tame enough…but it wasn’t her disagreement with the court ruling which irked me, it was the way which she justified it. She seemed convinced that the court’s ruling was made by corrupt court officials who were acting against God’s will. How convenient that whenever the courts work well, it is because God has acted and “the courts have spoken”, but any decisions she disagrees with are automatically attributed to corruption. I’m not sure if I was more angry or upset that she was so utterly blind to her deeply imbedded circular thinking.
January 4th, 2007 at 5:20 am
My first mistake was not looking around here more before joining a discussion, since it is apparently a requirement to think in lock-step with everyone else. The next was overlooking the requisite to stay on topic even when someone asks a question that leads off topic. Some things do not have “yes” and “no” answers.
I agree with the topic of the post, if it is that some christians are cherry pickers. I thought that was obvious from some of my comments. I could add quite a bit to the list. There are entire denominations that call themselves “New Testament Christians”. I am niether their accomplice nor trying to defend them.
I don’t celebrate Christmas, I don’t decorate a tree. These were adopted from paganism. Each of those verses that I have looked at have a modern application or should serve as a warning because human nature has not changed. We have not become more intelligent just more intellectual.
Dan hit upon part of it: the believers and unbelievers have diverged to a point where they are not communicating even when it is attempted. I feel like a maggot in a petri dish with people standing around discussing my attributes. This is a diversion; it’s not about me, my faults or my lack of writings skills. And it’s not really about cherry pickers either. We all have developed an equally narrow focus {learning while ignoring} and like Mary {Luke 10:42} I have chosen the better part.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Larry the Holy Writes:
“The things that were written before time were written for our learning…Every word of the original writings is there for a reason”
Larry, please explain how anything existed BEFORE TIME! Also, how were the *things* translated into WRITTEN WORDS that people could read?
Most likely the Bible was written by men like me (you). Here I will give it a whirl…
SAMPLE: Bible Verses from King James Version 3.14159
“THOU WHO SWALLOWETH UNLEAVENED BREAD SHALL WALLOW IN THE FIELDS WITH SWINE”
okay that sucked…but it was the first bible verse I have written in years
“BEHOLD, HE SAID UNTO THE LORD! AMEN MY CREATURES. THE HOLY SPIRIT SHALL FOLLOW YOU IN YOUR JOURNEYS AGAINST THE HEATHENS OF THE SCRIPTURE! GOD IS OUR SAVIOUR”
“THIS ONE TIME, UNTO BAND CAMP, THE LORD SAW FIT TO WAVE HIS HAND AND TURN COUNSELORS AS EVILDOERS”
January 4th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
If Larry’s posts do appear to be more open minded (which I don’t know because I’ve quit reading them), I suspect it is largely due to the editing by our esteemed administrator. He edits now for length and value, and leaving out the majority of preaching and nonsensical rhetoric.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Scholar’s frustration with the circularity with which some people treat court decisions echoes my own. Time and again we hear right-wingers complaining about so-called “activist” judges, yet they only seem to apply that label to judges whose decisions they dislike. If a judge follows the law (the way the judge is supposed to), but rules against the right-wing agenda (the Terri Schiavo case comes to mind), then the right-wingers rant and rave, and brand the judge an “activist;” yet when a judge violates the law by displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, they don’t consider that judge to be an activist at all. The radical Christian right uses the label as nothing more than a pejorative term applied to judges who rule against their beliefs; the actual meaning of the term simply doesn’t matter to them.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Per Larry, “it is apparently a requirement to think in lock-step with everyone else.” Yes, Larry. Here’s the “lock step” to which you are referring: we tend to be evidence-based writers, none of whom take the Bible to be self-proving any more than any other holy book.
Beyond this aspect of being “lock-step,” you’re off-base. Most of the authors and commenters at this site have never met each other. This site is not a close-knit conspiracy. We are always correcting each others’ thoughts. I’ll admit, though, that none of us quote passages from any holy book to critique each other.
I do consider you to be in a Petri dish. You’ve put yourself there. No one has referred to you as a “maggot.” It’s never occurred to me to do so. For me, you represent more than just “Larry.” You represent a challenge I commonly face: How to get intelligent yet devout people to use something other than their well-worn holy books as the starting points to serious discussions.
As far as fairness. Please, Larry. Refer me to ANY other social commentary site on the Internet that gives you even 10% of the leash I’ve given you in your comments. Please show me any site where you strut your stuff (where you’ve taken the superior path, as you assert) where readers keep asking you for more of the same.
May 10th, 2007 at 7:45 am
I’m partial to Ezekiel 23:20.
May 10th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Link to Icelander’s quote: http://bible.cc/ezekiel/23-20.htm
September 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
the page is full of quotes, of course all taken out of context. Liberals are the best at taking everything out of context and trying to distort it for their own perverted ways. If each of these quotes is taken with the entire context they true meaning will be seen. For example Genesis 19: 31 Then the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. 32 “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father.”
This is Lot and his two daughters after they have fled Sodom and Gomorrah. While living in Sodom Lot and his girls were constantly bombarded with immorality of all kinds, especially homosexuality, so they (the girls) turned to immoral behavior. Please do not try to blame God for the immorality of people. When immorality is promoted then all people suffer.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Eric: Truly, you’ve lost me. When you tell me that to read and believe the Bible because the Bible is true and it proves itself, that has a strong stench of circularity. Insert Koran instead of Bible, and you’ll agree with me 100%.
You say that Reading the Bible closer makes it a more impressive book. I have tried that many times, and I find that the self-contradictions and ambiguities come to the forefront when one reads the Bible closely.
I don’t have all the answers. I don’t have a clue about many important things. Nor do the smartest scientists. But based on hundreds of contradictions and ambiguities, nor is the Bible a credible source of answers for most of the serious problems facing humans today.
I didn’t start out my life disliking the Bible. I developed my opinions about the Bible by taking the time to read it closely.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
You wrote “You say that Reading the Bible closer makes it a more impressive book. I have tried that many times,”
Thank you for this point. I understand you. I was you at one time. None of it made sense. I was taught how to study it using basic literary study tools and everything changed. Also I put all of my preconceived ideas (all of us have them) aside and allowed the Scripture to speak for itself. Until you do that you will never be able to understand it. Be open-minded as the liberals say. You talk about all of these contradictions but yet never bring any of them in context with the original intent of the author. I can talk about how bad Shakespeare is all day long and use quotes that I do not understand to try and prove my point. When I study Shakespeare in its context trying to understand the authors intent then my idea about his works change dramatically, I know because I have experienced that too.
You wrote “I don’t have all the answers. I don’t have a clue about many important things. Nor do the smartest scientists. But based on hundreds of contradictions and ambiguities, nor is the Bible a credible source of answers for most of the serious problems facing humans today.”
Point in case, we are killing ourselves left and right with STD’s in this country, self-inflicted problems. If we follow God’s plan virginity until marriage and fidelity in marriage then STD’s would be wiped out. The problem is condoms are promoted which do not protect 100% (not even close) against STD’s. If we follow God’s plan we will solve the problem. If we use our wisdom and continue promoting immorality then we will have to bear the consequences. It is a shame that my daughter will have to grow up in a world where 8,000 new teens are infected every day by an STD.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Erik: “Just Say No” is a pretend theory based on no evidence at all. It leads to huge numbers of unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence-only education is a joke. I’m not knocking the importance of abstinence. I am arguing that it isn’t an entire program. It must also be accompanied by responsible methods of birth control.
Perhaps you don’t agree, and that’s your right, for YOU. In my opinion this is a personal decision where people should be allowed to make their own decisions, hopefully guided by accurate information. The abstinence-only program is a fraud. It has been proven to not work over and over. See the comments here. http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/09/02/does-sarah-palin-still-support-abstinence-only-sex-education/
September 16th, 2008 at 11:49 am
With the abstinence is a joke comment you further prove my point. “Sex-ed” glorifies promiscuity and puts abstinence down (something old fashioned, or impossible). Abstinence has lead to a drop (it always will) in unwanted teen pregnancies over the last 20 years. The “condom/birth control” method started in the 70’s and teen pregnancies rose significantly. In the 90’s abstinence programs were introduced and amazingly teen pregnancies dropped. You are just giving me your opinion. Opinions and elbows are similar, everybody has them. The facts speak for themselves but the liberals fight tooth and nail to suppress the facts and make up their own. If you cannot convince people to follow a broken system then just deceive them (liberal motto).
It is not an issue of right for me, right for you. The facts are the facts and the truth is the truth whether you “agree” with it or not. This whole idea of relativism (liberal lie) was forced upon me in school as well. I see through the “garbage” not that I know the Truth (it is interesting that the Bible says that we cannot discern good from bad so God has to tell us which is which, the liberals insist that we make up our own right and wrong, again a ridiculous argument). I may not agree that it is freezing in Siberia in the winter time but that does not change the facts.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Erik: The claim that relativism is the liberal lie is the conservative distortion. The philosophy of liberals is deeply grounded in ideas of caring for one another, seeking equitable distribution of resources and avoiding actions that are harmful to others.
If you go read the New Testament carefully, you’ll find these ideas repeatedly expressed.
I’ll let other readers consider for themselves whether I’ve been fighting your “facts” with mere “opinions.”
September 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
You wrote “seeking equitable distribution of resources and avoiding actions that are harmful to others”
I have a few comments on this. First of all I lived in the former Soviet Union for a while and my wife was raised under the USSR so I understand what the equitable distribution of resources means. Take from all, make all poor, while a very select few live off the backs of the masses, in other words communism. My friend you do not want that because it forces people to cheat and steal, it destroys society, morals, etc. Is that what you want? If that is the case then you are not “avoiding actions that are harmful to others”.
In the New Testament the people were not forced to give up their possession to give to others. They did it willfully. Liberals want to redistribute wealth (by force, laws, taxes), they want people to live in a Biblical manner without God. That is impossible. Man’s heart must be first changed (you read the NT more carefully) then he will have compassion on his neighbor.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I like the way that you pick and choose what to argue against (cherry picking) yet do not respond to the comments/questions that I pose. You guys are all the same (no offense intended) I have gone done this path many times with so called “free thinkers” yet I find such a uniformity in your thought pattern. Interesting to note, right? Maybe it is because you have all been taught (brainwashed) with the same doctrine. I know because I was you at one time!!!
September 16th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Teen pregnancy rates didn’t particularly rise in the 60’s and 70’s. What rose was the incidence of it being reported. There was a parallel decline in the rate of mothers of teenagers having late babies just after their daughter was out of circulation for several months with some ailment. An occurrence about as prevalent as the 8 lb 5 month preemie first-borns of earlier eras. Every large town once had an orphanage, a storage house for abandoned babies. Try to find one, now.
A similar statistical disconnect is often hyped about the abortion rate. That the rate suddenly increased when it was made legal. Nope. The rate of it being reported increased. The illegal, dangerous and unreported practice died out as safer, accountable, legal channels became available.
But these opinions are only statistics that take a small amount of work to confirm. I generally consider them facts, truths.
As for the decline in teen pregnancies in the 90’s, they were across the board. Not even significantly in the areas when abstinence only programs were imposed. The pregnancy decrease was roughly proportional to the increase in girls deciding to go to college. I’d bet that most of those were from schools with full sex ed programs.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Erik:
Where are you getting these stats on teen pregnancy? According to a very thorough study of teenage sexuality, teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. have declined from a high in the 1950’s. Teen abortion rates have declined from a high in the 1970’s. Researchers attribute the decline both to teens delaying sex, and increased contraceptive use. Births to out of wedlock teens have grown, however.
Also, countries like Sweden and the Netherlands which have less conflicted attitudes about teen sexuality and sex education have much lower rates of teen pregnancy and STD’s than the U.S. Researchers found that parental attitudes in these countries were effective in communicating to teens that childbearing belongs to the adult years, and that sex should take place within the context of committed, monogamous relationships.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html
Can you point to even one study that show that “abstinence plus” sex education, which gives kids tools for resisting pressure to become sexually active, but also provides detailed information about contraception and protection against STD’s, is less effective than abstinence-only sex ed?
September 16th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Erik: In response to your comment (4 comments above) you write that people in the New Testament weren’t “forced” to give to the poor, apparently to contrast that with what you believe is the case now, where Americans are “forced” to give to the poor.
This comment interests me because it assumes that the government is not the will of the people. You are thus not a believer in the proper operation of the United States government. If you took steps to fix this disconnect (and thereby made the government responsive to the will of the people), THEN the government’s rules compelling you to give to the poor would be your the will of the people.
I know this doesn’t really address the massive disconnect you and I have regarding many other issues, but it is a point I found interesting.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Vicki Baker
I research the subject of teen pregnancy extensively as well as abortions. I can refer you to a couple of articles in the Detroit Free Press and NY Times. Those are not the only sources but they are a few. I am glad that someone started actually paying attention to the argument instead of just writing “well what I think is . . .”. Do you know how many babies have legally been murdered in the USA since Roe v Wade? I know your argument about botched abortions and the dangers. What I do not understand is the fact that we would legalize murder (put the majority in danger) in order to protect a few who are ashamed of their actions and secretly try to get an abortion. Would it make since to legalize murder since it is already taking place anyway? Not a very strong argument.
Have you studied the suicide rates among teens and homosexuals in Sweden and the Netherlands, trying to make immorality a social norm does not take away the pain and guilt. You can try but it will never work. God will always judge sin (sexual sin) no matter how hard you try to keep it from happening. There is an African proverb, “you should not tear down a wall until you first know why it was erected”. We tried to tear down the wall of morality in the sexual revolution of the 60’s and now our kids and grandkids are suffering the consequences. Instead of admitting the mistakes and trying to change we are making it worse by promoting more immorality. The baby boomers who were hell bent on bringing revolution are the most unhappy people in America today. Statistically proven of course. Why? When you turn your back on God there are consequences. You choose the actions but He gives the results/consequences. Again, I am not against teach age appropriate teens about sexuality but it must be done correctly, in a way that does not glorify immorality (but makes it shameful as it is) and degrade abstinence/virginity. Most sex ed classes glorify immorality as something normal and worth trying and make virginity out to be old fashioned or impossible. Sex is a wonderful gift from God given to a husband and wife within the confines of marriage. Anything outside of that is a shameful act.
Erich Vieth
How can you implement the redistribution of wealth without forcing some to give to others? Have you ever talked to anyone from the former USSR who was stripped of all that he had and deported to Siberia along with some of his family so that wealth could be redistributed? I have and it was not a pleasant conversation. Socialism will take us down that path again. If you do not learn from history then you are bound to repeat it.
Giving to the poor is a command that Christians must fulfill, because it opens the door to share the Gospel and bring the real help that they need. Throwing money at people and not addressing the root of the problem never helps. When the burden is taken from the Church and placed on the government you get the social mess that you have today. When none have responsibility then nothing gets done.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I notice there are no links in Erik’s reply. I’m not surprised.
When none have the responsibility, then nothing gets done. I have two words for you: “social security.” Or how about this: mosquito netting for those at risk for malaria. Did you know that our government spends some money for such netting. It’s a very simple formula. Some tax money is taken from each of us, and it saves lives. But I suppose that’s a bad thing for you because you didn’t personally CHOOSE to do it yourself. I obviously disagree.
Are there bad government programs? You bet! How about most of what’s going on in Iraq. You didn’t choose to do that either, but I’d bet you love it.
September 16th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
What would you like links to? I have everything documented. I do not like war but I am glad of the fact that a dictator who murdered millions was stopped before he could do more.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Erik: Any time you cite "a study" or “a book”, please include a link to that study, or to a direct source of that book (like Amazon). Most published research is available online. When you quote your Bible, include a link to the passage (for example at bible.cc) so that we can read it in context.
For example, on the law Moses brought down from the mountain apparently endorsing polygamy: Ex21:10, “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marital rights.”
In context, it is clearly about how a daughter that a good father sells as a subsequent wife to another shall be treated by the purchaser.