Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Rugged Crosser
It should be comforting and reassuring that there is a plan that lays out all the pitfalls before hand as does the Bible.
|
It should be comforting and reassuring to assume that humanity is damned from the start?
Quote:
|
Only the enemy of your soul would have you see them as terrorist threats instead of warnings of the evil lurking ahead.
|
You're still starting with the assumption that humanity is evil; that earth is some sort of waiting room for hell. You have to, of course - your entire belief system rests on this idea. For the same reason that far too many people refuse to press charges against abusive spouses who hurt them and hurt their children, you won't just get up and walk away from your beliefs.
I've got a real problem with perpetuating the pessimistic and abusive idea that god created humanity as contemptible, evil, and inherently deserving of punishment.
Quote:
These "factual errors" you state, have you ever bothered to really inspect the circumstances concerning them? They are not errors of message they are of the variety of those that would be in any book that has survived cultural issues over 2000 years. As I stated there are no concepts of message that are in conflict with each other.
|
To paraphrase what you said: "The bible isn't absolute literal truth, but is intended to convey a message." That's the best argument I've heard lately. Factual errors, such as mistaking the sky for water, or that the earth is a flat plate supported on pillars are perfectly understandable in 2000-year-old document. The usual argument I get is that the document is right, I'm misreading those and similar passages. Yours is much more palatable. You suggest that observations of the past and a message to the future were incorporated into the bible. The observations, of course, can be false, in light of present understanding. The earth seemed to be flat; the sky is blue like the water; water occasionally falls from the sky to the earth. These are perfectly rational thoughts given the limited understanding of the subject matter.
It raises questions, though: Where is the line between the two? Who decides it? Does it move? Why?
The message I got from the bible is that just as kids outgrow the need for talking foxes to teach them life lessons (e.g. "Sour Grapes" and other Aesop's Fables), humanity is outgrowing its need for ancient superstition. Is that the message you gleaned from it?
Quote:
As for evil messages of moral shortcomings you will not find the writers of the Bible exposing them. They all be it few are only mentioned as historical fact not presented as doctrine.
|
There are plenty of morally questionable directives in the New Testament. The old is barely more than a list of morally questionable shortcomings.
Quote:
I would not call the message of salvation a evil moral concept.
|
Nor I. What I call an evil moral concept is the NEED for salvation. The idea that mankind is fundamentally damned, necessitating salvation to right it.
Salvation is great concept. Rescuing people who find themselves in trouble, helping them solve their problems and get back on track, is nearly universally considered a positive attribute.
Arbitrarily stating that all of humanity is somehow broken or evil and deserving of damnation is the exact opposite of that. Picking someone up when they fall is the proper thing to do, but you can hardly call your actions "good" when you're the one who threw them on the ground in the first place.
Quote:
When a loving God went to the lengths that He has...
<snip>
|
He's supposedly omnipotent.
When a baby or an amputee takes his first steps, it's impressive. When an olympic-class marathoner climbs out of bed in the morning, nobody cares.
Nothing attributed to him can be impressive when compared to his alleged capabilities.
Linear Mode
