Dawkins Demolished

[jean]

One minute you accuse Christians of not taking the Bible literally and then in the next breath you describe those who do as 'nutcase literalists'.

Quite.

It doesn't take a very close reading of Scripture to find the bits that are inconsistent with other bits.

[Serial_Apologist]

Quite.

It doesn't take a very close reading of Scripture to find the bits that are inconsistent with other bits.

Quite...

[amateur51]

Quite...

Bit like those instruction manuals from IKEA, I'd say

[MrGongGong]

As Ned Flanders says ..........

"I’ve done everything the Bible says — even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!"

[John Skelton]

indeed

as it all seems to be "open to interpretation" ..............

That's nothing new. Why it indicates "hypocrisy" I don't know. Even when the Bible was widely accepted by (medieval) theologians as the unmediated Word of God there were levels of interpretation, exegetical techniques, that were applied (more subtle and beautiful actually than applied) to interpret Biblical texts. That's because the texts are complicated, unclear, ambiguous and not an instruction manual. It would be a very determinist notion of God, with little room for free will or free human agency, who was seen as providing an instruction manual. With the Enlightenment and then C19 hermeneutic approaches (the Higher Biblical Criticism) there came a widely accepted scholarly understanding that the texts were indeed mediated, were assemblages, were human texts (with a divine basis for those who continued to believe).

I'm not a Christian, but I think scottycelt makes the point very clearly: you complain that Christians who don't take what you think are elements of the Bible which you think are essential to Christianity literally (the elements you approve of) are hypocritical and relativists, and you call people who do - those who cite OT texts on homosexuality, say - religious fanatics.

I doubt you'd take kindly to people discussing the things that matter to you with such flip and blithe ignorance.

[scottycelt]

As Ned Flanders says ..........

"I’ve done everything the Bible says — even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!"

Ah, the gentleman from The Simpsons ... fine upstanding chap indeed!

[vinteuil]

indeed

as it all seems to be "open to interpretation" ..............

... and that is why you have a Church, under the direction of the Third Person of the Trinity, to mediate the continuing revelation and to interpret the earlier Scriptures and the later Traditions...

Simples!

[MrGongGong]

So is ANY of it essential to Christianity ???

I guess not then ?

[MrGongGong]

... and that is why you have a Church, under the direction of the Third Person of the Trinity, to mediate the continuing revelation and to interpret the earlier Scriptures and the later Traditions...

Simples!

Of course, silly me, so when the Pope absolved the knights of their sins in advance before they went to wipe out the Cathars he was simply "mediating the continuing revelation".........

[amateur51]

That's nothing new. Why it indicates "hypocrisy" I don't know. Even when the Bible was widely accepted by (medieval) theologians as the unmediated Word of God there were levels of interpretation, exegetical techniques, that were applied (more subtle and beautiful actually than applied) to interpret Biblical texts. That's because the texts are complicated, unclear, ambiguous and not an instruction manual. It would be a very determinist notion of God, with little room for free will or free human agency, who was seen as providing an instruction manual. With the Enlightenment and then C19 hermeneutic approaches (the Higher Biblical Criticism) there came a widely accepted scholarly understanding that the texts were indeed mediated, were assemblages, were human texts (with a divine basis for those who continued to believe).

I'm not a Christian, but I think scottycelt makes the point very clearly: you complain that Christians who don't take what you think are elements of the Bible which you think are essential to Christianity literally (the elements you approve of) are hypocritical and relativists, and you call people who do - those who cite OT texts on homosexuality, say - religious fanatics.

I doubt you'd take kindly to people discussing the things that matter to you with such flip and blithe ignorance.

I doubt that there are any references to homosexuality in the Bible as it is largely a Victorian concept.

[John Skelton]

Of course, silly me, so when the Pope absolved the knights of their sins in advance before they went to wipe out the Cathars he was simply "mediating the continuing revelation".........

And when Robert Oppenheimer oversaw the Manhattan Project he was simply playing his part in the inexorable enlightening progress of science and reason.

[John Skelton]

I doubt that there are any references to homosexuality in the Bible as it is largely a Victorian concept.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22.

[amateur51]

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22.

I was taking your comment literally, John Skelton as I hope that you well know

[scottycelt]

I doubt that there are any references to homosexuality in the Bible as it is largely a Victorian concept.

Do you mean homosexuality or the Bible is a largely Victorian concept, Ams .... or maybe even both?

[amateur51]

Do you mean homosexuality or the Bible are largely Victorian concepts, Ams .... or maybe even both?

What do you think, scotty?