got tonkaed wrote:lol i do believe in beer and this analogy is probably better than your last effort imo.
Mmm beer.
got tonkaed wrote:I suppose since i dont know much of your backstory, do you view the bible as divine without error...if you do then there are still flaws with your analogy.
I think to view it like that is going a bit far and not rational.
got tonkaed wrote: If you view it as a divinely inspired work which was written by a falliable man, then i wouldnt think there is much of an argument still, assuming we both believe that as a moral precept exacting revenge is a worse way to live than offering the other cheek (which certainly some will disagree just because people find ways to disagree in threads like this)
I can accept this one maybe.
Yes I think pasifism has irrational power. Ghandi is a good example.
Yet I'm sucked into the idea that the allies did most of us on this forum a great service by going to fight and possibly kill people in world war II.
One of the big things I see going on all the time, is people claiming the bible is infallable because in their perspective it is. But often they're unable to explain what that means, while also having a lack of farmiliarity with it.
Or worse they come to my house, have a good farmiliarity of where to find things in the bible but only an understanding of what some cult told them things mean.
got tonkaed wrote:If you believe the work is from the divine as without error than the concept of change overtime is problematic as you imply in your second analogy. Since most of us (even me) dont think that we are infalliable we are certainly capable of changing our ideas over time, especially in a simple example like ettiqute during wartime verses ettiqute during peace time. However if you assume the bible is inerrant than this is problematic, as if it was written by an omniscient omnipresent deity, then there is a problem when there is a moral precept that expects the exact opposite of a previously established precept from the same God.
Here you seem to be doing the common thing people on both sides of debate seem to want to do with the bible. Pretend it's one long book with the concept of God or some brilliant catholic monk being the single author.
Sorry but that's kind of silly to me.
First problem with that is the fact that it's a collection of writtings from several authors. More like an encyclopedia than a regular book. I also see they are different people writing some things in their own perspective that must be considered in the context of their time.
Second to me if God wrote it he'd give everyone a copy and it would not be on paper, it would be something that you could have one copy of per person and it wouldn't get damaged. I doubt it would need to be translated I think he'd put it in a language that would be understood by everyone and spoken by no one.
got tonkaed wrote: Now im not going to claim there arent credible arguments as to why the policy couldnt change, though seemingly any kind of social context for the Jewish people vs the greater Christian ministry is still somewhat debateable when dealing with teh same God. Since the divine authority is not supposed to change in the case of judeo-christianity, the precept should be seen as problematic and as evidence that the bible in its current form does contain errors.
I have no problem with God being the same all ways. But I'm not and niether are the people that wrote their parts of the bible.
It appears to be just the opposite to me, several of the people in it are making bizzare mistakes in life that regular people make. The king David noted for his being a devoted follower of God that chooses to do the right thing all the time, ends up making mistakes for a woman. (Not hard to see that happening, sex is a powerfull thing.)
Moses complains about his speach impediment and suggests his brother talk to Pharoh instead of him. Paul discuses in his letter how everyone makes fun of how he talks in person, behind his back. Most of the bible is made up of the writings of those two, that's one of the things that makes the bible so interesting to me.
The same things that make it interesting make it nearly impposible to read through. I know very few people that have been able to do it. There's plent of the old testament I have not been able to get through yet.
got tonkaed wrote:
Enjoy your beer.
I wish I had some, I'm all out.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
