Posted on 04/13/2005 6:20:23 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I do it because I learn so much doing it. I'm not an expert on any of this stuff, just someone with an engineering college education. Learning things is fun and my biggest reason for participating here in the crevo debates.
Once in a while someone acknowledges in public that they learnt something from me and that they're going to adjust their views a little. That gives a real buzz.
I get private mail from lurkers about once a month telling me to keep up the good work. That also gives a real buzz.
In that particular example (that you originally replied to) I think the OP did learn something that he didn't expect. A seed has been planted that may or may not grow.
Interpretation.... that's the clue that you are building a strawman. Now, go pound
And, I did not butt into your discussion. You ended it remember. I have demonstrated your disingenuous "discussion" of the Bible. And the discussion proceeded on, because you chose to keep asking questions that I answered not to your liking. I told you when you responded where to go if you sincerely wanted answers. You don't. So I also think you are hilarious.
Doubtless that Delphic utterance meant something to you.
The problem isn't that you answer questions "not to my liking". It is that your answers are evasions and irrelevancies and non-answers. I am no closer to understanding how you interpret those verses than I was when we began, because you keep dragging in stuff like McVeigh (definitely irrelevant) and "sons" vs "children" (relevance not demonstrated or explained) rather than what how you think Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God should obey those verses.
No is evasive? You are delusional. And you don't understand English. Go pound sand.
"No" was your answer to what you characterised as my strawman interpretation of those verses. What you have been evasive about is how YOU interpret those verses.
That is due to the fact I told you I don't answer your strawmen and the fact that continually I have told you to ask your question on the religion forum. I told you I will not participate in your fishing expedition for something that you can "chew" on. If you sincerely sought an answer you would go the the religion forum. Instead you prove your inane and disingenuous proclivity to misunderstand plain English. Go pound sand.
I give in. I can see that you are never going to tell me how you interpret those verses.
You finally got a clue. But you never asked the question in that form, instead you loaded the question and continually twisted the words. I saw your tendency from the beginning and that is the reason I answered that way. So go ask the unloaded question on the religion forum. I'm sure you'll get an answer, but at this point not from me due to your proclivities.
False witness. Read #365 again. I asked you right away to explain your position.
I have a simple interpretation of difficult Bible verses. I think people at any given time do their best to understand existence and understand God. the understanding changes with time because cultures evolve, and people are able to see things were formerly hidden to them. This does not imply that our current understanding is perfect.
I think it requires an enormous ability to compartmentalize to think that the words of the Old testament represent the absolute and unchanging word of God. We can see the worldview of the Old Testament patriarchs alive and flourishing in the Middle East today.
Go pound sand.
Now there is a view I can understand and identify with. I can understand a religion whose followers feel that way. I think from his answers that Ahban doesn't agree with js1138 and takes a much sterner literal view, at least in theory though he seemed hazy on how it would work in practice. AndrewC didn't give an answer, so I have no idea if that is how he feels or not. For all I know he agrees with js1138, in which case I would have little argument with him (on this issue at least ;) ). One problem with asking the question in the religion forum is that I'm pretty that from 10 different Christians I'll get 10 different answers. That has been my experience when I've got into debates about Christianity and morality on the crevo threads.
Go pound sand.
It is interesting that asking hard questions about gets a hostile response. No soft answers turning away wrath here.
Interestingly, I was asked by AC to describe my religious beliefs on this forum, and I did, even though it makes me uncomfortable. I'm obviously not a fundamentalist, and I have no preconceptions whatever about an afterlife. I'm not clever enough to understand the mind of God.
I just do my best to get through life. I was taught as a Boy Scout that you should leave your campsite cleaner than you found it. That's my understanding of morality.
I believe in the "How would the world be if everyone behaved the way I do?" principal.
Of course I don't always live up to it. Starting the conversation with AC with a (slightly) loaded version of my understanding of those Leviticus verses wasn't helpful to debate. But I tried hard thereafter. Didn't get me anywhere though :(
The way I see it those verses are talking about teenagers who have gone off the rails. It specifies the parents as those who request the stoning, so the implication is that of children who have not reached their majority. People lived shorter and married earlier in those days so I guess we are talking about 12-14 year-olds. From my understanding of ancient mores it is reasonable to imagine early teens getting drunk.
Interesting that it uses the word "sons" rather than children, the implication of which I missed initially. Two possibilities spring to mind:
a. It is inconceivable in that society that daughters could misbehave in such a way.
b. Girls were property rather than citizens upon whom any punishment could be visited at the whim of their parents, whereas boys had rights of judgement from the town elders.
Both of those things are factors. One way of seeing that law is that it probably codified that the parents had to get permission from the town elders. They couldn't just execute their son on a whim. So that way it could be seen as protection for rebellious youth that hadn't existed previously even though now we would see it as impossibly draconian.
You are talking about a culture derived from nomads who gradually settled into cities, or conqured them. Life is pretty harsh, and you kill anyone who threatens the survival of the tribe.
My problem is that the bible is a history of moral relativism and cultural evolution, but is cited as if it presented a seamless morality.
As I said, that requires some hi test compartmentalization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.