Bible talk

[Valka D'Ur]

Not at all, really. Maybe individual episodes.

When I was in Ithaca, NY, I saw the house he lived in when he was a Cornell professor.

Throughout his career both pre- and post-Cosmos, one of his profoundly-held concerns was about nuclear war, extinction, climate change, (see anything in common?) and trying to communicate to politicians and the public at large the immensity of the universe and that every bit of life we know of is only on this one planet.

It's easy to say "All _____ should be killed" and it's usually for ideological reasons or revenge reasons that people say this.

I'd recommend a watch of "Encyclopaedia Galactica" and "Who Speaks for Earth?" (two episodes in the original Cosmos series). Sagan was very concerned about humans' ability to make whole species extinct and that we've done exactly that - and the politicians and trophy hunters and whoever else just didn't care that in all the universe there will never be any more of those species.

And if humans kill each other off, there won't be any more of us, either. Not that I think we're going to be around for a particularly long time anyway, since we're just so efficient at destruction of our environments and mass murder, and even if we do overcome that, evolution isn't finished. We might dominate now, but later? That's why I get so frustrated with people who sneer at the space program and the search for other Earthlike planets. Where do they think we're going to go once this planet is done for (environmentally)? Or even if it's not our fault and the Sun experiences a massive incident beyond our control?

Sagan just wanted humanity to stop killing each other and the rest of life on Earth. He wasn't saying that every little disagreement means one person is going to shoot the other.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ah yes, the sacredness of life.

It's a good thought.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Sagan just wanted humanity to stop killing each other and the rest of life on Earth. He wasn't saying that every little disagreement means one person is going to shoot the other.

Got it. Yes. Even though I didn't watch the show, I associate it with the time period when it aired with the overall Zeitgeist and that was heavily dominated by the idea that we were going to kill all of humanity as a result of one disagreement that got out of hand.

The Biblical lifespan is 70 years, and Dante sets the Divine Comedy "midway on our journey." Born in 1965, I calculated "midway on my journey" as 2000, and through the entirety of my youth and young adulthood, I did not think humanity itself was going to make it to my 35th birthday.

So I understand the quote better now.

Yeah, let's not blow ourselves up, hey.

Or burn up the planet (as we moved onto pretty immediately after tensions regarding the first eased).

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Got it. Yes. Even though I didn't watch the show, I associate it with the time period when it aired with the overall Zeitgeist and that was heavily dominated by the idea that we were going to kill all of humanity as a result of one disagreement that got out of hand.

The Biblical lifespan is 70 years, and Dante sets the Divine Comedy "midway on our journey." Born in 1965, I calculated "midway on my journey" as 2000, and through the entirety of my youth and young adulthood, I did not think humanity itself was going to make it to my 35th birthday.

So I understand the quote better now.

Yeah, let's not blow ourselves up, hey.

Or burn up the planet (as we moved onto pretty immediately after tensions regarding the first eased).

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive.

Okay, so you do know where I'm coming from, with the Cold War/"WWIII is right around the corner, it's not a question of 'if' but a question of 'when'" mentality that kids were taught back then. Duck and cover drills in school, sirens - it's been decades since I last heard one, but it's not something you forget. My Grade 12 year (1979-80) had a lot of dystopia/WWIII/Middle East/war in the curriculum, both in English and Social Studies. It literally gave me a nightmare I've never forgotten.

This had an influence on why I'm atheist, btw. I already was then, but was getting sidetracked with nonsense like astrology and von Daniken space aliens.

People still get sidetracked. There's a guy in an atheist group on FB (yeah, I joined a couple after a particularly tense goaround with someone on the forum here) who informed me this morning that Stonehenge has nothing to do with astronomy because the Sun is apparently not an astronomical body. I'm not sure what he thinks it is, but there are still an awful lot of people who think the universe is "out there" instead of us being a part of it right here.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: We don't need Trump here or even Carl Sagan. This Bible talk. Back to that please.

 

[Samson]

@Samson has two more questions to answer, and then another two after that.

Questions you are yet to ask?

 

[Gori the Grey]

You and I left off here:

The question is whether they [the priest and Levite] excluded the injured man from the group for whom they are obliged to care.

They pretty obviously did that, right?

They excluded him from the group they thought they are obliged to care for.

And the Samaritan didn't. And his not doing so involves, as the first order of business, walking up to the injured man instead of away from him, yes?

 

[Samson]

You and I left off here:

And the Samaritan didn't. And his not doing so involves, as the first order of business, walking up to the injured man instead of away from him, yes?

Yes. Sorry again.

 

[Gori the Grey]

So we could say that he didn't wait to see if the man WAS his neighbor, he actively MADE him his neighbor, in part BY walking up to him (nearing him). Are you comfortable with that formulation?

 

[Birdjaguar]

This pdf is of a book review about a book on who wrote the gospels.

The Gospel’s Invisible Ink

Overlooked, exploited, reviled—slaves were central to the early Christian movement and may have played an integral role in the formation of the New Testament

 

[Gori the Grey]

The central role, if you consider that Christ made himself a slave: Philippians 2:7

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

We are all slaves to sin, but Lord Jesus triumphed over sin and death. Whosoever believes in Him shall be saved. Happy resurrection day!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Christians love to quote scripture and often it is out of context to imply that the quoted verse(s) is sufficient to have universal meaning.

Galatians 3: 28, 29: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”. If this is true, then there should be no controversy over gender issues and slavery is not an issue either.

Revelation1:14-15
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Did Jesus have an afro and was he very not white?

1 Cor: "...so that God may be all in all."

Who gets to be the interpreter of Bible verses and what they mean? Quoting isolated words from an "inerrant" text is convenient but does it actually reflect truth?

 

[Samson]

So we could say that he didn't wait to see if the man WAS his neighbor, he actively MADE him his neighbor, in part BY walking up to him (nearing him). Are you comfortable with that formulation?

I am.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Christians love to quote scripture and often it is out of context to imply that the quoted verse(s) is sufficient to have universal meaning.

Galatians 3: 28, 29: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”. If this is true, then there should be no controversy over gender issues and slavery is not an issue either.

Revelation1:14-15
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Did Jesus have an afro and was he very not white?

1 Cor: "...so that God may be all in all."

Who gets to be the interpreter of Bible verses and what they mean? Quoting isolated words from an "inerrant" text is convenient but does it actually reflect truth?

Okay, just an observation, but not all sheep are white. Do black sheep produce white wool? Serious question, since I've never been near any sheep in RL. I also don't wear wool anymore since I'm allergic to it, but I know it can be dyed in an amazing assortment of colors.

 

[Samson]

Do black sheep produce white wool?

No, and you can get speciality wool from different breeds of sheep that is different colours.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Christians love to quote scripture and often it is out of context to imply that the quoted verse(s) is sufficient to have universal meaning.

Galatians 3: 28, 29: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”. If this is true, then there should be no controversy over gender issues and slavery is not an issue either.

Revelation1:14-15
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Did Jesus have an afro and was he very not white?

1 Cor: "...so that God may be all in all."

Who gets to be the interpreter of Bible verses and what they mean? Quoting isolated words from an "inerrant" text is convenient but does it actually reflect truth?

I'll take a stab at a response.

1. What do you mean by quoting scripture out of context?

2. There should be no controversy over gender issues or slavery. Remember @Gori the Grey worked hard to edify us on the "who is your neighbor"? We must love our neighbors and not judge them.

3. I don't think Jesus had an afro. Verse 14 of Rev. 1 says his hair color was white as wool. As for Jesus being very not white I disagree. Jesus is all the colors simultaneously. From Him all the colors of the human race are derived.

4. As for who gets to be the interpreter of the Bible I always say don't trust what others tell you. Seek the answers you want from God Himself. He will show you if you let Him and believe.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

3. I don't think Jesus had an afro. Verse 14 of Rev. 1 says his hair color was white as wool. As for Jesus being very not white I disagree. Jesus is all the colors simultaneously. From Him all the colors of the human race are derived.

Wat.

Since humans - our current h.s.s. - evolved many, many millennia before this, this makes no sense.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Wat.

Since humans - our current h.s.s. - evolved many, many millennia before this, this makes no sense.

Well I'm taking the "let us make him in our image" to mean all races and colors come from God.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I am.

So there you have it. That's my reading of the little episode.

The rhetorical "trick" that Jesus pulls is to replace a static understanding of "neighbor" (people who happen to be around where I am) with a dynamic one--since of course we can make anyone our near-one by the simple process of moving closer to them.

The rhetorical trick isn't independent from the core message of the story: help people who need help. But it supports that message. And Jesus puts the lawyer in the position where he has to agree with it, because that understanding of "neighbor" is essentially a no-brainer.

I noticed what I thought Jesus accomplished. I thought it was pretty cool. And I thought I could get the same notion to click in someone else's mind my asking a set of leading questions. Thank you for playing along. I think you got more than you initially bargained for.

Since it came out piecemeal, here's the whole reading, if you or anyone wants it.

Spoiler :

An expert in Jewish law asks Jesus “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus puts the question back to him. He answers by referencing two commandments: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus says he’s given a good answer (and we have other reasons for knowing it’s Jesus-approved because in the other gospels it’s actually Jesus himself who references these two commands as the encapsulation of the Jewish law). The lawyer then asks, either to test Jesus or because he really wants to know, “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus sizes up that he’s trying to get a narrow definition of “neighbor,” (and maybe sizes up specifically that he wants “neighbor” to be limited to “my fellow Jews”). Jesus wants to get him instead to an expansive view of our moral obligation to our fellow human beings, so he tells a story. The shape the story takes is driven in part by the matter that the lawyer had made an issue--who counts as my near-one?—because in it, two characters walk away from a man in need of their care and one character walks near to that person. By structuring the story in this way, Jesus redefines “be a near-one” as something you can deliberately choose to do, not just a matter of your starting location. But that’s in part because that does just happen to be true of near-ness: you can come to be near someone by moving near to that person. Duh. This definition of “neighbor” is not only defensible, it’s unassailable, and, in its own way, obvious as can possibly be (though, again, for some reason neither we nor the lawyer started with it). So the lawyer has no choice but to accede to it. Nor do any who are listening along. Jesus in effect redefines “neighbor” as the one thing that word wouldn’t have seemed like it could possibly mean (anybody in the world), and in fact makes that the only possible meaning of the word. And so this little story—not just the parable itself, but the story of how that parable effects a change in the lawyer’s thinking—has deservedly become famous over the centuries as a way of articulating a moral ideal we should all strive for.

Now on to your question. But I'm going to answer it by asking you more questions (just two more, I think).

Would you agree with the proposition that genetics are our era's way of sorting people into the groups they belong to? So that, if Samaritans share genetics with Jews, they belong with Jews, whereas if they share genetics with Babylonians, then we regard them as belonging with Babylonians?