It's his opinion, set out in a well-reasoned way. Nobody says you have to like it, but calling it "ignorant" is unwarranted.
On reincarnation of God
- Thread starter citizenofdoom
- Start date
It's his opinion, set out in a well-reasoned way. Nobody says you have to like it, but calling it "ignorant" is unwarranted.
Narz
keeping it real
This is the religious mindset.
It's his opinion, set out in a well-reasoned way. Nobody says you have to like it, but calling it "ignorant" is unwarranted.
You have to understand everything metaphorically in just the right way.
If you try to critically understand it or even ask questions that can be interpreted as too sharp or probing they bristle and resort to 'you just don't get it' or the famous 'God works in mysterious ways'
Anyway I should opt out of this thread as I have no religious news
Narz
keeping it real
I've read Job. Your opinion isn't more valid (correct) than mine.It's not his subpar opinion I care about. It's being lectured incorrectly on my own theology that's ignorant.
Ignorant isn't defined as someone w a different interpretation.
Generally atheists are more knowledgeable about Christianity than Christians. Probably because they actual read for comprehension and not for comfort.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
There are doctrines man. I don't blame you for not caring or even getting it wrong. The trinity can be tricky. But I outgrew your abusive and gaslighting caricature when I was in 3rd grade. I'd have been eight. Maybe nine. In church. With the practitioners of the theology.
I've been on the fence about saying this for a while mostly because I'm happy to just watch you two go at it, but please stop speaking for atheists in general. Ignorance is a uniform trait.
Narz
keeping it real
I'm in the UK, so that survey is basically irrelevant to me. International web forum and all that, maybe don't assume everything is US-centric even if some participants are?
But looking that the study, the variance isn't exactly high either. A range of ~47% to ~62.5%, (which is less than it looks, because each question weights at 3% on average) is a different of 15%. I'm ignoring the last two categories because it seems weird to group all atheists and agnostics in a single category while splitting religious denominations across the rest of the range, and there are racial dynamics at play that make this difficult to make assumptions about.
If you're trying to champion the idea that based on a single survey, atheists and agnostics come out 0.4 ahead (out of 32) compared to Jewish folk, then . . . congrats? Like, if we're equating a high score with some kind of general-purpose advantage, Mormons are only 0.2 points on average behind the polled Jewish participants. Are we going to rate their scripture now, or was the point solely to try and generalise all atheists as being on average more-informed, and to try and ignore the other less-convenient results listed?
Yes, granted, it doesn't work as well in the Bible. I keep saying what I say, because I mean 're-skinning it' would work.
The only option is to be grateful for life, otherwise you're miserable.
There are some bits that are about obedience, I'll grant. Those need to go. And the fungibilty of children needs to be removed much more aggressively.
This won't be true. One of you will have the superior insight and therefore opinion.
But, since we're in opinion, behemoths cedar. Penis, or tail?
I am not the one who wrote in more children in the same section as God blessing Job more than he was previously.
Especially in an anthology where children were disposable too frequently.
Consider the alternative, that it could be worded differently, to make it harder to make that "mistake".
I think it's a fair critique.
Especially in an anthology where children were disposable too frequently.
Consider the alternative, that it could be worded differently, to make it harder to make that "mistake".
I think it's a fair critique.
Narz
keeping it real
Literature review is subjective.
Generally when someone bristles @ close review of their beliefs it's a good indicator they're full of ****. The opposite of the ideal of the scientific method. As opposed to its polar opposite : if you have a different opinion it's blasphemy & we'll literally kill you (which is still in law in some backwards middle eastern countries iirc).
But human life isn't about being objectively right it's about being able to live w oneself and in a society. Ten wrong people trump one correct one right person and sometimes delusion can be more functional than seeing reality clearly.
When 'the church of love' was revealed as a scam many of those who were scammed testified for the defense!
https://knowledgenuts.com/don-lowry-and-the-lonely-hearts-con-job/
Last edited:
Literature review is done subjectively, but the interpretations will be gradable. This is even more true of reviewing fables. One review will more closely match author intentions. One review will more correctly pull moral truths out of the fable. Hell, one review will even forget about certain aspects of the story while forming the critique or miss internal contradictions. Heck, the person who reads Job, thinking it's a true story, literally has a worse opinion than someone who is willing hold that it's merely possible it was.
The opinions aren't equal. It's a weird stance to state, to believe that (objectively) subjective understandings are equal. They're not.
You and I will could have different opinions on the Behemoth's cedar. But only one of us will be correct on author's intent. This means that only one of us will have the objectively correct opinion as to whether that sentence should have been translated differently by those seeking to capture author's intent.
Imagine reading "The Lion and the Mouse" to a classroom and a parent saying "Critical Race Theory thinks animals can talk". He's wrong.
The opinions aren't equal. It's a weird stance to state, to believe that (objectively) subjective understandings are equal. They're not.
You and I will could have different opinions on the Behemoth's cedar. But only one of us will be correct on author's intent. This means that only one of us will have the objectively correct opinion as to whether that sentence should have been translated differently by those seeking to capture author's intent.
Imagine reading "The Lion and the Mouse" to a classroom and a parent saying "Critical Race Theory thinks animals can talk". He's wrong.
Narz is not required to abide by my sig when he's interacting with other people. I don't find his opinion "subpar" at all. I don't think it's an inaccurate impression that you're in a snit because someone dares to disagree with you on a topic on which you think your opinion is objective fact.
It's a special type of <pejorative>. You've got a link in your sig about it. Which you've mentioned in this thread.
I haven't forgotten your original post that made it through to my email notifications before you edited it.
"Generally" does not mean "all." But I've had the experience of being the recipient of a born-again Christian lecturing me on the Old Testament and getting at least half of what he was saying wrong. When I corrected him, he got angry and said in frustration, "If you know so much about it, why don't you BELIEVE it?"
Well, I'd been studying quite a bit about various native North American religions in cultural anthropology, and I don't believe in them either.
This was in 1983, in an after-classes conversation with the person who persuaded me to check out Doctor Who. At some point between September and spring, he decided he was "born again" and after that his conversations were non-stop proselytization attempts.
Been there, done that, bad enough from the JWs on Saturday morning, the Mormons in the afternoon (plus my sociology prof who got upset at the lack of religion in my daily life and called me into his office for the purpose of attempting to convert me; I could have reported him for that), and the woman at the bus stop at the college who screeched at me that I'd better change my major because anthropology was some sinful thing that would send me to hell. I don't need proselytizing from someone I'd considered a friend.
Narz
keeping it real
Ultimately we cannot know the authors intent tho. Likely there were multiple authors w different intents and the story was changed over the years a la the telephone game.
My daughter would be sympathetic to your view, she's obsessed w various fantasy worlds and their 'lore' and quick to point out what is and isn't true and opine (for long, long periods) about her theories of what will happen next. I guess ongoing sagas are can be validating to follow as you get to find out if your predictions were correct.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Yes, he can be and is wrong regarding the theology. And yeah, I edit posts. I don't actually need you to tell me I do every time we speak*. I speak much more bluntly than I write, and I think in spoken word. It's somewhat more respect than the ideas I'm interacting with seem to deserve or be able to absorb, but it's coming anyways.
*though considering, this is pretty indicative
*though considering, this is pretty indicative
Edmund Ironside
White Rabbit Object
As the dispute is about the book of Job, and therefore knowledge of the Bible, it seems like this would be the most relevant part of the survey:
Overall Knowledge of the Bible
Overall, Mormons score best on these items, answering an average of 5.7 of the seven Bible questions correctly. White evangelical Protestants get about five of the seven Bible items right (5.1), while atheists and agnostics (4.4), black Protestants (4.4) and Jews (4.3) answer more than four of these questions correctly.
Atheist's appear towards the bottom of the list (no shame in that as why should they be knowledgeable about the Bible, while Jews coming bottom is likely due to them unsurprisingly not being very knowledgeable about the NT).
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/#:~:text=Overall Knowledge of the Bible,-Overall, Mormons score&text=White evangelical Protestants get about,four of these questions correctly.
It works best in the form of a Joni Mitchell song.
Spoiler Lyrics :
I think we can all agree that Joni Mitchell might be the best thing to have come out of Canada other than Blue Labatt. For a secular songwriter she sure does do a good religious song, my favorite by her is 'slouching towards Bethlehem.'
Have you legitimately read the book from start to finish?
If so have you read any other books from the Bible?
Though I am fairly knowledgeable regarding the bible I think I have read only 3 books from start to finish (Luke, Romans, and Jonah I think). I might read some more if I have time (listening to sermons or watching Youtube videos tend to be easier and more insightful, at least for me). If I did read any more books of the Bible I would want a good study Bible to go with it. Reading books of the Bible without details such as cultural context can cause meaning to be lost.
My Dad has read the Bible the whole way through from start to finish twice (he has also read 'the God Delusion' and 'God is not great', he was unimpressed by either, though felt the former was the slightly better of the two). Apparently after reading Leviticus he swore he would never read it again (as it was such a dull read), and then after reading it for a second time he swore that this time he really meant it!
Um... nope. I have no opinion about beer, but I think we've done better than Joni Mitchell.
Musically or in general?
Lots of good music from Canada. Leonard Cohen, Neil Young, Martha and the Muffins.
Similar threads
