RE: The Bible
December 31, 2010 at 10:57 am
(This post was last modified: December 31, 2010 at 11:34 am by Anomalocaris.)
(December 31, 2010 at 10:22 am)Stempy Wrote:(December 31, 2010 at 10:12 am)Chuck Wrote: I would say you are playing stupid, but you are probably just a christian playing christian. Shall we start with the account of the "7 days"? Let me assign you a home work. Go through the passages ending with "And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done", and try to find one part in that that might refer to how, one part of it which might refer to when, and one part of it which might refer to what.I may be stupid, but I'm not playing. What I'm challenging you to demonstrate is that Genesis 1 was written for the purpose of teaching about the hows whens and whats. It is a question of the authorial intent of the passage. What in your view is the genre of Genesis 1? How would it have been understood by its original audience? Would they have understood it to be making scientific claims about how the world came to be as it is? These are the kind of questions you need to think about to make a case for your view of the text.
No, those are not the questions I need to think about because I am not in the business of twisting into pretzels to avoid intellectual independence from a sad piece of barbarous beduin creation myth. It is either true, or not. If it is false, it remains false whatever the author's intent. If it is mostly false, and what remains is completely unsupported, then it is quite totally worthless, dissembling about divine intent not withstanding. Truth does not need support from fabricated data. If the ignorant can't make sense of the data, then the respectable author teaches the ignorant, he does not make up or dumb down data. Perhaps the true meaning of the bible is "when you've learned enough to finally stop believing the last word in here, then you are ready to be saved"? Perhaps the true meaning of the bible is "SUCKER!"? It's true meaning is mostly certainly not knowledge through intellectual integrity. This is to say whatever its intended meaning it's one shabby piece of shit that would be a sad disgrace to any forth rate human author much less a putative divinity.