(April 9, 2014 at 1:29 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes. You're saying that over a 6,000 year period of honing and perfecting the text, that the authors managed to say the opposite of what they stated was the nature of God. You keep a straight face while doing so.
So, like, you know how, in literature, an author can be writing a character that they clearly set up to be one thing, but either through bad writing, deliberate values dissonance or a simple case of the author being an irredeemable jerk, the actions of the character don't jive with how the author wants them to be portrayed, when it finally gets into a reader's hands? That.
And I love that you bring up the length of time, as though bad writing can somehow be improved through repeated layers of editing, reinterpretation, redaction and spin, all done by different authors and through the lens of a culture so out of whack in terms of morality that they can claim with a straight face that genocide was okay.
You know what this is? This is like you looking at a biography of, say, Kim Jong Il, whom I picked because ridiculous media spin was kinda his deal, while simultaneously looking through the unvarnished reports of his actions; the poverty, the gulags, all of that. Somehow, you conclude that, because the biographer phased the man's life as some pseudo-divine force for good, that therefore all those other actions were good.
And then you scoff at the rest of us for judging based on the accounts of his actions, rather than the spin the writer puts on them.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!