Customer Discussions > Religion forum

The Bible's unbelievability is a good thing.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 139 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 18, 2012 3:30:39 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 22, 2012 7:05:15 AM PST]

Posted on Mar 18, 2012 3:59:56 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 21, 2012 1:14:25 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 4:20:27 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 22, 2012 7:05:16 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 3:40:07 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 21, 2012 1:15:16 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 3:46:54 PM PDT
Blu Boy says:
Eric-

"the important theologians don't see God as a sky-daddy."

Could you qualify what you mean by "important theologians?" If the Bible is only understood by a few theologians then what is the point of it?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 4:24:30 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 22, 2012 7:05:17 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 4:32:13 PM PDT
Blu Boy says:
Eric-

"Why are there so many Christians who hold a simplistic sky-daddy view? I'm afraid my first instinct is to give the cynical response. There is one view for the educated, and another for the plebs. The higher-ups don't mind if the lower-downs misunderstand, as long as they stay in line."

But doesn't that counter the teachings of Christ via the Bible: blessed are the meek etc...? That is the part of the Bible that I think makes it all worth while.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 5:00:27 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 22, 2012 7:05:17 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 5:04:50 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 22, 2012 7:05:17 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 6:40:45 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Blu Boy says: "If the Bible is only understood by a few theologians then what is the point of it?"

Ariex: Particularly since theologians have found no way to produce reliable evidence to show that they understand the Bible. All their "reasoned arguments" depend on taking it for granted that God exists, then move to defining God through subjective decisions about what God must be like in order to be God, then constructing arguments or interpretations of texts that lead to the conclusion that God exists. Remove the first step, taking it for granted that God exists, and their whole house of cards collapses.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 6:45:35 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Eric Pyle says: "Some people who study these things include in their notion of what God must be like any number of traditional arguments "

Ariex: As I noted, starting with the assumption that God exists, they develop an understanding of God through imagining what God must be like, often derived in part by what God must have done, such as creating the universe, or sending Jesus, or how man "sins". It all starts and ENDS with God, an exercise in circular thinking.

But they can't very well admit that they really don't know anything. They'd have nothing to sell, would they?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 6:52:18 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 21, 2012 1:16:01 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 8:29:40 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 22, 2012 7:05:19 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 8:36:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 18, 2012 8:37:15 PM PDT
Blu Boy says:
Eric-

"I think what I'm trying to say on this thread is that pulling one true reading of the Bible from its infinite interpretations leads to this ideological fascism."

Yeah, it's called dogma. I don't know that I understand what you are really saying; do you think the Bible is somehow correct but beyond the range of understanding, or that it (like almost everything) has many different possible perspectives and therefore is impossible to have an understanding of?

To me it's an old book filled with morality tales from the sinceer to the bizarre. Honestly though, I know of a lot better things to read and draw personal truths from.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 8:50:28 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 22, 2012 7:05:19 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 9:01:25 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 22, 2012 7:05:19 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 9:17:51 PM PDT
Blu Boy says:
Eric-

"Unlike a closely-reasoned treatise, it resists any generalizing statement about its overall message."

Agreed. I was raised as a Mormon and have, as George Carlin puts it, reached the "age of reason."

The Bible, to me, is like Saturday Night Live. Lots of bad to mediocre sketches, and every once in a while something profound and hilarious (Super Bass-O-Matic 76).

Posted on Mar 18, 2012 9:26:38 PM PDT
Hoo-Zen!! says:
To be possible a thing must be passible - passible for an agent to bring about from potency to act.
If the agent is infinite the potency can be the sheer or potential nothingness of the contingent being itself.
Nothing is impossible for God. Why would He go outside the order he has established - to manifest his glory in new way- would be his only possible motivation. Would this be unfitting? No. God never acts in an unfitting way since he is the source of nature and grace.

The other forms of argument pretending to consider possibility in an absolute way are the product of "Island Dwarfism".

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 9:39:57 PM PDT
Blu Boy says:
Hoo-Zen!!

"Would this be unfitting? No. God never acts in an unfitting way since he is the source of nature and grace."

Can anyone or anything act in an unfitting way according to the criteria used to describe God? If my criteria for saying something is fitting or unfitting includes all of the possibilities of action (i.e. an agent with infinite potency) what does that not include?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2012 11:54:54 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 21, 2012 1:16:30 PM PDT]

Posted on Mar 19, 2012 12:35:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 19, 2012 1:01:09 AM PDT
I take issue with the title. Had it been called "The Bible's appeal to a Child is a good thing" that would have led to a
discussion on the need for sophistication to disappear and the notion for us adults, if we wish, to accept imponderables and obey Christ's teaching per se.

EDIT: I have started a discussion with the title of "The New Testament's appeal to a Child is good" over on the Christianity Forum.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2012 1:40:56 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 22, 2012 7:05:20 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2012 1:46:18 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Nov 22, 2012 7:05:20 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2012 1:55:58 AM PDT
I have no trouble with multiple per se's. We are all individuals with individual lights to shine on the glory.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2012 12:34:47 PM PDT
Harry Marks says:
Hi Eric - great to hear from you again.

Your OP is wonderful. A great conversation starter. You have already coaxed Jack Vix out of his shell, which is a real accomplishment. Big thanks to 'probabilist for citing your thread (with your name) on the 100 Quotes.

I find negative theology to make great sense. However, (in response to some of the early responses) I believe one should start with "positive" theology to be used to keep mystical enthusiasm from running away with our touchpoints in experience. As with morality, there is much that will be left objectively undecidable about God, and should be left so. But that doesn't mean any dumb thing a person asserts (see "Serious Eschatology" thread) should be taken seriously.

Adorno's constellations are extremely applicable to religion. One can apprehend constellations from the Bible (as well as history, moral experience, and mystical experience) on many levels, from the narrative as it presents itself (God gave David courage and guided the stone to kill Goliath) to High Theology of Tillich, Barth and Moltmann. Forcing them into some scheme of truth is highly likely to introduce distortions both in the "raw data" of the constellations and in the connections that reason can make of them.

I would offer one small correction from the outset: when you say, "God is too big to be contained in a humanly perceivable system" my preferred version would be "God is too deep" or "God is too open to becoming".
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  21
Total posts:  139
Initial post:  Mar 18, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 27, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions