Ron and a standard of (Afterthought)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>>> ACHILLES

>>> I have seen a third option. Some theists don't reject theism or defend

>>> atrocity, they simply abandon any belief in the divine nature of the

>>> writings where we find such atrocities attributed to their god. The

>>> realization of the mundane genesis of the books of the bible does

>>not in and

>>> of itself preclude theism. 

>>> 

>>> "We place no reliance

>>> on virgin or pigeon.

>>> Our method is science

>>> our aim is religion. "

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>

>>Tim

>>

>>I've been to many of the "liberal" denominations services, but without

>>examining too closely their individual doctrines. Which denominations

>>might you be referring to?

>>

>>

>>_________________________________________________________

>>DO YOU YAHOO!?

>>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

>>

ACHILLES
As I sit here thinking back over the various people I have heard make an
argument like that, I do recall one catholic, who insisted that he take the
passages I had pointed out to him to his priest before responding, so it is
possible that the catholics actually use something like this.. or that his
priest was a "heretic" - I guess they don't burn them anymore do they? I had
pointed out to him the contradiction between "Thou shalt not kill" (which we
had dug back to hebrew on to get a better grasp if there were any loopholes
implied, as I remember the word kill here could be translated literally
"utterly destroy" which is precisely what the hebrews were said to have done
over and over to other people) and one of the massacres in samuel, and also
one of the numeric snafus where two accounts disagreed significantly on the
number of years (I do not remember exactly which one) and anyhow after
asking his priest about it the answer I got was that people wrote these
books and people made mistakes, and that very likely the hebrews had killed
those people for their own reasons and the priests had simply lied to them
and told them YHVH commanded it. Not exactly the explanation I expected, but
of course it does address the argument much better than anything an
innerantist would propose. I also got a lecture (a parotting of one from his
priest I have no doubt) on the bible - to the affect that it was a mixture
of many things, much of it "merely historical" and that it was not inspired
in toto, but rather that the preservation of it was inspired because there
were lessons in it that god wanted us to learn, and that only certain parts
were actually "inspired scripture" in the usual sense... would be
interesting if anyone here knows catholic dogma to find out if that is
anything close to their official position. 

• Previous message: Ron and a standard of Mythology
• Next message: Ron and a standard of (Afterthought)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]