Premier Rock Forum

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2004 5:19 pm**

Christopher wrote:
kerble wrote:Seriously, I've actually enjoyed this.

Me too. Questions are supposed to reinforce your beliefs anyway, right?

Personally I find it funny that your "rank name" changed to "seminarian" when you posted.

Faiz

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2004 5:33 pm**

I leave you with this:

“Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?” (2 Kings 18:27; see Isaiah 36:12).

Good night.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2004 5:45 pm**

Christopher wrote:The "subject at hand" I was referring to was the Bible, not the whole of literature. When you have something as important as a text considered to be the perfect word of a perfect being, inspired in a perfect way - that is NEVER to change, by the "creator's" own admission - i'd say that calls for some literal interpretations.

I'll ignore your gross overstatements. However, I will point out that millenia of biblical scholars and literary giants would take great exception with your argument for a literal interpretation of the biblical texts -- as would the authors/editors themselves as evidenced by their use of various narrative tools.

Christopher wrote:Lots of Christians would even agree with me in this regard.

That's because you're the flip side of the fundamentalist coin -- face value acceptance of the presented materials. Why engage the text when a facile read can serve one's purposes?

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Or you can continue to pull quotes from a Googled "slavery" and "bible" search and use them to serve your purposes.
Christopher wrote:Whoah. That would've been so badass if that were what i had actually done. Too bad for you the question isn't where i got my quotes (ultimately, the bible itself), but, rather, the fact they're even in there. You can keep changing the focus of the argument if you like, but it doesn't help your case any.

Changing the focus?

Your ready access to a collection of biblical "slavery" quotes tells me one thing -- that there are people who pull quotes and say, "Here! Evidence! The Bible says yes to slavery!"

And that they have ready customers in people like you.

Christopher wrote:Sheeeeeit....if ONLY. I'd re-write that fucker into the coolest-looking blank book you've ever seen.

John Cage already did that with 4'33". Try something new.

Christopher wrote:“Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?” (2 Kings 18:27; see Isaiah 36:12).

Here is my command: Love each other. (John 15:17)

I've heard worse...

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2004 5:47 pm**

kerble wrote:Christopher wrote:

I say throw this hunk of crap out the goddamn window. It's been used to justify slavery, misogyny, fuel wars, slow down science, promote bigotry of every flavor, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

So has the Constitution, Mr. Smarty Kex! Do we get rid of that, too?

I don't want to get into any hardcore nitpicking but this isn't a fair comparison. I assume you're talking about the constitution mentioning all "other persons" to be counted as 3/5 of a landowning male therefore "acknowledging" slavery.

I'll give you two reasons the constitution is regarded as a beautiful document, regardless of its influence:
A. The Const. is not the word of God, so its got that goin' for it, and,
B. Written in it is the ability for the people/govt. to make changes. We call those amendments and guess what, its been amended many times.

Both were written by humans but have completely different purposes. I'm just saying the constitution is an orange and the bible is a rotten apple.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2004 5:54 pm**

rocco wrote:Both were written by humans but have completely different purposes.

What was the purpose of the biblical authors?

I'd appreciate the insight.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:16 pm**

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:
rocco wrote:Both were written by humans but have completely different purposes.

What was the purpose of the biblical authors?

I'd appreciate the insight.

C'mon man, don't act like you don't know. The same purpose L. Ron Hubbard had- to con, dupe, and control many people.

I'm not saying the bible doesn't have good in it. It certainly does. I just can't separate it from the gigantic mess its created.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:49 pm**

i think "Birth of Man" is intrinsically tied to the catholic religion. first, is what it depicts. second, it was commissioned by the pope. third it's on the roof of a chapel in the vatican.

i can still appreciate it as an incredibly beautiful piece of art separate of it's context and history. i think that is the conversation that Mr.W... was trying to spur. of course the bible can be viewed as literature and not as the scapegoat for bigots. same way i've read creation myths from almost every culture on earth, i don't think american indian mythology is any less compelling because some tribes were cannibals or unceasingly war-like.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:37 pm**

toomanyhelicopters wrote:that's cool that you're afraid i'm dead-ass wrong. if you care, we can make a wager as to how extensively you've read the book, and how extensively i have, and we can measure our dicks, too. the point is this : if you've read the WHOLE BOOK, or even studied it much at all, you should know that there's an angle to it. you're wrong when you say it can't be corrected. IT WAS. the crazy rules for "if you beat your slave nearly to death but he lives, you receive no punisment because he is your property" and all that kinda stuff, that's all in the OLD TESTAMENT. Jesus didn't say shit about how it's okay to beat your slaves. if you get the message of what he was saying, you'll see that the only way you're gonna come away from reading the Bible and this it's cool to kill or beat your slaves or whatnot, is if you selectively read certain parts, and ignore the resolution of that shit in the New Testament.

and

[fromm the 'Book Talk' thread] and that i think reading books is for suckers. that being said, the only book i really ever gave two shits about is catch 22. other than that, they can all go screw.

You’re at least a 2-book man then, eh? Any others we should know about? Say Finnegan’s Wake or Process and Reality

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:04 pm**

Any others we should know about? Say Finnegan’s Wake

i'm reading that now, two pages a week. i am thoroughly convinced that it is the best novel ever written, also that it is completely unreadable.

Posted: **Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:27 pm**

naw, i've only ever read four books. catch 22, the enitre bible like 25,000 times, and these two

this guy

and this guy

have fun!

Premier Rock Forum

Book: The Bible

Book: The Bible

Book: The Bible

Book: The Bible

Book: The Bible

Book: The Bible

Book: The Bible

Book: The Bible

Book: The Bible

Book: The Bible

Book: The Bible