[clue-talk] Re: Bible Academia

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 10-01 23:16, David L. Willson wrote:
> > ...skeptic...
> ...
> > skeptic...

Hm, you seem to object to the word "skeptic"? And then later you seem to
imply cynicism and skepticism are the same? I don't think they are...and I
think healthy skepticism and critical thinking are an important part of
thinking about things.

The site I linked regarding the forgery of the adulteress was one of the
first that I found googling. You might be right about his tone, I dunno.

I'm sure more time spent looking into it might find a site with a more
neutral tone, but the point is that I don't think this is fringe opinion; it
seems to be pretty standard view that it's a later addition. Maybe "forgery"
is a loaded word. Wikipedia has an entry on it as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

Here it gives more for being legit, than against, but it still seems to be a
point of contention.
 


As for the other site, the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, I've found it to be a
good reference. Notice it's not just the Bible that is annotated, too.

I don't think taking a skeptical view of anything is the same as hating. 
 
> Shocking.  No, not really, but very disappointing.  Sean, do you post
> links to their website, and then accuse men that speak out against
> homosexuality who are later caught in it of hypocrisy?  Which is worse?

Not sure I understand what is being compared to what here. Hypocrisy is
worse than what? The example you give about homosexuality is the
*definition* of hypocrisy; there is no need to accuse. 
 
> I asked for the context, not some crap from a hater site.  Find me one
> noble thing that can't be destroyed.  Find me a good man that can't be
> crushed.  It doesn't exist, but that's not the point.  The point is that
> creation is better than destruction.  It ~is~ better to cleanse than to
> befoul, better to build than to tear down.

I don't know that skepticism is tearing down. The Bible is making certain
claims; do we just accept them, or apply skepticism? It's why science uses
things like peer review and double-blind studies - it's applied skepticism.

> Do you suppose that these skeptics have an eye for truth?  Have they
> found something that is noble, good, and praiseworthy?  Send me a link
> to that section of their site, or they have nothing I'll ever be
> interested in.

I doubt they've talked about their personal beliefs on either site, but I
imagine as humans that they have found something that is noble, good, and
praiseworthy, though this doesn't seem relevant to me - what's at hand is
taking a look at the claims of the Bible. This could only serve to open them
up to ad hominems, anyway. 
 
> One of the best lessons I ever learned took two days to process.  A
> rafting guide told my party, "If you go in the water, look at me.  I'll
> be shouting and pointing.  Go where I'm pointing.  I won't be pointing
> at the danger, I'll be pointing at the good."  I've attempted to follow
> his fine example.

Sounds like a good example.
 
> > ...I think
> > even believers would came away knowing a lot more about the Bible than they
> > would have before.
> 
> "...~even~ believers..."  Must be some good material if it'll even get
> through to us believers.

That's not what was intended - what I meant was that even believers (who
would probably have, by implication, a lot of exposure to the Bible already)
would find something they didn't know before.
 
> > > In any case, we need to remember that Jewish laws (and customs) were not
> > > what Jesus was here to uphold, but the thing that they reflect.
> > 
> > Later, from the above site:
> > 
> > "If Jesus was anything, he was a stickler where Mosaic law was concerned. In
> > Matthew 5:17-19 he says, .Do not think that I come to abolish the Law or the
> > Prophets: I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say unto
> > you, that until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke
> > shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished. He goes on to warn
> > his listeners that, .Whosoever breaks one of God.s laws will be the least in
> > the kingdom of heaven.. In Luke 16:17 he says, .But it is easier for heaven
> > and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail..
> > In John 10:35 he says, .Scripture cannot be broken.." 
> 
> This is a lie of implication.  It implies that the Law Jesus spoke so
> strongly for, that is stronger than heaven and earth, is Mosaic Law, but
> what Jesus represented was God's Law.  Mosaic Law, and Jewish
> interpretation thereof, are reflections of God's Law.  Read Mark,
> Chapter 7, from a Bible, not a Bible-attacking site.
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207

I've read the New Testament already, several times, while a teenager. I plan
on reading the whole thing again at some point, including the Old.
 
> I said before, there's a difference between critical thinking and
> cynical thinking.
> 
> /me hates haters.

As do I. Well, not "hate", as that gets circular, and then I'd hate myself.
:) I don't equate skepticism to cynicism, though.

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at comcast.net  
http://sean-leblanc.blogspot.com/
If a listener nods his head when you're explaining your program, wake him up.