[clue-talk] Re: Bible Academia

[David L. Willson]

...  I didn't have a problem with the discussion of the Adulteress
story.
> 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. 

It is hypocritical for the skeptic site to accuse the Bible of falsity,
while not holding itself to a high standard of precision.  The stories
about Jesus, in context, demonstrate clearly that when Jesus referred to
the law as inviolate, he didn't mean Mosaic law, or the then-current
practice thereof, he clearly criticized both of them at different
places.   Yet, the skeptic site says directly that he was a "stickler"
for Mosaic Law.  Don't you count that as hypocritical? 

> > 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.

Critical thinking is evaluating the good and bad of a thing.  If you
only find bad, then what's the point in spending more time on it?

> > 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. 

You don't see any bias in the look they take at the Bible?  Again, if
they haven't found something good, then of what use is their "look"?
Unless you believe the Bible to be something that society should be
cautioned against.  (notice I used the word "against" not "about",
because I'd sign off on "cautioned ~about~")
 
> > 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.

I apologize for my mistaken conclusion.  I have to say, though, that
it'll be some time before I get around to reading a site or book that
finds more shoddy than good in the Bible.  Or, in this case, only shoddy
and no good.
 
> > > > 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.

Fair enough, change my <equals> to <approximates>, and add the
observation that skeptical thinking is not necessarily critical
thinking, either, as exemplified by our skeptical friends.

Gramma taught me, "If you don't have anything ~good~ to say... shut up,
and let ~me~ talk."  That Gramma, she was some gal.