Dominican Republic Superthread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
No spoken words said:


Wow, you really do not know me at all.

Do I seem like that big of a dork, that I'd be out playing Magic: The Gathering?? I've never played that in my life. Duh. That's not how someone like me rolls on a Saturday night.

I was playing Dungeons and Dragons, fool.

:)

If you must know, I was just at dinner with a few friends. Now I'm back.


actually you don't seem like the magic type, but when someone asked it was the first thing that popped into my head :)
 
Axver said:


I'd be interested in reading that essay. The Old Testament has been a source of vehement criticism for me. I'm a pacifist (actually, from my brief religious flirtation, the whole "do unto others" thing) and I find myself completely unable to accept the sanctified genocides and whatnot throughout the Old Testament. So much of the Mosaic law just reeks of cultural norms being imposed and justified too. Part of the reason why I gave Christianity the shaft is that I could not reconcile the two Testaments. Plus I think Paul was a bit of a dick, and the Gospels don't meet acceptable standards of scholarly reliability.

I don't actually like Paul. But I can't just pick and choose what books I accept and what books I don't, so I read it all regardless.

The genocides I struggle with too. WHY wipe out everyone? WHY THE HELL IS SAMSON A HERO? A lot of the time, it reeks of Israel using God to cover up for their crimes.

The problem with the Gospels is that they were around in oral tradition for ages before being written down, which screws with historical dating.
 
Ax: I was wrong, it wasn't an entire essay unfortunately, but here's the important bit:

Socio-Economic and Political Analysis

If it is presumed that the edicts in Deuteronomy were indeed written around the time of King Josiah, they are able to offer an excellent insight into the socio-economic and political status of Israel at the time they were written, as they reflect the various changes that were happening in the land at the time of Josiah’s reform.

Firstly, a reading of the story in 2 Kings suggests that the laws in Deuteronomy were put into effect all around the nation, with Josiah personally heading the movement to eradicate all traces of Israel’s previous idolatry and evil ways. Such a reform could only happen under dire circumstances – it suggests that Israel (or at least Judah) was facing a severe threat, and a consolidation of the king’s power was needed in order to allow him to unify and rule the kingdom. It suggests that the “discovery” of the book of law was in fact used to give Josiah divine backing in his quest to reform Israel – a purely political concern. However, the book does also reflect the economics of the land.

The commands in Deuteronomy 15.1-11 are that Israelites should drop all debts owed to them by other Israelites every seven years, and to be generous towards the poor and to help in eradicating poverty – “there should be no poor in the land”. This suggests that the kingdom was experiencing a time of economic success, so much so that it was able to focus on social justice rather than financial management. However, it does also suggest a degree of suspicion towards foreigners, for their debts are not required to be cancelled. The law also elicits a feeling of solidarity between Israelites – by having to drop one another’s debts, they are in a sense sharing their property with one another and so are one fellowship, one nation of brothers and sisters, rather than just compatriots.

All in all, the laws of Deuteronomy suggest that Israel, although experiencing a relative wealth and prosperity, was faced with significant threats from both inside and outside its borders and so needed to consolidate its power and unite its people under a single banner – that of Yahweh and, by association, King Josiah. In order to do this, reform was required, and so Josiah, who “before him there was no king like him... nor did any like him arise after him”, was the agent of the reform.


I can tell you, I wasn't a very popular person with a couple of the more evangelical spiritual types after reading that out loud in a study...
 
major_panic said:
I don't actually like Paul. But I can't just pick and choose what books I accept and what books I don't, so I read it all regardless.

The genocides I struggle with too. WHY wipe out everyone? WHY THE HELL IS SAMSON A HERO? A lot of the time, it reeks of Israel using God to cover up for their crimes.

The problem with the Gospels is that they were around in oral tradition for ages before being written down, which screws with historical dating.

Part of the reason why I finally quit Christianity is that I found I was carefully cobbling together just the bits I liked, to keep a veneer of Christianity in front of people I liked who I feared would disapprove of my reversion to disbelief. What was the point? There was none. I already thought the concept of a God was ridiculous and simply had the moral teachings, which I had always carefully legitimated with secular as well as religious arguments. So I ditched the theism.

Also, the problem you mention with regards to the Gospels is another one of my main arguments against Christianity. Now, I recognise different cultures have different burdens of proof, and that 21st century scholarly standards cannot be found even three centuries ago. Not to mention the fact they are Western-centric. However, I believe that any deity worthy of the attribute of omnipotence would be capable of delivering their canon inerrant in a manner that it speaks not only to the culture that receives it, but to all cultures and is capable of fulfilling all burdens of proof, any time. The Gospels violate every norm of 21st century scholarship, thus I am willing to discard their validity.

(Naturally, this is a grossly abbreviated stance of my position. And what on earth are we doing to this thread! :lol: )
 
Axver said:

Also, the problem you mention with regards to the Gospels is another one of my main arguments against Christianity. Now, I recognise different cultures have different burdens of proof, and that 21st century scholarly standards cannot be found even three centuries ago. Not to mention the fact they are Western-centric. However, I believe that any deity worthy of the attribute of omnipotence would be capable of delivering their canon inerrant in a manner that it speaks not only to the culture that receives it, but to all cultures and is capable of fulfilling all burdens of proof, any time. The Gospels violate every norm of 21st century scholarship, thus I am willing to discard their validity.

(Naturally, this is a grossly abbreviated stance of my position. And what on earth are we doing to this thread! :lol: )

Fair enough. I would argue that you can apply a lot of the New Testament to contemporary life though, as long as you interpret correctly and within context - hence, "the Living Word".

And, let's be honest, this is pulling the thread up out of its depths. Also if this was posted in FYM, we'd just be flamed by redneck southern extremist Bible-bashers.
 
major_panic said:
Ax: I was wrong, it wasn't an entire essay unfortunately, but here's the important bit:




I can tell you, I wasn't a very popular person with a couple of the more evangelical spiritual types after reading that out loud in a study...

Ooh, that's very good. It's an interesting study in nation-building. The parallels between that and some of what went on in the 19th century would be extremely interesting to explore.

Furthermore, I feel it fits comfortably within a historical pattern of human behaviour and complements my argument of the Old Testament having entirely human origins. I believe it reveals nothing of divine behaviour, just humans being humans. It's like two kids bickering in the street. "If you don't give me that ice cream, my Dad will beat you up!" Well, no, he probably won't, but the other kid has been told that the father in question is a big 6'5" bloke named Daniel, so he fearfully gives bono_man2022 the ice cream.
 
bono_man2002 said:


Yes, and oddly enough I'm not included! And its getting towards my bedtime. I reckon i'll be out in 15.

You could always join in on our theologising. :drool:

Theologising? Did I just make up a word there?
 
major_panic said:


Unbirthday present? Alice in Wonderland style?

I'm so down with this.

Though maybe Vazza or Jen will appreciate it a bit more. :wink:
 
Axver said:


Ooh, that's very good. It's an interesting study in nation-building. The parallels between that and some of what went on in the 19th century would be extremely interesting to explore.

Furthermore, I feel it fits comfortably within a historical pattern of human behaviour and complements my argument of the Old Testament having entirely human origins. I believe it reveals nothing of divine behaviour, just humans being humans. It's like two kids bickering in the street. "If you don't give me that ice cream, my Dad will beat you up!" Well, no, he probably won't, but the other kid has been told that the father in question is a big 6'5" bloke named Daniel, so he fearfully gives bono_man2022 the ice cream.

:laugh:
 
Axver said:


Ooh, that's very good. It's an interesting study in nation-building. The parallels between that and some of what went on in the 19th century would be extremely interesting to explore.

Furthermore, I feel it fits comfortably within a historical pattern of human behaviour and complements my argument of the Old Testament having entirely human origins. I believe it reveals nothing of divine behaviour, just humans being humans. It's like two kids bickering in the street. "If you don't give me that ice cream, my Dad will beat you up!" Well, no, he probably won't, but the other kid has been told that the father in question is a big 6'5" bloke named Daniel, so he fearfully gives bono_man2022 the ice cream.

Exactly. Although, I do believe that you can find God in there somehow amidst the mess that the humans create. I just don't know how to explain it yet.
 
major_panic said:
Fair enough. I would argue that you can apply a lot of the New Testament to contemporary life though, as long as you interpret correctly and within context - hence, "the Living Word".

And, let's be honest, this is pulling the thread up out of its depths. Also if this was posted in FYM, we'd just be flamed by redneck southern extremist Bible-bashers.

I think some of the ethical teachings certainly still have applicability. Like I said, my pacifism was originally derived from the Sermon on the Mount - it has stuck with me, even if the theism has not. However, I believe the central themes of the religion do not satisfy certain scholarly standards, and I am definitely not aware of any persuasive evidence for theism, nor do I accept the argument that I should "just have faith".

:lol: Yeah, this would be kind of scary in FYM.

I get the feeling you and I are going to have some bloody long theological conversations. Which is fantastic, because I've been dying for somebody to converse with on the topic. My religious friends on the Gold Coast just say "you gotta read Lee Strobel". No, piss off.
 
unico said:
i''ve never heard of lee strobel. what are they telling you to read?

Strobel is a pop theologian. He offers very simplistic arguments. His book The Case For Christ enjoys a strong popularity amongst evangelical types.

I feel like the difference between Strobel and, say, Søren Kierkegaard or Paul Tillich is the same as between "My Big Book of Science" and Stephen Hawking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom