Toward a process of understanding the Bible

[zeek]

This discussion began on the virgin birth thread but seemed to have implications beyond that topic so I started a new thread.

Originally Posted by OBW

It is the modern mind that has forced historical accuracy onto any writing from much more than 500 years ago. Few writings were what we would accept as historically accurate in the earlier days. That does not make them lies or false. Rather it takes a different kind of process to understand what it is telling us. That does not mean that there are no historically accurate things recorded back then, in or out of the Bible. But which is which is not necessarily that easy to figure out. Yet even with that in mind, I see a picture of God that I find convincing.

Originally Posted by zeek

Exactly. So the question is : What "kind of process" is it?

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure.

But I'm sure enough about what is taught to do (rather than to believe and/or argue about). And I am fairly comfortable that after believing, it is the doing that moves us forward, not more detailed believing. So I have less drive to figure out what it means to be a trinity, or God and man, or even how important the virgin birth is to me. Instead I have drive (not enough, but it is what I have) to live as I see I am commanded. That is what was demanded, not better doctrines.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW
Not sure.But I'm sure enough about what is taught to do (rather than to believe and/or argue about). And I am fairly comfortable that after believing, it is the doing that moves us forward, not more detailed believing. So I have less drive to figure out what it means to be a trinity, or God and man, or even how important the virgin birth is to me. Instead I have drive (not enough, but it is what I have) to live as I see I am commanded. That is what was demanded, not better doctrines.

I agree that religion ought to be about the life one lives. Do you ever encounter a conflict between what is outwardly commanded by the Bible and an inward dictate of your conscience?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I agree that religion ought to be about the life one lives. Do you ever encounter a conflict between what is outwardly commanded by the Bible and an inward dictate of your conscience?

If you are making any reference to such commandments as those recorded in the OT relative to the (alleged) annihilation of certain groups, then at times I do. But at the same time, I am not sure that the manner in which the command and events are recorded is representative of what was factually true. Not saying that in a "the Bible is in error" way, but noting that the rhetoric of the time was not entirely factual when it came to recording the history of things like wars. Winning was often recorded in much more grandiose terms than what the facts would actually support in a modernistic history.

Does that mean that God didn't inspire the recording of the battle and the victory (or in some cases, the defeat)? Probably not. But inspiration is never stated as dictation.

And despite the sense we often have of horror at the idea of a serious-to-extinguishing war, the idea that God cannot judge as he sees fit is problematic. And I admit that I see God in terms of the actual creator of everything. The only actual God, not just one of many gods. Or even one of many man-imagined beings referred to as gods. If I am right, then I may question and have difficulty, but no say in the matter. If I am wrong, then it is all just imaginary anyway.

But today I do not see God directing anyone to wipe out anyone else. There are times that I suspect that wiping a group like Isis and anyone even loosely associated with them might actually make things better — at least for a while. But at what costs. I am not talking about money. But about the effects on morality. On the character of those who would stand as one with such an action.

I cannot disagree with governments going to war to protect themselves. And this definition does call into question some of the actions undertaken by the U.S. over its existence. But not all. And I doubt we would all agree on which ones are on which side of the scales.

But . . . .

If we are discussing what the Bible commands of me, I do not have a problem with that. I may not do well at obedience in all cases. (May? Who's kidding anyone to think any of us actually succeed.) But there is nothing that I understand as required of me that causes me any moral or other inner conflict other than conflict against my will to be less than righteous.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

If you are making any reference to such commandments as those recorded in the OT relative to the (alleged) annihilation of certain groups, then at times I do. But at the same time, I am not sure that the manner in which the command and events are recorded is representative of what was factually true. Not saying that in a "the Bible is in error" way, but noting that the rhetoric of the time was not entirely factual when it came to recording the history of things like wars. Winning was often recorded in much more grandiose terms than what the facts would actually support in a modernistic history.

I was speaking in general regarding conflicts. However, the genocidal commands of the OT God is a case in point. Such things are unconscionable, and a God who would do such things, very much like the God of the Islamic Fundamentalists today. The only reason I can see for worshiping a God like that is because you fear the horrible things He might do to you like throw you into hell for eternity. Someone who does that is living in a religion of Fear.
Ironically, some of the people here seem to have consciences seared by the psychological trauma of accepting a God who would commit unthinkable evil against humans i.e. eternal punishment. They may be so psychologically crippled that they cannot rise to ethical considerations let alone to attempt an ethical life.

Does that mean that God didn't inspire the recording of the battle and the victory (or in some cases, the defeat)? Probably not. But inspiration is never stated as dictation.

Then the burden is on you to parse that out. What I see as inspired is that life presents us with choices that have absolute consequences. There is no escape from that as far as I can see. Kant called that the categorical imperative.

And despite the sense we often have of horror at the idea of a serious-to-extinguishing war, the idea that God cannot judge as he sees fit is problematic.

I identify God with Justice Itself. So, in my view God cannot act unjustly without out violating God's own nature. The alternative to that is to hold that God is free to do anything and it is "just" simply because such God is all powerful. Such a God could be a monster.

And I admit that I see God in terms of the actual creator of everything. The only actual God, not just one of many gods. Or even one of many man-imagined beings referred to as gods. If I am right, then I may question and have difficulty, but no say in the matter. If I am wrong, then it is all just imaginary anyway

.

I would include the literal God of the Bible among the "many man-imagined beings referred to as gods" you refer to. The God of the Bible points to the Ultimate Really Real God IMO. But, that God cannot be adequately represented or spoken, or written in human language. So, of course the Bible falls short. It can be a medium for revelation, however. And in that sense I understand why it is held sacred.

But today I do not see God directing anyone to wipe out anyone else. There are times that I suspect that wiping a group like Isis and anyone even loosely associated with them might actually make things better — at least for a while. But at what costs. I am not talking about money. But about the effects on morality. On the character of those who would stand as one with such an action.

Today? What... is God in a good mood during this epoch? God supposedly doesn't change according to the Bible in some places and in others God apparently does change. That may involve an actual paradox or it could be the result of changing human opinion. There is plenty of evidence that human perspective has changed over the centuries. So if we go by the preponderance of evidence principle it's our thinking that has changed not God's.

I cannot disagree with governments going to war to protect themselves. And this definition does call into question some of the actions undertaken by the U.S. over its existence. But not all. And I doubt we would all agree on which ones are on which side of the scales.

Cannot disagree? You speak about obedience to the commands of Christ. Well, he commanded us "Resist not evil. " Jesus called us to stand for a Kingdom of God without violence. We should stand against violence even it means dying.

If we are discussing what the Bible commands of me, I do not have a problem with that. I may not do well at obedience in all cases. (May? Who's kidding anyone to think any of us actually succeed.) But there is nothing that I understand as required of me that causes me any moral or other inner conflict other than conflict against my will to be less than righteous.

But, still you fail? I have failed too. But, the Bible teaches that His grace is sufficient. There's no excuse for failure unless His grace is less than advertised. Faith says "No!" and confesses "I have sinned."

[OBW]

zeek,

Not going to reply point-by-point. But in general.

Overall, you seem to say what I think I said, but with references to others, like Kant, in the process. Nothing wrong with that. But nothing necessarily instructive about that either. Kant is not (and did not hint that he was) God.

There was one part that I did not follow entirely. On one hand you seem unwilling to serve or worship a God who would destroy, yet also grant him the right to serve justice (including punishment?) according to his own determination of right and wrong. (I am greatly paraphrasing, so if that is not roughly correct, let me know.) So the question that seemed to be danced around is whether he could be allowed to wipe-out a particular people due to continued, willful rebellion against God and not lose your support. Did you just never address that possibility, or did you grant the right to judge, but reserve the right to dislike it if it seemed too much in your opinion? Or something else?

(To many possibilities in how to read you to pin it down.)

But if, in the end, you think that there is a unique God (not just gods, real or imagined), were you suggesting that you are willing to withhold your fealty because you don't like the way he "does justice"? Are you insisting that such justice is contradictory to other claimed attributes of God (as we think we know him)? (Not saying you have indicated this. But it is a way that I could package what you have said — rightly or wrongly.)

I would not intentionally misrepresent you. So rather than trying to read between the lines, maybe you could try to fill in the blanks.

In any case, I think that one of the problems with the process of understanding the Bible for many is that there is too often some kind of need to make every word uniquely important in the understanding. As if the fact that a particular thing is said in a certain way has to be instructive, so the effort to figure out that unique meaning must be undertaken.

Like in another thread where someone brought up where Jesus said that if you come to the altar with a gift and remember that you have offended or wronged someone else, leave your gift and be reconciled before offering the gift. Lee would appear to have considered that there was a goldmine of special meaning in the fact that Jesus, within his ministry, spoke of going to the altar with a gift. I honestly think it is just the common understanding of the people he was speaking to about the manner in which they approached God for forgiveness. That the way to approach God would change made no difference in the purpose of his speaking. Only the particulars of the way it was said were altered to make it understandable to the immediate audience.

And I will not be able to explain every account of every question about what was meant in certain things. And I suspect that a lot of it is of less importance than some want to make of it.

Enough for now.

[OBW]

As for failing, you are correct that the grace of Christ is enough. But is it enough to give us the confidence to move forward while both succeeding and failing with the understanding that the failures will diminish, but never disappear? Or is it presumed to be enough to never fail? I cannot find evidence that the latter is true.

At least in this life.

I hate it when people just excuse their failure because there is grace. But I also realize that there will always be failure and that the grace will be required. But grace is also teaching us toward righteousness, so we should find the occurrences of failure, or at least their severity, to diminish.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

There was one part that I did not follow entirely. On one hand you seem unwilling to serve or worship a God who would destroy, yet also grant him the right to serve justice (including punishment?) according to his own determination of right and wrong. (I am greatly paraphrasing, so if that is not roughly correct, let me know.) So the question that seemed to be danced around is whether he could be allowed to wipe-out a particular people due to and not lose your support. Did you just never address that possibility, or did you grant the right to judge, but reserve the right to dislike it if it seemed too much in your opinion? Or something else?

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Samuel said commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

I don't see any justification for executing the Amalekite children, infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys with Israelite swords. Do you?

But if, in the end, you think that there is a unique God (not just gods, real or imagined), were you suggesting that you are willing to withhold your fealty because you don't like the way he "does justice"?

In the end, God is absolutely just. No one can withhold fealty and everyone is included. But, now if I don't call issues the way I see them, my judgment is worthless.

Are you insisting that such justice is contradictory to other claimed attributes of God (as we think we know him)?

In God what seem to be contrary opposites are reconciled. The lion lies down with the lamb, so to speak. This is beyond the ken of human reason. Now when people claim God's authority as Samuel did, as Witness Lee did, as so many politicians and preachers and church leaders do, that's a problem. What's the difference between Samuel hacking Agag to pieces and Jihadi John decapitating journalist James Foley's head? Maybe God told Jihadi John that James Foley "continued, willful rebellion against God" to use your words.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

As for failing, you are correct that the grace of Christ is enough. But is it enough to give us the confidence to move forward while both succeeding and failing with the understanding that the failures will diminish, but never disappear? Or is it presumed to be enough to never fail? I cannot find evidence that the latter is true. At least in this life.

Like you I am inclined to doubt the possibility of human perfection in this life. As a result I am skeptical about those who claim such perfection. At the same time, I recognize the ease with which I accept the doctrine of imperfectibility is supported by my Protestant background. Thus, there is room for doubting my doubt.

I hate it when people just excuse their failure because there is grace.

There is no excuse according to the NT as far as I understand it.

But I also realize that there will always be failure and that the grace will be required.

Aren't you confusing grace with mercy? Grace empowers us. Mercy forgives us.

But grace is also teaching us toward righteousness, so we should find the occurrences of failure, or at least their severity, to diminish.

True. And sometimes experience appears to confirm this. But, in any moment of transgression, any sense of progress is lost. I seem to be as much a sinner as I was before I believed and as much in need of a Savior...no more in need of a Savior because now I am transgressing in the face of all I have known of His Grace. So, in so far as I am a Christian I never have any laurels to rest on. I can be a saint one moment and a sinner the next. I'm speaking experientially now not doctrinally.

[OBW]

Generally well said.

On one thing, I think we view things differently, at least on the surface. I am less inclined to question God about things that I do not have all the evidence on. I think that my tendency toward complaint would be where it affected me personally. Since that has not really happened, I do not have the need to speak my mind about how I think God should or shouldn't do things.

But, like in Lewis' A Grief Observed, there are times that many of us have reasons that we do not like how things are, whether we believe them orchestrated or simply allowed by God. And I understand that we probably need to vent our sense of injustice or wrong — even at God.

As for the slaughter of everything Amalekite, I can agree that it seems extreme. But I cannot claim to know or understand the reasons of the one that we acknowledge to be the creator of everything. You are correct that it is not how I would approach such a thing. And in this day and age, there is so much of a tendency to give excuses for everything that would deserve any kind of punishment. It is hard to decide to be anything other than crippled with angst over what should be done.

Done about Al Qaida
Done about ISIS
Done about pedophile priests
Done about the affluenza kid
Done about the Unabomber
Done about the jerk that cut me off on the road
and on and on.

There is punishment, mercy, and grace. Our problem is that we disagree on where and how to apply each.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Generally well said.

On one thing, I think we view things differently, at least on the surface. I am less inclined to question God about things that I do not have all the evidence on. I think that my tendency toward complaint would be where it affected me personally. Since that has not really happened, I do not have the need to speak my mind about how I think God should or shouldn't do things.

But, like in Lewis' A Grief Observed, there are times that many of us have reasons that we do not like how things are, whether we believe them orchestrated or simply allowed by God. And I understand that we probably need to vent our sense of injustice or wrong — even at God.

As for the slaughter of everything Amalekite, I can agree that it seems extreme. But I cannot claim to know or understand the reasons of the one that we acknowledge to be the creator of everything. You are correct that it is not how I would approach such a thing. And in this day and age, there is so much of a tendency to give excuses for everything that would deserve any kind of punishment. It is hard to decide to be anything other than crippled with angst over what should be done.

Done about Al Qaida
Done about ISIS
Done about pedophile priests
Done about the affluenza kid
Done about the Unabomber
Done about the jerk that cut me off on the road
and on and on.

There is punishment, mercy, and grace. Our problem is that we disagree on where and how to apply each.

But, I haven't even questioned God about 1 Samuel 15:2-3. All I have done is read the story from a different perspective than the traditional one that assumes that Samuel has God's absolute word there.

Jesus taught us how to do this when he said "It was said..." referring to the OT, "but I say"... e.g. Matthew 5. Samuel said one thing but Jesus says another. Who should I follow? Samuel hacked a guy to pieces, Jesus went to the cross. What should I do?

The book of Samuel never tells us that Samuel was right. Even if the Bible were the inerrant Word of God, that doesn't mean that the traditional interpretation, that Samuel was absolutely right, is inerrant.

I assume that the book of Samuel was written by an ancient Hebrew who had ancient Hebrew beliefs that I don't necessarily have to subscribe to. I think it would be kind of crazy to subscribe to them, a bit like converting to Islamic Sharia law or some dumb thing. That would be a giant step backwards ethically as far as I can see.

I don't have to agree with Samuel to be saved do I? In fact, believing that Samuel was speaking the Word of God when he told Saul to kill children won't save me. Anybody who says it will is preaching heresy..."a different gospel", as it were, are they not?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, I haven't even questioned God about 1 Samuel 15:2-3. All I have done is read the story from a different perspective than the traditional one that assumes that Samuel has God's absolute word there.

Didn't Lee use Samuel to support his minister of the age doctrine? Hey, in the Bible all the major leaders were flawed to say the least. It's one thing, I guess, that makes the Bible so compelling ; that those flawed leaders, no matter how flawed, could still speak for, and be led by, God. Me too! Me too! I remember thinking in my early idealistic days. The hook was set.

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus taught us how to do this when he said "It was said..." referring to the OT, "but I say"... e.g. Matthew 5. Samuel said one thing but Jesus says another. Who should I follow? Samuel hacked a guy to pieces, Jesus went to the cross. What should I do?

Well ... when you put it that way. Hacking or cross? Let me see. One I die, and the other someone else dies. Tough choice. Samuel seems best ... for obvious reasons. What was Jesus thinking?

Originally Posted by zeek

The book of Samuel never tells us that Samuel was right. Even if the Bible were the inerrant Word of God, that doesn't mean that the traditional interpretation, that Samuel was absolutely right, is inerrant.

Or why couldn't it be that Samuel was a man of God? and so we should just accept that Samuel had to be right? ... even if we don't understand why?? And just chalk it all up to one of those mysteries of God???

Originally Posted by zeek

I assume that the book of Samuel was written by an ancient Hebrew who had ancient Hebrew beliefs that I don't necessarily have to subscribe to.

Or able to understand, not being able to understand what it was like back then, nor able to put ourselves there, in Samuel's shoes. Some Bible believers actually want to go back to those days ; back to the days when I think ISIS would look like a walk in the park by comparison. But what do I know?

Originally Posted by zeek

I think it would be kind of crazy to subscribe to them, a bit like converting to Islamic Sharia law or some dumb thing. That would be a giant step backwards ethically as far as I can see.

There are some Christians today that think our nation should be run by such laws ... like bringing back stoning, and the like, from the Old Testament. They're called Christian Dominionists. Just google it you want to join them.

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't have to agree with Samuel to be saved do I?

Good question. Do we have to agree with any of the Old Testament to be saved? Is it all or nothing ... or some here and some there? Which some?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Didn't Lee use Samuel to support his minister of the age doctrine? Hey, in the Bible all the major leaders were flawed to say the least. It's one thing, I guess, that makes the Bible so compelling ; that those flawed leaders, no matter how flawed, could still speak for, and be led by, God. Me too! Me too! I remember thinking in my early idealistic days. The hook was set.

Lee did use Samuel to support the MOTA doctrine, yes. OBW and I have begun discussing the processes or methods of understanding the Bible. Lee's method of interpretation was in the traditional line of hermeneutics which presupposed scripture to be absolute truth. Coincidentally, the story of Samuel and Saul, was used as an object lesson for showing how the Bible as the Word of God must be received with absolute obedience no matter how horrifyingly immoral, inhumane, or irrational its commands lest we end up like Saul and lose the Kingdom and become rejected by the Spirit of God.

Or why couldn't it be that Samuel was a man of God? and so we should just accept that Samuel had to be right? ... even if we don't understand why?? And just chalk it all up to one of those mysteries of God???

The text does present Samuel as God's unquestionable authority and supports the conclusion that Samuel was right, because Saul's disobedience cost him God's blessing and the kingdom.

Or able to understand, not being able to understand what it was like back then, nor able to put ourselves there, in Samuel's shoes. Some Bible believers actually want to go back to those days ; back to the days when I think ISIS would look like a walk in the park by comparison. But what do I know?There are some Christians today that think our nation should be run by such laws ... like bringing back stoning, and the like, from the Old Testament. They're called Christian Dominionists. Just google it if you want to join them.

Well, wait, should I join them or just go back to the LCM where, from what I understand, the Blended Brothers are now the absolute authority?

[awareness]

At Calvary Chapel in Ft. Lauderdale, I attended a Wednesday night Bible study with 3000 others, and Pastor Bob Coy had a different take on Samuel, Saul, the Amalekites, and Agag.

He said the Amalekites were a type of the flesh. And God commanded that all the flesh had to be killed, but Saul didn't do it, sparing the cattle and King Agag. So now hacking Agag, and slaying infants, is not so barbaric. It's just a type of slaying the flesh. Pastor Bob said we had to slay all the flesh, leaving none of it to survive.

But as with most preachers we've seen, pastor Bob was preaching to himself. And he failed to slay all of his flesh, and fell from grace, with sisters.

The gist of all this is that there are many ways to take scripture. And many ways to spin the horrific parts of the OT, so that we can relate them to our personal selves today.

Lee's spin was the MOTA. Pastor Bob's spin was the flesh. They both made the Amalekites, Samuel & Saul relate to today, relate to us personally.

I've never liked "types" in the OT. I've come to call them sleight of mind tricks... like a Jedi mind trick with the Bible.

As Obi-Wan Kenobi said, "The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded."

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

But, I haven't even questioned God about 1 Samuel 15:2-3. All I have done is read the story from a different perspective than the traditional one that assumes that Samuel has God's absolute word there.

Jesus taught us how to do this when he said "It was said..." referring to the OT, "but I say"... e.g. Matthew 5. Samuel said one thing but Jesus says another. Who should I follow? Samuel hacked a guy to pieces, Jesus went to the cross. What should I do?

Some will think I am crazy, but I almost went there myself. There is nothing that says that every word in the OT was spoken from the mouth of God. Maybe the fact that it was recorded at all in any words was included. But that also questions what is "scripture" when Paul made that comment. Every word that got recorded in the Bible? Or maybe just the bulk of the OT law, and maybe most of the history surrounding the time up to the arrival at the Jordan? Maybe add in the prophets, at least where they appear to write as if dictated by God (Thus saith the Lord).

Was Samuel's direction God's direction? It is not entirely clear where God's speaking stops and Samuel continues (besides the punctuation as we now have it). Did God intent there to be punishment? Likely. Was it to be annihilation? Maybe. But not clearly so. Was annihilation a common practice in warfare during the times? Probably was at times. Did that make doing it God's way? Unclear. In this or any particular instance.

In other words, did the Children of Israel sometimes take the ways of the nations around them? They surely took their idols despite warnings against it. Would they embellish their histories in the manner of the times? Likely. Does any of that make the error (as we perceive historical error) God's? Does it deny that the OT tells of the relationship of God with his people? No.

While the OT writers were inspired to write, in the NT God clearly spoke. and he pointed to things where "It was said" and then changed the thinking with a "but I say."

Yet, as I said before, whatever the final analysis actually is (which we cannot arrive at in this lifetime), I am willing to accept God's right if it is the worst that we think it could be. I am wiling to accept that in the grand scheme of things there is a death penalty and that where it should be used is within God's righteousness.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

At Calvary Chapel in Ft. Lauderdale, I attended a Wednesday night Bible study with 3000 others, and Pastor Bob Coy had a different take on Samuel, Saul, the Amalekites, and Agag.

He said the Amalekites were a type of the flesh. And God commanded that all the flesh had to be killed, but Saul didn't do it, sparing the cattle and King Agag. So now hacking Agag, and slaying infants, is not so barbaric. It's just a type of slaying the flesh. Pastor Bob said we had to slay all the flesh, leaving none of it to survive.

If the Book of Samuel is a history book then allegorizing it like that overlooks the evil of killing actual innocent children and infants.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Some will think I am crazy, but I almost went there myself.

Don't worry about what the crowd thinks.

There is nothing that says that every word in the OT was spoken from the mouth of God. Maybe the fact that it was recorded at all in any words was included. But that also questions what is "scripture" when Paul made that comment.

There is nothing that says that every word in Paul's epistles was spoken from the mouth of God.

I am wiling to accept that in the grand scheme of things there is a death penalty and that where it should be used is within God's righteousness.

What did the infants do to earn the death penalty?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If the Book of Samuel is a history book then allegorizing it like that overlooks the evil of killing actual innocent children and infants.

Intentional or not allegorizing these verses whitewashes the atrocities attributed to God.

[zeek]

Here's a study that purports to show that the Bible is more violent than the Quran: http://reverbpress.com/religion/qura...ext-analytics/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's a study that purports to show that the Bible is more violent than the Quran: http://reverbpress.com/religion/qura...ext-analytics/

That's counter intuitive. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's counter intuitive. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I question the the programming that goes into the data mining process they used. You know there could be a "garbage in garbage out' factor at work. There's a qualitative difference between simply recording violence and advocating it. Still, the article raises the question of a similar advocacy of violence. This finding is particularly surprising; “The concept of ‘forgiveness/grace’ occurs significantly more often in the Quran (6.3%) than in the New Testament (2.9%) or the Old Testament (0.7%).”

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I question the the programming that goes into the data mining process they used. You know there could be a "garbage in garbage out' factor at work. There's a qualitative difference between simply recording violence and advocating it. Still, the article raises the question of a similar advocacy of violence. This finding is particularly surprising; “The concept of ‘forgiveness/grace’ occurs significantly more often in the Quran (6.3%) than in the New Testament (2.9%) or the Old Testament (0.7%).”

Great statistical research find!

I guess that's why we got so many Jews and Chrisians blowing up airplanes, shooting up their workplace, strapping bombs to their guts, etc.

Muhammed was the prophet of peace.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

If the Book of Samuel is a history book then allegorizing it like that overlooks the evil of killing actual innocent children and infants.

The problem with that perspective is that in those days a history was not simply a well researched statement of objective facts. There is evidence that they were, at some level, allegorical. Not like the kind of allegory that Lee found in everything. But they told stories with their history. The victor is always evil if not us, but was righteous if it was us. And on an on. It is much more than the bare facts.

But that does not necessarily provide fodder for the kind of nonsense that some teachers, like Lee, have sprung on the gullible.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great statistical research find!

I guess that's why we got so many Jews and Chrisians blowing up airplanes, shooting up their workplace, strapping bombs to their guts, etc.

Muhammed was the prophet of peace.

I don't think that was an analyses of who of the monotheists are the most violent today, but rather, a comparison of the scriptures of the monotheists.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great statistical research find!

I guess that's why we got so many Jews and Christians blowing up airplanes, shooting up their workplace, strapping bombs to their guts, etc.

Muhammed was the prophet of peace.

Assuming that there is a difference in the amount of violence between Christians/Jews and Muslims, is it due to the books they hold sacred, or is that just the rationale they use to justify it? There seems to be a broad difference on the Muslim side comparable to the one on the Christian/Jew side. You know... they range from liberal through moderate to fundamentalist like the Christians do. The problem may be what people read into their sacred books not what they read out of them. But there is plenty of violence there in the Torah, the Bible and the Quran if the respective parties want to use it to justify violence to achieve their ends. Of course, I don't read the Bible that way. I see the Bible as aspiring to something higher. But, that's just me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Assuming that there is a difference in the amount of violence between Christians/Jews and Muslims, is it due to the books they hold sacred, or is that just the rationale they use to justify it? There seems to be a broad difference on the Muslim side comparable to the one on the Christian/Jew side. You know... they range from liberal through moderate to fundamentalist like the Christians do. The problem may be what people read into their sacred books not what they read out of them. But there is plenty of violence there in the Torah, the Bible and the Quran if the respective parties want to use it to justify violence to achieve their ends. Of course, I don't read the Bible that way. I see the Bible as aspiring to something higher. But, that's just me.

The problem is that neither the Bible or the Koran can stop human nature. In fact they are chock-full of it. No matter how you read them.