Hi,
Tim Rhodes <proftim@speakeasy.org> writes:
<<
(First off, Eric is lying here [re: not attacking individuals], just
so you know.)
>>
Now Tim, you should know me well enough to know that I don't lie! Perhaps I was too bold in speaking for others -- but I don't think it's possibly to "attack" individuals over e-mail -- one can only attack ideas and viewpoints. Now, if, via Phaith or some other mechanism, that *means* we attack the individual, then how are we to share any type of discussion?
<<
> I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. Do you mean
> that, in the past, you've posed those problems (lord/liar/luanatic,
> etc.) to atheists and gotten unsatisifactory responces?
Or maybe that she asked you to read the bible from _her_ perspective
and you
analysed it like a history text rather than read the music of it like
you might if you were reading Homer or Virgil.
>>
Well, that was certainly a tangent on Tim's part... I read the Bible as if it says what it means, except where it's clear that the lessons go beyond that (e.g. Parables).
As to reading it from _her_ perspective, if that was *possible*, I might consider it. However, I've found that Christians have a unique "blindspot" as regards reading the Bible, and I am unable to simulate it. It's like they can't see what it says half the time, but believe it says what they mean...
I do approach the Bible as a development of thought -- e.g. I do think that one can use the differing books in the Bible -- via compare and contrast -- to learn more about what each is saying. Sometimes the authors disagree fundamentally, and it's interesting to see the arguments each puts forward. Jesus and Paul, or Paul and James, etc.
ERiC