Re: Christianity and Sexual Assault

[Baldin Lee Pramer]

On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32
>
> > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But
> > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
> > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes
> > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to
> > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into
> > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and
> > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than
> > > for your whole body to go into hell.

> Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New
> Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.

It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist
interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the
literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the
insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws
people up.

Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of
union with God stealthily.

This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted
from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship
with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as
dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is
necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that
they can focus their full attention on God.

Baldin Lee Pramer

 

[Denis Loubet]

"Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1176569300.964583.167280@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32
>>
>> > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But
>> > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
>> > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes
>> > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to
>> > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into
>> > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and
>> > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body
>> > > than
>> > > for your whole body to go into hell.
>
>> Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New
>> Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.
>
> It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist
> interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the
> literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the
> insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws
> people up.

Surely you're not saying the bible isn't the word of god and should be
ignored, are you?

> Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of
> union with God stealthily.

Unless you somehow know exactly what the Jesus character meant when he said
the things he is said to have said, your view has equal footing with the
literalists.

Can you demonstrate to an objective observer that you're right and the
literalists are wrong?

> This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted
> from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship
> with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as
> dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is
> necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that
> they can focus their full attention on God.

Now objectively demonstrate that this is what the Jesus character meant.


--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com

 

[pbamvv@worldonline.nl]

On 14 apr, 18:48, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32
>
> > > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But
> > > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
> > > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes
> > > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to
> > > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into
> > > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and
> > > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than
> > > > for your whole body to go into hell.
> > Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New
> > Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.
>
> It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist
> interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the
> literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the
> insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws
> people up.
>
> Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of
> union with God stealthily.
>
> This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted
> from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship
> with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as
> dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is
> necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that
> they can focus their full attention on God.
>
> Baldin Lee Pramer

My wife is of a different opinion
"If you look Poo-ying (girl/woman), I boxing you".

The most obvious thing I deduct from this quote,
is that appearantly Jesus didn't think looking at another mans wife
was the subject of the last commandment.

In the same way he put name-calling under "thou shallt no kill"
he put a stare at a pretty woman unver "adultery"

Focussing one's full attention on God,
according to Jesus, was equal to loveing you fellow man.
("the second commandmet equal to it")

Peter van Velzen Daengprasert
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

 

[Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist m]

On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32
>
> > > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But
> > > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
> > > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes
> > > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to
> > > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into
> > > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and
> > > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than
> > > > for your whole body to go into hell.
> > Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New
> > Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.
>
> It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist
> interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the
> literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the
> insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws
> people up.
>
> Jesus spoke in parables

No, he didn't.

 

[Baldin Lee Pramer]

On Apr 14, 12:01 pm, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"
<use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:

> > Jesus spoke in parables
>
> No, he didn't.


Yes, he did.

BLP

 

[Baldin Lee Pramer]

On Apr 14, 11:30 am, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:1176569300.964583.167280@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32
>
> >> > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But
> >> > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
> >> > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes
> >> > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to
> >> > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into
> >> > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and
> >> > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body
> >> > > than
> >> > > for your whole body to go into hell.
>
> >> Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New
> >> Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.
>
> > It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist
> > interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the
> > literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the
> > insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws
> > people up.
>
> Surely you're not saying the bible isn't the word of god and should be
> ignored, are you?
>
> > Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of
> > union with God stealthily.
>
> Unless you somehow know exactly what the Jesus character meant when he said
> the things he is said to have said, your view has equal footing with the
> literalists.
>
> Can you demonstrate to an objective observer that you're right and the
> literalists are wrong?
>
> > This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted
> > from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship
> > with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as
> > dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is
> > necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that
> > they can focus their full attention on God.
>
> Now objectively demonstrate that this is what the Jesus character meant.

Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a
mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done. Neither
can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or
biology with this level of rigor. What I can do is offer a
plausibility argument, indicating that the most sensible way to
interpret Jesus' words is the one I gave. Would that be acceptable?
IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly and
without prejudice if I were to go to the trouble to lay it out?

Baldin Lee Pramer

 

[Pastor Kutchie, demonised by Earth]

On Apr 14, 7:06 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:01 pm, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"
>
> <use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > Jesus spoke in parables
>
> > No, he didn't.
>
> Yes, he did.
>
> BLP

No. Jesus didn't speak at all.

 

[Al Klein]

On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a
>mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done. Neither
>can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or
>biology with this level of rigor. What I can do is offer a
>plausibility argument

Then "your view has equal footing with the literalists" and with
everyone else who claims that his interpretation is plausible. (And
I've yet to see anyone claiming that his own interpretation is
implausible).

>IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly

If you can show any evidence a) that Jesus actually existed (there
isn't any), b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -
an act isn't the same as thinking about that act) and c) that
stone-age barbarism is applicable to the modern world (it isn't).

 

[Al Klein]

On 14 Apr 2007 11:06:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 12:01 pm, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"
><use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> > Jesus spoke in parables
>>
>> No, he didn't.
>
>
>Yes, he did.

A fictional character did, or didn't, speak any way you want to claim
he did - depending on your viewpoint of whether a fictional character
actually speaks.

 

[Baldin Lee Pramer]

On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>
> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> >Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a
> >mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done. Neither
> >can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or
> >biology with this level of rigor. What I can do is offer a
> >plausibility argument
>
> Then "your view has equal footing with the literalists" and with
> everyone else who claims that his interpretation is plausible.

I base my interpretation on the cultural history of religion and the
commonalities of religious and mystical experience between different
religions. That is a completely different approach than that taken by
the literalists.

> >IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly
>
> If you can show any evidence a) that Jesus actually existed (there
> isn't any),

I suspect you really mean that there is no evidence that you accept.
There is mention of him in the Bible, which is an historical record of
sorts, and in many books, scrolls and other historical documents that
didn't make it into the official Bible. It seems perfectly reasonable
that there was a charismatic Jew called Jesus from Nazareth. It seems
more unlikely to me that the Jesus of the Bible was not based on a
real historical figure.

>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -
> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)

Why does my interpretation not make sense?

> and c) that
> stone-age barbarism is applicable to the modern world (it isn't).

It certainly is. It exists and is applied every day. In any case, my
argument is that the barbaric interpretation given by modern
evangelicals is wrong.

Baldin Lee Pramer

 

[Baldin Lee Pramer]

On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2007 11:06:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>
> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 14, 12:01 pm, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"
> ><use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
> >> On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Jesus spoke in parables
>
> >> No, he didn't.
>
> >Yes, he did.
>
> A fictional character did, or didn't, speak any way you want to claim
> he did - depending on your viewpoint of whether a fictional character
> actually speaks.


Why do you claim he is a fictional character? Do you believe the Jesus
of the Bible was not based on a real person? If so, why does this make
more sense to you than that of a larger than life character based on a
real person?

Baldin Lee Pramer

 

[Denis Loubet]

"Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1176574431.702675.203880@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 11:30 am, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
>> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1176569300.964583.167280@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32
>>
>> >> > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28
>> >> > > But
>> >> > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
>> >> > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye
>> >> > > causes
>> >> > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown
>> >> > > into
>> >> > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and
>> >> > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body
>> >> > > than
>> >> > > for your whole body to go into hell.
>>
>> >> Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New
>> >> Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.
>>
>> > It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist
>> > interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the
>> > literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the
>> > insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws
>> > people up.
>>
>> Surely you're not saying the bible isn't the word of god and should be
>> ignored, are you?
>>
>> > Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of
>> > union with God stealthily.
>>
>> Unless you somehow know exactly what the Jesus character meant when he
>> said
>> the things he is said to have said, your view has equal footing with the
>> literalists.
>>
>> Can you demonstrate to an objective observer that you're right and the
>> literalists are wrong?
>>
>> > This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted
>> > from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship
>> > with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as
>> > dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is
>> > necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that
>> > they can focus their full attention on God.
>>
>> Now objectively demonstrate that this is what the Jesus character meant.
>
> Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a
> mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done.

So all you can do pull the meaning straight out of your ass?

What makes your arbitrary guess any more authoritative than anyone else's
arbitrary guess?

> Neither
> can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or
> biology with this level of rigor.

But they're not pulling their conclusions straight out of their asses like
you are. They can appeal to actual evidence, and honestly claim that their
theories are the best explanation currently available given the evidence.
That's the best science claims to do, and I'm satisfied with that.

But you can't appeal to any evidence. All you can do is make-up what you
think Jesus meant.

And if, perhaps, you agree with all the teachings of the Jesus character,
ask yourself if that's just a coincidence.

> What I can do is offer a
> plausibility argument, indicating that the most sensible way to
> interpret Jesus' words is the one I gave. Would that be acceptable?

No. An argument alone is not suffient, since anyone can make-up a competeing
argument that is just as valid as yours.

The only thing that separates the arbitrary guess from the best explanation
given the evidence is evidence. Without it, there's no way to distinguish
nonsense from sense.

> IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly and
> without prejudice if I were to go to the trouble to lay it out?

Would you be willing to discuss the interpretation honestly and without
prejudice if a literalist were to lay out their arguments?

Is your interpretation going to carry any more weight than the literalist
interpretation? Or anyone else's interpretation?

If not, then you're wasteing everyone's time.


--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com

 

[Denis Loubet]

"Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1176608012.275028.108310@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>>
>> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a
>> >mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done. Neither
>> >can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or
>> >biology with this level of rigor. What I can do is offer a
>> >plausibility argument
>>
>> Then "your view has equal footing with the literalists" and with
>> everyone else who claims that his interpretation is plausible.
>
> I base my interpretation on the cultural history of religion and the
> commonalities of religious and mystical experience between different
> religions. That is a completely different approach than that taken by
> the literalists.

And there's plenty of scholars that are forced to the conclusion that no
Jesus ever existed, and they appeal to evidence and cultural history of
religion too.

>> >IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly
>>
>> If you can show any evidence a) that Jesus actually existed (there
>> isn't any),
>
> I suspect you really mean that there is no evidence that you accept.
> There is mention of him in the Bible, which is an historical record of
> sorts, and in many books, scrolls and other historical documents that
> didn't make it into the official Bible.

There's mention of thousands of other god in other sacred writings, that are
"Historical records of sorts". Do you credit them with the same authority?

> It seems perfectly reasonable
> that there was a charismatic Jew called Jesus from Nazareth. It seems
> more unlikely to me that the Jesus of the Bible was not based on a
> real historical figure.

Are you willing to make the same claim concerning Thor, or Zeus, or Ra?

If not, then we can conclude your use of the term "reasonable", means
"biased".

>>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -
>> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)
>
> Why does my interpretation not make sense?

I can't comment, I don't know what he means.

>> and c) that
>> stone-age barbarism is applicable to the modern world (it isn't).
>
> It certainly is. It exists and is applied every day.

It is not desirable.

> In any case, my
> argument is that the barbaric interpretation given by modern
> evangelicals is wrong.

Why? It was a barbarous time. It appears to fit perfectly.

I suspect you simply don't like the barbarous interpretation.


--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com

 

[Baldin Lee Pramer]

On Apr 14, 11:32 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote in
> > I base my interpretation on the cultural history of religion and the
> > commonalities of religious and mystical experience between different
> > religions. That is a completely different approach than that taken by
> > the literalists.
>
> And there's plenty of scholars that are forced to the conclusion that no
> Jesus ever existed, and they appeal to evidence and cultural history of
> religion too.

Really? I don't think you are being honest. Can you name any?

> >> >IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly
>
> >> If you can show any evidence a) that Jesus actually existed (there
> >> isn't any),
>
> > I suspect you really mean that there is no evidence that you accept.
> > There is mention of him in the Bible, which is an historical record of
> > sorts, and in many books, scrolls and other historical documents that
> > didn't make it into the official Bible.
>
> There's mention of thousands of other god in other sacred writings, that are
> "Historical records of sorts". Do you credit them with the same authority?

The Jesus in the Bible is a man who is credited with miracles, not a
god in the same sense as Greek or Norse gods, for instance.

> > It seems perfectly reasonable
> > that there was a charismatic Jew called Jesus from Nazareth. It seems
> > more unlikely to me that the Jesus of the Bible was not based on a
> > real historical figure.
>
> Are you willing to make the same claim concerning Thor, or Zeus, or Ra?

Of course not. They appear in a completely different context. Jesus,
Buddha, Mohammed and other historical figures appear in a different
context than Thor, Zeus and Ra.

> If not, then we can conclude your use of the term "reasonable", means
> "biased".

No, that conclusion would be based on a misunderstanding of the
different contexts in which the gods you mentioned and the people I
mentioned appear.

Baldin Lee Pramer

 

[Baldin Lee Pramer]

On Apr 14, 11:03 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote in
> >> > This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted
> >> > from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship
> >> > with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as
> >> > dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is
> >> > necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that
> >> > they can focus their full attention on God.
>
> >> Now objectively demonstrate that this is what the Jesus character meant.
>
> > Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a
> > mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done.
>
> So all you can do pull the meaning straight out of your ass?

Of course not. I understand perfectly well that there are different
levels of proof and that different types of assertions must be
demonstrated by different means. You are just being insulting.

> What makes your arbitrary guess any more authoritative than anyone else's
> arbitrary guess?

It is not an arbitrary guess. It is an interpretation informed by an
understanding of the history of many religions and the psychology of
religious experience.

> > Neither
> > can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or
> > biology with this level of rigor.
>
> But they're not pulling their conclusions straight out of their asses like
> you are.

Again with the insults. Why do you assume I am just making it up with
no evidence?

> They can appeal to actual evidence, and honestly claim that their
> theories are the best explanation currently available given the evidence.
> That's the best science claims to do, and I'm satisfied with that.
>
> But you can't appeal to any evidence. All you can do is make-up what you
> think Jesus meant.

Again, an assertion on your part with no evidence to back it up. You
know nothing about the historical evidence that went into my claim.

> And if, perhaps, you agree with all the teachings of the Jesus character,
> ask yourself if that's just a coincidence.

I suspect you think I am some sort of religious nut. Sorry, but I am
quite rational. You, however, have made several unwarranted
assumptions.

> > What I can do is offer a
> > plausibility argument, indicating that the most sensible way to
> > interpret Jesus' words is the one I gave. Would that be acceptable?
>
> No. An argument alone is not suffient, since anyone can make-up a competeing
> argument that is just as valid as yours.

Of course they cannot. All arguments are not created equal.

> The only thing that separates the arbitrary guess from the best explanation
> given the evidence is evidence. Without it, there's no way to distinguish
> nonsense from sense.

You have indicated that you are not interested in any evidence. I
offered to make a plausible argument, and you claimed it would be
insufficient.

> > IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly and
> > without prejudice if I were to go to the trouble to lay it out?
>
> Would you be willing to discuss the interpretation honestly and without
> prejudice if a literalist were to lay out their arguments?

Sure. I have done so many times.

> Is your interpretation going to carry any more weight than the literalist
> interpretation?

Yes, of course. A literalist begins with the assumption that the Bible
is the revealed word of God.

> Or anyone else's interpretation?

It depends on who is making the argument.

Baldin Lee Pramer

 

[Jerry Kraus]

On Apr 14, 11:48 am, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 11:33 am, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Text: Matthew 5:27-32
>
> > > > 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But
> > > > I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
> > > > committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes
> > > > you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to
> > > > lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into
> > > > hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and
> > > > throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than
> > > > for your whole body to go into hell.
> > Please, provide your interpretation of this passage from the New
> > Testament. Mine is straightforward enough.
>
> It is too literal, though, in the same spirit as the fundamentalist
> interpretation. You hit the nail on the head, though. It is the
> literal straightforward interpretation of the Bible, and the
> insistence that it is the Word of God and must be obeyed that screws
> people up.
>
> Jesus spoke in parables and used metaphor to approach the subject of
> union with God stealthily.
>
> This passage is merely pointing out that one should not be distracted
> from their meditation on the true nature of God and their relationship
> with him. Jesus is pointing out that a little distraction is just as
> dangerous as a big distraction, and the disciple should do whatever is
> necessary to cut themselves off from attention to the world so that
> they can focus their full attention on God.
>
> Baldin Lee Pramer

Splendid interpretation, Mr. Pramer. You do indeed have more depth
than the average scientist.

 

[Al Klein]

On 14 Apr 2007 20:33:32 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>>
>> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >Do you mean "offer a proof with the same level of rigor as a
>> >mathematical proof"? If so, then of course it can't be done. Neither
>> >can one offer a proof of the corrctness of a theory of physics or
>> >biology with this level of rigor. What I can do is offer a
>> >plausibility argument
>>
>> Then "your view has equal footing with the literalists" and with
>> everyone else who claims that his interpretation is plausible.
>
>I base my interpretation on the cultural history of religion and the
>commonalities of religious and mystical experience between different
>religions.

So does everyone else. They just interpret the "facts" differently
than you do. That's what's wrong with interpretation - anyone can
interpret anything to mean anything. Try just reading the words.

> That is a completely different approach than that taken by
>the literalists.

It's EXACTLY the same approach. The interpret, based on exactly the
same reasoning that you use, that the Bible is to be taken literally.

>> >IOW, would you be willing to discuss my interpretation honestly
>>
>> If you can show any evidence a) that Jesus actually existed (there
>> isn't any),
>
>I suspect you really mean that there is no evidence that you accept.

There's no actual evidence. There's interpretation, there's
supposition, there's make-believe, but there's no actual evidence.
Using the fact that there were people who called themselves the
anointed ones" (Chreestos) as proof that Jesus really existed is your
interpretation, it's not evidence.

>There is mention of him in the Bible

The Bible can't be used as evidence to support the Bible. If a book
were self-evidentiary, there would be proof that Superman actually
exists.

> which is an historical record of sorts

Only for very inaccurate values of "sorts". For instance, it claims
(due to a mistranslation) that Jesus was born in a place that didn't
exist at the time he was born. It also claims that Rome required that
people return to their place of birth for a census, when we know that
Rome required that they return to their place of residence. The Bible
may be a historical record, but it's a totally unreliable record,
contradicted by all sorts of real evidence.

> and in many books, scrolls and other historical documents that
>didn't make it into the official Bible.

Those would be evidence. Quote them. Be sure to quote documents of
equal veracity that contradict the Bible, though, if you want to be
considered scholarly, not merely trying to prove your point by
dishonesty.

> It seems perfectly reasonable
>that there was a charismatic Jew called Jesus from Nazareth.

Since Nazareth didn't exist at the time (the land now called Nazareth
was a cemetery at the time, and Jews wouldn't live NEAR a cemetery,
let alone in one, which you'd know if you knew " the cultural history
of" the area at the time), that's not only unlikely, it's impossible.
"Jesus the Nazorite" (mistranslated into Jesus the Nazarene) has
nothing to do with a place called Nazareth, which was created merely
because the mistranslation of the Bible claimed that Jesus came from
there. There's not a single contemporaneous mention of Nazareth, even
in passing.

> It seems more unlikely to me that the Jesus of the Bible was not based on a
>real historical figure.

The Jesus of the Bible - Paul's Jesus - wasn't a man, "he" was one of
the aspects of God. The corporeal Jesus is a fiction of the late
second century, so your "unlikely" is unlikely.

>>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -
>> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)

>Why does my interpretation not make sense?

Because my thinking of killing you isn't murder. If it were, most
people would be serving life sentences right now, in addition to
serving concurrent sentences for hundreds of other felonies and
misdemeanors. We all have thoughts, all through our lives, of doing
things that, were we to actually do them, would land us in prison.

The thought, contrary to the Bible, is NOT the act.

>> and c) that
>> stone-age barbarism is applicable to the modern world (it isn't).

>It certainly is.

Stoning recalcitrant children is applicable today? Forcing a rape
victim to spend the rest of her life with her rapist is applicable
today? Forcing the pre-pubescent daughters of our vanquished enemies
into prostitution is applicable today? (There are thousands of other
examples from the Bible.)

Or are just those parts that you like applicable today?

> It exists and is applied every day.

Sorry, no. Rape is illegal and the rapist goes to prison, whether the
victim was a virgin or a prostitute. Stoning your child is murder.
Forcing a slave to obey his master is a felony. MOST Biblical law is
NOT applied today.

>In any case, my argument is that the barbaric interpretation given by modern
>evangelicals is wrong.

Interpretation is wrong. Reading the words just as they're written is
right - except that it shows what a barbaric, immoral document the
Bible is, so people like you have to "interpret" (read "make up")
things that make it look better than it is. We no longer turn our
vanquished enemies' pre-pubescent daughters into concubines (Numbers
31:18). Even many Christians claim that Biblical law no longer
applies (Numbers 5). And what Christian even makes a pretense of
obeying Levitical Law, which shall be the law, unchanged by even a
punctuation mark, as long as Heaven and Earth exist, according to the
Bible?

Unless, of course, the Bible is not to be taken literally, and we just
accept those parts we like - in which case most of Christianity goes
out the window.

You can't have it both ways, unless you're a Salad Bar Christian.
Which is saying that you make it up as you go, but claim that it's "in
the Bible" - making you a devout Hypocrite, not a Christian.

 

[Al Klein]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:32:40 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:

>"Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:1176608012.275028.108310@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"

>>>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -
>>> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)

>> Why does my interpretation not make sense?

>I can't comment, I don't know what he means.

His claim that the Bible says that the thought is equivalent to the
act. It doesn't make sense, since the thought isn't equivalent to the
act.

 

[Al Klein]

On 14 Apr 2007 20:35:12 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2007 11:06:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>>
>> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 14, 12:01 pm, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"
>> ><use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 14, 5:48 pm, "Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Jesus spoke in parables
>>
>> >> No, he didn't.
>>
>> >Yes, he did.
>>
>> A fictional character did, or didn't, speak any way you want to claim
>> he did - depending on your viewpoint of whether a fictional character
>> actually speaks.
>
>
>Why do you claim he is a fictional character?

Because there's no evidence that such a person actually existed.

> Do you believe the Jesus of the Bible was not based on a real person?

Of course not. He was written about more than 100 years after he
supposedly died. Since the populace was, for the most part,
illiterate, you're talking about 4 generations of storytelling.

> If so, why does this make
>more sense to you than that of a larger than life character based on a
>real person?

Because, again, there's no evidence that such a person actually
existed. And LOADS of evidence that Jesus, as described in the Bible,
didn't, and couldn't, have existed.

There's more actual evidence that the Biblical stories are false than
that they're true, and this is true of the ENTIRE Bible.

Why does it make more sense to you that a book that has MANY passages
that are PROVEABLY false (most of the controversial parts, in fact) is
telling the truth? (Other than the fact that you want it to be true?)
If it were the word of the creator of the universe, why does it have
to be interpreted by mere men? Couldn't such a being have written
books that would always be true? After all, he DOES (according to the
Bible) exist at all times, and knows everything that will ever happen.

Some god, who couldn't even make sure that the words put down as "his"
would be true even a mere 2,000 years later.

 

[Denis Loubet]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:l36523lmiqndr7doquqec8r74av1cpahlt@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:32:40 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Baldin Lee Pramer" <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
>>news:1176608012.275028.108310@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 14 Apr 2007 11:13:51 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer"
>
>>>>b) that your interpretation makes any sense (it doesn't -
>>>> an act isn't the same as thinking about that act)
>
>>> Why does my interpretation not make sense?
>
>>I can't comment, I don't know what he means.
>
> His claim that the Bible says that the thought is equivalent to the
> act. It doesn't make sense, since the thought isn't equivalent to the
> act.

Good point. Is that part of his interpretation?


--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com