Applicability of the Bible

ebia · #11 27th October 2009, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by jawsmetroid

Either the Bible's a rulebook, or it's not.

Clearly it's not. It's a narrative that contains some instances of rule being given.

It's not that hard to figure out what conceptual means... Principles and concepts are not the same as laws.

I understand what the words mean, I don't understand with sufficient precision the way you are using them in this context.

That's what a concept is. And the Bible's full of them. Read the context: the information regarding langauge, history, and culture.

So what you are trying to say is that the rules in the bible are not directly applicable, but the ideas behind those rules are?

Perhaps because we see applicable narratives all around: the tortoise and the hare, boy who cried wolf, Santa. No one questions how to apply them... why should we when it comes to the Bible?

Because the way people generally try to apply the bible is not the way they generally apply other stories but the way they try to apply an instruction book and (b) the bible is not, for the most part, a timeless story but an ongoing one in time where we live in a particular part.

CShephard53 · #12 27th October 2009, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by ebia

Clearly it's not. It's a narrative that contains some instances of rule being given.

So says you. That's far from the general consensus in the forums.

I understand what the words mean, I don't understand with sufficient precision the way you are using them in this context.

They require no precision.

So what you are trying to say is that the rules in the bible are not directly applicable, but the ideas behind those rules are?

That's not what I'm trying to say, that's what I've said. Multiple times. For the sake of my sanity, please stop overanalyzing this as if it's some sort of academic excersize.

Because the way people generally try to apply the bible is not the way they generally apply other stories but the way they try to apply an instruction book and (b) the bible is not, for the most part, a timeless story but an ongoing one in time where we live in a particular part.

I am not the general public. I treat the Bible as it should be treated: as a book that carries God's message of love to mankind that has a ton of historical, cultural, and linguistic nuances that make it difficult for the average reader to properly interpret and understand.

ebia · #13 28th October 2009, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by jawsmetroid

So says you. That's far from the general consensus in the forums.

The forum can form a consensus the Lord of the Rings is a maths textbook, but that won't make it so. One only has to pick up the bible and read it to see that it is mostly story with an overaching metanarrative, and such parts that are 'rules' are a small proportion and sit with that narrative.

They require no precision.

I cannot fathom why you refuse to provide an clarification of what you mean.

That's not what I'm trying to say, that's what I've said. Multiple times. For the sake of my sanity, please stop overanalyzing this as if it's some sort of academic excersize.

Oh, I see, you just wanted posts patting you on the back and saying "yes, that's right"?

I am not the general public. I treat the Bible as it should be treated: as a book that carries God's message of love to mankind that has a ton of historical, cultural, and linguistic nuances that make it difficult for the average reader to properly interpret and understand.

You're missing the point.

CShephard53 · #14 28th October 2009, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by ebia

The forum can form a consensus the Lord of the Rings is a maths textbook, but that won't make it so. One only has to pick up the bible and read it to see that it is mostly story with an overaching metanarrative, and such parts that are 'rules' are a small proportion and sit with that narrative.

Then why do you expect me to take your word for it?

I cannot fathom why you refuse to provide an clarification of what you mean.

Perhaps because I've made my meaning quite clear and refuse to play word games. This is apologetics, not philosophy.

Oh, I see, you just wanted posts patting you on the back and saying "yes, that's right"?

If I wanted posts patting me on the back, I'd have posted this in Christian advice or something. Come now, surely you can avoid making this personal.

You're missing the point.

What point would that be?

Jaws13 · #15 28th October 2009, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by jawsmetroid

I assert that the entire Bible is still applicable in principle and concept, and that the concepts behind every single law are still in effect today. I also assert that because of Christ's death and Peter's vision in Acts, some laws are no longer in effect and are fulfilled by Christ's coming. Who will challenge this assertion, and on what grounds?

I agree, fully applicable to today. Why wouldn't it be? I mean, sure, there are things around that weren't back then, like cloning, genetic enhancements, stem cell research... but the Bible's chock full of principles. I don't see why we wouldn't follow them.

ebia · #16 28th October 2009, 12:36 AM

[quote=jawsmetroid;53352654]Then why do you expect me to take your word for it? [/quote[
I don't - pick up a bible and take a look. What proportion of it is clearly narrative? Have a look at where the rules are, step back to a wider view and notice whether or not they are imbedded in a narrative context.

Perhaps because I've made my meaning quite clear and refuse to play word games. This is apologetics, not philosophy.

What may be clear to you may not be clear to me. But if you aren't interested...

If I wanted posts patting me on the back, I'd have posted this in Christian advice or something. Come now, surely you can avoid making this personal.

I am really struggling to work out what you are trying to achieve here, and you seem determined not to help me.

What point would that be?

Do you actually want to know?

CShephard53 · #17 28th October 2009, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by ebia

I don't - pick up a bible and take a look. What proportion of it is clearly narrative? Have a look at where the rules are, step back to a wider view and notice whether or not they are imbedded in a narrative context.

I'm sure you've heard this from a good friend of mine, but where is your evidence? I'm not going to do your homework for you, and you are the one claiming it is a narrative.

What may be clear to you may not be clear to me. But if you aren't interested...

I'm not interested in a dance-off, I'm interested in an old-fashioned sparring match where the two people anticipate each other's movements and bow and the beginning and end of the battle. This requires you to be sharp enough with your wit and I assume, given my previous interactions with you, that you are sharp enough.

I am really struggling to work out what you are trying to achieve here, and you seem determined not to help me.

Because I'm not very interested in dumbing things down for people who are intelligent enough to understand what I'm typing here, I believe it's disrespectful.

Do you actually want to know?

Why else would I ask?

Jaws13 · #18 28th October 2009, 01:01 AM

There you go taking a leaf out of my book again. Not that I mind in the least. It's quite entertaining. Not sure I'd come up with the sparring analogy, I'll have to use that from now on.

ebia · #19 28th October 2009, 01:15 AM

I'm not interested in a dance-off, I'm interested in an old-fashioned sparring match where the two people anticipate each other's movements and bow and the beginning and end of the battle. This requires you to be sharp enough with your wit and I assume, given my previous interactions with you, that you are sharp enough.

If this is a game then I guess we're done.

CShephard53 · #20 28th October 2009, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by ebia

If this is a game then I guess we're done.

A sparring match is no game. If you take it as such, then you haven't read nearly enough literature.