Freethought & Rationalism Archive

inquisitive01 · 08-20-2004, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

It's all vanity, all vanity - we try to have control
It's all vanity, all vanity 'cause Chaos rules it all - New Model Army

:snooze:
To ask questions to gain a better understanding is vain?

Oh well, you live and learn. Or, rather, I don't - cos I already know all the answers according to inq01. :angel:

Anyway Inq01, are you really wanting to have an honest serious discussion on "So, is everything possible if we're allowed to pick'n'mix our own bible quotes as and when we wish?"

Or are you only wanting me to have some fun? :devil2:

Hmmm. Still, I think I'll let Pervy finish with you first. Manners maketh man, and all that.

And speaking of manners: why don't you answer some questions instead of just spouting off? Or is 'maybe' as far as your thinking has taken you?
It's OK, it's not actually illegal to be agnostic on the IIDB.

Luxie
No, it's never enough, it's never enough until your heart stops beating - New Order

So much information, so many possible answers, so many quotes from other humans... yet so little time. Vain as in "To be overly proud (i.e., of one's knowledge) is vain, or vanity," not vain as in "Our efforts to answer these questions seem to be in vain."

Another quote: "Hurry now, hurry!"

post tenebras lux · 08-20-2004, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

So much information, so many possible answers, so many quotes from other humans... yet so little time. Vain as in "To be overly proud (i.e., of one's knowledge) is vain, or vanity," not vain as in "Our efforts to answer these questions seem to be in vain."

Another quote: "Hurry now, hurry!"

Oh sorry Inq01, I didn't realise you were being serious. So, what was it you wanted to know?

And what's the hurry? :wave:

I'm not going to answer about the vanity/knowledge thing cos it is so not this thread. If it is, please explain why?

Luxie

inquisitive01 · 08-20-2004, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Oh sorry Inq01, I didn't realise you were being serious. So, what was it you wanted to know?

And what's the hurry? :wave:

I'm not going to answer about the vanity/knowledge thing cos it is so not this thread. If it is, please explain why?

Luxie

I'll let you figure it out, along with what/who is "so not this thread." :bulb:

post tenebras lux · 08-21-2004, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

I'll let you figure it out, along with what/who is "so not this thread." :bulb:

OK. Well yes, personally I think that as the bible was written by men, and as men have been known to be vain, then mere vanity could explain many apparent inconsistencies in the bible.

Then there is the vanity of the general people. It's one thing to think that your tribe or nation has its own personal god, but quite another thing to claim that your nation has the only god.

So, the apparent inconsistencies in the bible, concerning whether men can look upon the face of God and live, could have some roots in the vanity of the prophets and the writers, as well as in the general chauvinism of the populace.

If you want me to be blunt: perhaps they made it up to make themselves look good and their listeners feel good.

Luxie

Dean Anderson · 08-21-2004, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

Maybe (since we're dealing with maybe's here) the writer of Exodus made some sort of error, or maybe the "face of God" Jacob saw (or even the place he named Peniel) was representative of something else, such as how countries (i.e., Israel is mentioned just after this "wrestling match" in Genesis 32: 28, 32) are sometimes represented by other things in visions, etc. After looking more carefully at these Verses, it seems even possible that the name "Jacob" may be representative of something else, such as Israel.

So to summarise, Maybe it doesn't actually mean what it says - and therefore isn't contradictory.

That's a good way to read the Bible. Unfortunately, you have nowhere to draw the line between things that should be taken at face value and things that don't actually mean what they say. Maybe none of it actually means what it says. Maybe Jesus didn't actually die for our sins and that story is just representative of something else.

Well, I think that safely conlcudes this discussion - unless you have anything else to add...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.