Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-24-2011, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Sorry

I think you mean, '"We, in the USA." Others have their own arrangements.

Would it be correct to say that incitement to brutal violence is permissible in the USA provided the motive is religious?

No it would not be.

Quote:

Or would it be correct to say that invoking the USA's First Amendment in this context is not only to distract with a parochial concern, but is irrelevant even at that level?

Incitement to violence is only an argument for suppressing a publication when the incitement is specific and highly likely to result in actual violence.

We in the US take our First Amendment seriously.

Horatio Parker · 12-24-2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

While I am with the camp who claims that most of the essential passages of the Bible were intended to be taken literally, I think value judgments are generally useless at best and misleading at worst when trying to make sense of the Bible.

With that in mind, we need to make judgments of whether or not any given passage in the Bible is literal or figurative based on what which explanation fits the passage with the greatest probability, not based on our prejudices. If all of our earliest evidence indicates that adherents literally believed the claims of the text, then there is a problem of plausibility, and I think a very strong argument would be required to surmount the prima facie conclusion that the texts were intended to be taken literally. If the texts themselves do not explicitly tell the readers that the texts are metaphorical (such as when Jesus explains a parable), then it seems all but impossible to successfully argue that the texts are merely metaphorical, except of course with the help of the prejudices of those who wish to accept the conclusions that the texts may contradict.

The placing of events in historical time is to me the strongest argument that the Gospel stories were intended to be taken literally. Timeless myths have no need to take place when then this or that Procurator or Governor or High Priest acted in Judea.

But it's weakened IMO by the argument that the Gospels were pursuing a political agenda by emphasizing the difference between Roman and Jew. That audience would've understood the difference between a protectorate and a province, say. Since Judea was not always a Roman province, the window of history was small.

IOW the events didn't have to be historical, but the setting did, because of the political agenda.

I would agree that the proto-orthodox view of historicity appeared to be present from the beginning, but there were other interpretations, and I would resist the temptation to assume that the intentions of the author of gMark were consistent with what became a dominant view. No one knows.

Theologically speaking, you're on your own.

sotto voce · 12-24-2011, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Incitement to violence is only an argument for suppressing a publication when the incitement is specific and highly likely to result in actual violence.

The Bible does not do that?

Toto · 12-24-2011, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Incitement to violence is only an argument for suppressing a publication when the incitement is specific and highly likely to result in actual violence.

The Bible does not do that?

Very few readers today take the Bible seriously enough to follow its commandments to kill rebellious teen-agers or non-virginal brides.

sotto voce · 12-24-2011, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

The Bible does not do that?

Very few readers today take the Bible seriously enough to follow its commandments to kill rebellious teen-agers or non-virginal brides.

So the Bible does incite to brutal acts. It is therefore subject to prohibition— under every national jurisdiction, afaik.

Toto · 12-24-2011, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Very few readers today take the Bible seriously enough to follow its commandments to kill rebellious teen-agers or non-virginal brides.

So the Bible does incite to brutal acts. It is therefore subject to prohibition— under every national jurisdiction, afaik.

It does not in practice, and the few people who are incited can be dealt with by mental health statutes.

What's your game here, Mr. voce? Trying to get Christians persecuted so you can be a holy martyr?

sotto voce · 12-24-2011, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

So the Bible does incite to brutal acts. It is therefore subject to prohibition— under every national jurisdiction, afaik.

It does not in practice, and the few people who are incited can be dealt with by mental health statutes.

So the Bible does not incite to brutality in the minds of sane people, and is not a threat to public order and safety. Why, then, is it worth attention? If it is true that the deity portrayed therein favours ethnic cleansing and other brutal acts, how can the Bible begin to be worth consideration of whether its meaning is literal or figurative?

Toto · 12-24-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It does not in practice, and the few people who are incited can be dealt with by mental health statutes.

So the Bible does not incite to brutality in the minds of sane people, and is not a threat to public order and safety. Why, then, is it worth attention? ...

Like Dr. Jim says, nonsense is nonsense, but the study of nonsense is scholarship.

We pay attention to the Bible because it still has a cultural hold on our society, and we need to unwind its grip.

Or perhaps the Bible is like a fossilized dinosaur turd, a remnant of our evolution.

sotto voce · 12-24-2011, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

We pay attention to the Bible because it still has a cultural hold on our society, and we need to unwind its grip.

Why is that necessary?

Ktotwf · 12-24-2011, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The Christian Left is in a war of interpretation with the Christian Right. The latter hold to what they claim is a literalist view, and charge that the former are just reading what they want into the text. Rightist anti-Christians side with Rightist Christians in this war of interpretation. Thus, the Christian Left has two enemies: the Christian Right and the anti-Christian Right. In my view, the greater danger is from the latter, and they should be opposed first and foremost.

Who is the anti-Christian right? National Socialists? I can hardly think of any rightists who weren't or aren't at least willing to get along with Christianity.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.