71–80 of 80 posts
I read it all. There are no shockers in the boxes. It's all explained ahead of time and by the time the contents of the boxes are revealed, you'll wish you didn't read all of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that the writer in Ezekiel is proposing a new deal (in the voice of God) for his intended audience: basically, if at this point in the negotiations you forsake behavior A, various criminality and oppression; I will promise B, not to hold your relatives responsible, and C, to rescue those you've oppressed. (Also possibly D and E -- it's a long passage.)
Thank you for sharing your explanation. One point I was trying to make was that just as the concept of children not being responsible for their parent's choices is mentioned in the Bible, so is the concept of children being affected by their parent's choices. Whether or not I should take a random person on the internet's (OP's) word that a Bible verse should be interpreted as aspirational or your word that a concept…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for sharing your explanation. One point I was trying to make was that just as the concept of children not being responsible for their parent's choices is mentioned in the Bible, so is the concept of children being affected by their parent's choices. Whether or not I should take a random person on the internet's (OP's) word that a Bible verse should be interpreted as aspirational or your word that a concept…
You can't present these two passages as if they're the same voice. It's two different authors so the point that there exists multiple points in the Bible is a non-sequitur. It is very clear that the Ezekiel quote is aspirational because we do know a) what the levant was like then & b) what Jewish law already said and c) what Ezekiel is saying. The fact that you personally don't know invalidates nothing, and that fact…
I appreciate your filling in additional justification for the OP's initial intro. Thanks for sharing your understanding of the passages though there may be a slim chance your understanding of me is a bit lacking while you've chosen to disregard the HN guidelines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoting one statement from a source in support of one's perspective can be interpreted as an attempt to demonstrate that the source aligns with that perspective.
"can" != "necessarily does", but you said "can't", which is what I refuted. And I think your assertion here is even more baseless, frankly ... there's zero indication that they offered the quote to buff the bible, which was not previously the subject of discussion. And they didn't even quote it in support of their perspective, they said it was "aspirational" but then said "To isolate children from the iniquity of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's literally less traumatic for a child to be in an active war zone than to be separated from their parents. Unless they happen to go to war themselves, vanquishing an evil queen with the help of a lion and becoming kings and queens, and reigning for a long while themselves. Those kids seem to mostly turn out alright. Small sample size though.
One of them (Susan) gets really into nylons and lipstick and is basically damned to hell for it, though.
Also, she wasn't damned by the end of the last Narnia book (rather, she's expected to be damned, but it is not yet certain).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's extremely possible to be familiar with the criticism without ever having seen specific examples. I certainly haven't. I guess I assumed it was something to do with people misunderstanding the difference between new and old testament, or something to that effect. Your comment also does not seem to present any examples of this. You start talking about it, but then you move on to complaining about cherry-pi…
The common criticism was > Probably to show you can pick any choose any bible verse to make whatever point you want. Explicit contradictions aren't the only basis for that, but for those, bible-defending pedants can see password4321's comment that started this subthread as well as his followup. Over and out ... I won't respond further.
I don’t even disagree with you, I just don’t get why you’re so purposely mislabeling it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The common criticism was > Probably to show you can pick any choose any bible verse to make whatever point you want. Explicit contradictions aren't the only basis for that, but for those, bible-defending pedants can see password4321's comment that started this subthread as well as his followup. Over and out ... I won't respond further.
Then say the argument for what it is - “the text is often misunderstood and/or misrepresented”, not “the text itself is somehow hypocritical because people misuse it”. I don’t even disagree with you, I just don’t get why you’re so purposely mislabeling it.
I should stick with not responding, but I never said anything of the sort. And despite my many criticisms of religion and the religious, I have never in my life had the thought that the BIBLE is "hypocritical", just because it has inconsistencies and contradictions (which it genuinely does AS DOCUMENTED here, NOT merely people hypocritically misusing, misinterpreting, or cherry picking from it) -- ascribing hypocrisy to the bible is a category mistake.
> you’re so purposely mislabeling it.
So not only am I mislabeling something that I never labeled, I'm doing so purposely? And not just purposely, but purposely in extremis?
What an absurd and disgusting uncharitable personal attack. I will truly never respond to you again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is literally true now that we understand epigenetics a bit more.
Do you have any references on this? My understanding is that it’s in kind of a similar boat with intergenerational trauma that quantum mechanics is with certain schools of philosophy, and that the actual science of epigenetics supports a much more limited scope (responding to e.g famine and other current stressors in utero), so anything that could fall into the intergenerational realm would need to be passed down thr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then say the argument for what it is - “the text is often misunderstood and/or misrepresented”, not “the text itself is somehow hypocritical because people misuse it”. I don’t even disagree with you, I just don’t get why you’re so purposely mislabeling it.
> not “the text itself is somehow hypocritical because people misuse it”. I should stick with not responding, but I never said anything of the sort. And despite my many criticisms of religion and the religious, I have never in my life had the thought that the BIBLE is "hypocritical", just because it has inconsistencies and contradictions (which it genuinely does AS DOCUMENTED here, NOT merely people hypocritically mi…
>Explicit contradictions aren't the only basis for that, but for those, bible-defending pedants can see password4321's comment that started this subthread as well as his followup.
Right, you’re talking about the one that explicitly is not a contradiction, it’s a misunderstanding of new vs. Old Testament, which I specified in my first response.
This is the worst thing about discussing religion on the internet. People pretend to be so disgusted by it they simply CANNOT POSSIBLY discuss it, despite being just… completely wrong.
And of course the explicit contradictions are needed. If all you’ve got is “this seems backwards” and nothing more, that’s a sign you don’t actually have a contradiction - you have anger born of ignorance.