The Bible is Rediculous!

[_The Nehor]

The convenient thing about symbolism and metaphor is that if the reader or commentator come to the text with the predetermination that it is accurate, it can be used to patch together virtually any inaccuracy or contradiction that could possibly exist in the text. See above:

Observed inconsistency: It was in violation of the law
THEREFORE
Conclusion: Vision, not reality

The premise that must exist for this conclusion to be drawn, however, is that the text itself is neither inaccurate nor incongruent.

The convenient thing about communication about virtually anything is that you can misread it if you so choose by choosing to make it literal. For example, I could respond to your first sentence in this post by pointing out that it is ludicrous to suggest that a patch of some kind can be used to bind together intellectual statements.

The ability to discern metaphor from literalism is something we do routinely. If you assumed a literal understanding of everything the world would be a very confusing place:

"My dogs are calling me." (Her pets are murdering her?)
"After I said that, he exploded at me and went crazy." (spontaneous combustion?)
"I can't figure this damned thing out." (The object is going to hell?)

All languages use this kind of metaphor. From context I'm pretty sure Ezekiel is not telling us to cook with dung but is trying to drive in a point. I consider this a passage where to assume it's literal is to be deliberately naïve.

[_beastie]

All languages use this kind of metaphor. From context I'm pretty sure Ezekiel is not telling us to cook with dung but is trying to drive in a point. I consider this a passage where to assume it's literal is to be deliberately naïve.

As naïve as assuming the part in the Bible that talks about God fathering a son with a moral woman, and that same son rising from the dead is literal?

[Guest]

I like the Bible. It's taken forty seven years but I like history so I want to try to get to know the mind of a person living or scribe living between 750 BC and 250 BC. I want to figure out why the Hebrews dog the Egyptians so much. Even when they can do them some good by providing a mutual aid type compact Isaiah and others say no way. No early NATO type alliance. If they say it is the tradition of the Hebrews being Egyptian slaves then why did the Hebrews makes slaves of people that they conquered.

I like the New Testament too. There are a lot of things I like especially when Jesus heals the sick. I don't like it when he calls the woman a dog. Maybe it was to teach her the concept of forgiveness.

But all this is second hand information (except for John) but it is nice to read.

[_marg]

I don't like it when he calls the woman a dog. Maybe it was to teach her the concept of forgiveness.

Does he call women bitches as well? Ok, give me the section of the Bible. I want to see this "dog" quote.

[_karl61]

Thank goodness for Google:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Jesus+wo ... 0T0PTDylw0

[_Roger]

Nomomo:

First off your analogy doesn't work at all. Dignity? Telling folks to cook their bread with their poop? I suppose that's showing dignity? You are being as ridiculous as Ezekiel.

God did not "tell folks" to cook with poop. He was instructing Ezekiel (not folks) on what he (Ezekiel) should do to make the point to the people of how they had already defiled themselves.

You've got to remember the Jews were extremely picky about eating anything they considered "defiled" because God had instructed them not to eat like the pagans did. So they considered themselves better than the pagans surrounding them. God's message was that even though they strictly obeyed the food thing, they were still defiled because of their idols--but they did not accept such chastisement. So to illustrate the point, God tells his prophet to purposely defile his own food (by cooking it with human dung). To this Ezekiel himself protests, and God says, fine, use cow dung instead.

The point is, God is saying you think you are so high and mighty, but to me you are unclean because of your idol worship.

You are not the intended audience for the book of Ezekiel, therefore it is understandible that you don't get the point. What's a little more disturbing is that you twist facts to bolster your lack of understanding.

[_Paul Osborne]

Nomomo:

First off your analogy doesn't work at all. Dignity? Telling folks to cook their bread with their poop? I suppose that's showing dignity? You are being as ridiculous as Ezekiel.

God did not "tell folks" to cook with poop. He was instructing Ezekiel (not folks) on what he (Ezekiel) should do to make the point to the people of how they had already defiled themselves.

You've got to remember the Jews were extremely picky about eating anything they considered "defiled" because God had instructed them not to eat like the pagans did. So they considered themselves better than the pagans surrounding them. God's message was that even though they strictly obeyed the food thing, they were still defiled because of their idols--but they did not accept such chastisement. So to illustrate the point, God tells his prophet to purposely defile his own food (by cooking it with human dung). To this Ezekiel himself protests, and God says, fine, use cow dung instead.

The point is, God is saying you think you are so high and mighty, but to me you are unclean because of your idol worship.

You are not the intended audience for the book of Ezekiel, therefore it is understandible that you don't get the point. What's a little more disturbing is that you twist facts to bolster your lack of understanding.

Well said. Thanks, Roger.

Poor Nomomo doesn't know the Bible very well or how it operates. He mocks these things but does so like a drunken man. All we can do is try and point things out for him but it's up to him to put it together. I wonder if he will ever realize how unfair he is.

Paul O

[_marg]

Karl,

I did a search and found nothing. Your link by the way, only took me to the google search page.

[_Daniel Peterson]

As naïve as assuming the part in the Bible that talks about God fathering a son with a moral woman?

You would have preferred some other kind of woman?

[_The Nehor]

All languages use this kind of metaphor. From context I'm pretty sure Ezekiel is not telling us to cook with dung but is trying to drive in a point. I consider this a passage where to assume it's literal is to be deliberately naïve.

As naïve as assuming the part in the Bible that talks about God fathering a son with a moral woman, and that same son rising from the dead is literal?

I find no meaning in those passages taken metaphorically. I find it more likely they are literal. That and of course the whole Holy Ghost thing.