I've been mulling the idea around in my head for a while now; though several of you have it seems like many of us haven't even opened a bible. So, I've been thinking about having a sort of &Totse "sermon".

I came up with the idea because I need to reread the bible badly, but I find it very difficult to do so without a class. So, instead I read until I have a comment or question, and I write down these reflections.

I thought posting these would be mutually beneficial for me as well as the board.

However, I have a life (thank you very much) and can't garauntee an actual schedule. For instance, I may post several times a week or I may not post at all.

With that said I'd like the extend and encourage others of you read along and post, too. I know it sounds really geeky, but I think - if we could get some kind of rhythm going - it would a really good experience for the &Totse community and very educational.

I sound like a school teacher. That's just wrong...

Cheers,

Lost

I, too, think this is a good idea.

The people that know nothing about what they preach or are against make totse an interesting place to spend your life on.

I think that sounds like a good idea. I think discussions of actual books/passages in the Bible could lead to substantially more interesting dialogue than the usual forum fare.

Most posts about the Bible are usually too general and broad - they simply assert or question its authoritative status. Naturally, such conversations usually lead nowhere.

A discussion of a specific book or passage, though, would narrow the field considerably so that a variety of issues could be incorporated into the discussion: history, linguistics, philosophy, morality, etc.

My time is somewhat limited as well, but I'll try to find time to participate if you start a thread.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Cheers,

Lost



i think it might be a good thing to try

I'm game. What's the first passage, people?

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

I'm game. What's the first passage, people?



start at the begining??

do we lay some sort of ground rules? or make them up as we go? i can see some chaos, but as beergoggles pointed out, "The people that know nothing about what they preach or are against make totse an interesting place to spend your life on"

LostCause, since you are both author of the thread and Moderator, i guess you have (LOL - pun somewhat intended) soveriegn authority on the matters.

Alright! We'll get to play awesome games like "my interpretation is the only correct one, dumbass" and "it's supposed to be taken literally, not metaphorically, dipshit."

I kid, I kid.

quote:Originally posted by R_I:

Alright! We'll get to play awesome games like "my interpretation is the only correct one, dumbass" and "it's supposed to be taken literally, not metaphorically, dipshit."

I kid, I kid.

Not far from the truth, actually. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

in the beginning was the Word and the Word was "Li3K OMG U R T3h gayz0rs11!!"........

(taken from the Gospel Of J.C. [Stanton])

And Jesus walked on water, And Peter said awesome!

and jesus spake unto him saying 'get thee behind me douchebag - U is Pwnd!"

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 10-31-2004).]

Gut idea

Let's just do E and have sex instead. You know you want to.

I just wanted to get a general consensus to see if other people didn't think it would just be a terrible idea.

I don't imagine I'd perscribe any "rules". Frankly, I think &Totse is a bit beyond "rules". For instance, I'm making it a rule that stupid people don't post here. Breaking this rule will result in having a chopstick lodged in your eyeball.

O, wait, this is the internet and I don't actually have physical contact with any of you people. So, I guess my rules don't hold much water.

Too bad. That would be nice.

Back to the topic at hand: I have soup, I mean never mind. So, I'd start at the beginning and go page by page. And I don't see any clear way (just yet) that any of us could work out a sequence in which who is going to write what or if and when. I'd just play it by ear.

And I suppose if someone else just wanted to post a piece of scripture (even if it's non sequitor) with their own two cents it would be a grand idea.

I see were almost all in agreement.

Okay, I'll get on with this as soon as I sober up.

Ha! Like that's going to happen.

Okay, I'll try to get on with it sometime in the near future.

Everybody happy?

Cheers,

Lost

What if we worked offa lectionary (one of those things that have readings for different days/times of year) or something?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

What if we worked offa lectionary (one of those things that have readings for different days/times of year) or something?

part of the reason that i suggested the begining is that all Christian teaching in the NT is based, either directly or indirectly, in Genesis. The other reason, which stems from the first, is simply to have a foundation... kinda hard to understand the reason for a Messiah if you dont "know" about sin.

A lectionary it probably not geared toward the many different beleifs and non-beliefs that are in this little community called TOTSE.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

part of the reason that i suggested the begining is that all Christian teaching in the NT is based, either directly or indirectly, in Genesis. The other reason, which stems from the first, is simply to have a foundation... kinda hard to understand the reason for a Messiah if you dont "know" about sin.



Interestingly enough, the word "sin" does not appear in the Book of Genesis.

quote:Originally posted by Lolita:

Interestingly enough, the word "sin" does not appear in the Book of Genesis.



interestingly enough, a great deal of what christians believe does not appear in the bible at all.....

(or only with eye bleeding knight- jump logic)

for example the ideas of a 'devil', hell,purgatory,heaven,an immortal soul and xmas -just to name a few.



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 11-01-2004).]

From http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm :-

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

yeah a real lunatic...

in all other societies of the period the raped woman (therefore unmarriable) would have been thrown out of her fathers house and left to starve or go sell herself..

never judge the OT with present ideals. rape had a very different meaning back then.

Then it's not a very good moral resource, now is it?

no its not ...if you mean by the letter of what it says. but the spirit of real justice is still very applicable.

the jews spent much effort expanding in these laws and making them relevant (talmud)but at the same time keeping faith with the ideals.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

no its not ...if you mean by the letter of what it says. but the spirit of real justice is still very applicable.

the jews spent much effort expanding in these laws and making them relevant (talmud)but at the same time keeping faith with the ideals.

preach it brutha

quote:part of the reason that i suggested the begining is that all Christian teaching in the NT is based, either directly or indirectly, in Genesis. The other reason, which stems from the first, is simply to have a foundation... kinda hard to understand the reason for a Messiah if you dont "know" about sin.

I for one would rather avoid doing Genesis to start this off as we all know thath it will turn into another creationism shit fight... that is of course, unless people are mature enough to not play that game.

IMO I think that it would be a lot more fruitful for us all if we did something like the sermon on the mount (Matt 5 onwards) etc.

me thinks anyway.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

[B] I for one would rather avoid doing Genesis to start this off as we all know thath it will turn into another creationism shit fight... that is of course, unless people are mature enough to not play that game.

[B]

Agreed. As someone else already wisely predicted, it would just turn into another "Is it literal or metaphorical?" debate.

Personally, I don't know why some people have such a hard time accepting that some of the Bible is metaphorical. Jesus spoke in parables! "Metaphor" or "myth" need not have negative connotations. They've turned into dirty words in our rational-empiricist culture, and people subsequently feel they must defend scripture against such "accusations."

Personally, I think myth is more profound than literality and certainly a more effective way of languaging the un-languageable (i.e. the sacred, God, etc.).

quote: Jesus spoke in parables

yes although his parables often contained hidden 'political' meanings ("let him who hath ears..)

quote:Originally posted by Lolita:

Interestingly enough, the word "sin" does not appear in the Book of Genesis.

You may be right but what i said was:

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

part of the reason that i suggested the begining is that all Christian teaching in the NT is based, either directly or indirectly, in Genesis. The other reason, which stems from the first, is simply to have a foundation... kinda hard to understand the reason for a Messiah if you dont "know" about sin.

so even though the word "sin" is not mentioned in Genisis, the NT does say in Romans 5:12

12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

Now, i'm not sure where or how the law would be pointed to from Genesis, but i'm just pointing out one place that the Christian understanding of sin could be Genesis based. I would have to give thought to the idea of the "Law" being Genesis based.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

You may be right but what i said was:

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

part of the reason that i suggested the begining is that all Christian teaching in the NT is based, either directly or indirectly, in Genesis. The other reason, which stems from the first, is simply to have a foundation... kinda hard to understand the reason for a Messiah if you dont "know" about sin.

so even though the word "sin" is not mentioned in Genisis, the NT does say in Romans 5:12

12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

Now, i'm not sure where or how the law would be pointed to from Genesis, but i'm just pointing out one place that the Christian understanding of sin could be Genesis based. I would have to give thought to the idea of the "Law" being Genesis based.



Oh yeah, I know what you were saying. I just thought it was interesting that the word(s) "sin" or "original sin" don't appear in the Book of Genesis. Just making a random comment.

Of course one can interpret Genesis in that way, though. It makes sense mythologically. Myths don't tell stories about individual people in particular times and particular places; they tell stories that apply to everyone, everywhere, throughout history. That's their function. (Note: when I use the term "myth" I'm not implying the story is not literally true. That's not the true meaning of "myth." Even Christian theologians use the term.)

Also interesting: everyone assumes Eve was eating an apple, when the text never states what fruit it was. We sometimes project our own ideas onto a text without realizing that we're doing it.

quote: We sometimes project our own ideas onto a text without realizing that we're doing it.

ain't that the truth! well done-if you realised that then you've crossed the biggest hurdle to understanding the bible.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

ain't that the truth! well done-if you realised that then you've crossed the biggest hurdle to understanding the bible.

Realized that? It wasn't a sudden revelation - I have a degree in English. This shit was indoctrinated into me years ago. (Postmodern literary theory and all that fun stuff...)

ahh right. my bad- i'm used to talking to christians and not scholars. (bibliology instead of theology).

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

ahh right. my bad- i'm used to talking to christians and not scholars. (bibliology instead of theology).

No, no problem. It just sounded slightly condescending. But, hey, I've been told I have a tendency to do that here as well. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

And Christians can be scholars, too! I know many brilliant ones.

Mind you, I'm not a "scholar" of English/literary theory. I just have a B.A. in it. I'm currently working on becoming a scholar of Religious Studies. I'm not focusing on Biblical Studies, though, so I don't really know much about it. Unfortunately.

Here, I thought I'd be going too slow for everyone, but it seems like I'm going too fast.

Am I going too fast?

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by Lolita:

No, no problem. It just sounded slightly condescending. But, hey, I've been told I have a tendency to do that here as well. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

And Christians can be scholars, too! I know many brilliant ones.

Mind you, I'm not a "scholar" of English/literary theory. I just have a B.A. in it. I'm currently working on becoming a scholar of Religious Studies. I'm not focusing on Biblical Studies, though, so I don't really know much about it. Unfortunately.

sorry it wasn't meant to sound at all condescending. and a 'scholar' is anyone who studies (the bible) in a scholarly manner (like using the criteria of evidence and meaning) and not blinded by their own beliefs http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Here, I thought I'd be going too slow for everyone, but it seems like I'm going too fast.

Am I going too fast?

Cheers,

Lost

Not being of 'xtian' persuasion my understanding is limited, however here's two:

John chapter 1 vs 5 "The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it" means to me that for those who search for the truth they will find it even in a roman catholic bible because truth is truth and when understood one does not wish to obscure it. Those whose minds are clouded in darkness are not able to understand/comprehend the truth, therefore they can not change it. This may be the reason that the bible has much of wisdom as well as much of doctrinal indoctrination(nonsense).

Second is also from John and highlights the schism apparent amongst xtians.

John 4:24 seems to be translated either "God is a spirit" or "God is Spirit" in an equal number of translations checked. Amazing the difference in understanding a simple 'a' can make.

"God is a spirit" speaks of a personal god, one who sits on a throne etc = western/roman catholic/protestant/fundamentalist theology, whereas "god is spirit" is much like eastern belief in that god is in everything that exists, the spirit of life.

Which is the truth?

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

This oughta be fun !

EXseLLenT IdEa hahahaha

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.shtml

GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history.

EX 2:12 Moses murders an Egyptian.

EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt.

EX 32:27-29 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay 3000 men.

NU 16:49 A plague from the Lord kills 14,700 people.

2SA 24:15 The Lord sends a pestilence on Israel that kills 70,000 men.

MT 3:12, 8:12, 10:21, 13:30, 42, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, LK 13:28, JN 5:24 Some will spend eternity burning in Hell. There will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.