@semck:

See, semck, it's your inability to understand why someone might not like one piece of literature YOU like and like another that really confuses me.

Why can't you accept that I like Shakespeare and not the Bible?

I wouldn't hold it against you if, say, you liked Dante but not Milton.
Dickens but not Dostoyevsky.
Fitzgerald but not Faulkner.
Dickinson but not Bronte (any, though poet-to-poet it'd be Emily vs. Emily...fittingly enough.) :)

I'm sorry--exceptions aside, I DO NOT LIKE LIKE THE BIBLE AS A LITERARY WORK.

I think it is, actually TELLING that so much GOOD literature has come with the Bible invoked in terms of its imagery, its famous wording, its events...

Because, YES, the Bible DOES have great language!
It does!
Even if you just take translations, the KJV is a very easy book on the ears!

And YES, it has some very, very memorable images for poets and authors!
Moses parting the seas, Jesus walking on water...
For whatever it says about the human psyche, the Crucifixion alone has sparked countless great works of music, literature, and especially pictorial art!

But I'm SORRY...

I do NOT like the Adam and Eve story! I find it killed by paradox and sexism, among other things...it's simple a bad, bad story in my opinion, if it were written today as a piece of fiction, the editor would scoff at it, NOT for being implausible--we live in the age of Harry Potter and fantasy series, after all--but because its premise, own internal logic, and banality crashes in on itself, and even when a genius like Milton touches it up and makes Genesis into a masterpiece, the implicit sexism regarding Eve and women is still there!

It's a HORRIBLE way to start a book...OR a religion.

I do NOT like the Noah story--really, the animals must suffer for humanity's failings?
And ALL of humanity is evil, save Noah & Co.?
ALL of it?
Again...BABIES?
Really? The BABIES are evil and deserve a terrible death via flood?
Come ON!

Abraham and Isaac?
THAT I know many like...hell, Kierkegaard based a whole book on it...
But what you see as a fantastic leap of faith, well, I see the way Hitchens sees it:
If a voice in my head told ME to kill my only son, I'd be horrible if I did it, and mental...
The courts would certainly see it that way...
If a PERSON told me to kill my only son, I'D *HOPE* everyone here would, as Hitchens said, say "Fuck you!" and not kill their son! ...My "faith" is weakened by the idea people are OK with the Samuel story, but I'll still hold out hope no one here would do that...? Others, very intelligent others--again, Kierkegaard--love the story, so, again, difference of taste, I hate it.

The Esau story...horrible!
He knows he made a mistake, the father, and can't correct it?
The son manipulates his way into getting the birthright...and everyone's on HIS side?
It's not as if Esau was a terrible person...hell, he wasn't given the time or character development to even BE a terrible person!

Which is my problem with a lot of the Bible--

Excluding obvious giants like David, Jesus, Moses, and Abraham, frankly, many characters are just not given the character depth--and especially internal depth--they need.

I think of characters like Agamemnon, Ajax, Athena, Aphrodite, Achilles, Paris, Priam, Penelope Hector, Hecuba, Hera, Helen (my, quite a few A/P/H names!) and Odysseus, and look at how deep they are as characters, how Homer spends so much time (and so many volumes!) developing each of them internally and externally...

And then I stack that against figures like Adam, Eve, Jacob, Esau, Isaac, Samuel, MOST of the villains (notice Homer develops the Greeks AND Trojans quite a bit, but the Bible, with a couple exceptions, really only develops its heroes if it develops them at at all, the villains are often far less complex, a notable case--Pharaoh is FAR more complex and layered in both "The Ten Commandments" and "The Prince of Egypt," film adaptations of Exodus, than he is textually, which I have to say was a definite disappointments reading that story, a story which, for all of its flaws, I LIKED...but here is one of the most classic villains in one of the most classic and foundational epics in all human history, and to have the villain as written be so FLAT...!) and I'm sorry...

I don't like it!



WHY is that hard to comprehend?

I don't understand why as a matter of TASTE it's so hard to comprehend that someone might not like the story you're really into...

HELL, even the figures of my own Holy Trinity of Writing didn't like everything the others wrote...Shakespeare, Milton, T.S. Eliot, I love them all...

But while Eliot loved Shakespeare, he didn't like "Hamlet" at all, he said Shakespeare tried to be too ambitious and tackle something so big no one could tackle it adequately, that it was ambitious, but--to use Eliot's own words--"an artistic failure."

He wrote that in the famous essay "Hamlet and His Problems," which is probably THE single-most famous and effective negative criticism of "Hamlet" to date...

Obviously nearly all of us still love "Hamlet" and side against Eliot there, but look how open-minded we can be to both realize the genius of Eliot's attempt--he really DOES give it his all, and since the man is renowned as the best English poet and one of the best English critics and essayists of the last century, you can imagine that it's not just any old writer going up against the Bard, it's Titan vs. Titan here--and, as most of us do, disagree in the same breath...

BUT still hold that his idea of an "objective correlative" (ie, characters in a story should move with an internal logic consistent with their characters and with the environment around them, which he feels is lacking with Hamlet...he doesn't think, oddly enough, Hamlet has reason enough to be as sad as he is...WHY this is the case, with his father dead, mother marrying his uncle right after the funeral of his beloved father, his losing a shot at the throne, having his best friends and girlfriend used as puppets against him, AND having either a ghost or a really-terrifying psychological manifestation appear to him and haunt him I don't now, but that's Eliot's argument, anyway, you can see why most soundly disagree with him) is brilliant...

Just not with "Hamlet." ;)

No one said to Eliot,

"How can you dislike 'Hamlet' and still claim to be the most educated, profound, and elitist poet of our age?"

Further, he may have disliked "Hamlet," but he LOVED Shakespeare overall, citing him frequently (even using the play he didn't like, "Hamlet," in his poetry, when in "Prufrock" he has his character say "No! I am not Prince Hamlet" to stand in for his speaker not being what he saw as an old-fashioned sort of front-and-center attention seeker and false, prominent figure) and being one of the most noted Shakespeare critics EVER, ranking with Dr. Samuel Johnson (hate him) and Dostoyevsky (LOVE him) in that regard.

Some may have asked "How the HELL can you call, of all works, CORIOLANUS Shakespeare's best work, while calling his masterpiece of masterpieces, the one that more than one author has and will go on to say "invented" the modern character and human being," an "artistic failure?!" but no one said "It's because Eliot's thick and tone-deaf to human nature!"

See...I don't think the Bible (the stories I knock, anyway, the many, many stories) DO reflect human nature:

Who here WOULD kill their kid if they heard a voice in their head or a person tell them to???

That's the antithesis of human nature...and if someone did do so, again, they'd go to jail or an insane asylum no one would be OK with it by reason of "hearing God's voice."

What's more, even if said voice/person pulled the Divine version of a "Gotcha!" and stopped his hand or said he could stop just before he was about to do the deed, no one would say "Wow, what incredible faith this man had, how praiseworthy!" they'd say "My God man! You were REALLY about to go through with it and kill your kid?! FOR SHAME!"

(Think what the KID in the Isaac role would have to say about all of this!)

I'll even close on...well...on someone who hated SHAKESPEARE:

Tolstoy (the author, not our resident namesake.) :)

Leo Tolstoy read Shakespeare REPEATEDLY, all the plays, all the sonnets, all the longer poems...

And he repeatedly said, "This is garbage." He didn't like Shakespeare at all.

George Bernard Shaw didn't feel nearly as strongly, he liked SOME of Shakespeare's works (even said "King Lear" was one of the best tragic feats ever) but also was tremendously sick of him and what he saw was, well, people even WORSE than me, authors who didn't just stop at loving and quoting Shakespeare in their writings sometimes, but actually almost started worshiping him as a GOD and becoming just as offended and incredulous and dogmatic about people who didn't like Shakespeare as you, semck, display when I say I dislike the Bible.

So he hated "Bardolotry" (the name he coined for it) and even wrote a short, 20-minute puppet play called "Shakes vs. Shav," where puppetized versions of himself and Shakespeare duked it out over who was better...since it's SHAW'S play, you can probably guess who wins... ;)

But he never blasted those like T.S. Eliot or Virginia Woolf who DID like Shakespeare...

Neither did D.H. Lawrence, another person who was iffy on Shakespeare, alluding to the man's plays several times in his works, yet writing the rather bad (not for content but for its atrocious meter) poem "When I Read Shakespeare," which states, actually, his partial view of Shakespeare...

Which actually is much the same as my view of the Bible--

"When I read Shakespeare I am struck with wonder
that such trivial people should muse and thunder
in such lovely language."

^The meter there isn't bad, it gets worse as the poem goes on... ;)

But that's my problem, too, with the Bible, as JUST literature (obviously if we add in the theology I have several more problems)--

Most of the characters (and a great deal of the exposition) feels so small, flat, uninteresting, or otherwise just flat-out awful...

BUT the language of the KJV is great! There are some truly beautiful lines in there, and it's no wonder that they've stood the test of time, they deserve to, they're really great, poetic, powerful lines!

So why can't you accept my view on the Bible, if I can accept that Lawrence, Shaw, and Eliot (don't care for the bit I've read of Tolstoy) are among my favorite authors, yet they had mixed opinions of Shakespeare, ranging from "Great author, but 'Hamlet,' that's crap" to "He's OK, I guess, especially 'King Lear," but will you all stop toasting him like he's God and the best thing since, well, toast!" to "Great, lovely language...but DAMN how I hate those silly, small characters of his!"

I can accept that, and accept them still as being intelligent and talented, even if they vary on MY favorite author...

Why can't you extend me the same, eve if, evidently, I don't hold the same views on your favorite book?

"I don't like it!



WHY is that hard to comprehend?

I don't understand why as a matter of TASTE it's so hard to comprehend that someone might not like the story you're really into..."

Well, it's not just a matter of taste, though. When you say of a great story, which contains clear truths about the human condition, that it is a shallow and unbelievable story that betrays no knowledge of the human condition, it doesn't just say that your taste runs a particular way; it says that you don't understand the human condition or appreciate literature that portrays it correctly.

And that's odd, because Shakespeare, whom you love, does much the same thing. It would be much as if I attacked Shakespeare as a talentless hack because "Romeo and Juliet would never fall in love if their families hated each other." You wouldn't just think it was a matter of differing tastes, would you? You'd think I was seriously screwed-up in my understanding of humanity and literature.

"The Esau story...horrible!
He knows he made a mistake, the father, and can't correct it?
The son manipulates his way into getting the birthright...and everyone's on HIS side?
It's not as if Esau was a terrible person...hell, he wasn't given the time or character development to even BE a terrible person!"

Nobody said Esau was a terrible person, or that Jacob was an awesome one. Whatever made you think that? You can choose a flawed character as a protagonist, you know. Kind of like, why are so many people on Mark Antony's side when he's a scheming manipulator and Brutus is doing what he thinks is best for the state? Or maybe they're not. Or.... it's complicated, isn't it, these human stories?

"I can accept that, and accept them still as being intelligent and talented, even if they vary on MY favorite author...

Why can't you extend me the same, eve if, evidently, I don't hold the same views on your favorite book? "

Well I said I was confused. Doesn't that reaction from those authors confuse you? I mean, how could they be so wrong?

(Of course, there is one little distinction, which you pretty much begged for: Lawrence, Shaw, and Eliot all demonstrated a real understanding of human nature in their own work. With you, we're still awaiting that day.)

"OK -- but then, presumably you would now admit that, since these particular killings WERE ordered by God, who had perfect information, your objection to CA's point fails, and therefore, a legitimate reason to have ordered the killing of the children would, in fact, have been the fact that they would have died? (Not that WE can know they would have, but since there is the substantial probability, and God would have known, the mere possibility stands as a defeater to the positive claim that God was definitely unjust here, even ignoring the other point I'm about to address)."

No, the objection doesn't fail, because the objection is based on the grounds I stated in the last response to you, and, again, the imperfect information consideration was a counterfactual I used to put the point in human terms (which I figured would be more identifiable). The objection still to this point stands, because the objection is that killing people without their consent because they're inevitably going to die, *even to give them a less painful death*, is wrong.

"That other point is: ever since the fall, every human has deserved punishment and death at the hands of God. You may disagree, but at least that's Christian theology, so you can't charge inconsistency if we use it."

No, I can't charge inconsistency on those grounds. I can instead charge that a God who would hold all of mankind as deserving death and punishment because their thousands-of-generations-removed ancestors ate from a tree against God's commands is not, by any definition of good that isn't tautological (i.e. God is good), good. If you say God is good, fine, but I don't see how you can conclude that the God you reference is OT God.

"God is not a governor whom we choose to follow -- you may not "care for a leader who ignores his own commands" in a human context, but you don't really get to choose whether you're beholden to God or not."

Sure I do, at least while I live here. I don't believe the Christian God exists, but if I did, I certainly could not in good faith claim to love him or want to follow him. Which gets back to the original point. Why would a good God create people that, through their honest and best efforts to understand him, could not convince themselves he exists - and then consign them to eternal torture in the fires of hell for it? Why would a good God allow people to distort his moral truth so grossly as to commit genocide against one another, and then also allow that genocide to happen? Those Bronze Age barbarians certainly saw nothing wrong with what they were doing; if they did, they wouldn't be doing it. If God is the arbiter of morality and able to do anything, why wouldn't he step in somewhere and go "hey guys, genocide is wrong"? (And no, the argument that he did, but people didn't listen, fails. God is all-powerful, meaning that he can do anything, meaning he can convince anyone of anything. If people are unconvinced then God has failed to convince them, meaning that he is not all-powerful, because he's failed to do something and thus not able to do everything.)

"And in any case, you're not even right. Plenty of states do take on themselves the right to kill while forbidding it to their citizens. People follow them no problem, by and large."

Following a state =/= believing a state to be legitimate. If a robber demands I walk with him to the 7/11 on pain of death, I'm definitely following his command, but I don't consider his 'rule' over me legitimate. And it isn't simply a matter of taking the right to kill. In this case, the state (God) is taking the specific right to determine that someone will die more painfully anyway and end their lives less painfully right then and there, and then killing people based on that claimed right. I can't think of a state that actually does this; usually if they're going to kill people it's either as a consequence for a crime or they don't bother explaining their reasoning. But if you were to ask people about this I am almost certain you would get more people saying this is wrong than right. I submit that the moral reasoning behind this belief is that it is wrong to decide for someone else that it is better for them to die less painfully now than more painfully later and kill them based on that decision, irrespective of whether or not one's assessment on the methods of death is correct or incorrect.

@PEOPLE - Why is mercifully killing someone wrong? We do it to animals all the time.

PE,

Some of your points will have to wait till after our debate is posted for response. But here are a couple.

"And no, the argument that he did, but people didn't listen, fails. God is all-powerful, meaning that he can do anything, meaning he can convince anyone of anything. If people are unconvinced then God has failed to convince them, meaning that he is not all-powerful, because he's failed to do something and thus not able to do everything."

Obvious fallacy -- please. All-powerful doesn't mean He will necessarily choose to do what you tell Him to do. He is not all-beholden-to-PE. So this would only work if we had the additional premise, "God tried to forcefully convince them." Which we don't have. We only have your assertion that He should have, which is tendentious to say the least.

As to your last point -- perhaps I was unclear when I switched gears, but my point with the "state" was following a state when it kills somebody because they deserve it, not when they kill somebody to save them pain. And the point of the fall is that post-fall, we each individually are born in sin and sin; not that we are punished for what somebody else did.

Fair. When is that slated to be posted, btw? Anyone here know?

"Obvious fallacy -- please. All-powerful doesn't mean He will necessarily choose to do what you tell Him to do. He is not all-beholden-to-PE. So this would only work if we had the additional premise, "God tried to forcefully convince them." Which we don't have. We only have your assertion that He should have, which is tendentious to say the least."

It's not what I tell him to do; of course he's not beholden to me, as that would definitionally make him not all-powerful. But given this argument:

1. As argued above, God cannot fail to convince someone of anything.
2. God says genocide is wrong. (premise)
3. People commit genocide. (observation)
4. Given 1-3, we must conclude that God did not try to convince those people not to commit genocide, because if he had, he would have succeeded (1), and genocide would not have been committed (3 fails).
5. Given 4, we know that if God had tried to convince people not to commit genocide, then genocide would not have occurred.
6. Given 2, 3, and 5, we conclude that a God who believes genocide is wrong and was perfectly capable of convincing people not to commit genocide nonetheless chose not to act to do so, thereby allowing genocide to occur.

It is my opinion that a good God would not be described by statement 6.

"As to your last point -- perhaps I was unclear when I switched gears, but my point with the "state" was following a state when it kills somebody because they deserve it, not when they kill somebody to save them pain. And the point of the fall is that post-fall, we each individually are born in sin and sin; not that we are punished for what somebody else did."

Right, but why are we born in sin? That we sin, okay, sure, I guess. I still think that if sin results from someone not living up to God's standards on account of not knowing them (as has been the case, is the case and will continue to be the case) that eternal punishment is rather over-the-top as a just response, but that's another thing altogether, and not central to your point (as whether or not it's just is still going to be consistent with Christian theology stating that God is just). But being born in sin? Isn't that precisely what I was saying about being held responsible for the sins of ancestors thousands of generations removed?

"Well I said I was confused. Doesn't that reaction from those authors confuse you? I mean, how could they be so wrong?"

No, because...as much as I like the Bard...they weren't wrong. :)

You CAN validly criticize the Bard...indeed, fi you couldn't, he'd be in danger of being a religion unto himself, as Shaw feared.

There ARE things to criticize about Shakespeare:
Several plays--for me, "The Comedy of Errors" and "The Merry Wives of Windsor"-- simply aren't that good, or haven't aged well overall.
Shakespeare is progressive for the 1600s...but still, that's for the 1600s...judged against today, he was far ahead of his time socially in some areas, part of it in others.
For as much as I like it anyway, "Titus Andronicus" is VERY crude, it's been described more than once--rightly--as a Shakespeare Slasher flick...

Even in HAMLET, that pearl of pearls that would crack most Top 10 Literary Works Ever list, there are possible issues...

Eliot thought it was just a BIT *TOO* CONVENIENT that Hamlet and Laertes switch swords in the course of the fight...and it IS a bit of a plot convenience...for me, it's plausible enough that in the heat of things their swords get knocked out of their hands and swapped, but still, you could definitely say it's convenient that happened.

So no, Shaw and Lawrence and Eliot aren't WRONG for their opinions...

The closest I could come to saying that would probably be, for each:
-If anything, "Shakes vs. Shav" shows today how many more Shakespeare plays are known
-Lawrence's poem isn't very good, and bad or not, hard to call Hamlet/Lear/etc/ "small" roles
-Again, I don't think Eliot's argument that Hamlet shouldn't be that sad works

But that doesn't make them wrong.

It makes them writers with an opinion--and time and taste tells who's right and who's wrong most of the time.

"(Of course, there is one little distinction, which you pretty much begged for: Lawrence, Shaw, and Eliot all demonstrated a real understanding of human nature in their own work. With you, we're still awaiting that day.)"

As far as me being an author--obviously. But hopefully I'll attain the right to that day. :)

But I disagree in part in that I think we ALL have enough of an understanding of human nature to, say, at least be able to TELL whether Eliot/Shaw/Lawrence/The Bible are in tune with it and accurate in characterizing it or not.

If Shaw wrote a play where a man raped a woman and was then praised by everyone he met for it, including all the women he met, we'd all say that Shaw had written a disgusting piece of filth (assuming he wasn't being extremely ironic or satirical and not meaning that character to be shown in a good light, but even then we'd still likely condemn it) and none would say "Wow, he really captured human nature with that one!"

So I fail to see why a competent reader--I'll explain in a moment--can't make their own literary judgement, to ME, Mr. Elitist, it seems TOO elitist to day "Only a Shaskespearean can truly read Shakespeare; if someone disagrees and dislikes him, he's just an idiot or lacking" or "You MUST be a rabbi or pastor or priest or a Hitchens-like figure who's read the Bible cover to cover on end countless times to form an anti-this anti-that opinion on it..."

A competent reader can competently judge a work on its own.

What's a competent reader?

I'll probably get criticized on this and need to refine it as we go, but as a VERY basic guideline:

1. GENERALLY, a reader may be taken as likely competent when reading something equal or lower than his or her level (that is, if you give the average 6-year old "The Brothers Karamazov," they'll probably hate all of the three sentences they can get through and hate it, but no one would say they were competent readers for the book, it's "above" them...likewise, most teens, I'd argue, aren't ready for something like "Hamlet," one of the most complex pieces in the English language and Shakespeare's densest work...in an Honors class that functions like college, maybe kids in there will be ready, since college is about the age I'd figure most people are ready to/do encounter "Hamlet," so a 15-year old who's reading just for the basic plot he can get off Sparknotes to pass a test isn't really a competent reader, is he? The Bible, being on that same level of complexity as Dostoyevsky and Hamlet, certainly can't be evaluated by 99%, say, of younger children, OR...)

2. By those who don't read much, as a competent reader does and MUST, as competent readers should be able to form and spot connections in ANYTHING they read (If its Shakespeare, they should be able to spot the connection between rhyme and elevated language, or between Hamlet and other literary characters they've read about...if it's a news program or article, they should be able to connect the US Supreme Court to, well, what the Court actually DOES, and probably to at least who's on the Court now and what some important previous decisions were...after all, if you don't know how the Court functions, reading about the Arizona/SC case isn't up your alley yet, you're not competent to judge the Court's decision if you're not INFORMED as a reader on what the Court is and does and has done and what it can and can't do, and you're not an INFORMED reader of Shakespeare if you don't know the basics, ie, when he wrote, what iambic pentameter is, prose vs. verse, who some of his famous characters are, what some of his famous lines are, etc. all those things they teach you all throughout school...I'd argue a REALLY informed author should know the things they DON'T teach, such as what the Quartos and Folios are and what Shakespeare alludes to and the context and background of a lot of his works and what analysis by folks like Johnson, Freud, and Eliot say about his works tells us, but I don't want to to get too elitist, so suffice it to say "REALLY informed" means, well, really informed, you don't HAVE to be that informed, but it makes you just a tad-bit more competent a reader if you are...now, obviously, if you don't know at least some of the Bible's history as a complied text, don't know what Hebrew or Greek is, don't know when and where things are set in relation to the modern-day, and of course, if you don't know WHO and WHAT is being discussed in at least a very, VERY general sense, you're not ready to read the Bible...you don't have to hold a religious view X is part of a prophecy that is fulfilled by Y, that's subjective, but if you can't, say, tell others what the Covenant between Abraham and God is supposed to be, or don't know why Abraham's all that an important character--not I say important and not GOOD, being a competent reader has next to nothing to do with taste, I'd argue, that field being so subjective--you're clearly not competent, religious or atheist, to tackle the Bible as a text yet.)

3. A competent reader GENERALLY is, well, well-read, and the better read you are, the more competent you are (I don't think that's too out of line, reading being sort of like weightlifting for the mind...naturally, the more you do it, the stronger you get in that capacity, as you'll then know more and recognize more and be able to make more and stronger judgments and connections...it should of course be noted sheer quantity doesn't do it alone, if you read 100 books a year, but all 100 are issues of Batman, you'll certainly know the Dark Knight, but be prepared to competently read little else, likely...therefore, like them or not texts like Shakespeare, Hemingway, Eliot, Dante, Milton, the Bible, the Iliad and Odyssey, newspapers and news reports, etc., such works DO pack more of a punch...however, the same corollary applies here, read JUST one or two of these authors and read all their work, and you might really know your Dante or Shakespeare, and even know a bit of what they touched on and works they borrowed from and built off of, but you'll still be massively stunted and not too competent...contrary to popular belief, I do NOT just read Shakespeare, Milton, and Eliot 24/7, they're just my favorites, I have 5 English classes, plus 2 or 2 books I read on the side for my own enjoyment and fulfillment at a time--just finished Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot," now I'm reading Fitzgerald's "This Side of Paradise" and The Collected Poetry of Emily Dickinson--plus I watch CNN and BBC's news everyday and read the news online, so like or loathe me, I have at least some diversity in there, hence why I'm not just typing in Elizabethan English the whole way through here and wondering why no one seems to be responding in iambic pentameter, :) ...to that end, I'd argue you can't really read the Bible until you've read many, MANY other things beforehand, both to first build up that reading level and also allow you to view it through diversified lenses that can both make connections and view the pieces critically...to take an example, if you read a work like "1984," you might indeed have a different view of God and how authoritarian and almost Big Bother he seems, BUT you may also note that O'Brien goes on about how this evil state of theirs has killed God/become "God," and how the Bible is destroyed right along with Shakespeare, Chaucer and the rest, lest they give hope or sow dissent, so it allows you to think CRITICALLY about God...he CAN see you all the time and he is awfully wrathful at times and can convict you of thought-crime if you think about him wrong, BUT maybe the Bible itself--if not God himself--also offers ideas and hopes that a tyrant would FEAR...and so you view the text critically and ask QUESTIONS...and thus you are COMPETENT in your questioning the book.)

:)

I don't know, no. I think Thucy's busy, and I also think one of our judges may have gone AWOL, though I don't know if that is still true.

"It is my opinion that a good God would not be described by statement 6."

OK, so this boils down again to just the old, a good God wouldn't make a world where evil happened when He could have made one where it didn't? By calling it "old" I don't mean to say it's terrible -- it's probably one of the strongest atheistic arguments. But I wanted to clarify that the whole context here doesn't really add anything, it's the same old argument.

And of course, it's simply an assertion. It may seem appealing, but it can't be proven. You wouldn't call Him "good." OK. He would, and I would. It suffices that the net world was good. The presence in the world of justice and mercy (or potentially even just of justice, who knows) could achieve this.

I mean, you probably wouldn't agree to that, but there's no way to prove otherwise other than personal taste.

"Right, but why are we born in sin? ... Isn't that precisely what I was saying about being held responsible for the sins of ancestors thousands of generations removed?"

An interesting and partially fair point. In that sense, I do reap the bad rewards of an ancestor. But at the end of the day, it's my own sins I'd be punished for.

"I still think that if sin results from someone not living up to God's standards on account of not knowing them (as has been the case, is the case and will continue to be the case) that eternal punishment is rather over-the-top as a just response, but that's another thing altogether, and not central to your point "

Well, yes and no -- certainly the Bible says that people's ignorance will be taken into account in the level of punishment. Romans explains (beginning of chapter 2) that there is no excuse because people show by their own outrage that they do know something is wrong. The very people committing the genocide know they would consider it wrong for another tribe to commit genocide on them, so they do know deep down that they're also acting wrongly -- or are without excuse in not knowing it.

In reality, everybody knows a good deal of God's law and still violates it.

I have no idea what you said, obi, because I didn't read it.

"Nobody said Esau was a terrible person, or that Jacob was an awesome one. Whatever made you think that? You can choose a flawed character as a protagonist, you know. Kind of like, why are so many people on Mark Antony's side when he's a scheming manipulator and Brutus is doing what he thinks is best for the state? Or maybe they're not. Or.... it's complicated, isn't it, these human stories?"

But my problem with many Biblical cases, semck (this one included) is that it seems depth is presupposed/added via reader responses...

And not a lot is given to support or warrant that supposed depth or complicated nature TEXTUALLY.

Where textually do you get a range of complexities from Esau?

When you think about it, he really doesn't get many moments, or many lines...and the way in which the story is told--mostly externally, with some dialogue--really places us all the way outside Esau's psyche, whereas a Faulkner or an Eliot or a Shakespeare will dive right in there, of course, famously Hamlet goes on and on until we're practically soaking in his psyche... :)

But it may be argued "Well, that's one style of doing it, there ARE different styles, Obi."

Agreed.
So take that anti-Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway.
HE rarely lets you inside his character's heads...
HE rarely goes on and on describing things in complete, vivid detail.

But he also generally gives his characters either a lot of scenes, a lot of dialogue, or both in his novels...

The Bible, as per its structure, gives us neither.

It's not fair to cry "But these are NOVELS, a modern invention!" because Homer's (more or less) in that same vein, ie, epic works, and he gives plenty of depth via giving us plenty of time with his characters, either through dialogue, description, action, or some combination of the three.

The Bible often doesn't do that.

Where it DOES--ie, Moses, who has quite a few lines, moments, and actions, where we can see him both in his dialogue and actions be somewhat of a reluctant figure and hero for God, or David, who's shown through his actions to be somewhat like King Lear before King Lear, that is, great at the "office"/in battle and making a kingdom, but not so great in his personal life and at home, and THAT makes a genuinely complex character!--it succeed.

But again, these figures are the exceptions, NOT the rule.

OK, I read it, kind of. I'll respond to the only relevant thing in it, which is where you said,

"to ME, Mr. Elitist, it seems TOO elitist to day "Only a Shaskespearean can truly read Shakespeare; if someone disagrees and dislikes him, he's just an idiot or lacking" or "You MUST be a rabbi or pastor or priest or a Hitchens-like figure who's read the Bible cover to cover on end countless times to form an anti-this anti-that opinion on it...""

Thing is, I never said what you suggest here. I never even implied it.

That is all.

Religion doesn't stand up to intellectual scrutiny. However, in it's mild form it can provide comfort for people, so I have no problem. But clearly it can, and is, misused for extremist agendas.

"Where textually do you get a range of complexities from Esau?"

Well, Jacob's certainly a far more complex character. But Esau is still a universal one, and not all that non-complex. He loves simple things like hunting, but doesn't value his birthright. It becomes less and less important to him, until he's in a position to give it essentially no importance and bargain it away for soup.

He then experiences regret and (after the later trick with the blessing) rage AND regret. He eventually moves on, marrying (though further telegraphing his lack of care for his parents' customs by marrying local women) and forgiving his brother as he moves on with his life.

This is pretty much all there in the text. As for the depth, the theme of somebody vastly undervaluing what should be and truly is most important to them and letting it slip by for something trivial is so universal in both history and literature that examples should be unnecessary.

^TEXTUALLY, semck.

Where in the TEXT do you get that from...passages, quotes...

I can't say Hamlet's a complex psychological figure questioning life, death, decision, what it means to be a man (in more ways than one), and so on without quotes and stage directions to support it...

Evidence! :)

His actions are in the text, obiwan. The rest is called inference. Learn it. It's an important tool in interpreting literature.

It is, but for inference you still need concrete evidence to support that evidence.

You cannot infer, sticking with my example, Hamlet is indecisive without cases of that being in the concrete text itself.

An inference has to be JUSTIFIED...or its just a wild, unsubstantiated guess that gets you an F and a red mark up from the professor demanding concrete evidence to support your theory...the same as they'd demand proof if you had a scientific theory.

:)

So--show me the textual evidence that warrants the inferences you're drawing.

Sure. Well, here's an example. When Jacob leaves, Esau is threatening to murder him if he ever lays eyes on him again. Yet, years later, when he does lay eyes on him again, he embraces him and weeps. From this I inferred that he had forgiven Jacob. The story also indicated that he was wealthy and married. From this I inferred that he had moved on with his life.

Stuff like that. See?

AGAIN, semck, I want the text ITSELF...

I quote Hamlet to make my points...

Chapter and verse, either copy/paste or else just give me a link to the exact chapter and verse that you feel backs this, because all this still counts for is your paraphrasing (and thus repackaging and re-describing) events...

And whether you intend to or not, for all I know without a direct quote, to borrow another literary term, you might just be an "unreliable narrator" of this tale to me.

(After all, when the Church was undivided, they did mass in Latin for years even when it wasn't known by most of Europe...without that direct textual access, when paraphrasing the text into the vernacular, the citizens just had to take their word for it what they said was in there WAS in there, which is something Chaucer explores in "The Canterbury Tales.")

I'm sorry, obi. I thought you had recently read the story and would remember these details. Here are the references. For Esau's rage, see Genesis 27:33-43. For his forgiveness and wealth, see Genesis 32:1-21 and Genesis 33:1-15. (This will also cover Esau's wealth). I had the order of his wives slightly wrong, although that's interesting in itself. You'll find that story in among these same chapters.

I have, I just wanted the text of the case before us.

So, his rage:

"33 And Isaac trembled very exceedingly, and said, Who? where is he that hath taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and he shall be blessed.

34 And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father.

35 And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.

36 And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?

37 And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?

38 And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.

39 And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;

40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.

41 And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob.

42 And these words of Esau her elder son were told to Rebekah: and she sent and called Jacob her younger son, and said unto him, Behold, thy brother Esau, as touching thee, doth comfort himself, purposing to kill thee.

43 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice; arise, flee thou to Laban my brother to Haran;"

Definitely angry, but notice how very little is actually said ABOUT Esau.

He's angry...he had his birthright taken...he's angry BECAUSE he had his birthright taken (to compound the two into one) and purports to kill his brother for it after being somewhat sad his father's dead.

That's it.

Not a lot...that's one emotion expressed over a very small amount of lines, to say nothing of violating "Show, don't tell" terribly...even if we take that as a later convention, really, he's a completely flat character here.

Moving on:

"And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.

2 And the Lord appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:

3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;

4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

6 And Isaac dwelt in Gerar:

7 And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon.

8 And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife.

9 And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife; and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die for her.

10 And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us.

11 And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.

12 Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the Lord blessed him.

13 And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great:

14 For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him.

15 For all the wells which his father's servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth.

16 And Abimelech said unto Isaac, Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we.

17 And Isaac departed thence, and pitched his tent in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt there.

18 And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them.

19 And Isaac's servants digged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water.

20 And the herdmen of Gerar did strive with Isaac's herdmen, saying, The water is ours: and he called the name of the well Esek; because they strove with him.

21 And they digged another well, and strove for that also: and he called the name of it Sitnah."

That's GEN 32: 1-21...his name doesn't appear ONCE...so either that's not the chapter/verse you meant, or...?

The final selection:

"And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Behold, here am I.

2 And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death:

3 Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison;

4 And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.

5 And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it.

6 And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying,

7 Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the Lord before my death.

8 Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee.

9 Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he loveth:

10 And thou shalt bring it to thy father, that he may eat, and that he may bless thee before his death.

11 And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man:

12 My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing.

13 And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them.

14 And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother: and his mother made savoury meat, such as his father loved.

15 And Rebekah took goodly raiment of her eldest son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son:"

And Esau goes off hunting to get the food for Isaac for his birthright blessing and...

That's it.

As a matter of fact, he's not IN the majority of those lines.

In fact, he's not in, speaking, or being spoken to in the majority of the collection of ALL these lines.

So.

He's NOT in the majority of these lines, not even close...
He's angry, certainly, to the point of rage, because his birthright has been stolen...
So we have a very, very basic motive for anger and a very basic feeling of anger...
Expressed in less lines than the Bible devotes to oxen laws...
Given maybe four or five lines total to speak...
Given, indeed, less textual attention than nearly any major character or event...
Or even a supporting character or event...
With his entire character summed up in a sentence, maybe two...

And that's it.

WHERE is the depth?

When he's not even in most of the textual evidence you provide, or, if we're to be perfectly fair and acknowledge different works have different lengths--after all, a sonnet of a mere 14 lines can be complex--he's not in most of the text you provide percentage-wise...how can you claim sufficient textual evidence for the bounty of complexity you claim for the character?

"OK, so this boils down again to just the old, a good God wouldn't make a world where evil happened when He could have made one where it didn't?

-snip-"

Yeah, basically, but... what answer is there? Presuming we both agree that genocide is bad, we would subsequently agree that not-genocide is to be preferred to genocide. Regardless of whether the world is good or bad - as that is indeed a question I don't think anybody can really answer in its totality - I think if we can agree that not having something in it is better than having something in it, then we can agree a world without that something is better than the world with it. And that God, all-powerful, could create either world... I know I'm repeating the argument, but I'm not seeing that this part comes down to a difference in tastes, unless you do actually prefer a world with genocide to one without (or God does).

"An interesting and partially fair point. In that sense, I do reap the bad rewards of an ancestor. But at the end of the day, it's my own sins I'd be punished for."

If I misread then do correct me - but what bad rewards might these be? ...genocide, perhaps? The bad in the world being a consequence of sin is *precisely* punishing descendants for ancestors' sins. Even if punishment in the afterlife is doled out strictly on a basis of one's actions in life, there's still the present life to consider. And however many millions or billions of victims of genocide have existed since mankind arose would all consequently be suffering two things: unjust slaughter at the hands of evil actors, and punishment for something their ancestors did. Neither of these is the mark of a just world.

"Romans explains (beginning of chapter 2) that there is no excuse because people show by their own outrage that they do know something is wrong. The very people committing the genocide know they would consider it wrong for another tribe to commit genocide on them, so they do know deep down that they're also acting wrongly -- or are without excuse in not knowing it."

What I was referencing there, I prefaced (or perhaps postfaced, but that word doesn't seem to exist) by stating it wasn't central to the argument. It's important to the just-God discussion in general, but isn't specifically applicable to the genocide bit. Sorry for the confusion.

"In reality, everybody knows a good deal of God's law and still violates it."

Do I, though? I can read the Bible, sure, but I don't necessarily know that the Bible conveys God's law. That's precisely why there's a disconnect; I understand that this God fellow is supposed to be a good God with just laws, and I understand goodness and justice, and I understand that the Bible is supposed to convey God's law. But when I read the Bible and see laws, prescribed by a supposedly good God, that don't seem to have anything to do with how I understand goodness and justice, or might even stand opposed to those understandings, what do I do? I could say my understandings of goodness and justice are wrong, but then how was I getting it so wrong my whole life and how do I now know that I'm not?

+1...

(Also, note how far away we are from the original topic of the Founders wanting a separation of Church and State...oh, how the wheel turns...and turns...and turns...right into Religious Flame War Land...)

@ Preident
''I understand goodness and justice''

I am sure that you do. I wonder, however, if you have you have paused to think how and why you understand and/or practice these specific qualities. Moreover, do you mean the same by them as your next door neighbour(s)?

@ Obi, on Jacob and Esau, we should put things into context. If you will allow me let's start with Cain and Able, move on to Issac and Ishmael, then to Jacob and Esau and, finally, Joseph and his brothers. A little like thinking of the destruction of Sodom in the latter context of Nineveh.

First, the Bible was written by men who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, not by teletype autobots taking dictation. Of course their own personalities, languages, worldviews, etc. show through. Paul even writes that one particular instruction is his own advice only. More later... on my way to church. :-)

So sad.

Hi Obi,

"1. One error is one too many for a purportedly ALL-PERFECT God

2. Really? You'd invoke the Dead Sea Scrolls, and recently-unearthed Bible-age apocrypha? If ANYTHING that shows what a construct that book is, how a great many Gospels--up to 20, in fact--were circulating in the same period as the 4 in the Bible (which are all written after the fact as well, so they're not eye-witness, they're removed, just like these not-allowed-in-Gospels) and many other books that didn't make it..."John" actually almost didn't make it in, and "The Gospel of Peter" nearly did, it was a last-minute question which got in and which did not."


1. How would an all perfect* being not realize that his fallible transcriptionists wouldn't make a spelling error now and again over 1,000 years? What the Dead Sea scrolls show is the remarkable degree of internal consistency present in Old Testament Scripture over a thousand years. That is accomplished by comparing these ancient writings with the next oldest ones which I believe are either 1,000 or 1,500 years younger. Saying that "one error is too much for an all-perfect God" is basically meaningless because most of us realize that perfection is beyond the reach of his research assistants and editors. Having an unskilled assistant wouldn't for instance call into serious question the skill of an artisan. You can certainly go the route of "an All powerful, omniscient artisan" wouldn't have imperfect assistants. Yeah, I think He would if He loved them and realized that their imperfections wouldn't seriously hinder the final product. That's what we can easily see in the Dead Sea scrolls. Fallible human beings going WAY above and beyond in their transcription of these texts.

2. While there are some Old Testament Apocrypha texts in the Septuagint, I think they are mainly Greek translations of Hebrew Old Testament. I'm not sure how you're maintaining that Mujus was bringing in recently unearthed (they've been in Christian hands pretty much without pause) Bible Age Apocrypha.

*(not really sure why we'd need all in fromt of that either you're perfect or you're not)

@ PE

"Yeah, basically, but... what answer is there? Presuming we both agree that genocide is bad, we would subsequently agree that not-genocide is to be preferred to genocide. Regardless of whether the world is good or bad - as that is indeed a question I don't think anybody can really answer in its totality - I think if we can agree that not having something in it is better than having something in it, then we can agree a world without that something is better than the world with it. And that God, all-powerful, could create either world... I know I'm repeating the argument, but I'm not seeing that this part comes down to a difference in tastes, unless you do actually prefer a world with genocide to one without (or God does)."

That's kind of where I thought you were heading with this, and yeah it is off the subject of the Amalekites. But Hey since that was off the subject of slavery, what the heck. It's basically Theodicy. How does a just God permit injustice in the world. The answer is obviously that God can. So the question then becomes why doesn't He. The answer is that allowing people to choose to moral behavior implies that there must be a choice. Otherwise you have a paradox. You cannot really guarantee a world in which everyone can choose but nobody actually does. That by definition is a world in which nobody can choose.

Your side of the argument does something kind of odd. It assumes God exists but assumes that an afterlife does not. Therefore the demand is for an absolutely just world in this particular part of it, but remains ignorant of the very mechanism through which everyone (according to most Christians this includes you and doesn't mean that you are absolutely destined to Hell even if you don't believe.) receives justice and mercy from God.

For the sake of brevity we both know the standard Christian view of Hell is that its a product of free-will & generally even the most hard-lined stance among Christians is hat everyone will get a change to accept Christ in their lifetimes. So let's dispense with the common objection to Hell (which will probably be the next tangent) since it's also based upon an idea that is specifically against most Christian teachings.

The basic idea is this. In order to use Theodicy to say that God isn't just, one must assume that the world would be better if God existed. The logical conclusion of that is that a perfect God would create a perfect world in which you and I would have no place since we are both imperfect beings. Yet a perfect God, and even a perfectly just God, can make an imperfect world as long as that is the environment that gives you and I the best (or only) chance to grow toward the ideal of Heaven.

Whatever way you slice it your argument ignores some very important aspects of Christianity in an attempt to make the Christian concept of God seem impossible. If you are going to assume God's existence, then why not assume that whole package? In doing so you'll be better able to see that rationality that is there in Chrsitian belief.