You're not Wile E Coyote; you've gotta get one right once in a while, Tony
Thus, nobody knows anything anyway.
Congratulations, Tony! You've figured out a very important key to being human!
I, on the other hand, have chosen to believe something wherein lies knowledge.
Nobody ever said there wasn't knowledge in the Bible. I mean, critics of Christianity generally point out that the Bible is inconsistent with the publicly expressed Christianity; that the Bible is contradictory unto itself if taken literally; and that all Christian "knowledge" seems to ensconce itself amid the illusion that this book which orders the reader to believe it as truth claims to be true.
The difference between our situations is that you wish to "know" something first, even though that is impossible, and then believe that, whereas I have chosen to believe that which is true since that leads to knowing for sure.
You're assumptive on both counts. Slightly less about me. I like to know why things happen; what we do in this Universe is more important than what may be. I would like to know, for instance, that if my tax dollars are being spent locking people up for smoking pot, that there's a reason; thus far, nobody has provided an adequate reason, as most are based in racism, greed, and superstition. I would like to know, for instance, that if I am going to contribute my money to a war effort, that this war reflects a just cause.
If I am going to adopt the Bible as my guide to reality, I would like to know that it at least does not reject observable reality. If I am going to replace observable reality with the Bible, it would be nice to have some inward assurance that this new reality will not compel me to behave in a manner deviating from the standard my new, Biblical reality
requires.
If it were not for the hateful exclusivity the Jealous God of the Bible demands; were it not for the, "Worship me or burn" element of the alleged free choice of faith, much of that Bible would not be in conflict with reality. And its church would be better off today, and thus all of the peoples for whom history has had such distaste as to cause them to encounter the religion.
If I wish to know something as relates to a moral quandary, it is because I wish to resolve the quandary correctly. The religion of the Bible does not necessarily allow for this. If I wish to settle a moral quandary as pertains to another person, I should seek equity, instead of a Bible phrase that tells me what equity is regardless of the circumstances. The difference there is doing the best you can, or being lazy enough to look it up in a book and call it real because it feels good enough that way.
So, your suggestion is that it is better to ignore the need for salvation?
Actually, my most direct suggestion would be that people seek salvation somewhere where they don't have to grovel for it. Better yet, yeah, ignore the need for salvation. If you're doing something to be saved, you won't be; this much is clear to many of us who do not choose the faith; in fact, it is the reason many of us have left the faith--even saved, we were still doomed to spiritual blackmail, and the eventual condemnation of having given in. One cannot shoot for salvation; it's dishonest. It puts a false motive behind all your good works.
On the other hand, if you do something simply because it is the right thing to do ... well, you've done an honest, right thing.
You appear to view a book as a pile of paper with ink blobs of various shapes scattered here and there, with the meaning incidental to the existence of the book.
I view a book as a series of thoughts with some meaning, with the fact that it is ink and paper incidental to the meaning.
I will offer as polite a warning as I can: Books are a special thing to me. Nobody who believes a book simply because it's convenient can tell me how I regard a book. Your inability to assert anything nearly representing reality demonstrates your lack of perspicacity toward the human nature. Get your nose out of your God's butt and start dealing with real people; you might learn a thing or two about them. My predecessors have tried to explain the whole of what a book is, and none have accomplished this. Next I suppose you'll be playing Stryper songs and telling me how I perceive rock and roll.
Thus, when I quote something from a particular book, you see, and react to, the letters independent of meaning.
I, unlike you, am aware that the Bible takes on a different context when read as a whole as compared to when it is presented as aphorisms, witticisms, or the whole of a rhetorical argument.
Furthermore, I, unlike you, recognize that the Bible applies a critical standard to itself which rarely comes up. It demands that it is perfect; it demands that it is true; and it threatens the reader who chooses not to believe it. Part of the standard of viewing the Bible involves considering these factors. If Emma Goldman's essays did the same, I would regard her with the same critical eye. You dare speak of how you view books when you cannot even see the nature of the book you worship?
But what I am actually doing is giving you the meaning in written form.
If that is what you are doing, it is one of the most offensive assumptions one can make at this board. What you have then assumed is that your sparse and cowardly commentary makes sense, and that another individual reading your Bible quote will perceive it identically as you, and thus understand your irrelevance as something important. Stop assuming you know what people are thinking. Your best efforts to reduce people's minds to your level only demonstrates the level of your own mind.
--Tiassa
