Tim Rhodes <email@example.com> writes:
(First off, Eric is lying here [re: not attacking individuals], just so you know.)
Now Tim, you should know me well enough to know that I don't lie! Perhaps I was too bold in speaking for others -- but I don't think it's possibly to "attack" individuals over e-mail -- one can only attack ideas and viewpoints. Now, if, via Phaith or some other mechanism, that *means* we attack the individual, then how are we to share any type of discussion?
> I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. Do you mean
> that, in the past, you've posed those problems (lord/liar/luanatic,
> etc.) to atheists and gotten unsatisifactory responces?
Or maybe that she asked you to read the bible from _her_ perspective
analysed it like a history text rather than read the music of it like you might if you were reading Homer or Virgil. >>
Well, that was certainly a tangent on Tim's part... I read the Bible as if it says what it means, except where it's clear that the lessons go beyond that (e.g. Parables).
As to reading it from _her_ perspective, if that was *possible*, I might consider it. However, I've found that Christians have a unique "blindspot" as regards reading the Bible, and I am unable to simulate it. It's like they can't see what it says half the time, but believe it says what they mean...
I do approach the Bible as a development of thought -- e.g. I do think that one can use the differing books in the Bible -- via compare and contrast -- to learn more about what each is saying. Sometimes the authors disagree fundamentally, and it's interesting to see the arguments each puts forward. Jesus and Paul, or Paul and James, etc.