|
|
|
| Reepicheep wrote: |
Well, what I mean by "God's Word" is that the Bible is a bunch of books selected by God to serve various functions. That said I don't think God was whispering in the ears of the authors (perhaps some). Like I said earlier, I think it's fairly obvious that Ecclesiastes isn't "God speaking" - at least not in the sense you would immediately think of. If God dictated Eclesiastes word for word, does that mean God think life is pointless? Does not compute.
I think each book needs to be looked at individually. |
I can't fault any of the logic here and would be inclined to agree. I'd actually never heard of your take on what "God's Word" means. Like I said I'd only heard it in the fundamentalist use. You've given some new stuff to think about so you answer was very educational, thanks for that!
| Quote: |
| "Now Abraham was a righteous, pious man, but righteous, pious men can say some really stupid things". |
This really made me laugh, with a little adaptation I think it could apply to several academics I know.
| Quote: |
| If you're interested in the literal/figurative thing, I'd really recommend Reflections on the Psalms by C. S. Lewis. Lewis, like me, believed that the Bible was "God's Word", but not every book in the same way. In this book, he looks at some of the more controversial Psalms (including one about beating a Babylonian baby's head against a rock) and has some really interesting things to say about them. It's also just good reading, very enjoyable and at times humorous. |
I can't promise that I'll have the time to read it any time soon (writing a thesis sucks up a lot of time), but I will definetely look into it. Thanks for the suggestion!
| DannikJerriko wrote: |
One of my friends had a ridiculous argument, saying that "if gay marriage was allowed, and a gay man/woman put married on a CV or whatever, how would the employer know whether they're gay or not?". They wouldn't, and it doesn't matter, employers shouldn't make decisions like that depending on orientation.
|
This just really struck me as an important thing. At least in the States I thought it was illegal to discriminate hiring based on sex, race, marital status, or sexual orientation. What really jumped out at me was the broader issue of marital status since even into the 20th century in some lines of work women got fired for getting married or reaching a certain age (in the last month I read an article on this guy who had worked for an airline for 60+ years and one of the things mentioned was the hiring requirements for airline stewardesses back when he started out). Anywho it seems to me that if we want to ensure the employment rights of straight people we need to apply the same standard to gays. At least I don't see how we can discriminate against gays in job hirings without establishing a legal precident that could be used to backtrack on equal opportunity employment rights for straight people.
To be clear I'm not suggesting anyone here supports job discrimination. However, it seems an important point on the issue of how to treat gays in our society from a legal standpoint. _________________

|
|