Wrong. This discussion is over Adam Hamiltons 3 part article on reconciling violence in the Old Testament with Jesus teachings. It is not about my opinion. Learn to read. Get up to speed before jumping into the middle of a conversation which you know nothing about.
I am afraid that you are the one who is mistaken. From part 1. "What they believed about God (which was based on their cultural experience rather than direct experience with God) rather than what God actually inspired them to say. Hamilton is stating clearly that his resolution is that the nasty violent depiction of God was "not inspired". Not sure why are not getting this because it is clear as day. Do I seriously need to define what "not inspired" means ? He says clearly that the nasty violent depiction of God in the OT "was written by human beings whose understanding and experience of God was shaped by their culture, their theological assumptions". So 1) not inspired and 2) based on assumptions - assumptions that were shaped by their culture and not anything inspired.
You are posting Hamiltons statement of the problem, and then you take it as his solution. As I previously posted in #660: You are repeating what I have already posted and explained. In fact you are repeating your own posts. And therefore I see no path forward in this discussion. You have Hamiltons articles, yet can't seem to get out of your own bias to read them objectively. Obviously anything I post is not going to move this along. If you have anything new, I'll be glad to respond.
From your post, it would seem to be you who is illiterate, without comprehension. Did you get someone smarter than you to tell you what to type?
And yet you respond to the written word, proving yourself as a fraud. The only thing that is "clear as day" is that you refuse to even consider that others have differing opinions from your. Or that you could possibly be wrong.
You are expressing your OPINION on the meaning of what was written. OPINION, even yours, does not equate to fact. Expounding on your OPINION and denying the opinion of any other marks you as a fool.
Don't have to "address what" you said as it only further confirms what I have said about you. Literary techniques do not explain away a failure of logic or what you have said/ Comprehension can be your friend. Try it.
How am I denying the opinion of others? I respond to the other person with the alternative view, I quote Hamiltons article both points that support my position and points that oppose my position. What you don't like is the fact there is an actual discussion occurring. You just can't stand it that people are actually challenging issues that might make you rethink your personal hatred of religion. Why are you in a forum?
This is disingenuous nonsense. You claimed Hamilton's statement of the problem proves that you are wrong. Hamilton does write that the OT is a figment of the writers cultural beliefs. What is even more nonsensical is "YOU" even say this when you say that the writers were influenced by person or cultural ideas. And yes this does equate to these people making things up about God. Once again: what part of " written by human beings whose understanding and experience of God was shaped by their culture and theological assumptions" do you not understand ? You say Hamilton does not say this and this is exactly what he says. You are in serious denial mode.
Well it takes a mommy and a daddy to make a baby. I don't remember any dead things ever not being dead forever once they've died. And if the first two were lies about the truth, then why should I believe the Devil is lying? Therefore, all 3 of those things the bible says, are contradiction.
Look, no one with out learning difficulties is a 'Bible Borg', if people study the Bible like I study sex or pornography, then that's their choice. Because someone studies the bible makes them no better than those who don't. If anything, it makes people worse.
It is not my argument. It is Hamilton's argument. Unfortunately you can not willing to deal with Hamilton's words or the implication of his words so you look for ways to deny what he has said. Failing that you try and avoid the "bad thought". There is no escaping the contradiction between the violent Genocidal God of the OT and the living God of Jesus. Hamilton and I are in agreement and he comes to the same conclusions/resolution that I posted initially. I stated that the God of the OT was not the God of Jesus. This is exactly what is implied above. Hamilton just puts it differently saying that the "depiction" of the the God of the OT is not really a depiction of God. He says that the depiction of the God of the OT is based on assumption and cultural beliefs rather than actual experience of God - "rather than what God actually inspired them to say" You continue to try and hide from the words of Hamilton but, there is no escape for you.
The problem is not Hamiltons writing, the problem is you jump to unwarranted conclusions, such as jumping from "that it was written by human beings whose understanding and experience of God was shaped by their culture, their theological assumptions, and the time in which they lived"to "the God of the OT was not the God of Jesus". Nowhere does Hamilton make that claim. Jesus himself contradicts your claim. You want to jump from a perceived flaw in the Bible to claiming the OT (or the entire Bible) is man made fantasy. I don't see any way forward, this has run its course.
More like you're an obvious idiot and being ignored, but you do whatever you need to stroke yourself, clown.
Some American once said online 'I study ... like you (people) study the Bible'... I mean, tbh, that's offensive to label me as just another guy, and then assume that people study the Bible like they ... - So now one thing I say is; 'I study ... like you study the Bible' just because somebody out there must think that people study the Bible, so, somewhere, people study the Bible... Not me. It is NOT the norm, thank God. I'm not that guy.
Logic is not your strong suit. Hamilton argument is that the depiction of God in the OT does not represent God. Rather it comes from assumptions and cultural beliefs about God from the times in which they lived. Hamilton argues that the God of Jesus is "NOT" the God depicted in the OT. 1) Where does Jesus contradict Hamilton's claim ? 2) and if Jesus does believe in the nasty, genocidal, xenophobic , child killing flip flopping God of the OT .. why then does Jesus depict God as some thing completely different than this ?
This has run its full productive course. You have returned to your old closed minded, religion hating attitude, insulting ways. You can obviously continue to post, but unless you have something constructive, don't expect me to play your game.
Now you are just projecting what you are doing on to me. It is you who has been playing games and now you continue to try and demonize the messenger and name call prior to running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial. Don't blame me for the fact that in the link that you provided, Hamilton states that the depiction of God in the OT is not an accurate representation of God but, rather it is a depiction of God based on the assumptions and cultural beliefs about God from the times in which the people who wrote the OT lived. Hamilton argues that the God of Jesus is "NOT" the God depicted in the OT. Sorry if this disturbs you but, don't blame me for what your own link states.
