Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

On Mar 12, 3:18�pm, Stuffed Tiger <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:41:14 -0000, "David Looser"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Stuffed Tiger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> ...
> >> My point, as backed up by my reference, is that the author NEVER
> >> intended that the answer to your question would be a real snake that
> >> talked, or a real tree that grew in a real garden, EVEN IF there was
> >> at some point in History a real snake, tree and garden involved.
>
> >I'm sure he didn't, so what? What DID he intend it to signify?, I don't
> >know, you don't know, Micheal Sacasas doesn't know, nobody does. We don't
> >know who wrote this story, or when. We don't know what he intended it to
> >signify to it's readership.

> Yeah, yeah. The same could be said for Hamlet. Irrelevant.
>
> First of all, there is a lot that is known with reasonable certainty,
> such as the narrow time period in which it was written, the class of
> person who could have written it (few could read and write), the
> knowledge level of the people it was written for, ... and so on.

Hmmmm.  I think you're conceding that the bible wasn't written by, or
the writers guided by, some god.  I think you're also conceding that
the intended audience wasn't humanity for the ages, but only the
illiterate bronze age herdsmen of the time.

> That tells us much. For example, these people had no concept of the
> size and scale of the Earth, let alone the Solar System. Universe?
> Cosmos? None of that can be part of what the author intended to be
> understood by the people it was written for. For sure.

So it wasn't intended to impart anything that wasn't already 'known'?

> That means it is silly for Christians to try and force science into it
> or anybody to criticize it for that lack. Even if the authors knew the
> science, nobody would have understood or listened to it. Heck, it's
> hard to get people today not to turn off when they hear science.

It's hard to get most religious people to listen.  The vast majority
of the others don't need to be urged.

> Secondly, there are certain aspects of BOTH Genesis 1 and 2 that stand
> out. For example, that there is good and evil, that men and women are
> capable of good and evil and of choosing evil over good, that good is
> what God asks us to do and evil is what separates us from God, and
> that if we choose evil over good, not only do we get to live with it,
> but so do our children.

That's hardly news, now or then.

> Sure one might quibble a bit. So what? These are rather universal, and
> somewhat obvious. Not a bad way to start IMHO, as long as you spice it
> up with a little drama so you don't loose your audience.

So the bible is just another bunch of morality tales, no better than
the many many others?

Just asking!

:-)

Jenny