<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Good Book</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kdegraaf.net/blog/archives/34/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kdegraaf.net/blog/archives/34</link>
	<description>Whatever I Freaking Feel Like Saying</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Vast Left</title>
		<link>http://kdegraaf.net/blog/archives/34#comment-568</link>
		<dc:creator>Vast Left</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:37:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kdegraaf.net/blog/archives/34#comment-568</guid>
		<description>Kevin,

Thanks for the link!


Karl,

I wrote the text of that post. What do you mean "'proof-text' baiting"?

As for context, if you click the links to the specific chapters, the entire context is there -- the original KJV scripture and in most cases, detailed comments about the literal and metaphorical implications of the text as written.

We live in a world where people make extraordinary claims for the Bible as a guide to a moral life -- either as an infallible instruction manual that determines such things as gay rights and acceptable science or as a book of parables and myths that's so damned good you'd have to be an evil person not to give yourself over to its lessons.

Over 100 chapters in, I've seen little evidence of its value in that regard. That said, there are over 1,000 chapters to go, so I daren't pass judgment on the whole thing just yet.

If I were to rate the content up through Leviticus 22, where I am currently, I'd say roughly there are:

7% Positive messages (don't kill or steal; Golden Rule; deal fairly)
28% Neutral messages (some random person did something; arguably useful tips on diet, farming, and health)
65% Negative messages (live in fear and awe of a jealous, violent, arbitrary God; innocents are punished; bad guys are rewarded or unpunished)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kevin,</p>
<p>Thanks for the link!</p>
<p>Karl,</p>
<p>I wrote the text of that post. What do you mean &#8220;&#8216;proof-text&#8217; baiting&#8221;?</p>
<p>As for context, if you click the links to the specific chapters, the entire context is there &#8212; the original KJV scripture and in most cases, detailed comments about the literal and metaphorical implications of the text as written.</p>
<p>We live in a world where people make extraordinary claims for the Bible as a guide to a moral life &#8212; either as an infallible instruction manual that determines such things as gay rights and acceptable science or as a book of parables and myths that&#8217;s so damned good you&#8217;d have to be an evil person not to give yourself over to its lessons.</p>
<p>Over 100 chapters in, I&#8217;ve seen little evidence of its value in that regard. That said, there are over 1,000 chapters to go, so I daren&#8217;t pass judgment on the whole thing just yet.</p>
<p>If I were to rate the content up through Leviticus 22, where I am currently, I&#8217;d say roughly there are:</p>
<p>7% Positive messages (don&#8217;t kill or steal; Golden Rule; deal fairly)<br />
28% Neutral messages (some random person did something; arguably useful tips on diet, farming, and health)<br />
65% Negative messages (live in fear and awe of a jealous, violent, arbitrary God; innocents are punished; bad guys are rewarded or unpunished)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karl</title>
		<link>http://kdegraaf.net/blog/archives/34#comment-567</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kdegraaf.net/blog/archives/34#comment-567</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;It should be noted that I didn’t write the text.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Understood. That's why I wrote, "The kind of statement you seem to endorse." The implication there, in case you missed it, is that these weren't &lt;em&gt;your&lt;/em&gt; statements, but rather statements that you &lt;em&gt;seem to endorse&lt;/em&gt;. 

See, now my tone is getting snotty. Sorry.
&lt;blockquote&gt; 
If you’d care to address any of the specific points, or perhaps have a discussion... &lt;/blockquote&gt;

No thanks. These "debates" never convince anyone. At least none that I've ever participated in or witnessed. Besides, the claims here are so tired. Really. Theologians and atheologians have tread over these ideas &lt;i&gt;ad nauseum&lt;/i&gt; for hundreds of years. And I, for one, am too weary of it to contribute to the noise.

I know this will sound like a cop-out to you, but so be it. Maybe sometime we can get together over a beer and chat. If our conversation leads to God and atheism and all the rest, that will be just fine. But I still think this post is more about baiting than anything else.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>It should be noted that I didn’t write the text.</p></blockquote>
<p>Understood. That&#8217;s why I wrote, &#8220;The kind of statement you seem to endorse.&#8221; The implication there, in case you missed it, is that these weren&#8217;t <em>your</em> statements, but rather statements that you <em>seem to endorse</em>. </p>
<p>See, now my tone is getting snotty. Sorry.</p>
<blockquote><p>
If you’d care to address any of the specific points, or perhaps have a discussion&#8230; </p></blockquote>
<p>No thanks. These &#8220;debates&#8221; never convince anyone. At least none that I&#8217;ve ever participated in or witnessed. Besides, the claims here are so tired. Really. Theologians and atheologians have tread over these ideas <i>ad nauseum</i> for hundreds of years. And I, for one, am too weary of it to contribute to the noise.</p>
<p>I know this will sound like a cop-out to you, but so be it. Maybe sometime we can get together over a beer and chat. If our conversation leads to God and atheism and all the rest, that will be just fine. But I still think this post is more about baiting than anything else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://kdegraaf.net/blog/archives/34#comment-561</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:03:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kdegraaf.net/blog/archives/34#comment-561</guid>
		<description>It should be noted that I didn't write the text.  It was blockquoted from the linked site.  That being said, I staunchly agree with its point (the barbarity of the God of the Old Testament), which is why I posted it on my own blog.

If you'd care to address any of the specific points, or perhaps have a discussion of how the OT God could possibly be considered morally good in light of these verses, or elaborate on how I'm taking this Scripture out of context, be my guest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It should be noted that I didn&#8217;t write the text.  It was blockquoted from the linked site.  That being said, I staunchly agree with its point (the barbarity of the God of the Old Testament), which is why I posted it on my own blog.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;d care to address any of the specific points, or perhaps have a discussion of how the OT God could possibly be considered morally good in light of these verses, or elaborate on how I&#8217;m taking this Scripture out of context, be my guest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karl</title>
		<link>http://kdegraaf.net/blog/archives/34#comment-560</link>
		<dc:creator>Karl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:51:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kdegraaf.net/blog/archives/34#comment-560</guid>
		<description>Kevin, I've always known you to be intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate, so I'm a little surprised that you would stoop to this "proof-text" baiting. The kind of statement you seem to endorse in this post is no more sensible than the out-of-context biblical assertions made by some fundamentalist Christians. I respect you as a person, and I appreciate reading your opinion on religion, God, etc., but surely you can do better than this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kevin, I&#8217;ve always known you to be intelligent, thoughtful, and articulate, so I&#8217;m a little surprised that you would stoop to this &#8220;proof-text&#8221; baiting. The kind of statement you seem to endorse in this post is no more sensible than the out-of-context biblical assertions made by some fundamentalist Christians. I respect you as a person, and I appreciate reading your opinion on religion, God, etc., but surely you can do better than this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
