BookTalk.org

My complaint isn't that Wright disbelieves the Abram story, it is that he ignores it. If he mentioned it and then burried if for some reason I would not object as strongly. But it seems ridiculous to me to just ignore it, especially in a book perporting to explain the origins of the monotheistic God.

There is no need to mention something which isn't true. Why do you keep mentioning this? The distinction is not to say that it is also definitely false, just that it is not shown to be true, therefore it does not hold any weight in the analysis.

If you are going to selectively decode the Bible you can make it mean anything you want.

You think that what you do is any different?

DWill wrote: Sorry for being absent from the discussion. I was out tramping around the woods for a couple of days, as it turned out during about the only rainy period in the last three months.

I've always wanted to point out that we're not far from one another DWill. We live in western North Carolina. My wife and I are from the Eastern Shore of Maryland which is even closer to you.

Speaking of tramping about in the woods, I'm gearing up to hike Cold Mountain (yes, that Cold Mountain). I've always wanted to hike it, but it's a somewhat daunting 10.6-mile hike. I want to make sure I'm in pretty good shape first. Soon, before it gets too cold.

I've changed the title of this thread from "My concluding thoughts" to simply "My thoughts" because the title gives newcomers the false impression that we are now wrapping up the discussion of "The Evolution of God." We're only getting started and are not even 50% through the discussion period. And with a book discussion this active this forum will probably remain out of the archives for at least one or two additional months beyond the end of the stated discussion period. "My concluding thoughts" seems to be a rush to end the discussion and whether this is your goal or not it is harmful to BookTalk.org.

Interbane wrote:

My complaint isn't that Wright disbelieves the Abram story, it is that he ignores it. If he mentioned it and then burried if for some reason I would not object as strongly. But it seems ridiculous to me to just ignore it, especially in a book perporting to explain the origins of the monotheistic God.

There is no need to mention something which isn't true. Why do you keep mentioning this? The distinction is not to say that it is also definitely false, just that it is not shown to be true, therefore it does not hold any weight in the analysis.

Because Abram/Abraham is the central common ancestor for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. His story is also the story of the emergence of monotheism from polytheism. Wright may discount it as a myth but he should at least devote a paragraph in his book to doing so. In my opinion his failure to do so begs the question and leaves him wide open for what to me seems a devasting attack. Two thirds of the book of Genesis is devoted to Abraham and his children and grandchildren. His story creates the nations of Israel and the Arab states. How can he just ignore it?

If you are going to selectively decode the Bible you can make it mean anything you want.

interbane wrote:You think that what you do is any different?

Yes, and your comment is not a rebuttal of my argument.

Chris OConnor wrote:I've changed the title of this thread from "My concluding thoughts" to simply "My thoughts" because the title gives newcomers the false impression that we are now wrapping up the discussion of "The Evolution of God." We're only getting started and are not even 50% through the discussion period. And with a book discussion this active this forum will probably remain out of the archives for at least one or two additional months beyond the end of the stated discussion period. "My concluding thoughts" seems to be a rush to end the discussion and whether this is your goal or not it is harmful to BookTalk.org.

Perhaps a better title would be Stahrwe's concluding thoughts. I was pretty much told to drop out of the TEoG discussion but I felt like I wanted to at least weigh in on a couple of what, to me at least, were important points before I dropped out of this one completely.

Because Abram/Abraham is the central common ancestor for Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Says who?

Wright may discount it as a myth but he should at least devote a paragraph in his book to doing so.

If he discounts it as a myth, there is no "at least", you're fabricating a criticism based on your opinion, and nothing else. Then you're using your criticism to 'poison the well' so you can conveniently disregard the rest of Wright's book. That is despicable.

Yes, and your comment is not a rebuttal of my argument.

You've posted numerous examples where you interpret the bible to mean what you want. In your zealotous apologetics, you mistake "not impossible" for "likeliest explanation". The omission of a character during the resurrection, impaling through the wrists during crucifixion, selecting only certain Hebrew connotations. Are you truly blind to your guilt?

Dunning-Kruger Effect.

It helps when you know there is a name for it.

Interbane wrote:

Because Abram/Abraham is the central common ancestor for Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Says who?

That's your response?
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Abrahamic_religion

Wright may discount it as a myth but he should at least devote a paragraph in his book to doing so.

interbane wrote:If he discounts it as a myth, there is no "at least", you're fabricating a criticism based on your opinion, and nothing else. Then you're using your criticism to 'poison the well' so you can conveniently disregard the rest of Wright's book. That is despicable.

I pointed out that wasn't my only criticism but it is certainly significant. How is it any more despicable than you refusing to read the Bible but criticising it? At least I read the whole TEoG.

Yes, and your comment is not a rebuttal of my argument.

interbane wrote:You've posted numerous examples where you interpret the bible to mean what you want. In your zealotous apologetics, you mistake "not impossible" for "likeliest explanation". The omission of a character during the resurrection, impaling through the wrists during crucifixion, selecting only certain Hebrew connotations. Are you truly blind to your guilt?

did you miss my post in Epistemology regarding the crucifixion. In fact, I support the nails through the hands, not wrists.

This comment makes my point for me. The likliest explanation is that Abraham heard, or thought he heard God call him.

johnson1010 wrote:Dunning-Kruger Effect.

It helps when you know there is a name for it.

So, it's kind of like claiming you know the Bible is crap without ever having read it?

That's your response?

Of course that's my response. I'm NOT taking the word of your fiction books. Corroborate it. I will not settle for faith as you do. Fiction books based on the same main character means they have common ancestry within the plotline, it does not mean that plotline reflects real life.

I pointed out that wasn't my only criticism but it is certainly significant. How is it any more despicable than you refusing to read the Bible but criticising it? At least I read the whole TEoG.

You can't get past the first few pages with finding ridiculous information that goes against all conventional wisdom. That is how your interpretations are more despicable. Because you think your rationalized opinions have as much merit as objective observation and inductive reasoning.

did you miss my post in Epistemology regarding the crucifixion. In fact, I support the nails through the hands, not wrists.

No, that's precisely the post I'm referring to. The likelihood of your interpretation is near zero. Why would Romans go to such great lengths to spike through a precise area of the hands when the wrists would do just fine? This is a rationalization. You interpret it to mean whatever you want. It's implausible. The plausible interpretation, and the most parsimonious one, is that they spiked through the wrists. Of course after making the repeated mistake of thinking adherence to your beliefs is what determines parsimony will require me to make an enlongated post showing why you're wrong.