If someone starts an “Ask a Follower of Anubis” thread, it’s only reasonable that the questions should be about Anubis – not about the Anubis follower’s knowledge of Catholicism. That reverses the direction of the stated topic of the thread (and undermines its entire raison d’etre.)What’s the point of the “Ask a ~blank~” threads if conversation doesn’t ensue afterword?
“What does A mean in your religion?”
“Well, we interpret it to mean B.”
“Oh, that’s nice.”
I don’t think questions of the religion as it pertains to Catholicism is at all unreasonable, given that this is a Catholic message board.
I think it is appropriate for the questioner to ask questions about the topic, which is Universal Unitarianism. Not to ask him how much he knows about Catholicism. It is a Catholic message board, but this is the non-Catholic religions sub-forum. The entire rest of the forum is devoted to Catholic topics.
Whatev, dude.
You are late to the party so a bit late to complain about what other people are doing. Change the thread with a pertinent question if you wish. I have tried several times to re-engage the UU’s but to no avail. So I can either un-sub from the thread or keep trying. Might work for you as well. You know the saying if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Try to bring the thread back to the OPs topic. I’ve been trying without success.
Two of the important sources of the Book of Genesis were written with different views on the nature of God. The “J” source talks about a god called YHWH, and portrays him using anthropomorphic imagery. He is portrayed like a Middle Eastern potentate walking and talking in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, shutting the door of Noah’s Ark, getting angry, and sitting down to lunch with Abraham. It appears that Moses, Joshua, David, and Solomon saw God as Yahweh.
Both are the real God, but the Bible was written in stages as you have just pointed out. People interpreted what they were told about God from the oral tradition. The OT God is really quite an amalgamation of different people’s knowledge of God. That’s why the Bible is such a unique book. We can find truth in it, but not literal truth (usually). It is more like poetry - the stories and songs and proverbs tell us true things about being human and our relationship with God.
The nature of G-d is not the same as the nature of humans. For one thing, it is more complex, at least to our human understanding. Why cannot the nature of G-d incorporate mercy and justice, loving-kindness and wrath, forgiveness and punishment? Both are present in the Hebrew Bible, and while the loving-kindness of G-d may seem to dominate in the Gospels, I’m sure a careful reading reveals His features of justice, wrath, and punishment all the same. Just as a loving parent can, at times, appear to their child as overly stern, unmerciful, and even unloving, so too G-d may appear to us that way; but He is still loving and behaving toward us with our best interests in mind. In sum, I do not believe there is a dichotomy in the nature of G-d.
Exactly…it’s Truth but not necessarily facts. Those trying to disprove the validity of the Bible focus on seeming inconsistencies or contradictions without considering that the events in the Bible were related to provide guidance, lessons and understanding rather than a simple historical account.
Yes, indeed, there are different forms of literature within the Bible, including didactic, narrative, historical, poetic, metaphorical, figurative, and others. One must be careful in reading the Bible to understand the literary style utilized within the verses and passages of its Books as these styles relate to the meaning of the verses.
We think alike, my friend!
I’ve heard it’s more proper to call the Bible a library or compendium rather than a “book.” I think using the latter term invites comments about differing styles or sources or seeming inconsistency between various Gospels. If we are to look at the Bible as a library, then these differences can be appreciated for their style or focus or application. For example Song of Songs is often read at weddings as are some chapters in Genesis and of course the frequently used verses in Corinthians about love. But you might look to Micah or Amos or other Prophets for an understanding of justice and our responsibilities toward one another.
what role does the Bible play in the UU tradition? Given the usual disbelief in a deity, is there still appreciation for the Truth within? Can you be good without God or is it necessary to have a frame of reference to prevent relativism?Would you be able to converse with someone giving you this smug and condescending look? About a personal matter. Did I mention smug and condescending? I would not. Please don’t do that again.
Edify us! What was the answer to your exceedingly vague question? Since the level of cathechism is so poor, you might need to dumb it down and make it multiple choice.
Mutually exclusive? No, it’s not mutually exclusive.
The man’s calmly asking some questions about policy, attempting to ensure civility, and you open up a can of snark on him? “Part of the problem”, what problem ? Just 'cos he’s “late” doesn’t mean he shouldn’t speak his mind.
I wouldn’t disagree with either post…
Yes, there is appreciation for the truth within the Bible. We read from it in services. The difference is that we also acknowledge truth from other works as well, and the Bible does not stand alone above all others.I’ve heard it’s more proper to call the Bible a library or compendium rather than a “book.” I think using the latter term invites comments about differing styles or sources or seeming inconsistency between various Gospels. If we are to look at the Bible as a library, then these differences can be appreciated for their style or focus or application. For example Song of Songs is often read at weddings as are some chapters in Genesis and of course the frequently used verses in Corinthians about love. But you might look to Micah or Amos or other Prophets for an understanding of justice and our responsibilities toward one another.
Meanwhile, back to the thread
Lisa
I have no idea who she is.
