20
Sep
10

Richard Swinburne discusses the Old Testament

By shigekuni 10 Comments
Categories: Religion and Richard Swinburne

So there is much wrong with Swinburne’s books, but it’s nice to listen to him. It’s a well known point, but well put.

via Paul Raymond’s blog

About these ads

10 Responses to “Richard Swinburne discusses the Old Testament”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  1. 1 eli
    September 20, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    what the hell is old testament???

    Reply
  2. 2 Ms TNT
    September 20, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    On account of beeing a smartass, am gonna say the Old Testament is the Original or Old part of the Bible. :P

    Reply
  3. 3 eli
    September 20, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    What I was trying to point out is that anyone who still calls the Hebrew Bible “Old Testament” is ignorant. My ex studied christian theology in the nineties, and even back then they insisted on this change of nomenclature.

    Reply
  4. 4 eli
    September 20, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    And btw, I’m all for it! Christian believes function very good without the Hebrew Bible. So get rid of it, christianity!!! Stick to your message of salvation, the “good news”, and leave the “old” stuff be!

    Reply
  5. 5 shigekuni
    September 20, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    I have a stack of current theological fachliteratur at home and they all use “old testament”. It seems to be a/the accepted term for it.

    the more you know (dadadadaaaah)

    Reply
  6. 6 shigekuni
    September 20, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    I recommend watching the vid. Swinburne explains very well why the Old Testament was kept. Notwithstanding the hundreds of cross-references between the books (that alone would make for arduous reading)

    Reply
  7. 7 eli
    September 20, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    I still believe that this acceoted term is an insult, that is why the term should be changed.

    I am not interested in the chritian views and arguments of this man.* (Even though I DID watch the video.) I know that christianity has always felt inferior and therefore needed to dissociate themselves from Judaism in a polemical way, well, I guess this is habitually and necessary for christians that were pagan, or better gentiles, before.

    *So I SAY: why not go the whole way and leave the roots out. They’re not christian anyway! Rome is *lol*

    Reply
  8. 8 shigekuni
    September 20, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    This latter behavior is actually the basic modus operandi of all new or invading religious groups. There’s nothing specifically Christian about the polemicism etc.

    Swinburne, and this is what I like about the video, simply explains things that should be general knowledge. It’s not ‘christian views’ any more than knowing what transubstantiation is. It’s basic knowledge about how one of the largest religions on the planet works.

    Reply
  9. 9 Paul Dorell
    September 20, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    I agree with Swinburne’s argument. While the language of the Old Testament is quite different from that of the New Testament, it is pointless now to try and separate them, as they have been fused into one Christian theology for centuries.

    The interviewer makes a mistake when he brings up Richard Dawkins. I admire Dawkins immensely as a science writer for “The Selfish Gene,” but he went completely off track as an advocate of atheism when he attacked theologians on their own turf. I haven’t read his recent books, but it sounds as if he lacks the background to make a case that is convincing to Christians. The strength of any scientific argument against the existence of a Christian God must rest on simple empiricism. All a skeptic need say is that they see no evidence that the God described in the Bible exists. In addition, evolutionary biology offers a convincing case for humans evolving from microbes, with random mutations leading the way. A scientific skeptic who accepts the premises of a theologian is like a dueler with a penknife opposing one with a bazooka.

    Reply
  10. 10 eli
    September 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    Oh well I only have my hopes up now and then that the christians finally manage to leave the Jews alone and the Hebrew Bible be.

    I am sure that as long as christians grab hold of what they have taken over from Juadaism, there will be Anti-Judaism. Naturally. Because there is a whole people that does not believe in this new text understanding of an “old” text.

    And it definitely is not about “reading it in a different context”, it is about conquering and assimilating. Naturally, conquereors and assimilators must get rid of the people that owned their object of desire (in this case: read their salvation texts differently, and) in the first place.

    As I said, now and then I have my hopes up…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

« Herta Mueller and Oskar Pastior
David Foster Wallace Archive »

Categories

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

support shigekuni

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 191 other followers

%d bloggers like this: