(urth) The Wizard

[Daniel Petersen]

Yeah, Lee, apologies on seeming to make a blanket association with you and
Dawkins.  I only meant in your seemingly similar readings of the OT.  Other
than that, you're nothing like him (thank God, heh).  Yes, I, as all
readers must, have an 'agenda' in reading the OT - I was only maintaining
that mine was more legitimate than yours in responding to the text.  But
then, you went and said your view was like that of Dan'l and others, which
is not at all how you stated it at first.  Your summary of the OT God as
genocidal and whatnot just is unsophisticated in its reading of the library
of texts (and yes, I think unsophisticated or un-nuanced readings of
anything are 'inferior' to ones that are more subtle).  If you want to
retract that first statement, fine.

As to being off-topic: though I'm the one who brought up the fact that we
were probably veering in that direction (if not well into that territory),
now I want to back track just a wee bit and say to Antonin and perhaps
others who feel as him that I've tried to be clear throughout that my
arguments about Wolfe and theology are by no means about 'personal
religious beliefs' but about good readings of public texts.  Just because
'religious' becomes the adjective of the moment to describe a particular
discussion doesn't automatically push that discussion into 'off-topic' -
anymore than 'personal political beliefs' or 'personal astronomical
beliefs' would do.

And now I am truly done helping the Wizard Knight thread careen away from
its titular topic.

-DOJP

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> >Daniel Petersen: I hope maybe what I (and some others) have said can
> >help at least some people think twice before they make sweeping Dawkinsian
> >generalisations about these matters based on utterly unsophisticated
> >readings of OT/NT.,,,All of this is very relevant to Wolfe's fiction also
> in
> >regard to allowing a text to do what it does rather than reading so much
> of
> >one's own agenda into it so as to mangle it.
>
> Heh. Thanks for a very well written post Daniel. We haven't interacted in
> here
> all that much so I can forgive you for mistaking me for some militant
> atheist
> with an agenda like Richard Dawkins. I happen to think of Dawkins as a
> brilliant
> populist theoretical biologist and a short-sighted, prejudiced fool in his
> outspoken hateful views on religion. My own views are generally the
> opposite of
> his.
>
> The idea of proving my "sophistication" in understanding the Bible seems a
> bit
> distasteful. Must different imply inferior?  Perhaps I will only mention
> that you,
> yourself, seem to have an agenda which makes it difficult for you to read
> the
> Bible in any manner which could present God in a "bad" light. I wouldn't
> call that
> view of the Bible "unsophisticated" but I think it is fair to consider it
> colored
> a bit.
>
> (FWIW, I personally agree with Dan'l, et al. that the brutality depicted
> in the OT
> and the human emotions and motivations attributed to the deity reflect
> more on
> the people and culture of the times, than on God, Himself)
>
> I do agree that this subject continually teeters on the brink of being
> off-topic in
> a Wolfe forum and might be something of a dead horse. I don't think I have
> anything
> further to add, though I get the impression Gerry Quinn might still want
> to go
> on discussing a bit.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20120308/377bc138/attachment-0003.htm>