Peanut Gallery 2012

I couldn't find an un-closed Peanut Gallery topic that wasn't Great Debate specific...Quoting from Message 636, pertaining to topic Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?: Yes and no. On one hand, we have those who think "god wrote lies into the Bible" and therefore stopped being (or never were) 'christians'. On the other, we have those who think "god wrote lies into the Bible" but are still 'christians'.Now, it is important to understand what "god wrote lies into the Bible" and 'christians' is specifically referring to. We can gather that from the author of the OP.Despite the quality of those definitions, arguments can still be made with them.I think the author of the OP is correct, that if "god wrote lies into the Bible" then you shouldn't be a 'christian' (according to their definitions).Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added subtitle. Since this isn't a topic specific peanut gallery, that should help connect things to the main topic.

The thread is about belief. If you believe this, how can you believe this? So it doesn't matter if God actually did or didn't write the Bible.As you know, within Christianity, there is a wide assortment of beliefs that can go together in a myriad of ways. Christian Smorgasbord The idea that there is fiction in the Bible can rock the boat for some depending on their belief choices.For a literalist who believes that God wrote the Bible, the idea of fiction that reads like an actual account may be seen as a lie or ruse.Now a literalist who believes that God wrote the Bible, but understands how fiction is used to teach probably wouldn't see it as a lie or ruse.So a literalist who doesn't believe there is fiction in the Bible and would see it as a lie or ruse is asking how can a Christian who believes there is fiction in the Bible can believe in a God that would do such a thing?I've run into people who believe that men wrote the Bible, but don't accept that there is fiction in the Bible.The thread is turning into a "why the originator's belief is wrong or ill conceived " instead of "why one can believe or trust in a god that uses fiction".We shouldn't be seeing comments that suggest that maybe there is no need for salvation.The non-literalist Christian should be showing FEY why they don't consider the Bible to be untrustworthy given that they believe it contains fiction.

True, but that position would be inconsistent with the OP's stated belief. Yes, and such a question only makes sense if God wrote the Bible. The question would not have much meaning if men wrote the Bible. Yes there are some other aspects of the original posts that ask different questions.I doubt there is a single poster here who believes that God literally wrote the Bible and described a literal global flood that never happened. Yet according to you, we can only answer exactly OP's question from that position. I doubt that FY has encountered anyone like that here.The title of the OP was the actual question asked in the previous thread. I note that the OP's own participation in the thread seems to touch on the title. But what would be the point of starting a thread because your original question was off topic, and then making the discussion of your original question off topic again?

Why on earth not?

Because the opposition should be explaining the opposing beliefs and not attacking the author's.IMO, a different tack is called for on the religious side.FEY has said why he believes what he does. A Christian who believes the Bible is written by men and that there is no need for salvation, should given insight into why he still worships God.I don't see that FEY is trying to prove that his way is right and everyone else is wrong.

Too funny.It is explaining a different point of view. A great example of that position can be seen in the evolution of the Great Commission over the decades and as viewed by the different authors.

Unfortunately, I don't understand your point. Sorry

1st: just cause i am a n00b here. why call this the peanut gallery? but if you believe that God is real and wrote this book, with lies or not, then I would think you would be somewhat religious to begin with.Maybe this version of the bible is the satanic verses and Lucifer is the real god who loves us?

Chaoticskunk asks: Great Debates are restricted to 1 against 1 so Peanut Galleries are where the rest of us can make comments without intruding on the actual Debate thread.Of course, you are likely to know that the term comes from an old 1950's TV show, Howdy Doody. A certain section of the tv audience was roped off and designated the Peanut Gallery (presumably supplied with bags of peanuts). Every once in a while Buffalo Bob would turn to them and get them involved in the show.

Peanut gallery - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In recent times, the term {Peanut Gallery} has taken on new meanings with the advent of social networks and online chat rooms. "Peanut gallery" may also refer to a social network audience that passively observes a syndicated web feed or chat room.

---

Its a place to talk about what people have posted in a thread without having to comment within that thread and stear it off topic.For example, in Message 16 you wrote:

quote:

---

I will just make it a point to not respond to anything Theodoric posts.

---

You're right, that Theo guy isn't even worth reading. Sure, and if you based your religious beliefs on a flawless Bible, then when flaws in the Bible are found, those religious beliefs should change. I agree with the OP that he shouldn't be the type of christian he is if he thinks that a flaw in the Bible means God is lying and therefore he cannot trust it.

I'll try again. Emphasis in the quote below added by me. Your interpretation above includes the idea that there is fiction in the Bible and that God did it. My response is that nobody takes the position you've laid out. Everyone who believes that the Bible inaccurately describes Egyptian history, for example, believes that men are responsible for the deviation from accuracy. Yet you are insisting that not responding directly from that position that God wrote the Bible is off topic.I find that insistence wrong headed.

I'd never heard of Howdy Doody, so I had to check if the etymology I know was wrong, but it seems not. 'Peanut Gallery' is first attested from 1888, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. It referred to the cheapest seats in the theatre at old Vaudeville shows - the gallery up at the top. Raucous audiences dissatisfied with the performance were wont to throw things at the stage, a role best served by peanuts, on account of their size, availbility, low cost, and suitability as a projectile. From this it came to be used in general for noisy hecklers.

I disagree that nobody holds the belief the simultneous beliefs that the Bible contains historical innaccuracies, and that God was responsbile for those inaccuracies. It seems to be one of the oldest traditions of Bible criticism.The view is that these aren't 'mistakes'. Rather, the Bible is not meant to be a book of history. It's a book of spiritual instruction.Origen, Bishop of Alexandria in the early 3rd century, certainly seemed to be of this view. He clearly distinguished between Holy Scripture written by men filled with the Holy Ghost, and apocrypha which were simply written by men.Nevertheless, he didn't consider Scripture to be literally true, since some of it was so clearly not true. God did not literally walk through the Garden of Eden searching while Adam hid behind a tree - Origen takes this as prima facie obvious - meaning the text must be a metaphor for a spiritual meaning, something to do with men turning their faces from God, I guess.You may think that's fine when discussing the more distant accounts of creation and other spiritual matter, but that in books that deal more with political history the same arguments don't apply, and so Origen's argument isn't relevant in the light of modern archaeological reserch which shows much Bible history to be untrue.On the contrary, he was not as stupid as modern day Biblical literalists, and was quite capable of seeing historical inaccuracies in the text. His explanation, to me, sounds a bit forced. God put them there on purpose so that we wouldn't get carried away looking for literal meanings all the time and miss the spiritual sense of the text. Noticing errors in the history of Egypt serves to remind us that stories like the Garden of Eden are not historical accounts, but are there for more important reasons. In his own words (or, rather, the words of whoever translated this online edition of De Principiis)

quote:

---

But since, if the usefulness of the legislation, and the sequence and beauty of the history, were universally evident of itself, we should not believe that any other thing could be understood in the Scriptures save what was obvious, the word of God has arranged that certain stumbling-blocks, as it were, and offenses, and impossibilities, should be introduced into the midst of the law and the history, in order that we may not, through being drawn away in all directions by the merely attractive nature of the language, either altogether fall away from the (true) doctrines, as learning nothing worthy of God, or, by not departing from the letter, come to the knowledge of nothing more divine. And this also we must know, that the principal aim being to announce the "spiritual" connection in those things that are done, and that ought to be done, where the Word found that things done according to the history could be adapted to these mystical senses, He made use of them, concealing from the multitude the deeper meaning; but where, in the narrative of the development of super-sensual things, there did not follow the performance of those certain events, which was already indicated by the mystical meaning, the Scripture interwove in the history (the account of) some event that did not take place, sometimes what could not have happened; sometimes what could, but did not. And sometimes a few words are interpolated which are not true in their literal acceptation, and sometimes a larger number. And a similar practice also is to be noticed with regard to the legislation, in which is often to be found what is useful in itself, and appropriate to the times of the legislation; and sometimes also what does not appear to be of utility; and at other times impossibilities are recorded for the sake of the more skilful and inquisitive, in order that they may give themselves to the toil of investigating what is written, and thus attain to a becoming conviction of the manner in which a meaning worthy of God must be sought out in such subjects.

---

Like I said, it seems a bit contrived to me, but he's one clear counter-example to the claim that nobody believes that God wrote purposeful untruths into the Bible and yet still worshipped that God. It's interesting how much more sophisticated is his understanding of Biblical inerrancy than many modern fundamentalists. To Origen, it didn't mean that everything in Scripture was true, it meant that everything in Scripture was there purposefully. This message copied to here in the main topic. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See red - Message copied to main topic.

honestly I thought Penut gallery meant what Caffiene said it meant. to me it was the Cheap Seats. I think it comes from vaudeville.For example when I go to an NFL game I have to hire a Sherpa to take me up to the peanut gallery.I know I am showing my age, but I have never seen Howdy doody.

thanks you have suffieciently explained what this means in plain english and excellent examples. Do those christians atcually exist outside Anabaptist communities?I figured that anyone on the INTERNET who made a claim like that was probably a Poe.