Books/authors you feel obligated to like, but don't?
#41
(11-07-2010, 07:38 AM)Satori Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 05:53 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 03:55 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: Sadly, the book of deuteronomy.

That and Leviticus I read them both once about ten years ago when I read the Bible cover to cover now I just skip them.

I find them fascinating now! But I understand where you two are coming from. I read them as a teenager and was so stunned and scandalized I literally threw my Bible across the room and wept. In fact, I credit my youthful loss of faith in part to having read parts of the Bible too soon, and without direction. The Bible is a dangerous book to read without direction, especially when you aren't ready for it.

Could you perhaps explain how they're supposed to be interpreted? On an emotional level a lot of the rules make me want to gag (the laws actually remind me of a Jewish Taliban or something) but on an intellectual level I know that as it's inspired scripture the stipulations cannot be morally wrong as that would mean God was the author of evil. The old testament, especially in light of the New, confuses me a lot.
Reply
#42
(11-06-2010, 09:42 PM)paragon Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 09:33 PM)Satori Wrote: Chesterton? I agree with the OP, at least in regard to works like "Orthodoxy." They're supposed to be all profound and wise and all, but really to me they just seem to be a witty man relishing his own wit and refusing to take serious matters with the sobriety they deserve.

I saw it as a collection of clever arguments that the average man can understand.  It's intellectual but down to earth.  Not everyone is a genius; it's great to have an author like Chesterton who can communicate intellectual subjects intelligibly.

In my opinion, C.S. Lewis is good for that and Chesterton is not. I can't see that Chesterton makes real arguments; he makes quote after brilliant, quotable quote -- but they don't stand up to scrutiny. They're cleverness without depth. He also dismisses the arguments of his opponents with a laugh and a witty quip rather than serious refutation. Now, you might say to that that George Bernard Shaw didn't deserve to be taken seriously and should have had his arguments batted out of the picture like a balloon, but the many people who believed in them needed to see thoughtful refutation rather than playful scorn.
Reply
#43
(11-07-2010, 07:41 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 07:38 AM)Satori Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 05:53 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 03:55 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: Sadly, the book of deuteronomy.

That and Leviticus I read them both once about ten years ago when I read the Bible cover to cover now I just skip them.

I find them fascinating now! But I understand where you two are coming from. I read them as a teenager and was so stunned and scandalized I literally threw my Bible across the room and wept. In fact, I credit my youthful loss of faith in part to having read parts of the Bible too soon, and without direction. The Bible is a dangerous book to read without direction, especially when you aren't ready for it.

Could you perhaps explain how they're supposed to be interpreted? On an emotional level a lot of the rules make me want to gag (the laws actually remind me of a Jewish Taliban or something) but on an intellectual level I know that as it's inspired scripture the stipulations cannot be morally wrong as that would mean God was the author of evil. The old testament, especially in light of the New, confuses me a lot.

I don't have the authority or, probably, the education to tell you how they're supposed to be interpreted, but if you tell me specifically what bothers you, perhaps I can tell you something useful.
Reply
#44
(11-07-2010, 07:46 AM)Satori Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 07:41 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 07:38 AM)Satori Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 05:53 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 03:55 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: Sadly, the book of deuteronomy.

That and Leviticus I read them both once about ten years ago when I read the Bible cover to cover now I just skip them.

I find them fascinating now! But I understand where you two are coming from. I read them as a teenager and was so stunned and scandalized I literally threw my Bible across the room and wept. In fact, I credit my youthful loss of faith in part to having read parts of the Bible too soon, and without direction. The Bible is a dangerous book to read without direction, especially when you aren't ready for it.

Could you perhaps explain how they're supposed to be interpreted? On an emotional level a lot of the rules make me want to gag (the laws actually remind me of a Jewish Taliban or something) but on an intellectual level I know that as it's inspired scripture the stipulations cannot be morally wrong as that would mean God was the author of evil. The old testament, especially in light of the New, confuses me a lot.

I don't have the authority or, probably, the education to tell you how they're supposed to be interpreted, but if you tell me specifically what bothers you, perhaps I can tell you something useful.

The stoning people stuff. Killing girls if they're not virgins on their wedding night. God killing the first born son of every Egyptian house hold. Stuff like that.
Reply
#45
I was disappointed with "The Abolition of Man" by C.S Lewis. It was kind of like "you can't have morality without a God (true) and we don't want to entertain the prospect of a world without objective morality so to avoid that depressing situation we'll commit to theism". It wasn't really the answer to moral relativism that I was looking for. Just because a situation is depressing and shocking (moral relativism) doesn't mean it's not true.
Reply
#46
(11-07-2010, 07:59 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 07:46 AM)Satori Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 07:41 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 07:38 AM)Satori Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 05:53 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(11-07-2010, 03:55 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: Sadly, the book of deuteronomy.

That and Leviticus I read them both once about ten years ago when I read the Bible cover to cover now I just skip them.

I find them fascinating now! But I understand where you two are coming from. I read them as a teenager and was so stunned and scandalized I literally threw my Bible across the room and wept. In fact, I credit my youthful loss of faith in part to having read parts of the Bible too soon, and without direction. The Bible is a dangerous book to read without direction, especially when you aren't ready for it.

Could you perhaps explain how they're supposed to be interpreted? On an emotional level a lot of the rules make me want to gag (the laws actually remind me of a Jewish Taliban or something) but on an intellectual level I know that as it's inspired scripture the stipulations cannot be morally wrong as that would mean God was the author of evil. The old testament, especially in light of the New, confuses me a lot.

I don't have the authority or, probably, the education to tell you how they're supposed to be interpreted, but if you tell me specifically what bothers you, perhaps I can tell you something useful.

The stoning people stuff. Killing girls if they're not virgins on their wedding night. God killing the first born son of every Egyptian house hold. Stuff like that.

Gotcha. That's some of the stuff that bothered me, too. Would you like to discuss it by PM so we don't bog down this thread?
Reply
#47
Sure :)
Reply
#48
Anythng about icecream
oh and Newman well
sip
for insomia  newmon  is the cure  But if u don't hAve  insomia it puts u in a coma
and tolien
snoooooooooooooore really snoooooooooooooore
Reply
#49
(11-06-2010, 07:25 PM)Walty Wrote: I love Chesterton, but I could understand how he wouldn't be for everyone. 

St. Therese, and really all saintly or "spiritual reading" never does anything for me.  Maybe it's something wrong with me, but I always feel like I'm not gaining anything from it.



  I fell the same way about St. Therese and her spiritual writings, as well as St. John of the Cross.  Their writings do nothing for me.
Reply
#50
(11-06-2010, 09:57 PM)wallflower Wrote: You can read Chesterton but you can't read Introduction? I find the ease factor on those switched. Introduction is an easy read whereas Chesterton just never gets to the point! He goes round and round and round in his wit and I don't have the time, I've got work to do, please get to the point! That was my first impression anyway back in high school, and my last.   

That's what makes it engaging for me - it's not dry information, it's almost conversational, illustrated with clever analogies.  Although for some subjects his verbosity can be tedious, agreed.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)