bob wrote:That bugged me though because it:
1) Said that theologians had "dealt with" Biblical inconsistencies. To my knowledge they haven't satisfactorily "dealt with" any of the big issues.
Yeah, they dealt with them. You inserted the whole satisfactory/conclusiveness of it, not me.
bob wrote:2) You implied that some new answers had been forthcoming. Sorry, but I can't see evidence of that.
New answers HAVE been forthcoming! There's plenty evidence of that (I think you can use google). But here is one example that I linked to, I will say it briefly, the one concerning Genesis 1 & 2.
Briefly: 2 contradictory stories about the creation of humankind.
Classic religious answer (one among many): God first told the story in sort of a "short hand" (in ch. 1) and then gave the details (ch. 2)
Modern critical answer: different texts from competing traditions/versions that were lumped together when the 'final' version was redacted.
Voila! There you have it! (use google if you need clarification, google "genesis 1 and 2" there'll be tons of shit)
bob wrote:All that I really wanted to do was clear that up. At this point in history it is becoming harder and harder to defend the notion that the Bible is the inspired word of God. That is true mainly because of new archeological evidence (flight from Egypt - apparently never happened, but then surely you heard,) and because of fresh efforts to apply a textual analysis to the Bible as though it were any other work of literature, or in some cases to simply share with the public problems that have been well known for ages but not shared with the flock. That is where we are actually at.
I never defended the historicity of the bible...you jumped to that conclusion.
bob wrote:It is true that I don't know much about reincarnation except that it provided a framework for the caste system, probably one of the most repressive systems the world has ever seen. Buddhism itself (I am reading Emotional Awareness by the Dali Lama and some psychologist. Good book. Has a lot of information on controlling afflictive emotions) was the basis of for a brutal theocracy in Tibet until just recently. I sincerely doubt that the Dalai Lama would run the country that way again if given a chance. He has been influenced too much by science and secular humanism for that.
There are many different forms of Buddhism.
The Dalai Lama has already stated, many times that if Tibet was to become independent again, it would not go back to the way things were.
The Dalai Lama has also attempted to step down from being the political leader of the Tibetan people....the 'govt' in exile refuses to let him.
And however troubling the Tibetan theocracy was (not denying that) to call it "one of the most repressive systems the world has ever seen" is quite an overstatement I must say, but what is the use in dwelling in the "bad vs. worse" kind of arguments?