3 ms·

"Richard's sort of like an Old Testament prophet, with lots of 'Thou shalt not,' and BSD is a more Christian approach, saying, 'Love your neighbor; make value f

"Richard's sort of like an Old Testament prophet, with lots of 'Thou shalt not,' and BSD is a more Christian approach, saying, 'Love your neighbor; make value for the world. Let the people do with it what they will!'" Such a dud on O'Reilly's part. The analogy is totally confused from a theological and sociopolitical perspective, in its treatment of the Old Testament and New Testament as being mutually exclusive/opposed sets in the Christian religion, and the implicit assumption that most interpretations of Christianity are from a libertarian/anarchist perspective.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> in its treatment of the Old Testament and New Testament as being mutually exclusive/opposed sets in the Christian religion It doesn't treat them as being mutually exclusive or essentially opposed, it treats them as different areas of potential focus within the same overarching tradition where focus on one vs. focus on the other produces a very different "feel" even when the overall values aren't all that different. > and the implicit assumption that most interpretations of Christianity are from a libertarian/anarchist perspective. I would agree that it is an error to present "more Christian" as an alternative to "Old Testament", but its clear from your preceding complaint that you got the intent, which was that "Christian" here stood in for "New Testament" and that both alternatives were, in your words, "in the Christian religion". So your first criticism makes your second seem disingenuous, as the two criticisms require different readings of the text. FWIW, as a lifelong Christian, I've seen this kind of "New Testament" vs. "Old Testament" focus distinction -- one that aligns with detailed proscription based vs. a more personal and situational approach -- made frequently by Christians, and by Christians whose personal preference is on either side (ones who criticize the other side of the relative focus divide for focusing too much on the NT without critical OT context, and those who criticize others for focusing too much on the OT without attention to how the NT should inform the application of the OT.) So I don't think that analogy is inappropriate or poorly chosen, even if the precise wording ("Christian" vs. "New Testament") is less than ideal.
- copsarebastards 12y ago
  > I would agree that it is an error to present "more Christian" as an alternative to "Old Testament" On what grounds? Neither the Old or New Testament aligns with modern Christianity particularly well, but the New Testament definitely aligns more closely.
copsarebastards 12y ago
> The analogy is totally confused from a theological and sociopolitical perspective, in its treatment of the Old Testament and New Testament as being mutually exclusive/opposed sets in the Christian religion, and the implicit assumption that most interpretations of Christianity are from a libertarian/anarchist perspective. When you find yourself writing phrases like "a theological and sociopolitical perspective" it's time to walk away from the keyboard. That's such a broad phrase you might have just said "a perspective".

dragonwriter 12y ago

> in its treatment of the Old Testament and New Testament as being mutually exclusive/opposed sets in the Christian religion It doesn't treat them as being mutually exclusive or essentially opposed, it treats them as different areas of potential focus within the same overarching tradition where focus on one vs. focus on the other produces a very different "feel" even when the overall values aren't all that different. > and the implicit assumption that most interpretations of Christianity are from a libertarian/anarchist perspective. I would agree that it is an error to present "more Christian" as an alternative to "Old Testament", but its clear from your preceding complaint that you got the intent, which was that "Christian" here stood in for "New Testament" and that both alternatives were, in your words, "in the Christian religion". So your first criticism makes your second seem disingenuous, as the two criticisms require different readings of the text. FWIW, as a lifelong Christian, I've seen this kind of "New Testament" vs. "Old Testament" focus distinction -- one that aligns with detailed proscription based vs. a more personal and situational approach -- made frequently by Christians, and by Christians whose personal preference is on either side (ones who criticize the other side of the relative focus divide for focusing too much on the NT without critical OT context, and those who criticize others for focusing too much on the OT without attention to how the NT should inform the application of the OT.) So I don't think that analogy is inappropriate or poorly chosen, even if the precise wording ("Christian" vs. "New Testament") is less than ideal.

copsarebastards 12y ago
> I would agree that it is an error to present "more Christian" as an alternative to "Old Testament" On what grounds? Neither the Old or New Testament aligns with modern Christianity particularly well, but the New Testament definitely aligns more closely.

copsarebastards 12y ago

> The analogy is totally confused from a theological and sociopolitical perspective, in its treatment of the Old Testament and New Testament as being mutually exclusive/opposed sets in the Christian religion, and the implicit assumption that most interpretations of Christianity are from a libertarian/anarchist perspective. When you find yourself writing phrases like "a theological and sociopolitical perspective" it's time to walk away from the keyboard. That's such a broad phrase you might have just said "a perspective".