I got this in an email and thought I'd put it here for Barry O supporters to respond:
!If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position 32 or more Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent more than all the Presidents combined since George Washington, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have 3 years and 2 months to come up with an answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
648 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 648 Newer› Newest»"Thanks for the list of beliefs, as I said before it reminds me of listening to Benny Hinn or someone like that, it just sounds a touch off to me. It's like you use the words, but pour different meaning into them."
Wow. Really?
We sure read and understand things differently.
Btw, I don't care much for Bennie Hinn or any televangelist for that matter. Does he wear a toupee?
One bit of clarification. Where Bubba said...
And, for what it's worth, Dan invoked the inquisition to attack me -- inaccurately -- for not having answered his questions...
He was referencing my statement...
I shall end the inquisitorial phase of this conversation.
My statement, in turn, was referencing the notion of an inquistatorial system, not The Inquisition. An inquisitorial system "is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in determining the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is solely that of an impartial referee between parties."
I invoked it as there seemed to me to be no sense of an impartial evaluation of comments offered and I still believe it to be a correct assessment, not an attack.
Still, sorry for any confusion that might have caused.
Yes, Dan, "inquisatorial" never has the connotation of an inquisition, and since you have never invoked the Inquisition to criticize us before, it's incredibly rude of me to conclude that you're doing so now.
I apologize with all the sincerity you display in your explanation.
For the record, and had you read my earlier comment it might not have sounded as strange as it seems to.
If you listen to Hinn (or any of his ilk) you will notice that if you don't listen too closely they sound orthodox, but if you really pay attention you notice slight variations that make a significant difference.
That is the extent of the comparison.
Now, Dan, you say I'm begging the question.
"WHO SAYS God intends different social roles for men and women?"
For one, Paul the Apostle of Christ, who taught that husbands and wives have different responsibilities to each other.
If you disagree with the claim, fine, though you should probably not act as if you stand by Christ and His hand-picked Apostles.
What you have yet to provide is an argument for why the idea is inherently sexist -- or why, if that idea is sexist, it's perfectly okay that God created men and women with significantly different biological functions.
As has been the case before, your list of beliefs is disconcerting, not for what it says, but what it omits. You write that the "powers that be" had Jesus killed, but you ignore Scripture's clear teaching that the Father sent the Son to die, and that the Son came to die, to give His life as a ranson for many.
You write that we must "embrace the Way of Jesus," but you fail to see (or acknowledge) how significantly your beliefs deviate from His teachings, specifically on the authority of Scripture, on God's reason for creating us male and female, and -- most troubling -- on why He came to die.
And, you allude to a focus on "Big Truths", but you're not all that clear about what that entails.
"I do believe the TRUTHS of the Bible, rightly understood ARE inerrant - we ARE to love each other, we ARE to love our enemies, we ARE to turn the other cheek, we ARE to be wary of the trappings of wealth, etc;"
Speculating that the Bible is "largely metaphorical, allegorical, parabolic and figurative," you mention "Important Truths" and you write that the Bible might be "intended to teach us Big Truths" that preclude us from taking seriously what the Bible otherwise teaches, e.g., about men and women.
You clearly don't think that the historicity of Jonah's story is all that important, and you've written in the past how you think that even the account of THE PASSOVER is not "historically factual."
I wonder -- and for the sake of clarity, I request that you explain -- whether you include ANY historical claims as "Big Truths" about which we must all agree.
Specifically:
QUESTION #1. Yes or no, do you believe that the historical and bodily Resurrection of Christ is a Big and Important Truth?
What you wrote at your own blog certainly suggests otherwise.
QUESTION #2. Yes or no, do you believe that the Crucifixion of Christ is a Big and Important truth?
Here, what you write points in the other direction.
"We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. And if Jesus lived to be 70 and died of old age, we would STILL be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus."
QUESTION #3. Yes or no, do you believe the Incarnation of Christ is a Big and Important Truth?
AND QUESTION #4. Yes or no, do you even believe that the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a Big and Important Truth?
If you don't think really matters whether Jesus was bodily raised or whether Jesus was even crucified, I wonder whether you think it matters whether Jesus really is God Incarnate, or even whether Jesus really existed at all.
After all, it appears that you believe the Bible is "largely metaphorical, allegorical, parabolic and figurative," and in discussing the Bible, you've compared it to that work of literature that is wholly disconnected from history: Aesop's Fables.
If my questions cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, I defy you to tell me what the questions assume that make such an answer impossible.
If you can't explain why these questions are loaded and unanswerable...
...well, maybe for once in your life you could actually answer some simple and illuminating questions without delay and without obfuscation.
Dan,
The fact that you continue to misrepresent what it means to take the Bible literally or to believe that the autographs were inerrant/inspired, makes me wonder why we should take you seriously. You continue to generalize about what "many" may or may not do or say. Why not deal with what the actual specific people in this conversation have said, not with some vague generalization about "many".
As to your theory about a "metaphorical" standard for interpreting the Bible. You are the one putting forth the proposition that 2000+ years of scholarship are wrong, therefore it seems reasonable that you would be willing to offer some sort of evidence/proof/anything to bolster your contention, yet you act offended to be asked.
Your example does not even come close to any possible standard of proof. The first issue you have is assuming that I am/have ever "insisted" on a literal interpretation of this particular story. The bigger problem with your fish story is that you read it, and your bias against anything you can't explain with reason pops out and you write it off. I look at it and say something like "Gee God created the universe, earth, time, space, and all living things. So it really doesn't seem like such a stretch to think that God could have used a fish to transport Jonah. Having said that, Jonah is an instance where you can apprehend the meaning without accepting the possibility of a miracle.
The problem as I see it is you use the same test to judge things such as the pasach, or the resurrection by the same standard. So while a metaphorical fish doesn't pose much of a crisis, a metaphorical resurrection does. It seems as though the final court of arbitration in Dan's process is Dan's definition of Reasonable. Which is fine as long as Reason doesn't automatically exclude things you can't personally explain or experience.
Craig said...
The fact that you continue to misrepresent what it means to take the Bible literally or to believe that the autographs were inerrant/inspired, makes me wonder why we should take you seriously.
Again, I have to ask: WHAT are you talking about?
What have I misrepresented?
You keep saying stuff like that without explaining what in the world you mean.
Well. I guess if Marty says Dan is clear as glass, then obviously the problem is in me, Bubba, Craig, Neil, Mark, Eric, Stan and many more who have all come to frustration by the evasiveness, or lack of logic, or inconsistency, or side-stepping, or bad anaologies, etc, of Dan's defense or explanation of his positions. I think I speak for at least a few of the above by saying we are much more concerned with Dan's explanations than for the words of a list of obscure people who's positions are likely misunderstood by Dan as he misunderstands simple Scriptural text. We would have to take the time to study each of them, see if how they compare to each other, see how they line up with Scripture, and then try to determine if Dan is truly understanding what they espouse. Sorry. Ain't got the time for that. I'd prefer a more direct route if Dan would elaborate in the manner requested. He never does (generally speaking), and as Dan says, applies meanings to words and verses that are peculiar, if not totally opposed to thousands of years of understanding.
I believe we show far better than oppression by our continued hope for clarification. Feel free to crucify me if I label a stupid position stupid or a crappy theory as crappy. It's not like I do so without solid reasoning. Reasoning usually opposed by merely saying, "You THINK it's sound, but I disagree." Well, no shit, Sherlock. How about as definitive an explanation to back that up?
When I insist there's only one way to read a verse, it's because words mean things, the context supports the fact and no explanation for why I'm wrong is forthcoming. For example, the crucifixion. Did it happen? Historians, both ancient and modern, believe it did and archeology tends to support the fact as well. If it had no purpose, if it was just the consequence of a bunch of Jewish jugheads being pissed off about Jesus' teachings, why did He consistently preach of His death being a sacrifice for the sins of the world, why did OT prophesy foretell of this sacrifice and why would the Father put Him through it if it was only Jews killing a guy they didn't like? If His death was merely imagery or symbolism, how could a God who couldn't possibly annihilate the entire towns, or kill all the first born of Egypt, how could such a sweetheart of a God put Jesus through all of that suffering for mere symbolism? God does not do illogical things. It would be pure sadism.
Craig said...
The first issue you have is assuming that I am/have ever "insisted" on a literal interpretation of this particular story.
I have made no assumptions about what you think. I just offered it up as a story in the Bible which some would insist upon taking literally.
Craig said...
The bigger problem with your fish story is that you read it, and your bias against anything you can't explain with reason pops out and you write it off.
Actually, I have not said that I write it off. What I have said is that the literal accuracy of the facts is beside the point. I don't have a problem with saying, well, maybe it happened. I don't have a problem with saying, or maybe it didn't actually happen.
As a wise man once said, "I'm not lying, I'm telling a story."
A story can be true if the facts are all false. My position is that the veracity of the facts in a story like Jonah's is besides the point.
I am glad to have cleared up those two misperceptions.
So, seeing as how you just saw me saying two things that I didn't say at all, perhaps the fault lies not in my writing but in your understanding?
As I have said before, I am more than willing to take some ownership in people not understanding what I have said, but I would hope it would be a two way street and when you are reading things into what I have said that aren't literally there, perhaps you would take a bit more ownership of the misunderstanding?
Marshall said...
I guess if Marty says Dan is clear as glass, then obviously the problem is in me, Bubba, Craig, Neil, Mark, Eric, Stan and many more who have all come to frustration by the evasiveness, or lack of logic, or inconsistency, or side-stepping, or bad anaologies, etc, of Dan's defense
Again, we have a problem of subjectivity. Yes, there are ten or so conservatives who seem to have a problem understanding me on my blog. On the other hand, there are a dozen or more more liberal folk (and a few conservative folk) who read my words and DO understand my points.
So, are the people who read my words and can repeat them back to me in a way that I can say, "Yes, that's what I said and meant," more able to comprehend me? It would seem so.
And those people who read my words and CAN'T repeat back what I have said in a way that I can say, "No, that's not what I said at all and not what I meant," - are they UNable to understand me? Apparently so.
The question is, it seems to me, WHY is one group able to understand my positions and another unable? It does not seem that it can be my explanation or otherwise, NO ONE would understand me, right?
I suspect it's starting points and worldviews. What do you think?
Marshall said...
I think I speak for at least a few of the above by saying we are much more concerned with Dan's explanations than for the words of a list of obscure people who's positions are likely misunderstood by Dan
Meaning you didn't read them?
Marshall said...
God put Jesus through all of that suffering for mere symbolism? God does not do illogical things. It would be pure sadism.
Yes, you're right. For God to decide to cause God's Son to suffer and die horribly, that WOULD be sadism.
However, God did not cause Jesus to suffer. That would be humanity. God sent Jesus to show us the way and he lived a life of love and justice and outreach and support for the least of these and the powers that be found that literally threatening and so they tortured and killed him.
Not God.
And Jesus did so willingly because he wished to atone - make humanity at one with God - and he did so by his life and teachings and love and death. Not for symbolism.
Calling the notion of sacrifice symbolism is not the same as saying what Jesus went through was symbolism.
Do you understand the difference?
Marshall said...
Well. I guess if Marty says Dan is clear as glass, then obviously the problem is in me, Bubba, Craig ... who have all come to frustration by the evasiveness, or lack of logic, or inconsistency, or side-stepping, or bad anaologies, etc, of Dan's defense
Craig's misunderstanding of my Jonah analogy is a good illustration re: your remark above, Marshall. Craig read my illustration and drew not one but TWO conclusions about what I said that I did not say.
How is that my lack of logic or bad analogy? Can't we at least agree that at least on that point, it had very little to do with what I said and a lot to do with how Craig misread what I wrote? And can't we further agree that this is at least part of the problem in our miscommunications?
Dan, you write, "My position is that the veracity of the facts in a story like Jonah's is besides the point."
Well, what about the facts in a story like Jesus'? Are they beside the point?
I've asked you a few simple questions to ascertain what you believe about the life of Jesus, and you haven't even acknowledged those questions, much less answered them.
In arguing that God neither commands the taking of innocent life nor takes innocent life Himself, you DID NOT discuss the most obvious and most theologically important events -- namely, the sacrifice of Isaac, and the Passover -- choosing instead to mention the most obscure events. It took literally months to drag out of you the fact that, indeed, you likewise discount the historicity of the Passover.
Let's not be so obstinate this time around. If you think that aspects of Christ's life -- His bodily Resurrection, His Crucifixion, His Deity, and even His historicity -- are trifling details that shouldn't obscure the "Big Truths," say so.
Now, you say, "God did not cause Jesus to suffer."
That contradicts Paul's claim, e.g, in Romans 8:32, that God gave up His Son for us all.
It also contradicts the logic of Gethsemane.
What did Christ pray? That the cup of His cross pass over Him.
To whom did He pray? To God.
What was the answer? The cup didn't pass over.
You may find it barbaric, the idea that the Father sent the Son to die for our sins, but there's another word for the idea.
That word is "biblical."
If you have any good reason for your altenrative position, I urge you to produce it.
"If I was my own 25 year old self listening to me now, 25 year old Dan might sound amazingly like Craig or even Bubba, on my more strident days."
Doubtful. We have yet to establish that you ever truly and properly understood conservative thought, or traditional Christian thought.
Regarding Craig, I can say for sure that there is a question of why you would mention what "some" might believe about the Jonah story at all? The way you throw it out there does imply to some extent that possibly you mean that any of US are concerned with the story. The point being, if I'm understanding Craig correctly, is that you're again using something that doesn't relate to the discussion, so how are we to take it? A better course of action would be to focus only on what WE actually say and not bring in outside beliefs never before espoused by any of us. Of course if you want to know what we believe on such a topic, that's another thing.
But then, you add a point against him for defending the notion of believing in the miracle of an actual fish swallowing Jonah, something YOU brought up. In short, your entire piece regarding Jonah provoked the response you now find troubling.
Regarding "this one small group" compared to others on the blogosphere, I recall you pointing to some conservatives somewhere who "understand" what you're saying, but I don't recall who they were or where you gave the link. I would need to see samples to see if they truly understand you, if you are misunderstanding what they're saying about your explanations (likely), or if they are stupid. As for libs, they'll believe anything that sounds touchy-feely. Libs don't typically think logically as evidenced by their support of stupid things and stupid people. So forgive me if I don't find lib acceptance of your arguments as compelling or a mark in your favor.
Sure, that would be that "this one small group" is more adept at understanding the plainly stated messages of Scripture, OR that you're not. Nothing to cry over. We're here to help. The first step is accepting that you have a problem. :)
I want to get back to the Timothy verses that support my statement regarding the Bible being THE (not "THE ONE") source against which all things should be compared. Read it again. Is there anywhere else that states that the Bible (Scripture) should be placed against anything else to test ITS veracity and truthfulness? Is there anything else that is useful for correction, reproof, etc of which the Bible or any character within it speaks? If not, if there's nothing to which the Bible must be compared, and if there is nothing else BUT the Bible that we are encouraged to compare things we think or believe, would that not then make the Bible THE source of our revelation of God and His Will for us? Again, I never said the ONE source, or that there have never been any other sources that reveal God's existence, but THE source. That is the most reliable source for revealing to us God's existence and His Will for us to the extent to which He has decided to reveal Himself. It's really the only logical conclusion. The stars, whatever you might think is written on your heart, none of that contains enough certain info that they can be said to be THE source.
"I guess if Marty says Dan is clear as glass, then obviously the problem is in me, Bubba, Craig, Neil, Mark, Eric, Stan and many more"
Bingo!
Thanks for all the laughs, Marty. When you think you can show why it us who are mistaken, give it your best shot.
Dan every time you insist that people who take the Bible literally take every word in a wooden literal sense, you misrepresent what it means to interpret the Bible literally. So why not try to actually understand what you are denigrating.
Dan the only thing I said about you and your fish story is to give you my OPINION of how you interpret these things. Are you now saying that I am not allowed to form OPINIONS of what you write.
Then you criticize me for not using the correct words to express my opinion. Why not deal the more substantive elements of my responses, instead of focusing on what should have been a clever tongue in cheek response.
You keep appealing to this mythical "some" or "many", who are they? Why do you lump me in with them?
You still haven't given any reason why we should take your contention that the Bible is metaphorical seriously. Why not defend your position?
"When you think you can show why it us who are mistaken, give it your best shot."
I already did. You obviously didn't understand.
Craig asked...
You still haven't given any reason why we should take your contention that the Bible is metaphorical seriously. Why not defend your position?
Ummm, because I haven't said that?
I have said that we all agree that PARTS of the Bible are imagery. "The four corners of the earth," for instance, we all agree is imagery, metaphorical.
I have also repeatedly said that I take a good part of the Bible literally (not "woodenly literal," but fairly literal).
Craig said...
Dan every time you insist that people who take the Bible literally take every word in a wooden literal sense, you misrepresent what it means to interpret the Bible literally.
Ummm... but I HAVEN'T said that.
Again, I would have to ask you all how you can fault me for being hard to understand, when you keep saying back to me, "How can you say..." about stuff that I haven't said?
Tell you what, I will gladly own up to some responsibility for being confusing when you read something that I have actually written and don't understand what I mean.
But I don't think I can be held accountable for you all reading my words and finding something else there besides what is written.
Fair enough?
Bubba said...
Regarding "this one small group" compared to others on the blogosphere, I recall you pointing to some conservatives somewhere who "understand" what you're saying, but I don't recall who they were or where you gave the link.
I believe I have pointed to John at Zeray Gazette who generally seems to understand what I am saying (not that he agrees, but he can repeat back to me what I'm saying without twisting it into something I haven't said and don't mean). Also, Chance, at Zoo Station would be another one. There are links to their websites at my blog.
Also, my parents and many if not most of the conservatives I know in the real world don't seem to have a problem understanding my position, if not agreeing with me.
Just a couple more answers and I don't see much point in continuing to repeat myself, especially given the arrogance and rudeness of some. Marshall may think it's fine to call names and be rude in his Sunday School class, but we don't allow that sort of misbehavior even in our children's department...
Bubba said...
Now, you say, "God did not cause Jesus to suffer."
That contradicts Paul's claim, e.g, in Romans 8:32, that God gave up His Son for us all.
Romans 8:32 literally says...
He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?
There is nothing in there at all or even implied that God CAUSED Jesus to suffer. It was our sin that caused the suffering. Jesus did willingly come to earth I'm certain knowing that there'd be suffering involved, but that's just another indication of God's grace, not an indication that God CAUSES suffering of anyone, let alone Jesus.
Also, allow me to give an illustration...
Suppose someone (and by "someone, I am not implying Craig, or Bubba or anyone here - it is hypothetical, just to be clear) came to me and said, "Dan, I want a yes or no answer: When you play the guitar, are those sounds caused literally by your RIGHT hand? Yes or no? Or is it your position that it is caused by your LEFT hand - yes or no?"
My answer will always be, "Well, it's not either. It's BOTH."
We are saved BY God's Grace. BECAUSE of God's grace, by which we are saved, Jesus came and lived and loved and died and rose again. That was God's grace in action, the grace by which we are saved. That is my answer to that question and it is simply not a yes or no response.
Last one, for now. Bubba said...
Let's not be so obstinate this time around. If you think that aspects of Christ's life -- His bodily Resurrection, His Crucifixion, His Deity, and even His historicity -- are trifling details that shouldn't obscure the "Big Truths," say so.
How about you striving to not be so obnoxious, instead? There is no obstinance in my answering (sometimes repeatedly) quite literally hundreds of questions that are then misunderstood and misrepresented. I've quiet literally written books-worth of answers to your questions and yet we have seemed to often fail to reach understanding (not even agreement, just basic understanding) of my position.
Obstinance would be to refuse to be forthcoming. For all that you might say about me, refusing to answer questions can't be one of them, at least not seriously. If, given everyone's limited time, I am asked dozens of questions and I miss a handful, one can't really blame a fella. I've got work and a family and church responsibilities to deal with in addition to helping you understand my position.
To your question here, I think Jesus' life and teachings and death and resurrection are not trifling details. I have never said that and I don't believe that.
In fact, I have repeatedly said that Jesus' life, death, resurrection and teachings are what I and the anabaptists (and progressive Christians I know) strive to base our life upon. Why would one assume I think it a trifling detail if it is what I/we strive to base my/our life upon? That does not seem to make sense.
Peace out.
Dan,
You of course are right, you have not used the exact words the Bible is metaphorical. You win. However your hypothetical earlier implies that you think exactly that. I believe I asked earlier if you could demonstrate some things that you actually take literally. You still haven't given a clear answer if you believe that the pasach was a literal event. So please excuse me for not expressing myself in a way that you approve of. I can't help but think that you have latched onto this minute portion of my comments so you have an excuse not to deal with the balance of my substantive response.
How about this, give me a couple of Bible stories or passages that you DO take literally?
How about a yes or no answer, pasach literal or not?
If the answer is not, why would Jesus make such a big deal of celebrating a metaphorical event?
If the story of Jonah is metaphorical, are you then saying that it is metaphorically OK for God to use threats of destruction to cause people to worship him?
Is salvation metaphorical?
Craig, I have spent YEARS writing about what I take literally.
Perhaps you have missed it.
I have a asked folk, DO you take it literally when Jesus said, "Blessed are you who are poor... Woe to you who are rich,"? Because I certainly do take it literally.
Do you take those teachings literally?
I have asked folk, do you take the Jubilee and Sabbath laws fairly literally, because I do and I take them as a model - not to be perfectly and literally imitated in today's world, but the literal GIST of their teaching to be literally imitated in the world today.
Do you take those laws literally?
I have said that I suspect that most if not all of the stories in the Bible are based on real world people, even if we don't know if the details in each story are literally factually accurate, the TRUTHS taught are.
That is, in the Jonah story, I don't know if he was literally swallowed by a great fish or not, I have no problem with the notion and I have no problem with suggesting it's allegory, but either way, that's NOT THE POINT of the story. The literal points of the story are that you can't run from God, that we ought to love everyone, even obnoxious pagans who are our enemy, etc. I take those truths VERY literally. Do you?
I have said that I believe that Jesus literally came to earth, the son of God joining in community with us - especially with the least of these quite literally - and that he was literally arrested by the Jewish and Roman authorities on trumped up charges because they perceived Jesus to be a threat to their power and Roman peace and that he was literally killed and that he literally rose from the dead.
Have you missed all the times I have attested to this?
I believe that when Mary said, "God hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich God hath sent empty away," she meant it quite literally.
I have said that when Jesus taught that it is difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, he meant it quite literally.
I have said that when James said, "is it not the rich who oppress you" to the church, he meant it quite literally.
Do you in all those cases take it literally? I have repeatedly said that I do, I guess you have missed those. Now you know.
As to the Teachings of the Bible, I try to rightly divide them, striving to seek God's will and take the Teachings of God literally.
As to the miscellania of the Bible (was the world created in six literal days, did the Red Sea literally divide for Moses, was Jonah physically swallowed by a whale), I generally have no great opinion, since they aren't the point of the stories. I'm looking for the TRUTHS being taught in order to take THOSE literally. The factual details of the stories tend to matter less.
Is the passover a literally true story where God sent an "angel of death" to kill the firstborn? I don't know, I wasn't there.
Those details would not line up with God's teachings as I understand them in the Bible so I tend to think it is more of an allegory, but the truth is, I don't know if there was a literal passover that happened just as it is described, or if there was a literal "whale" that swallowed Jonah, or if the Red Sea literally split like it did for Charlton Heston. In general, the facts of those stories don't impact the truths of the stories.
That is my opinion.
Craig said...
If the answer is not, why would Jesus make such a big deal of celebrating a metaphorical event?
As I said, I don't know is the answer, because I wasn't there. But why would Jesus make a big deal of celebrating the release of captives in Egypt, the deliverance by God of the Israeli children, the overcoming of Pharoah's oppression - THOSE Truths? Well, because those truths ARE a big deal and something worth remembering/celebrating, don't you agree?
Dan,
After a short break some further clarification. Sorry if this jumps around.
Your 2 go to examples of "literalism" are the "4 corners of the earth" and "if your eye...pluck it out". Given the fact that you continue to use examples that no one takes literally (in the sense you seem to be using the word), why would anyone suspect you understand the concept. Maybe one solution is to get examples that actually support your point.
What do you mean by "fairly literally"?
An example might help me out here so lets try this.
You seem to be fairly certain that (at least parts of) the sermon on the mount should be taken literally, correct.
How do you determine which parts?
Example.
"Blessed are the poor" is one you would seem to be pretty sure about.
But if we look a little we find that there are at lest 2 translations of that saying 1. "blessed are the poor" 2. "Blessed are the poor in spirit."
Given that you are (self professed) not an expert in Biblical studies or koine Greek. How do you determine which translation is correct? How do you determine that "blessed are the poor (in spirit)" is to be taken literally (not to mention what does that even mean), and other sections (pluck it out) of the same sermon are not? Why would it be unreasonable to assume a metaphorical blessing on the poor? Does a literal reading of this passage necessitate a temporal blessing or a spiritual blessing? Why would Jesus (God) say the poor are blessed, when Jesus (God) gave wealth to David, Solomon, Job etc.? Is wealth good when God gives it but bad otherwise? Does the saying become less of a truth if it is interpreted metaphorically?
So is it your contention that Jesus was celebrating the release of the captives, (which is not the result of the plagues) but not affirming what led to the release?
As to your list of texts you take literally. Why do you chose those texts to take literally? What is it about them that causes you to say "these are literal"?
Ultimately, would you suggest that it objectively true that these passages must be interpreted literally? Would you suggest that one who interprets them differently is wrong?
Example. "It is more difficult...camel...eye of a needle" Literal or not.
1. I would agree that Jesus literally used this illustration.
2. I would also agree that the illustration is metaphor or simile (whichever)
3. I would also suggest that a part of this usage was a play on the similarity between the word for camel and the word for (I think needle)
4. I would suggest that the point to the metaphor (or simile)is that wealth is an obstacle (a god if you will) that will keep people from following Jesus.
5. I would suggest that there is no cause to expand this metaphor to say that wealth (by itself) will keep anyone out of heaven.
However, there is no reason that this particular metaphor could not be interpreted metaphorically.
Anyway, there is plenty here for you to deal with (or not), and I've got to work.
Dan,
Please don't even bother to trot out the "some" or "many" believe that the "corners of the earth" means that the earth is square. Be specific.
Be specific about what?
Craig asked...
You seem to be fairly certain that (at least parts of) the sermon on the mount should be taken literally, correct.
How do you determine which parts?
...
As to your list of texts you take literally. Why do you chose those texts to take literally?
I would refer you back to my Bible hermeneutics answer that I have given multiple times, most recently, like this...
"I use fairly orthodox hermeneutic strategies, I believe I have covered them before, but will repeat again...
1. Interpret individual passages in light of the whole Bible;
2. Interpret the whole Bible in light of Jesus' specific teachings;
3. Interpret the obscure and unclear through the clear and apparent;
4. Strive to understand the original language and text;
5. Strive to understand the context;
6. Seek God's guidance;
7. Consider the teachings of those who've gone before;
8. Use your own God-given reasoning (if something is literally impossible and we have no significant reason to expect a miracle, it may well be that the line in question is being figurative - in the case of "the four corners of the earth," we KNOW that the earth is not rectangular and we have no reason to expect that it used to be but has been miraculously changed, so therefore, it is quite likely a figure of speech or some other imagery);
9. Keep in mind the Greater Truths being taught "
Using THOSE criteria, I reason out which passages to take literally and which ones to NOT take literally and which ones to sorta take literally.
(And by "sorta" or "fairly" literally, I mean, for instance, I think the Sabbath and Jubilee rules indicate a very literal concern for the poor, marginalized, foreigner and otherwise oppressed or outcast. I don't think it would be wise to LITERALLY transplant those agrarian society rules to today's technological society, but the SPIRIT of the laws - that we are all responsible for setting aside some amount for the least of these, that there need to be rules so that people don't end up perpetually in captivity or in poverty or without resources - ought to be considered quite literally... THAT'S what I mean when I say "Fairly literally.")
So, how about you? How do you determine which lines in the bible to take literally and which ones are imagery and which ones to take "fairly literally..."?
I have been pretty specific about how I do so. What I have heard from you all so far is that (I believe Marshall said) we need to take it for what it "obviously" means and not think "crap" - rather a tremendously subjective measure, and I believe maybe you or someone else has said you strive to understand context and language (as I set forth in my criteria) and read what other Christian writers have said, but is that it? What place does reason figure in to your hermeneutic?
If, for instance, we read, "the four corners of the earth," is it okay to say, "Well, OBVIOUSLY (ie, "obvious" according to my reasoning) it's not referring to four actual corners, it's a metaphor" and use our reason in that manner to fairly automatically decide that a passage is "obviously" imagery? Or how do you decide that passage ought to be thusly considered?
"What's going on here is quite simple. Dan has repeatedly given you all his statement of faith. Which, by the way, is quite conventional. But none of you will accept it because it doesn't contain the wording that you think is necessary for him to be a christian in your eyes. You have a set formula for how one becomes a christian and you will have it in your wording and through your hoops and no other.
You have now become the oppressor and consider Dan lower than yourselves even to the point of judging him as a traitor.
Jesus has established a third way to deal with folks like you. Dan has showed you that way, yet you can't see it. You have been blinded by your own superiority and self-righteousness. You have made Dan your underling. Your constant slaps and his turning of his cheek have rendered you powerless over him. He has made himself equal to you. And you can't stand it.
Dan has made you impotent. The only thing you have left to do is to call him a traitor.
November 18, 2009 11:45 AM"
Marty,
Can't see as you've shown anything but that you defend Dan. No problem there, but why? Let's look at your initial statements:
"Dan has repeatedly given you all his statement of faith."
Dan types a lot of words, but rarely is he saying anything. Our problem is that what he types doesn't always match up with other statements he makes, or, shows an interpretation not supported by Scripture or traditional understanding.
"Which, by the way, is quite conventional."
That, too, is debatable. We contend, and he admits, that his views are progressive, which is NOT conventional. Indeed, we find that his views are often far from conventional and we seek explanation.
"But none of you will accept it because it doesn't contain the wording that you think is necessary for him to be a christian in your eyes."
No. We don't accept it because it is not supportable by the Scripture he claims to love and/or aligned with conventional thought. It's up to God to determine whether he's "Christian" or not. Often it sounds like he's rejected essential elements of the faith.
"You have a set formula for how one becomes a christian and you will have it in your wording and through your hoops and no other."
Actually, the Bible sets the standard for acceptable belief and it's the Bible's wording that isn't understood by Dan. Like him, you seem to think ANY interpretation is sufficient. That is both illogical and patently false.
"You have now become the oppressor and consider Dan lower than yourselves even to the point of judging him as a traitor."
Is a parent or teacher an oppressor by proper guidance and instruction? We support our positions clearly and Dan doesn't despite what he claims is his best efforts. Please point out what statements support the notion that we consider Dan lower than ourselves. We merely consider him wrong. "Traitor"? Link to that comment please.
"Jesus has established a third way to deal with folks like you. Dan has showed you that way, yet you can't see it."
Be so kind as to enlighten me as to just what the hell this means?
continued---
Dan, I did not write what you attributed to me...
"Regarding 'this one small group' compared to others on the blogosphere, I recall you pointing to some conservatives somewhere who "understand" what you're saying, but I don't recall who they were or where you gave the link."
...that was Marshall.
About those two conservative bloggers you've mentioned, I'll be honest that I've never gotten around to asking them about you.
I've glanced at their blogs, and I'm not sure why they're damning evidence against our ability to understand you, Dan.
As much as you may well post at the Zeray Gazette, for example, I doesn't see a whole lot of detailed conversation between you and John. Here John posted a QOTD about Hiroshima and, predictably, you commented at length, but John didn't address your comments in great detail.
He linked to your contemptible post about Old Testament "atrocities" and asked an open-ended question about how one reconciles God's character to the record of these difficult commands. You commented at length, but I note that John never replied: at least in that comment thread, he never addressed what you wrote or asked you to clarify a single point. He actually didn't comment in the thread at all.
What relevant engagement I have seen by Googling his site isn't actually discouraging. In this conversation, in 2007, John verbally mentioned the possibility that "you're only looking to the Bible for support of the political ideology that you already espoused," since you put so much weight on the OT Jubilee laws but not the laws concerning sexual behavior. But here, too, the exchange was not at length.
The bodily Resurrection, the Atonement, the Virgin Birth, the inerrancy of Scripture, the divine authorship of Scripture, the Old Testament's supposed "atrocities", the New Testament's supposed sexism, and the ridiculous idea that Bible study can lead a person to conclude that God blesses "gay marriage:"
Dan, has John ever discussed any of these things with you in any real detail?
If he hasn't, why invoke him as proof that you're otherwise so easily understood by conservatives other than those of us here who find you so deceptive?
Yes, John appears to be conservative, and yes, it seems you comment at his blog frequently, but if y'all never talk about these subjects, it might not be that he understands you oh-so-very well.
It may just be that John has been keeping his dialogue with you at a superficial level where you can more plausibly come across as thoughtful and decent.
[continued]
[continued]
At Zoo Station -- which has moved to Wordpress, archive and all; I see you've commented there, but you should probably update your blogroll -- I see that Chance has engaged with you quite a bit.
If this is the same "Chance" who's been in on some of our conversations, I would find it striking that he's never spoken up in your defense, to explain how the rest of us so thoroughly misunderstand you.
Either way, as with John, I don't see him discuss these issues about which we (supposedly) have so many problems in understanding you: y'all discussed politics and y'all discussed frivolous subjects like movies and Lost, but not much about the Bible. When the Bible has come up, it's been about the broad question of whether the government should have a major role in acting on Judeo-Christian teachings. That issue has come up time and again.
But what seems to be missing are those few issues which have had us running in circles for months.
I'll remind you, Dan, that we've discussed plenty of topics, including the morality of bombing Hiroshima, the preaching of Jeremiah Wright, Reagan's foreign policy record, and whether William Ayers' terrorist activity was intended to be lethal.
So far as I can remember, you never brought up miscommunication problems regarding those issues, and I don't think you've been evasive about what you believe regarding those issues.
On those subjects, you've been inconsistent, but not evasive.
But has John or Chance discussed with you the difficult theological issues at length? If they have, point out where, and let's see just how well they understand you.
If they haven't, your pointing to them is a digression, because I believe you're particularly evasive and deceptive, not on every issue, but on often crucial theological issues about what the Bible is and what the Bible says.
What I said...
I believe I have pointed to John at Zeray Gazette who generally seems to understand what I am saying
He SEEMS TO ME to generally understand me. Maybe I'm mistaken. Feel free to ask him. He's someone I consider a friend (as much as someone can befriend someone online) and perhaps it's merely his genial way of disagreeing with me and the fact that he has not repeated back to me incorrectly what I believe that I am taking as understanding, but it's how it seems to me. Same for Chance.
Feel free to ask them. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Marshall, Marty's probably alluding to me: I have made clear that I have concluded that Dan Trabue's behavior is treacherous and traitorous to the Christian faith.
Reaching that conclusion and expressing that conclusion doesn't mean that I'm guilty of oppressing Dan: I'm simply tired of the lies, and I have long since passed the point where I can afford Dan any benefit of the doubt.
The problem is not and has never been that Dan Trabue merely disagrees with me: it's that he obviously rejects much of what the Bible clearly teaches, while dishonestly claiming to love the Bible and deeply respect its teachings.
His deviant beliefs would be bad enough, but he cannot even be honest about them. Asked the most basic question about whether he believes Christ death caused our salvation, and he'll write literally thousands of words as a response, but he has still not yet written an actual answer -- a clear and internally consistent explanation, not of what he could "perhaps" say or of what some vague someone "might" say, but of what he actually believes.
He subverts, often substantially -- particularly about why Christ died and whether it's necessary that Christ physically rose -- Christian orthodoxy in promotion of his radical, collectivist political philosophy. He routinely subverts verbal communication in order to obscure that fact.
"Traitor" seems to be apt.
"You have been blinded by your own superiority and self-righteousness."
More comedy. Thanks.
We are far from blind as we can plainly see, read and understand English. Dan claimed to have an epiphany some years ago that caused a conversion to progressive thought, both politically and in matters of Biblical understanding (I use that term loosely). It is, in fact, DAN who has been blinded by ideology and no longer considers other points of view. He rejects whatever parts of the Bible don't reflect his pollyanna views. The OT is much larger than the NT. In the OT we find most of the instances where God's wrath, vengence, anger, etc is illustrated. It shows up regularly in almost every book, yet, Dan rejects it all as unGod-like and the mere imaginings of the writers. I admit, you can't reach Dan's conclusions by letting such aspects of God's nature to stand, so he needs to. This is typical of Dan's understandings: if it doesn't fit with what you want to believe, throw it out, call it error, blame the authors, call it imagery, metaphor, etc. This is called, "creating for yourselves a graven image".
"You have made Dan your underling."
*snicker* Yeah. Right. You show the same inability to see and understand as he does.
"Your constant slaps and his turning of his cheek have rendered you powerless over him. He has made himself equal to you. And you can't stand it."
*guffaw-chortle* Dan laments being abused often, usually when he's having trouble with our logic. He could help matters by being direct with his responses. He isn't. For example, he was asked about "His bodily Resurrection, His Crucifixion, His Deity, and even His historicity" and responds with "To your question here, I think Jesus' life and teachings and death and resurrection are not trifling details." He wasn't asked about Christ's life or teachings, was he? But Dan will constantly employ this evasive maneuver and then cry victim. Pardon me if I don't weep. In addition, we've never claimed any superiority or marked him as unequal. But I can say that not all opinions are equal. Some are crap. Some are stupid. Some are wrong. Dan, and apparently you, believe telling the truth is wrong, obnoxious, unChristian. Was Jesus unChristian by calling the pharisees a brood of vipers and hypocrites? That sounds a bit more harsh than what I've been doing and what's more, it is directed at the pharisees themselves. My comments are directed at Dan's beliefs. I will not argue whether stupid statements guarantee a stupid speaker.
"Dan has made you impotent."
Wow. 'Till now I thought it was merely a hormone imbalance.
Now, Dan:
"To your question here, I think Jesus' life and teachings and death and resurrection are not trifling details. I have never said that and I don't believe that."
So, yes or no, is Christ's bodily Resurrection a "Big and Important Truth" about which all Christians must agree?
Yes or no, is Christ's Crucifixion a "Big and Important Truth" about which all Christians must agree?
Yes or no, is Christ's Deity a "Big and Important Truth" about which all Christians must agree?
Yes or no, is the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth a "Big and Important Truth" about which all Christians must agree?
"In fact, I have repeatedly said that Jesus' life, death, resurrection and teachings are what I and the anabaptists (and progressive Christians I know) strive to base our life upon. Why would one assume I think it a trifling detail if it is what I/we strive to base my/our life upon? That does not seem to make sense."
Dan:
1) You have written in the past that you and your compadres don't insist on a historical and bodily Resurrection.
2) Here, you've written how it wouldn't bother you at all if Christ wasn't crucified.
3) You keep making the point that the historicity of Jonah's story is "beside the point," so I want to know how far you take that position: do you take it even to the Gospels?
I ask because, when you listed supposed atrocities in the Old Testament, you listed obscure passages when the logic of your argument applies to theologically crucial events -- namely, the sacrifice of Isaac and the Passover -- and it took literally months to drag out of you the fact that, yes, you deny the historical accuracy of the Passover, too.
You're continuing to obfuscate.
You say that you "strive to base" your life upon Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and teachings.
First of all, that's a crock, because you apparently dismiss Christ's teachings as they regard the authority of Scripture, why we were created male and female, the necessity of the Resurrection which He predicted, the physical reality of the Resurrection ("examine my wounds and believe", John 20:27), and even why He was to die.
But even if it is true that you base your life on Christ's, it doesn't follow that you affirm that His life MUST HAVE BEEN historical, that the "Big Truths" you keep invoking involve basic claims about Jesus: He existed, He is God, He was crucified, and He was bodily raised.
Now that I have (once again) explained why I'm asking these questions, maybe you could actually answer them.
I know you write volumes in reply to our questions, Dan, but your responses frequently do not qualify as actual answers, clear and coherent statements that correspond to what was actually being asked.
Bubba,
I get that. I can deal with Dan's, uh, style, for as most of my time on the blog could be better spent elsewhere (just ask my wife), while I'm here I don't mind going 'round and 'round with anyone (even the troll, Feodor). I believe Dan thinks he's in step with God's Will and teachings, or at least wants to be. Many who are misinterpreting believe as much and far too many are "worse" than Dan (John Shelby Spong comes to mind, as well as nominal Christians everywhere). Heck, we all are in that boat to some degree.
Marshall said...
More comedy. Thanks.
Comedy is right, seeing as what Marshall followed with...
We are far from blind as we can plainly see, read and understand English. Dan claimed to have an epiphany some years ago that caused a conversion to progressive thought, both politically and in matters of Biblical understanding.
Funny that you THINK that I have claimed that, because I have never said that, since that is not what happened.
Could it be the case that I'm not hard to understand IF you read my actual words?
Funny.
Marshall continued the joking...
It is, in fact, DAN who has been blinded by ideology and no longer considers other points of view.
Says who? I listen to you and your compatriots. I read your writings. I actually visit some of your sources (American "Thinker," for instance, to weigh what they're saying - more than you would do with my anabaptist sources). So, given that I read apparently MUCH more conservative writing and have read much more conservative writing (that would be my guess) than you do liberal writing, how is it possible that I am blinded and no longer considering other points of views. If I didn't consider them, why would I visit them and read them?
You, on the other hand, gladly ignored my anabaptist sources, feeling no need to read them.
"there is none so blind as they who will not see."
Marshall continues the comedy...
He rejects whatever parts of the Bible don't reflect his pollyanna views.
No, I don't take literally those parts which can't reasonably taken literally. I reject nothing. It has nothing to do with "Pollyanna views," any more than when YOU reject literal readings you do so because they reject your "Pollyanna views."
Or tell me, what reason DO you have for not taking some lines of the Bible literally? Oh, that's right, you take it literally as long as it's "obvious" that it ought to be taken literally.
Funny stuff.
Marshall...
The OT is much larger than the NT. In the OT we find most of the instances where God's wrath, vengence, anger, etc is illustrated. It shows up regularly in almost every book, yet, Dan rejects it all as unGod-like and the mere imaginings of the writers.
False conclusion again. I don't reject it. I look at passages like "four corners" and decide - using my criteria and reasoning that it's not reasonably talking about a literal "four corners." Probably not unlike you. When you do so (if you do so), are you "rejecting the Bible" OR, are you merely interpreting the Bible using your reasoning?
It is ABSOLUTELY TRUE AND QUITE LITERAL that God gets SERIOUSLY pissed off when we abuse and mistreat the poor, the widowed, the foreigner, the children, etc and even when we merely fail to tend their needs. This is a slap in the face of God and God gets righteously angry about it.
It would be a funny joke or a false representation to say that I don't think so.
Which is it, Marshall? A joke or a misrepresentation of facts?
Marshall...
This is typical of Dan's understandings: if it doesn't fit with what you want to believe, throw it out
Funny stuff. None of it reality based, but funny nonetheless.
That is, unless Marshall's trying to be serious. Then it's just a sad misrepresentation.
Bubba said a bunch of stuff rudely and said...
You're continuing to obfuscate.
No. Your inability to understand my fairly direct answers does not imply an obfuscation on my part. Your rude behavior and accusations show you for what you are, brother. Get some help.
I could answer a hundred more rudely demanded questions a thousand more times in ten thousand different ways and you would only keep on asking the same questions or other questions.
No thanks.
Behave like a reasonable brother in Christ, apologize for your rude behavior and childish name-calling and I'll consider jumping through more of your hoops.
In the meantime, I will rest my case on God's sweet grace.
You should try it sometime.
Now, Dan, about your claim that God did not cause Jesus to suffer, I note that you didn't address Jesus' prayers in Gethsemane: He prayed TO GOD that the cup of His suffering pass, and it's clear what God's answer was.
That Jesus actually did died for our sins explains a lot about the last twenty-four hours:
- Why, of everything He taught, did or was going to do, Christ emphasized His own death in instituting the one regular ordination of believing Christians.
- Why Christ's death was necessary: why the Father did not let the cup pass.
- Why the prospect of death was agonizing for Christ, when -- starting with Stephen -- martyrdom for His sake has been a frequently rapturous event.
- And why Christ cried out in dereliction: the Father really did forsake Him, because the Father cannot look upon sin, and Christ became sin for us (II Cor 5:21).
Christ really did die for our sins, and this accounts for all these otherwise inexplicable details. Your contrary position does not.
About Romans 8:32, you write:
"There is nothing in there at all or even implied that God CAUSED Jesus to suffer. It was our sin that caused the suffering. Jesus did willingly come to earth I'm certain knowing that there'd be suffering involved, but that's just another indication of God's grace, not an indication that God CAUSES suffering of anyone, let alone Jesus."
The Father gave Him up for us: the clear implication is that He gave Him up to death.
If the Father had not sent the Son, the Son would not have died, and the Son is clear that no one can take His life but that He lays it down (Jn 10:18). The Bible is clear, Christ died because the Father sent Him to die ("not my will, but Thine"), and Christ died because He volunteered to die.
It is convenient to your political philosophy to attribute Christ's death to "the powers that be," but it's not biblical, and your position undermines everything about why Christ came to die, and what His death accomplished.
You keep asserting a both-and position, but the details of what you write do not address the actual subject at hand.
"We are saved BY God's Grace. BECAUSE of God's grace, by which we are saved, Jesus came and lived and loved and died and rose again. That was God's grace in action, the grace by which we are saved. That is my answer to that question and it is simply not a yes or no response."
You apparently believe:
1) We are saved because of grace.
2) Christ died because of grace.
I agree with both of these claims, and apart from everything else, they're conventional and orthodox.
BUT THEY DO NOT IMPLY OR EVEN ADDRESS THE CRUCIAL CLAIM WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.
3) We are saved because Christ died.
Do you agree with this? It's clear that you don't, I see no good reason why you cannot say so, and yet you don't.
The question is not merely whether Christ's death was an expression of God's grace, grace through which we are saved.
The question is, is it's Christ's death which saves us?
The Bible is clear that it is, and you should be clear about whether you disagree.
Dan,
Your accusations against me I can handle. But I really don't care to beat about the bush. If I think a view is crap, it's crap. I DO go on to explain why I believe so and it's all I expect out of anyone who comments here. I believe your lamentation in this regard is a ruse. You're like Nurse Cratchett trying to force some sedative down my throat which will result in me not being so hard to handle. I won't be handcuffed in that manner and I only wish your position was anywhere nearly as clearly stated. But the fact of the matter is that I think your line of reasoning is indeed stupid and your conlusions crap. And if it mirrors anabaptist dogma, then that's crap as well and you'd do well to reassess your alliance. Here's an example:
You spent time trying to show that my understanding of sacrifices as part of atonement and a price for sins was misguided. You used verses that say "...I desire mercy and obedience..." or words to that effect. But that doesn't make the sacrifice rituals merely symbolic. I tell my kids that I don't want apologies, I want them to do what I tell them to do. THAT'S what the verses mean. The Hebrews were STILL required to perform the rituals because they WEREN'T obedient and definitely not perfectly so. So the OT sacrifices were a necessity toward atonement and forgiveness, a payment or penalty for sin, all of which were imperfect and falling short until Christ sacrificed Himself.
You waste time and miss the point when you whine about the tone of my comments. You take offense when you should be taking it as a warning or encouragement to re-think your understanding. Keep in mind that I do think on what YOU say and none of it makes sense taken in total and laid against a reading of Scripture. In some cases, piece by piece perhaps, but it is totally lacking in continuity and cannot be resolved. I dare say you can't reasonably accuse us of lacking consistency and continuity in our positions and view of Scripture even if you could prove we were wrong. Which you couldn't if it took the rest of your life and every liberal, progressive "scholar" you could find.
Dan:
"Behave like a reasonable brother in Christ, apologize for your rude behavior and childish name-calling and I'll consider jumping through more of your hoops."
I have displayed the patience of Job in trying to deal with you: I've simply run out of that patience.
In my frustration with you, I've honestly been tempted to lash out, but I have been careful to edit out those comments that would have caused unnecessary problems, regardless of the temporary catharsis of letting you have it.
What I have posted, I stand behind.
I do believe you're a liar and a hypocrite, your behavior is literally subversive, and it is literally treacherous and traitorous against the Christian faith.
I do not apologize for saying so, particularly because I gave you every benefit of the doubt before reaching these conclusions. I will not apologize for saying so, and I will not retract these comments unless I can be convinced that my conclusions are wrong.
You have not clearly answered whether you believe we are saved by Christ's death; you don't, and it's obvious you don't, but the thousands of words you've written in response to my question have never clearly answered that question.
And now, you have not clearly answered whether you believe that Christ's bodily Resurrection, His Crucifixion, His deity, and even His historical existence are among those "Big Truths" which you say the Bible is really about.
Can there be any doubt for why you're not clear on these questions? I don't think there can be: theological radical that you are, you deviate significantly from what the Bible clearly teaches, but subversive that you are, you cannot be honest about your radicalism.
Supposing for a moment that you really believe that my comments are incompatible with Christian charity, I cannot understand what makes you think yours are any better.
"Your rude behavior and accusations show you for what you are, brother. Get some help."
And, across two comments:
"In the meantime, I will rest my case on God's sweet grace.
"You should try it sometime."
Well, so much for your behaving "like a reasonable brother in Christ."
Once again, you're not holding yourself to your own high standards.
You've defended a leftist Marxist of a preacher from ostensible slander, all while he slandered this country by accusing its government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide -- and all while YOU PERSONALLY accused us his critics of a "digital lynching."
You've expressed skepticism about critical articles from partisan news sources, only to cite hit pieces the explicitly partisan Media Matters as the only evidence to support the charge that conservatives lie.
And you've lamented the name-calling in political discussions while referring to your opponents as "rage-oholics".
You're a hypocrite, though I suspect that my saying so is yet another instance of uncharitable behavior on my part -- an unproven accusation, no less, even though I just alluded to four separate instances of grossly inconsistent behavior on your part.
Now, if you're done playing the victim -- and doing so passive-aggressively, and hypocritically -- I urge you to answer my questions.
If you've already provided actual answers -- clear answers to the questions I asked, not the questions I didn't ask -- you can feel free to save us all some time by pointing out where.
As so often happens, comments were published while I was in the act of typing up mine. It wouldn't be surprising if it was happening right now as I type these. But I want to respond to Dan's response to my response to Marty. (whew!)
"Funny that you THINK that I have claimed that, because I have never said that, since that is not what happened."
You're saying you did NOT have a change of heart, a paradigm shift in your thinking regarding political and religious points of view? So which is it? Were you not what you think is "conservative" back in your youth? Did you not say that you once "thought like you" regarding Biblical teaching on homosexual behavior? Or were you lying then and were liberal all along?
"Could it be the case that I'm not hard to understand IF you read my actual words?"
That depends on your understanding of the meaning of the words you use, a point not certain to any of us.
"Says who?"
Sez me. You listen, read but either don't understand or reject without adequate exlanation. YOU think it's adequate, but if you're misunderstood on such a regular basis...
As to reading links, I use links to provide the source of facts I use, or as with the case of links to AT articles, to provide the impetus for my own post, that is, what sparked my desire to write on a particular subject. Where I speak on my own beliefs, I explain why I believe what I believe without looking to a denomination's statement of faith or a "theory" of someone else's. So I don't need to look an the Anabpatist stuff if it is YOUR position on which I seek explanation. It has been my constant contention that your ability to reason and understand is lacking. To point me elsewhere requires my study of that "elsewhere" and then to compare if your statements match what I think that "elsewhere" is saying. I'm still trying to see if your statements match the Bible. Why would I want to do the same with an entire other source? No. What you claim is not the same as what I'm looking for. Another apples/oranges comparison.
"No, I don't take literally those parts which can't reasonably taken literally."
"pollyanna" refers to your "hippy" version of God's nature. You reject His mandates to annihilate a town, His own direct destruction of towns, His taking of the lives of Egypt's firstborn, and other such acts plainly ascribed to Him. But you say He gets pissed. What's to fear from a God who merely pouts? Is that the wrath for which Christ died? Oh yeah, you dismiss His death as a true sacrifice because you can't deal with the notion of God requiring such a thing. Polly.
continued---
"Or tell me, what reason DO you have for not taking some lines of the Bible literally?"
Like what? Be careful here. First of all, you've never proposed such a thing to me before. Secondly, we'd have to settle on the meaning of whatever you offer as an example. I'll give you one just to give you an idea: 6 day creation. I have no trouble believing this. I have no way to explain it, only speculation, but I have no trouble believing God is that powerful. YOU rely on what science says and determine that we can't take it literally because of it. I say that God is capable of such a feat and the result of it may be that TO US it APPEARS to have taken longer. I say that we are unable at this point, even with our most sophisticated technology, to determine without any doubt whatsoever, that the universe WASN'T created in six days. I don't think ever will know until God tells us Himself. What I do know is what we're to do now that we're here.
" I look at passages like "four corners"..."
Who cares? Who's asking about such things? You take such passages as proof of your ability to interpret metaphor from the literal and think you've covered the base? How does "four corners of the earth" compare to Christ's death as literal payment for sin? And you want to insist you don't evade and obfuscate? How dare you try to pass that crap off as an answer. How dare you then accuse us of bad form. The same is true for your next bit about the poor. Who argues that God desires we look out for those less fortunate? No one here? Is this another crap "when did you stop beating your wife" argument?
So, like most everything else, you have not answered the charge of throwing out that which does not fit your worldview. You've certainly said words, though.
Marshall asked...
You're saying you did NOT have a change of heart, a paradigm shift in your thinking regarding political and religious points of view?
I DID have a paradigm shift. I was solidly traditional/conservative in my thinking for the first 25-ish years of my life and yet by the time I was 30 (and increasing some beyond that) I was what most folk would call more liberal in my thinking. I think that both conservative and liberal are oftentimes less than helpful terms to describe someone. I have conservative reasons for my various beliefs and I have what might be termed more liberal reasons for some of my various beliefs and for some positions, I hold them for both conservative AND liberal reasons.
My point was that there was not an "epiphany" as you suggested. An epiphany is "any moment of great or sudden revelation." I didn't one day wake up and say, "Wow! I'm not conservative any more. I'm liberal." It was a gradual process and not one in which I feel wholly removed from conservatism or wholly embracing of liberalism.
Ultimately, my transition can best be described as fairly traditional conservative southern baptist to fairly progressive anabaptism.
Marshall said...
You reject His mandates to annihilate a town, His own direct destruction of towns
No. I don't. I factually don't. I read the Bible reasonably based on my orthodox criteria I've shown and I come to the conclusion that it is not reasonable to assume that this is a literal representation of how God works.
JUST LIKE (I expect, although I still don't know since you won't clarify) you do with passages like "four corners."
THAT is the reason I bring up the four corners passage. I am bringing up an instance where you and I both agree a passage is not to be taken literally in order to establish that WE BOTH DO this and try to establish ON WHAT BASIS you do it, since I have already established on what basis I do it.
Marshall, look, Dan has repeatedly given you all his beliefs and explained them in detail. I don't intend to go over them with you line by line. He has done that quite well in a clear and concise manner. The fact that you all constantly ask him to clarify even after he has (when he really didn't need to) again and again and again and then some strikes me as oppressive. Perhaps your intention is not to place him beneath you, but that is the result of your constant backhanding and inability to understand and accept the obvious.
Insinuating that he is a heretic or traitor and not even a christian certainly suggests self-righteousness and judgementalism in areas of the heart that none of us are in a position to open our mouths about.
For me, Dan's statement of faith is conventional...He believes a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. He believes in the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. He tries to follow the example of Christ's teachings as best as he understand them. He has stated on numerous occasions that he could be wrong on some things and would be willing to change if convicted to do so by scripture, not necessarily by someone elses interpretation of scripture. What is unconventional about that?
All the rest, for me, literal or figurative, blah, blah, blah, is just window dressing and not relevant to salvation and the long rants and long comments of what is what and what is not quickly bore me.
And so yes, I will defend Dan against your efforts to backhand him into submission. He is my brother in Christ and someone I consider a friend.
And furthermore Marshall, if Dan was insinuating that you all were not christian and heretics because of your interpretations of scripture I would come to your defense as well. But Dan hasn't done that.
Marty:
"Insinuating that he is a heretic or traitor and not even a christian certainly suggests self-righteousness and judgementalism in areas of the heart that none of us are in a position to open our mouths about."
As opposed to your declaration of "You have now become the oppressor"? That's not judgmentalism on your part, against us? That doesn't betray self-righteousness on your part, regarding matters of the heart about which you are unqualified to speak?
I'm not so sure you'd defend us from attacks from Dan, since your own criticism doesn't seem to meet your standard of Christian unity and humility.
You say that Dan's beliefs are orthodox.
"For me, Dan's statement of faith is conventional...He believes a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. He believes in the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection. He tries to follow the example of Christ's teachings as best as he understand them. He has stated on numerous occasions that he could be wrong on some things and would be willing to change if convicted to do so by scripture, not necessarily by someone elses interpretation of scripture. What is unconventional about that?"
That list isn't unconventional, but it's incomplete and, in some respects, inaccurate.
Yes, Dan will say that "a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ," but he will omit (as you omit) whether we are saved by Christ's death. As Romans 3:24-25 put it, we are "justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith." It is that crucial middle clause, which is the clear and emphatic teaching of the entire New Testament, which Dan seems to deny.
Yes, Dan will affirm the Virgin Birth, but he has vacillated on whether the Bible clear teaches the Virgin Birth, when it does without any serious doubt.
Yes, Dan will affirm personal belief in the bodily Resurrection, but he has written that such belief can be rejected by someone who would still be a Christian.
It's not clear to me that Dan "tries to follow the example of Christ's teachings as best as he understand them," when he so clearly rejects Christ's clear teachings regarding the authority of Scripture, the reason we were made male and female, and even why He came to die: he certainly hasn't offered any plausible alternative interpretation to the passages in which these teachings can be found.
And I don't buy the claim that Dan "would be willing to change if convicted to do so by scripture," since he apparently dismisses some of Paul's teachings -- teachings found IN SCRIPTURE, a point Dan tried to obscure -- as evidence of sexism and bigotry. He doesn't demonstrate a willingness to submit to everything Scripture teaches, since he seems to believe that Scripture contains atrocity, bigotry, inaccuracies, speculation, revenge fantasies, and other errors.
And, in all of this, Dan refuses to be clear in what he believes.
Doctrine matters, Marty, and we're not merely arguing over whether to dunk or sprinkle.
Did Jesus Christ die for our sins? Is His bodily Resurrection an essential doctrine?
These are crucial matters, and Dan refuses to be clear on what he believes, seemingly because his beliefs are an affront to what the Bible clearly teaches.
There's no crime, there is no sin, and there isn't even a genuine offense against mere decorum to describe Dan's behavior PRECISELY AS IT IS.
I was going to respond (yet again) to Marshall's false (yet again) representations of my positions, but I am so humbled by Ms Marty's majestic words of grace and support and Christian friendship that I'll just let it go at that.
Thanks, Marty!
Dan,
Thank you for answering a couple of my questions. Simply repeating your"hermeneutic", although isn't really helpful given the fact that so much of your process involves your Reason. However, I would really appreciate answers to the rest of the questions. I asked you some pretty specific questions about specific passage and you didn't really deal with much.
Or.
If you don't want to answer, just say so and I'll let it die and draw what conclusions I can from that.
I believe that I have answered your questions both here and elsewhere, however I will answer again when I have uninterrupted time.
"As opposed to your declaration of "You have now become the oppressor"? That's not judgmentalism on your part, against us? That doesn't betray self-righteousness on your part, regarding matters of the heart about which you are unqualified to speak?"
No. It's an observation based on your behavior. Everyone makes judgements of that nature. But you judge the condition of the soul and put yourselves up as the authority on who is saved and who isn't.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
"That list isn't unconventional, but it's incomplete and, in some respects, inaccurate."
B.S.
To you it's incomplete because you strain at knats and swallow camels. For me, it's enough. It's all I need to know.
"Doctrine matters, Marty"
B.S.
Jesus matters. You make doctrine a chokehold around the neck and too grievous and weighty to bear.
You're welcome Dan.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
Craig asked earlier...
But if we look a little we find that there are at lest 2 translations of that saying 1. "blessed are the poor" 2. "Blessed are the poor in spirit."
Given that you are (self professed) not an expert in Biblical studies or koine Greek. How do you determine which translation is correct? How do you determine that "blessed are the poor (in spirit)" is to be taken literally (not to mention what does that even mean), and other sections (pluck it out) of the same sermon are not? Why would it be unreasonable to assume a metaphorical blessing on the poor?
It would be my understanding of the texts (from what I've read of scholars and just how it "obviously" seems) that BOTH texts are probably literally correct. That is, that Jesus probably preached many sermons in many different places in many different ways and that some of his sermons were probably pretty similar and yet slightly different. I think that at least some scholars think that is the case with the sermon on the mount vs the sermon on the plain (ie, Matthew's take on it and Luke's take on it).
Do you agree that it seems likely that Jesus may well have preached two different sermons, one time using the phrase "Blessed are the poor in spirit," and another time saying "Blessed are you who are poor... WOE to you who are rich..."?
Further, in Luke's passage, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, he appears to be quite literally speaking of material wealth and poverty. Look at the text:
[20] "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
[21] Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
[22] Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man...
[24] "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
[25] Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry.
...more...
That to me SEEMS to be (ie, using my own reasoning and reading ability) seem quite clearly to be talking about literal wealth and poverty.
* Add to this the fact that Jesus tended to preach to the poor and middle class and that's another point in favor of this interpretation.
* Add to this the fact that the Bible throughout its pages repeatedly and repeatedly speak similar words about how God is watching out for the poor and needy ("Because they rob the weak, and the needy groan, I will now arise," "the poor have the LORD as their refuge," "The poor will eat their fill," "God hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich God hath sent empty away," "You listen, LORD, to the needs of the poor; you encourage them and hear their prayers," "It is you who have devoured the vineyard; the loot wrested from the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people, and grinding down the poor when they look to you? says the Lord..." on and on I could go), all of these clear and repeated themes from the Bible add credence to the notion of taking this passage literally.
* Add to this the fact that this is a common theme from JESUS himself ("I have come to preach good news TO THE POOR," "The POOR have the gospel preached to them," "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven," and on and on I could go) and that's another point for taking this literally.
So, as I noted earlier - look at my biblical hermeneutics. I determine that this passage ought to be taken literally because I have read this passage in light of the whole Bible and found support for a literal reading; I have read this passage in light of Jesus' teachings and found support for a literal reading; I have looked to the clear to help understand the obscure; I have used my own God-given reasoning and prayerfully sought the Spirit's guidance and each and every one of these points to me to a literal interpretation.
Is it your case that Luke 6 ought NOT be taken literally?
I also happen to think that Matthew's SOTM ought to be taken literally. Blessed ARE the poor in spirit. I think that is literally true (with "poor in spirit" being considered to be humble, recognizing their spiritual need - which I would think often comes with actual poverty, but that's another aside...).
...more...
Craig asked...
Does a literal reading of this passage necessitate a temporal blessing or a spiritual blessing?
I don't know. What do you mean by "temporal blessing" or "spiritual blessing?"
It is my understanding that "the Greek word for ‘Blessed’ is ‘Makarioi’ which means ‘happy, supremely blessed, and fortunate’." source
I think that in Luke, Jesus is saying that the poor can count themselves as happy and fortunate because God is with them in a very real and special sense. "The poor have the LORD as their refuge," the psalmist flatly declares. And again, I could go on and on with biblical support as to why I think that is.
Do I think that the biblical notion that the Lord is with the poor means that God is opposed to the rich? No, not at all. But I DO think there are repeated biblical warnings about the trappings of wealth and pointing to the reality that it is the rich who often are set opposed to God and the poor and who are often the antagonists in biblical stories and teachings and I gather that the consistent biblical teaching is that there is a danger in wealth - the temptation to rely upon wealth and armies and things and material goods to save you, not God.
I think, too, this is one reason that the Bible repeats with certainty the notion that the poor are blessed - because they don't face that temptation/trap.
Craig asked...
Why would Jesus (God) say the poor are blessed, when Jesus (God) gave wealth to David, Solomon, Job etc.? Is wealth good when God gives it but bad otherwise?
What makes you think that God gave anyone wealth? Yes, there are passages that might suggest that, like Ecclesiastes 5...
"As for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, and given him power to eat of it, to receive his heritage and rejoice in his labor--this is the gift of God."
But JUST AS I had to go through the Bible using my criteria to determine if "blessed are the poor" should be taken literally, so too, I would want to do the same thing with this passage.
What is the message of the WHOLE Bible on this notion? What did Jesus have to say about it? What can we reasonably assume from this? What are these passages saying in the original language and context? Is it in a book of poetry or history or prophecy (a criteria I failed to list earlier)?
The Bible tells us, after all, that God gave David his many wives (2 Sam 12). Does that mean that God gives blessing both to wealth AND polygamy? Or, can we conclude safely that just because a passage might SAY that "God gives" something to someone that it isn't 1. necessarily suggesting that God literally gave it to them, or, 2. that does not suggest that it was a good thing?
So, using my criteria and reasoning my way through the Word of God, like you do, I conclude that God does not "give wealth" any more than God "gives many wives." It may be helpful sometimes to remember that all good things come from God and that everything belongs to God, so in THAT sense, one might say "God gave wealth to David." But I wouldn't push that point too far. It doesn't strike me as biblically sound.
I'd say the notion that God "gives wealth" may be one of those teachings that is true in some senses but not in others.
Craig asked...
Does the saying become less of a truth if it is interpreted metaphorically?
No.
Craig asked...
So is it your contention that Jesus was celebrating the release of the captives, (which is not the result of the plagues) but not affirming what led to the release?
Yes, that is my contention. I do not think that Jesus was affirming as good the wholesale killing of a city full of first born children. Do you think Jesus was affirming that?
Marty,
"No. It's an observation based on your behavior."
As has been our comments based on OUR observations of Dan's behavior in the manner in which he chooses to engage in these conversations. As you have, though after far more discussions across many blogs, than what has gone on here, we are confident in our conclusions.
"But you judge the condition of the soul and put yourselves up as the authority on who is saved and who isn't."
Yeah, we get this a lot. But it's crap coming from you just as it is from other lefties who make the charge. Never have we, if I may be so bold to speak on behalf of those on my side of these discussions, discussed who is truly saved and who isn't. We focus our comments on the comments Dan, and other like him, make and reach our conclusions based upon them. Those conclusions stop at the point that we determine what is close to or far removed from what the Bible actually says and/or what truly conventional theological thinkers and scholars have thought over the span of two thousand or more years. Whether the belief has strayed far enough to be considered faith in a false god or blatant heresy by God Himself and worthy of damnation is up to God Himself. We don't concern ourselves with that. We only concern ourselves with the fact that Dan's comments do NOT reflect Biblical teaching by and large, seem to be influenced by pre-conceived political and/or ideological opinions, have never made sense or shown any logic or sense of continuity without dismissing or rejecting aspects of the Biblical story or teaching, and, in short, provide no illumination, explanation or clarification for what he says he believes.
In the meantime, you seem to defend him without adding any clarification of your own for his comments that might help our understanding. You content yourself with scolding us in a manner reflective of the accusations you level upon us. I suspect you assume you understand what Dan says when he speaks, that he means what YOU mean when you say the very same things (should you do so). We have found this is not always (if ever) the case, and that Dan's use of common expressions are only superficially similar. Hence our continued digging for clarification and justifications.
Merely saying "Jesus matters" is insufficient for discussion or the whole concept of blog debates is entirely pointless. What does it mean when YOU say Jesus matters? Who do YOU think He is? What do YOU think was His primary purpose (hopefully you understand that, unlike Dan, that can only be ONE thing, not a multitude of things). Whether you answer any of these questions or not doesn't really matter here. But they do illustrate the problems we face in these discussions.
continued--
So doctrine DOES matter. What one believes DOES matter for to if one's beliefs are too out there, it isn't the real God of Abraham that a one is worshipping and that's a problem. Would you prefer just sending such people away believing something that isn't really true? Dan believes in a god that blesses homosex marriages. It would be difficult to imagine a weaker argument for anything than what Dan offers for that. It is illogical for the One True God to bless a union marked by the sexual behavior He has condemned as an abomination. It's like supporting the Ku Klux Klan while hating racism. It's illogical. Therefor, it is logical for us to conclude that Dan worships a false god. To use Dan's favorite analogy, if we claimed the Bible teaches us, and our prayerful meditation as well as our God given reasoning indicates to us that we are to rape puppies, I'm sure Dan would feel the god we worship is false, since such a premise is also indefensible.
Finally, your own hypocrisy could hardly be more evident than in your final comment, wherein you make sure you publicly pray for Christ's peace to be upon Dan, but such is conspicuously withheld from us. That's a blatant slight, purposely leveled and hardly the Christian attitude you seem to believe is mandated for us all. If you feel Danny needs such a pat on the head, do so via his email and spare us the false piety. It doesn't work for you any better than it does for him.
Marty, I defy you to point out where I've judged Dan Trabue's soul.
I've done only what you do, and what you say everybody does: I've made observations based on behavior.
I haven't said that Dan isn't saved, because I don't know whether he's saved, and that's a question between him and God.
But whether his beliefs are orthodox, and whether his behavior demonstrates loyalty to the Christian faith are questions that are open to public discussion, questions that can be answered, however imperfectly and provisionally.
Marty, you say "strain at knats [sic] and swallow camels," and you dismiss as "B.S." the claim that doctrine matters.
"Jesus matters. You make doctrine a chokehold around the neck and too grievous and weighty to bear."
I agree Jesus matters, but why does Jesus matter?
Is it because He died for our sins? I believe that, but Dan apparently doesn't.
Is it because He is God Incarnate? That too is doctrine, which you dismiss as unimportant, while John very strongly rebuked (in I Jn 4:2-3) those who dismiss the doctrinal claim that Jesus came in the flesh.
At what gnats am I straining?
THE CLAIM THAT JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS, which Jesus Himself taught.
THE CLAIM THAT JESUS PHYSICALLY ROSE, which Jesus Himself taught.
THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE, which Jesus Himself affirmed.
For all you cry that Jesus alone matters, you dismiss as unimportant what Jesus Himself taught.
Jesus matters, yes.
But because Jesus matters, His teachings matter. And because Jesus matters, the Scripture He affirmed matters.
Anybody who tries to denigrate Christian doctrine in order to elevate the Person of Christ does BOTH a disservice.
Dan,
Do you really believe that the "four corners" gambit serves your purpose and makes your case? I doubt that few in ancient times took that literally. What makes you think every hayseed of yesteryear considered the world flat with four corners? Don't you think it's possible that some might have thought it flat but circular? Or some other shape? So I'm not going to address such a question with such a blatantly stupid comparison. I mean, really, Dan. This is the type of thing that we consider a purposeful ploy to muddy the discussion. To think there's some kind of legitimate, equal comparison of such an expression to that which we've been discussing is insulting at best. I think you purposely select the goofiest shit to make a point so as to frustrate. I'll put it this way, that the "four corners of the earth line" is NOT something to be taken literally is as obvious as water is wet and no "process" is required for anyone with half a brain (and I think we both qualify here) to see. Try something else.
Marshall said...
Do you really believe that the "four corners" gambit serves your purpose and makes your case? I doubt that few in ancient times took that literally. What makes you think every hayseed of yesteryear considered the world flat with four corners? ...I mean, really, Dan. This is the type of thing that we consider a purposeful ploy to muddy the discussion.
Then perhaps you are not as intelligent and able to engage in adult conversation as I had given you credit for. The purpose of bringing up the four corners quote is to ASK A FAIRLY SIMPLE AND IMPORTANT QUESTION:
How do you decide what to take literally and what NOT to take literally? What is metaphor and what is fairly factual?
There IS NO PLOY. It is a question, as I said already, designed to clarify...
I am bringing up an instance where you and I both agree a passage is not to be taken literally in order to establish that WE BOTH DO this and try to establish ON WHAT BASIS you do it, since I have already established on what basis I do it.
There IS NO IMPLICATION on my part on the reference, just the supposition that you probably agree with me that we don't take it literally.
Are you wholly incapable of holding a rational polite adult conversation, Marshall? I had given you credit for more but you seem today to be operating at a fifth grade level (with apologies to all fifth graders out there).
Dan, I wonder why you reached this conclusion:
"Do I think that the biblical notion that the Lord is with the poor means that God is opposed to the rich? No, not at all."
But the passage, including what you quote not only teaches that the poor are blessed (v 20), but also "woe to you who are rich." (v 24)
You insist that the former is a reference to the materially poor, so must you not also conclude that the latter is a reference to the materially rich?
If the former means that God is with the poor, doesn't the latter warn that God isn't with the rich?
It doesn't seem to me that you're willing to take your train of thought to its logical conclusion, or at least do so publicly.
And elsewhere Stan made what I believe is a devastating rebuke to your conclusion that, in the Sermon on the Plain, Christ pronounced that the materially poor are blessed.
You're not poor, you're not making every effort to become poor (and so be blessed), and you're not encouraging poverty.
If the passage requires a straight-forward, literal reading -- here being one of the few times you DON'T dismiss a literal interpretation as "flat" -- then take that reading.
So far, you don't seem to believe what you say you do.
You know what, Marshall? Just forget it. You can be in the same category as your pal, Bubba.
Craig, I remain here for your sake if you have follow up questions or responses to my points/questions.
Dan, seeing as you just compared Marshall's behavior unfavorably to that of fifth graders, you're not exactly in a position to bitch about being treated with less than perfect gentility.
If you would just provide clear and coherent answers to questions that are easy for anyone who actually does care for the Bible and revere its teachings, things would go a lot more smoothly.
Are we now, once again, at the point where it's easier for you to pick up your ball and go home, than it is to answer those questions?
I guess so.
"Finally, your own hypocrisy could hardly be more evident than in your final comment, wherein you make sure you publicly pray for Christ's peace to be upon Dan, but such is conspicuously withheld from us. That's a blatant slight, purposely leveled and hardly the Christian attitude you seem to believe is mandated for us all. If you feel Danny needs such a pat on the head, do so via his email and spare us the false piety. It doesn't work for you any better than it does for him."
Dan thanked me for my support. In my church (United Methodist) "may the peace of Christ be with you" is a greeting, not a prayer. I used it as such because Dan greeted me with his thanks.
And anyway...it was not an intentional slight on the rest of you for sure...so....
May the peace of Christ be with you all.
I truly mean that.
And also with you, Marty, and also with you.
Just for Craig's clarification's sake, you DO understand the import of asking about the four corners passage don't you?
You DO understand that it is not a "ploy," nor a "gambit" or an insult or an indication of a lack of understanding, but that it is a QUESTION? And that the purpose of the question is not to insult, nor to imply something or to do anything other than clarify?
IF, for instance, someone were to clarify and say, "We ought to take 'four corners' literally," that would be one circumstance. Since I'm sure no one here thinks that, then by clarifying that we BOTH don't take four corners literally, we have established some common ground.
And you get that the importance of establishing common ground is some understanding? If we clarify that we (generic "we" here, not specifically me and you) BOTH think four corners is figurative, then we can both answer the follow up question, "On what basis do we think it's figurative?"
And IF we agree, "Well, it's just common sense," we can clarify if that's ALL it takes for biblical interpretation or not. IF we say "well, you just read it and what it means 'obviously' is what it means," then we have not established any firm biblical hermeneutic, because what is common sense to me may not be common sense to you.
And if we appeal to the majority ("Well, it makes sense to MOST people,"), we recognize the problem that most people are sometimes wrong, so that is not a consistent way of biblical interpretation.
So, my point is, I'm asking questions to establish starting points and common grounds so we can reason out how we reason our way through the Bible. I hope you understand that and don't perceive it to be a ruse or an attack or anything other than what it is. That some people here haven't understood that basic concept makes communication difficult, since they'll forever reinterpret others opinions through their subjective and flighty feelings, rather than anything substantive and rational.
Thank you, Marty. And I pray His peace be upon you as well.
Dan,
Catch your breath, sensitive boy. What possible process is required to discern the non-literal nature of your quote? How about, I read it and it's freakin' obvious?!! Indeed, it's a far better example for what is obvious. What WE'VE been discussing is something YOU think is not so obvious, so why not use an example that is similar in your mind? Is this stuff above your pointy little head? C'mon! Stop being such a pain in the ass! You're being totally the wrong kind of defensive here (man, you wouldn't have lasted a second running with my crowd as a kid---you'd be off crying over things everyone else doesn't even hear anymore---talk about thin skin).
I just reread your last to Craig. You make too much of it, just as you think there's some importance in classifying my understanding of atonement as being in one category or another. It's pointless and has no meaning here. We're just a bunch of guys talking, we're not trying to establish a system of interpretation. The questions are simple: Do you believe this? Then, why not? From there we move on. "four corners of the earth" is an obvious figure of speech. No need to take it literally. God mandating the complete annihilation of Jericho is nothing like "four corners" and needs some reason to believe it should not be taken literally. As I said earlier, there is far too many examples of God's wrath to write any of it off as some Jew's personal opinion. The comparison is lame at best. If declaring this fact upsets you, call Momma.
"As has been our comments based on OUR observations of Dan's behavior in the manner in which he chooses to engage in these conversations. As you have, though after far more discussions across many blogs, than what has gone on here, we are confident in our conclusions."
I've been reading Dan's blog for 4 years. And I've read comments on other blogs, but my main understanding of his faith is from his own writings on his blog and his church's blog. I've been out of the blogging loop for the last 7 months because of my Dad's illness and passing. I am trying to get caught up now and get back into some of the conversations.
I honestly don't see Dan as that unconventional.
"Yeah, we get this a lot. But it's crap coming from you just as it is from other lefties who make the charge. Never have we, if I may be so bold to speak on behalf of those on my side of these discussions, discussed who is truly saved and who isn't".......
If you get it a lot, then there must be some fire in that there smoke Marshall. It certainly comes across as you guys questioning Dan's salvation. I have read many (not all) of your comments and I have to say most of the time I just sit here with my mouth open not knowing how to respond. Your inability to understand even the simplest things Dan says and the twisting of his words escapes me and I am left speechless. Even now I cannot find the words to explain because Dan has said it all with such grace and I don't know what else I could say to help you understand.
Jesus matters because of who he is and what he did and how he lived his life. It is enough for me to consider one a brother if he states that he is saved by grace through faith in Christ. It is just that simple of a thing for me. I take him at his word. To delve deep is good and interesting if it is meant to come to an understanding or to learn or just simply enjoy the conversation of other believers. But to pick apart every single dotting of the i and crossing of the t is frustrating for me to say the least and you all just look like a bunch of schoolyard bullies beating up on the sensitive artsy guy and sometimes I feel the need to step in and say how it looks to me.
more later...
"So doctrine DOES matter."
Not when you make it a beast of burden. You all are so damned dogmatic that you take it to n'th degree and are so freakin' rigid that you have made it a millstone and a stumbling block. If every part of my faith is going to be picked apart and analyzed, judged and sent through your kindling fire I'm not sure I even want to share it with you.
"But to pick apart every single dotting of the i and crossing of the t is frustrating for me to say the least and you all just look like a bunch of schoolyard bullies beating up on the sensitive artsy guy and sometimes I feel the need to step in and say how it looks to me."
So, like Dan, you make assumptions based on how things look on a blog page. You are aware of the limitations of this medium, aren't you? I don't recall too many (if any) instances of your asking clarification until you've decided we're bullying. We, on the other hand, have spent inordinate amounts of time trying to get to the heart of what Dan believes in clear and concise language. It takes a long, long time to come close to a response that can be called a direct answer and it is around that time that our frustration is made manifest. Go back to the start of our conversations and begin again. I fear you're tainted by your own left leaning point of view.
"If you get it a lot, then there must be some fire in that there smoke Marshall."
Except that we get it only from those who call themselves progressive or posture themselves as more sophisticated than those of us who adhere to traditional thought. But the charge is totally falacious and would have more impact if evidence could be had. What we have always done is insist on Scriptural support for that which is said to be Christian beliefs by those like Dan and he fails to provide. More accurately, what he provides does NOT support his position in the manner he thinks it does due to either poor reasoning on his part, or his stuff is out of context or incomplete.
And since the discussion is all about understanding each other, for my part to gain a greater understanding of Scripture, dogma and doctrine is key and if one feels beaten by it, that's on the "victim". We are merely re-stating what is, why it is and looking for rebuttal that makes sense and has some semblance of logic.
Anyone is free to pick apart what I share. I am more than willing to expose myself to correction for His greater glory and my own salvation. I WANT to be as right as a human can possibly be about that which I consider to more important than anything else imaginable. I do so fearlessly and I will continue to boldly proclaim that which I feel certain is the truth. What do I possibly have to fear? To borrow from a president far better than his successor, Bring. It. On.
Dan,
Temporal=physical, in this life on earth.
Spiritual=Non physical, in the afterlife.
Re Matt 5 v. Luke 6 I was referring the various translations of Matt 5 that add in spirit. I actually think that the Luke passage is referring to a different sermon from what I have seen. So, my original question stands. Since you are not a Greek scholar which of those translations of Matt 5 would you argue is literal. Or are you arguing that the SOTM is not actually a literal event, but rather a compendium of other events.
So Dan, in an earlier exchange you used the passage about how God gave David Saul's wealth and wives as proof that God's definition of marriage includes polygamy. Now you argue that God did not give David Saul's wealth (just the wives). Furthermore, since God placed David on the throne of Israel, it seems reasonable that all the stuff that goes along with the throne was from God as well.
So when 1 Kings records.
"I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. 13 Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for—both riches and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings."
I can only assume that you would suggest that God did not mean actually "give" when he said "give".
Re: Pasach I think that Jesus was celebrating the event as Israel was commanded to do starting in Exodus 12.
"26 And when your children ask you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' 27 then tell them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.' "
This command is reinforced in; Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua,2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Ezekiel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, and for good measure we find this in Hebrews.
"28By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.
29By faith the people passed through the Red Sea[d] as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned. "
So, by your method, It seems like the reasonable conclusion that celebrating pasach encompasses the entire event not just the parts you like.
For the record, I don't think that the killing of children (interesting that you appear to have just acknowledged the fact that children were killed. Which inexorably leads to the fact that God sent the angel of death to do the deed.) is good. I think it was necessary. Not everything that is necessary is good, although good may come from anything.
I would agree with your point about the 4 corners gambit, IF, someone was actually making the argument that it was anything more than a figure of speech. But no one is making that argument. What folks who take the Bible literally do with something like that statement is to interpret it as literally a figure of speech, NOT that the writer thought the earth was literally square. What you seem to be saying is that the only way to interpret things literally is to throw common sense out the window. This is why it appears that you do not understand what I/we actually mean by using the term literal. I hope that you will take the time to get this concept clear before you comment further.
"To borrow from a president far better than his successor, Bring. It. On."
Yeah, well that bully statement got a lot of soldiers killed and pissed off even more of them.
No thanks.
Craig said...
I would agree with your point about the 4 corners gambit, IF, someone was actually making the argument that it was anything more than a figure of speech. But no one is making that argument... This is why it appears that you do not understand what I/we actually mean by using the term literal. I hope that you will take the time to get this concept clear before you comment further.
Actually, that no one takes it literally is EXACTLY the point of using it as an example, so that we can establish common ground. That you all are hung up on this off-kilter point is why I am not at all sure you all understand how to have reasoned, adult conversations.
I would hope that you will take the time to get this concept clear before you comment further.
Craig said...
I think it was necessary. Not everything that is necessary is good, although good may come from anything.
Are you suggesting that you and/or God believe in an "ends justifies the means" kind of thinking? That you can commit atrocities as long as it works out for good eventually?
IF so (and I'm not saying you do - it's why I asked with question marks, and all...), then that points out one of the problems I have with that viewpoint - I don't know that I think God would believe in such a thing. I think that God would be above such delving into apparent evil to justify some good.
I think the Bible teaches us that God is wholly good in every sense of the word and I can't see a wholly good entity engaging in atrocities in order to achieve some good.
You know, that whole "overcome evil with good," kind of thinking instead of "use a little evil in order to accomplish some good."
And that would be an instance - looking at my hermeneutic - of using clear passages to interpret obscure passages and reading individual passages in light of Jesus' teachings and in light of the whole bible.
The individual passage might say, "and God killed a bunch of babies" or, "and God ordered Israel to kill a bunch of babies," and I would hope we could all agree that such a teaching, taken literally, is obscure and hard to understand.
Then, we see all throughout the Bible the consistent opposition to oppression and harm towards the least of these (including children) and against the shedding of innocent blood and we see Jesus' specific teachings against such behavior and the quite clear teaching that we are to overcome evil with good and we get an idea of a consistent overarching BIG Biblical Truth - that is that we are to overcome evil with good.
This teaching is clear, consistent, found throughout the Bible, is logical, appeals to that law of God written upon our hearts and supported strongly in Jesus' teachings. This would be a Big Truth.
So, we keep in mind the Big truths any time we're trying to figure out any little details in the Bible and if a little detail conflicts with Big Truths, then we're probably misunderstanding the little detail.
In this case, we can definitely know that the Big Truth is that we are to overcome evil with good and the corresponding truth would be that God would not command us to do otherwise (ie, God would not command us to overcome evil with more evil). And so, teachings that, taken at face value seem to SUGGEST a contradiction of a Big Truth probably ought not be taken at face value.
Reasonable? Biblical? Consistent?
I think so.
Returning then, to the "just read it and set it aside as imagery if it's 'obvious'" theory espoused by some here...
I would ask: What could be more obvious than the notion that a perfectly good, perfectly just, perfectly loving God who LOVES children especially and does not want to see them harmed or oppressed would absolutely NOT tell people to kill babies or kill babies God's own Self?
You read the passage "four corners of the earth" and immediately set it aside as "Obviously" imagery. And I agree. It IS obvious. Abundantly so! I don't even NEED the Bible to tell me it's obviously imagery, I can see that myself.
AND JUST AS OBVIOUS - or even moreso - is that God would not command people to kill babies. It's a ridiculous thought. Who would possibly make that argument? I can't imagine very many people in the whole world throughout all of history would have seriously thought this was a good thing (other than some rather primitive human sacrifice-type cultures) to suggest.
"But," you say, "the Bible says it happened!"
Yes, it does. And the Bible also refers to the four corners of the earth. And we all agree that this is obviously imagery. Why, then, can't the ridiculous suggestion that God commands people to kill babies be similarly set aside as imagery?
This would be one area of inconsistency in your approach it seems to me. You and I are all perfectly willing to use the "obvious" test on something as inconsequential as the notion of the earth having four corners, but on something as critical as whether or not God sometimes commands infanticide, you are not willing to even consider that it might better be recognized as imagery?
Why the one and not the other? What criteria are you using to say, "Yes, four corners is imagery" and "no, kill babies is not imagery?" It seems rather random, haphazard and amoral.
It's why I suggest that having some means of better defining our biblical interpretation is appropriate.
If mere "obvious-ness" is our measure, then I would expect you all to agree with me on this kill babies point.
Dan:
You continue to make assumptions that the Bible does not support.
First, you assume that the acts in which God destroyed a particular population (or commanded its destruction) involved the loss of innocent life. That assumption simply isn't supported in the text; Abraham's pleading with God -- if there's even ten just men, don't destroy the city -- implies just the opposite, that the city was totally corrupt.
Second, you assume that "overcome evil with good" rules out the taking of life, when Paul wrote IMMEDIATELY after that command that the government is an agent of God's wrath, an agent that does not bear the sword in vain.
Third, you assume that the divine command to wage wars of annihilation is incompatible with the condemnation of shedding innocent blood when the Bible never asserts any such thing. On the contrary, you (unwittingly?) invoked a psalm that sets the two side by side: Israel was condemned because it DID NOT destroy the people as God commanded, and as a result Israel mingled with an evil foreign culture and sacrificed children in pagan rituals.
About the command to wage wars of annihilation, you write:
"I can't imagine very many people in the whole world throughout all of history would have seriously thought this was a good thing (other than some rather primitive human sacrifice-type cultures) to suggest."
The problem is, Moses is apparently in that supposedly very small minority that you dismiss as primitive: so is Joshua, so is Samuel, and so the bulk of Jewish Scripture was written precisely by the sort of people you think were cruel and unsophisticated.
Christ affirmed the authority of their writings to the smallest penstroke, without any apparent exceptions, and what He taught doesn't imply that those difficult passages can be dismissed as mere imagery.
You write, "we see all throughout the Bible the consistent opposition to oppression and harm towards the least of these (including children) and against the shedding of innocent blood and we see Jesus' specific teachings against such behavior."
But it's not as if Christ condemned the destruction of Sodom or suggested the account was not historical.
On the contrary, He repeatedly -- in Mt 10:15 and 11:24, and in Lk 10:12 and 17:19 -- invoked Sodom as if it actually happened.
What He said about Sodom doesn't imply your approach to the story.
"Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." - Mt 10:15
Christ taught that Sodom was a mere WARM-UP compared to the judgment that awaits those who refuse His messengers. You cannot logically go from that to your idea that Christ didn't treat it as historical.
[continued]
[continued]
One big problem with your approach is that, unlike the reference to "the four corners of the earth," the lengthy accounts of God commanded wars of annihilation aren't figures of speech. They're quite straight-forward:
1) He commanded that Israel wipe an enemy.
2-a) They did.
2-b) Or, they didn't, and God punished them.
The ONLY way to see this as "imagery" is to reinterpret it as an allegory or parable, but there's no indication that the passage should be treated as such. So EITHER THE ENTIRE HISTORICAL RECORD OF JEWISH SCRIPTURE is an allegory, from Adam to Moses to David to Ezekial, or the record switches REPEATEDLY AND IMPERCEPTIBLY between history and allegory, with both using the same characters and forming one large narrative.
Both conclusions are untenable.
Remember what I argued at Craig's. Dawkins wrote that the God of the Bible is evil, "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
If a reader doesn't agree, it's not right for him to pretend that Dawkins was speaking metaphorically or otherwise using imagery, all to conclude that Dawkins doesn't really mean what he clearly said.
I wrote:
"We are under no obligation to re-interpret any writing to make its meaning fit what we think is right. On the contrary, I think the only way to take writing seriously is to limit ourselves to plausible interpretations of its meaning."
The same truth applies to the Bible. There's no REAL way to work around its claim that God really did, historically and literally, command wars of annihilation.
If you respected the Bible as much as ANY book requires, you wouldn't try to make it say what it doesn't.
If you don't like its clear teachings, it's more intellectually honest to reject the Bible outright.
Instead, by trying to force the Bible to say what it doesn't, you run the risk of making the Bible say anything.
You do all this in the name of the Bible's "Big Truths", and I continue to wonder: do you include Christ's bodily Resurrection, His Crucifixion, His Incarnation, or His very historical existence as a Big Truth?
Are there ANY historical claims that qualify as "Big Truths," because every time you give examples, you don't give specific historical claims. You give broad universal teachings, that God loves us and that we are supposed to love each other.
Just as importantly, I wonder: WHERE IN THE WORLD DOES THE BIBLE SUPPORT YOUR APPROACH OF DIVIDING THE TEXT'S TEACHINGS INTO "BIG TRUTHS" WE MUST UPHOLD AND LITTLE DETAILS THAT WE CAN DISMISS? I know, you say you're not dismissing the little details...
"So, we keep in mind the Big truths any time we're trying to figure out any little details in the Bible and if a little detail conflicts with Big Truths, then we're probably misunderstanding the little detail."
...but when your new theory about how to understand the little detail has no basis in the text, and when you do not offer a plausible alternative interpretation that affirms the text's authority as divine revelation, the net result is the same.
You mark out passage after passage as mere "imagery" but you never provide that plausible interpretation that demonstrates that you still submit to the passage. Someone who marks out passages as "error" is at least being more honest about what he's doing.
I'll address Bubba's comment here, just to demonstrate how far afield from basic morality and "obvious" reason you can roam when you strain to insist on taking some particular passages as mostly literal...
First, you assume that the acts in which God destroyed a particular population (or commanded its destruction) involved the loss of innocent life.
It is a fact - a reality that most reasonable people would acknowledge - that killing children DOES INVOLVE the loss of innocent life. By definition. It is, "obvious."
So, once again, IF we can simply describe a passage as "obviously" not speaking literally - as we ALL DO with the four corners passage - why can we NOT describe a passage describe a command to kill babies as OBVIOUSLY not literal?
Why in the one case and not in the other? Where is your consistency?
Bubba said...
The ONLY way to see this as "imagery" is to reinterpret it as an allegory or parable, but there's no indication that the passage should be treated as such.
Here's where you're mistaken, according to your own rules.
Yes, there IS an indication that the passages should not be treated as such. One rule that you and Marshall and Craig have ALREADY established as acceptable in biblical interpretation: The "Obvious" rule.
If a passage is "Obviously" not literal, y'all say, then it's okay to presume it is imagery of some sort. It's your (or at least Marshall's) rule.
If you were consistent, it would seem you would apply it here in the case of the suggestion that God commands killing babies if you applied it anywhere.
"The same truth applies to the Bible. There's no REAL way to work around its claim that God really did, historically and literally, command wars of annihilation."
Yeah there's a way to work around it. One can say that the people themselves and those writing the scriptures truly believed that it was God telling them to do these things, but in reality it was their own evil minds telling them to do these things and God didn't have anything to do with it.
Bubba said...
EITHER THE ENTIRE HISTORICAL RECORD OF JEWISH SCRIPTURE is an allegory, from Adam to Moses to David to Ezekial, or the record switches REPEATEDLY AND IMPERCEPTIBLY between history and allegory, with both using the same characters and forming one large narrative.
Both conclusions are untenable.
Says who?
You all have agreed that it IS tenable to designate "four corners" as obvious imagery. In Isaiah 11, one place where we find the four corners reference, we have God promising that Israel shall be saved from her enemies.
We're speaking of LITERAL Israel and LITERAL nations that have oppressed Israel and THEN we switch to imagery of "four corners" and then back to how LITERALLY the oppressor nations will pay for their oppression.
People and histories go back and forth between literal happenings and imagery about what happened all the time - especially in ancient writings. I think one problem is that you all are reading these stories with modern eyes and rules and applying modern writing conventions upon ancient styles and that would be a mistaken way to do exegesis.
Bubba asked...
Just as importantly, I wonder: WHERE IN THE WORLD DOES THE BIBLE SUPPORT YOUR APPROACH OF DIVIDING THE TEXT'S TEACHINGS INTO "BIG TRUTHS" WE MUST UPHOLD AND LITTLE DETAILS THAT WE CAN DISMISS? I know, you say you're not dismissing the little details...
The EXACT SAME PLACE where you and Marshall, etc get support for your approach of setting aside "four corners" as not literal - your reasoning.
I am doing the same thing you're doing, I'm just doing it consistently and with additional hermeneutic criteria and not as randomly applied as you all appear to be doing it.
It's called Bible study, where I come from.
So, again, perhaps it would be helpful if you all established what OTHER criteria you are using other than "just read it and go with what is obvious," since we have established you don't appear to be doing that. Not consistently, anyway.
I've given you a good idea of my hermeneutics, my criteria for serious Bible study. Do you all have such or is it all more of a gut level, emotion-based (as opposed to reason-based), "call 'em as I see 'em" approach to Bible study?
"One can say that the people themselves and those writing the scriptures truly believed that it was God telling them to do these things, but in reality it was their own evil minds telling them to do these things and God didn't have anything to do with it."
Then, Marty, would Christ have affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke? Is it not then reasonable to expect that he would have somehow explained such discrepencies? He certainly clarified other aspects for us, like lust and hate being like adultery and murder. Why not the parts were writers insered their own personal prejudices? In addition, if it was the result of people only thinking God told them such, we could say the same about the whole Bible very easily, as some people actually do. The bottom line is that there is no basis for believing such a thing.
"Is it not then reasonable to expect that he would have somehow explained such discrepencies? He certainly clarified other aspects for us, like lust and hate being like adultery and murder"
Well...when Peter drew his sword and cut off that ear, Jesus healed the ear and told Peter to put away his sword - that whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword.
Marshall said...
Then, Marty, would Christ have affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke? Is it not then reasonable to expect that he would have somehow explained such discrepencies?
Y'all are really reading WAY more into Matt 5 than is there.
Jesus says, literally...
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus states that he came to fulfill scripture. That does NOT say he came to read certain passages as literal and other passages as not literal based on his feelings. It does not say that he affirmed a literal interpretation of anything. Just that he came to fulfill it.
He also affirms the Law - saying we ought not break these rules - and that the Law won't go away. Again, nothing in that to demand a literal interpretation of "kill babies." So, IF Jesus does not command us to do it, and IF we have already established it's okay to decide that some passages are "obviously" imagery, why would we NOT decide that for such an obvious case as God commanding infanticide??
To be clear, I agree with the approach of using the broad principles that the Bible clearly teaches, to understand individual passages that are obscure.
But there's nothing obscure about the divine command to wage wars of annihilation: it's not hard to understand, it's just hard sometimes to accept.
Dan, if your conclusions are so twisted and implausible, maybe the problem isn't the little details: maybe you don't understand the "Big Truths" as much as you think you do.
No one disagrees with the command to overcome evil with good. No one disagrees with the principle that God would never commit an evil act or command us commit an evil act.
But the problem is not with these principles, but your application of them.
If your application of these principles requires you to dismiss numerous, large, and (in the case of the Passover) sometimes theologically significant passages of what is clearly intended as history, then maybe the problem is with your application.
Instead, I recommend the following application, not only because it is traditional, but because it avoids all the problems your approach creates: it's traditional probably because it works.
- God created human life.
- What He created, He has the right to destroy.
- When our taking human life is wrong, it is wrong not because it's inherently wrong, but because it's God's prerogative.
- Because it's God's prerogative to take human life, He can take human life, He has taken human life, and He does so in whatever means He chooses -- common acts of nature, supernatural acts, or even through human agency.
This approach accounts for when God gave humanity the responsibility of ending the life of murderers -- see Gen 9:6, Ex 21:12, and Rom 13 -- and for the accounts of divine commands to wage wars of annihilation.
In short, it accounts for the passages that you cannot plausibly reinterpret.
"I think one problem is that you all are reading these stories with modern eyes and rules and applying modern writing conventions upon ancient styles and that would be a mistaken way to do exegesis."
I KNOW one HUGE problem is that you, Dan, are reading these stories and applying to God that which should only be applied to humans and judging God by human standards is a massive mistake on your part. This has been pointed out before. Isaiah tells us that God's ways aren't our ways. He's God and the Supreme Being and He is NOT limited by the laws of behavior He's mandated for us. The Bible tells us that we are not to judge others but that we will face judgement. Who's doing the judging? God is. "But He tells us not to judge, so where it tells us we will be judged must be imagery or metaphor or rhetorical flourish, just like 'four corners of the earth'!" We are not to be vengeful because God says the vengence is His. In each of these cases, by your logic they must be considered something other than a true and accurate representation of, in this case, God's nature.
In addition, like I have said, there are plenty of situations where actions that would be considered atrocities for us to commit, are committed by God with such frequency that to dismiss them as true is illogical. These would include the torture and death of Christ, the deaths of Annanias and Sapphira (kinda over the top reaction for their sin, don't you think?), and ultimately the eternal cutting off from God of unrepentant non-believers, which has to be more horrible than getting slaughtered by wild-eyed Hebrews.
God has the power of life and death over all of mankind. It is His to take or preserve as He sees fit for whatever purpose He might have. We are not privy to every nuance and detail of His ultimate plan. We cannot know everything about what He has in mind. We only know what He wants for us as far as He's revealed it to us in Scripture. But you cannot judge His actions by what we're mandated to do versus what He's has the ultimate privilege and authority to do.
We are said to be children of God. When you restricted the behavior of your children, did it not include things that you reserved for yourself and their mother? It is the same here and just as the kids don't understand the distinction, as we ourselves suffered under that same confusion when we were kids, so too does it seem you have that same difficulty now with actions that God has taken which for us are considered atrocities.
Dan,
My point to Marty concerned making assumptions about the minds and intentions of the authors. Even if we concede that they took liberties in their writings, we have absolutely no way of knowing when or how often they did so. And as Christ clarified aspects of Scripture, it is illogical that He wouldn't correct grievous errors concerning the nature of the Father. Does this not seem logical to you?
"And as Christ clarified aspects of Scripture, it is illogical that He wouldn't correct grievous errors concerning the nature of the Father. Does this not seem logical to you?"
Perhaps he did Marshall. Through his birth, his life and teachings, his death, his resurrection..God sent his son.... He took on it all Marshall and turned the world on it's head, a world that said and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Excellent point, Marty. Jesus stayed in trouble with the powers that be, I think it could be said, precisely because he flipped their currently held positions/understandings of God upside down.
They understood that you couldn't work at all on the Sabbath.
Jesus pointed out that feeding the hungry is a good kind of thing and it is GOOD to do good on the Sabbath.
They were hung up on rules and Jesus pointed out that the rules were for humanity, not the other way around.
They suggested that the blind man was blind because of his parents' sin. Jesus pointed out that this was not right.
They suggested an ugly-strict adherence to giving sacrifices. Jesus reminded them that God wants MERCY, not literal sacrifices.
Their demand upon sacrifices had caused the temple to be made into a den of thieves - taking from those who could least afford it in the name of religion. Jesus kicked 'em out of the temple for this gross misunderstanding.
Jesus was in the business, it seems, of turning the world upside down - especially the religious world.
Marshall said...
there are plenty of situations where actions that would be considered atrocities for us to commit, are committed by God with such frequency that to dismiss them as true is illogical. These would include the torture and death of Christ, the deaths of Annanias and Sapphira
GOD tortured and killed Jesus? I missed that in the Bible, where do you find support for that amazing allegation?
And God killed Annanias and Sapphira? Again, that's not in the Bible as far as I can see.
Why don't we look at that passage?
Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? ...You have not lied to men but to God."
When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
And a similar thing happened with Sapphira.
This is an example of us reading into a passage something that is not there.
I suspect that this reflects a literally true story from the early church. True in the sense that there probably was an Ananias and Sapphira and that they probably DID try to not share freely and lied about it and that they may have even died.
I further suspect that, being a pre-scientific people, it may well be that the people around would ascribe that death to God. The Bible does not say God did it, but the people WERE afraid for some reason.
The point is, we have stories that get told and assumptions are made. The assumptions and extrapolations get passed on and the story evolves.
The stories may begin as literal stories involving real people, but then assumptions are made and opinions extrapolated and soon we're believing that Jesus blesses cheesemakers.
Returning to my point, I would just ask yet again: WHY would we invoke "obvious" imagery in one case and not in the other? FOR WHAT REASON and ON WHAT BASIS?
Bubba said...
But there's nothing obscure about the divine command to wage wars of annihilation: it's not hard to understand
The Bible has God COMMANDING us not to shed innocent blood. Then, we find another place where God COMMANDS shedding innocent blood. That's not hard to understand?
Taken literally, it is contradictory and contradictory statements ARE hard to understand! If your teacher says, Sit down and you sit down and the teacher says, "Why'd you sit down? I want you to stand up!" "Now sit down..."
??? THAT would be massively confusing, if that teacher were speaking literally in both instances.
Bubba said...
Dan, if your conclusions are so twisted and implausible, maybe the problem isn't the little details: maybe you don't understand the "Big Truths" as much as you think you do.
You're begging the question. WHO SAYS my conclusions are twisted and implausible? I don't think they are at all. I think they are the only reasonable conclusion one could reach if one studies the Bible seriously. From where I stand, those who would say that God would forbid shedding innocent blood and then command people to kill children have a horribly twisted and outrageously implausible position to defend.
And so, I repeat, ON WHAT BASIS do you treat one passage as imagery and another as literal?
Thank you both but you aren't changing anything by your last comments. In both cases what is being dealt with is OUR behavior with each other, not God's behavior. Further, it does NOT resolve the problem of the possibility of the author's personal additions to God's revelations. What you guys are talking about is what I was saying, that Jesus corrected the poor understanding of the people. But if that is true, and I believe that's what He was doing, could there be a bigger screw up in thinking that God committed or sanctioned atrocities (atrocious when we do it, but not necessarily when God does it) if He really didn't? If Jesus was clarifying what God DID say, would He not also correct what the people thought He said or did but actually didn't? You might not understand my method of reasoning, Dan, but yours is clearly inconsistent.
I also want to submit that your method of reasoning is required to make your beliefs work. I don't see that your beliefs necessarily arise from your study, but that much of your interpretation is provoked by what you believe. I'm still curious as to how you came to re-read the Bible when your conversion or yes, epiphany came about (3 a (1) : a usually sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something (2) : an intuitive grasp of reality through something (as an event) usually simple and striking (3) : an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure b : a revealing scene or moment see? it can be sudden but it doesn't have to be. Said another way, an epiphany is a paradigm shift. In either case, the change of perception is always sudden, though what took place to get there might have taken a long time.)
continued--
continuing---
Dan,
You're also being inconsistent about when you require Jesus to say something and when He needn't. He never said anything about God destroying all those towns and villages aside from references to Sodom and Gemorrah and the Passover event. He didn't remark at all as whether the events were atrocities. By your defense of homosex marriage, this should be enough for you especially against all the depictions of such behavior by God. In other words, there is far less to support your position on homosex marriage (none actually), but quite a bit that shows that God had demonstrated His wrath and vengence time and time again. God golly, Dan, that He went from Paradise and living with Adam and Eve forever to casting them out and allowing all sorts of suffering and death to occur to mankind should be indication enough of the disparity between man's relationship with man and God's relationship with His Creation. When He had a death and suffering free environment for Adam and Eve, doesn't it seem nasty to then cast them out and mandate that we will all suffer as a result of Adam's failure? Doesn't seem very "God-like" to me based on YOUR understanding.
"They understood that you couldn't work at all on the Sabbath.
Jesus pointed out that feeding the hungry is a good kind of thing and it is GOOD to do good on the Sabbath."
Not only feeding of the poor, he told them they had to get the ox out of the ditch as well.
We could go on all day with this stuff.
Yes indeed. Jesus turned their ideas of God upside down and every which way.
Dan, you write that Marshall's reading stuff into Scripture, but then you write this:
"The Bible has God COMMANDING us not to shed innocent blood. Then, we find another place where God COMMANDS shedding innocent blood. That's not hard to understand?"
God didn't command the shedding of innocent blood: you read that into it, and you appeal to your reason to do so BUT NEVER TO THE TEXT ITSELF.
For myself, I don't think it's a big sticking point whether those killed during the Deluge, the Passover, Sodom, or the conquest of the Promised Land included innocent lives, however that's defined.
Why? God gave us life, and it's His prerogative when to take that life, EVEN if the life involved is wholly innocent.
As general principle, God forbade man from taking human life BECAUSE THAT LIFE IS HIS.
He allowed certain exceptions and even commanded the taking of human life in very specific circumstances, but there's no contradiction.
You might as well say that it's contradictory to forbid people generally from declaring things in God's name while allowing and even commanding some people specifically to do so -- namely His prophets.
About switching from literal to figurative language, it's one thing to say that a text switches from literal language to metaphors and similes in describing historical events.
It's another thing altogether to speculate that a text switches imperceptibly from historical narrative to parable or allegory.
It's like saying that, in a biography of Abraham Lincoln, the passages about the Lincoln-Douglas debates don't describe historical events but are rather allegorical descriptions of the intellectual tensions between the North and the South.
Or it's like saying that the Gospels record parables, NOT only in what Christ taught, but in what He did: though the rest is historical, the driving out of the moneychangers wasn't history. No, that's an allegory.
You don't have a grasp of the basic types of figurative language and their usage, so there's no way that your approach to Bible study is consistent.
For what it's worth, I think you misread the Gospels.
"They were hung up on rules and Jesus pointed out that the rules were for humanity, not the other way around."
You cannot point to a single OT law that Christ broke, because He didn't break any. The Sabbath traditions he broke were human traditions, not God's law WHICH CHRIST UPHELD.
"They suggested an ugly-strict adherence to giving sacrifices. Jesus reminded them that God wants MERCY, not literal sacrifices."
And yet He gave His life as a ransom for many, shedding His blood for the forgiveness of sin: and His problem wasn't a strict adherence to sacrificial law, but an insincere adherence.
"Their demand upon sacrifices had caused the temple to be made into a den of thieves - taking from those who could least afford it in the name of religion. Jesus kicked 'em out of the temple for this gross misunderstanding."
This is nonsense: Christ's problem was the fraud in the temple, not the mere existence of sacrifices that God commanded, in the law that Christ Himself affirmed.
About Ananias, you write:
"I suspect that this reflects a literally true story from the early church. True in the sense that there probably was an Ananias and Sapphira and that they probably DID try to not share freely and lied about it and that they may have even died.
[Good for you: you think parts of the story "may have" happened.]
"I further suspect that, being a pre-scientific people, it may well be that the people around would ascribe that death to God. The Bible does not say God did it, but the people WERE afraid for some reason.
"The point is, we have stories that get told and assumptions are made. The assumptions and extrapolations get passed on and the story evolves."
You seem to think the Bible contains ahistorical "assumptions and extrapolations." Please, PLEASE quit pretending that you love the Bible and deeply respect its teachings.
Hello? Marty? Are you there? As I said, I don't say Jesus didn't teach as you say, what I said was that Jesus was correcting the poor understanding of the people. IF the understanding of God was incorrect if it included actions that DAN thinks is unGodly, do you not suppose that a HUGE misunderstanding that would be corrected by Jesus while He was correcting these other LESS OBVIOUS perceptions?
Dan,
I believe Bubba offered verses that support our contention that God sent Christ to be a literal sacrifice for our sins. So YES I say again, God DID cause Christ's suffering and death. As I suggested in my last, His bannishment of Adam and Eve from paradies caused them and the rest of us to suffer and die.
With Anannias, do you actually think it's a coincidence that he dropped dead over being exposed, and far less likely, that his wife did as well? NOW who's drawing conlusions unsupported by the text? Peter was given the power to perform miracles and God worked through him as He did all His prophets. You have no basis upon which to suspect that the deaths of these two people were NOT a result of God's direct action. Once again, you point to the possibility that the writer of Acts was NOT faithfully reporting events that happened and you do so with no evidence or support whatsoever. It is YOU who makes the great leaps of assumption that those so closely connected to Christ and His apostles would ever be compelled to lie and distort. It is YOU who then compels the logical conclusion that if this happens at all, that there can be no faith in ANYTHING within Scripture at all. Where do you separate fact from fiction and how can you? Your reason gives me no confidence whatsoever. We take from the text what it says and run with the implications IT suggests, while you look at it and think in terms of things like "unscientific people" and the like as if there's any reason to believe it applies to anything in the Bible. This compares to the standard liberal notion that the ancient people wouldn't understand human sexuality like we do now, as if that matters against God saying, "Thou shalt not..."
It seems plain, Dan, that you judge God according to human terms (terms not universally accepted, but totally agreed to by liberals) and ignore the fact that God works on a totally different set of principles and rules because HE is Lord over all. I'll use the comparison again, it's like you as a five year old demanding that your Daddy goes to bed at eight, doesn't handle matches, doesn't climb ladders, doesn't leave the yard, etc, etc, etc. BAD Danny!
On the same subject, Marty, if you really believe that passages of the Bible are the result of people's "own evil minds telling them to do these things and God didn't have anything to do with it," then YOU DO NOT WORSHIP THE GOD OF THE BIBLE in any genuine sense.
Whether you're right to dismiss these passages or not, you're not worshipping God as the Bible reveals Him and describes Him.
This conclusion sounds terribly harsh, but it's unavoidable, and someone has to have the courage and decency to tell you this.
Yep, Marty. All day. Just like church service!
Marshall said...
I also want to submit that your method of reasoning is required to make your beliefs work. I don't see that your beliefs necessarily arise from your study, but that much of your interpretation is provoked by what you believe. I'm still curious as to how you came to re-read the Bible when your conversion or yes, epiphany came about
And what method of reasoning are you using to reach your conclusions?
My methods were pretty much the same back when I was more conservative as they are now. I had the notion of taking the Bible and especially Jesus' teachings seriously DRILLED INTO ME by my Baptist church growing up and it's just that the more I've done so, the less I have found myself holding what you consider traditional conservative thinking.
There was no one epiphany, just a gradual process of moving from more traditional So. Baptist to more progressive Anabaptist.
For instance, one day my wife pointed out that some class she was in was talking about God not necessarily being a "He."
"What??!" I exclaimed. "Preposterous! Obviously [there's that word, again] God is a HE. It's the wording that the Bible uses, isn't it??!" I was outraged at the suggestion.
But, my wife pointed out, God doesn't have a penis, does He? Well, no, no, of course not! That's ridiculous.
Then in what sense is God a "He"?
Well, it's the terminology the Bible uses, I answered.
Yes, but is that the one and only acceptable way of thinking of God? Could one rightly think of God as a She or as simply "God"?
Well, I guess one could rightly think of God as "God," obviously, but not as a she!
Why?
Well, because God is not female!
But neither is God male - God has neither male nor female body parts.
But the Bible always refers to God as He, Father, Him, etc.
Well, Jesus-God talks about how he'd like to gather Jerusalem as a mother chick under HER wings. The Bible also talks about God as being like a pregnant woman and other feminine imagery. If God is neither male nor female and if the Bible does not condemn the use of feminine language for God, then why would we?
Well, I... I...
Because I took the Bible seriously and was not willing to make claims about it that it didn't make, I had no good answer other than a sheepish and uncertain, I guess it's okay...
Little things like that through out my spiritual growth have led me to where I am. All because I take the study of the Bible seriously and the teachings of Jesus as primary.
That last one was me, Dan.
Yeah, Dan, we know who attends Jeff Street.
But in that comment you totally contradict yourself. Your wife assumes something regarding God's, uh, appearance. She, or rather her source, speculates on that, but where can we find a description of Him that is so detailed as to reliably inform us with certainty regarding what He has or doesn't have? I'm not about to start a whole 'nuther debate surrounding the question, but what I'm saying is that she seems willing to accept that possibility and from then determine that referring to the Father as "she" is acceptable. How does Jesus refer to Him? As "the Father". So the Bible, or more specifically, Jesus, DOES tell us, if not what sex God is, then how we should refer to Him. That would be "HIM", not "her". That sounds like a claim to me.
"And what method of reasoning are you using to reach your conclusions?"
I believe I gave an indication of that in one of my last few comments. I said that I read the Bible and come to conclusions IT suggests as opposed to considering outside or personal preferences or notions. I can see there is a difference between what I am mandated to do and what God reserves for Himself as possible to do. I don't see anywhere that I should insist He act as He tells ME to act. But this is exactly what YOU do when you suggest that He couldn't possibly wipe out an entire town of all it's inhabitants, young and old alike. YOU demand an explanation for such things or barring one you reject it as not possible for a loving God, as if such actions have to contradict the notion of Him being a loving being. Frankly, that doesn't even work for humans. In war, even whatever the hell you might consider a just war, horrible things are done by good men in the cause for which they fight. Horrible things that are necessary to win out over the enemy. Putting a bullet or bayonet into the body of another human being does not sound like a loving thing to do, but when necessary must be done and does not mean the soldier is an evil, vicious or atrocious man. Whatever God's reasons are for anyone's suffering are His reasons alone and we can't dismiss His part in it just because He provides no clear explanation that satisfies us. But YOU'LL dismiss it because why? Because you deserve a palatable explanation? Sorry, dude. You just don't rank.
Marshall said...
It seems plain, Dan, that you judge God according to human terms (terms not universally accepted, but totally agreed to by liberals) and ignore the fact that God works on a totally different set of principles and rules because HE is Lord over all.
Well, I AM human, after all. What terms would you have me use?
When you surmise that God operates on a "totally different set of rules" what rules are you guessing these are? That God can engage in evil acts and they're not evil because it's God?
If God can kill babies, can God also rape them? IF it's for God's ultimate "God goodness"? A goodness that's beyond our understanding? Is it permissible for God to command baby rape?
Would we be wrong to refuse god if god commanded us to rape babies, or would we be right?
What rules is God operating under that are different than our normal understanding of good and evil? And, once again, ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR HUNCH?
So again, we must start with what the words in the Book says and while reading not judge God's actions according to the rules He's laid down for us. Again, it's as a child barking orders to his father. Just doesn't work. It's pretentious and presumptuous and not a little bit dangerous as it assumes an equality with God that absolutely doesn't exist.
Okay, this is just crazy. Marshall said...
So the Bible, or more specifically, Jesus, DOES tell us, if not what sex God is, then how we should refer to Him.
Look again. Jesus does NOT tell us how to refer to God. Jesus uses the terminology of "father" and "he," typically, but that is not a command or even a guideline.
You're reading into the Bible things your cultural traditions of humans have taught you, not what the Bible itself says.
Marshall said...
I said that I read the Bible and come to conclusions IT suggests as opposed to considering outside or personal preferences or notions.
No. You don't. If you came to the conclusion the Bible suggests without ANY outside reasoning or context, you would think the earth has four corners. YOU HAVE ALREADY SAID, Marshall, that we can designate some passages as imagery when it's "obvious."
That's YOUR REASONING. When the Bible says "kill babies," YOU REASON that it ought to be taken literally. When the bible says, "four corners" YOU REASON that you can "dismiss" it as imagery.
It's YOUR REASONING that has led you to these conclusions, not the Bible. YOUR REASONING is not one and the same with God or the Bible, it IS an outside source.
Look Marshall, before you post any more comments, I FULLY UNDERSTAND that you have hunches about what the Bible says and what it means. No one is disputing that you have your hunches and I have mine.
I am asking ON WHAT BASES do you form your conclusions? If you can't answer that and instead insist on keep repeating, "I'm basing it upon reading it and what it obviously (TO ME, MARSHALL and MY REASONING) means," then there's no point in revisiting that.
We are all aware that you have your hunches. No need to say it again.
Nicely done, you sidestepped the pasach thing almost entirely, impressive.
Babba, and Marshall, you need to be aware as Dan talks about God taking "innocent" life, he has actually advanced the notion that children from birth to some (undefined) age are literally innocent (actually sinless). I think this explains (partially) why he struggles with what seems fairly clear.
Good luck with this, I'll try to answer all of the questions Dan has asked and probably bow out, unless Dan wants to answer/respond to what I have on the table.
I HAVE answered all your questions. Or at least most of them. If I have overlooked one or two, it's from the sheer volume of questions/comments being asked/made. I think you're missing my answers, moreso than my missing your questions.
As always, if I have actually missed any questions, feel free to repost them. I just went back through EACH of your posts sometime yesterday and verified that they were all answered, so it would have to be some from after yesterday afternoon.
What passover question do you have that I have not answered?
The only passover question I can find lately is...
How about a yes or no answer, pasach literal or not?
My direct answer to that question was...
"As to the miscellania of the Bible (was the world created in six literal days, did the Red Sea literally divide for Moses, was Jonah physically swallowed by a whale), I generally have no great opinion, since they aren't the point of the stories. I'm looking for the TRUTHS being taught in order to take THOSE literally. The factual details of the stories tend to matter less.
Is the passover a literally true story where God sent an "angel of death" to kill the firstborn? I DON'T KNOW. I WASN'T THERE.
Those details would not line up with God's teachings as I understand them in the Bible so I tend to think it is more of an allegory, but the truth is, I don't know if there was a literal passover that happened just as it is described, or if there was a literal "whale" that swallowed Jonah, or if the Red Sea literally split like it did for Charlton Heston. In general, the facts of those stories don't impact the truths of the stories."
So, having answered ALL of your questions, I'm looking forward to you answering mine.
Craig said...
you need to be aware as Dan talks about God taking "innocent" life, he has actually advanced the notion that children from birth to some (undefined) age are literally innocent (actually sinless). I think this explains (partially) why he struggles with what seems fairly clear.
No struggle at all. I am using the standard English definition of the words "innocent" and "sinless." What definitions are you using?
You will excuse me if you are using non-standard English to describe things and I don't get your point. I would suggest if you're using non-standard English terms, you offer your definition and explain why it's the one you're using.
For instance, when Marshall (I believe) pointed out that the word "atonement" in the dictionary uses only one theological definition (the calvinist, penal substitionary definition) I explained in what context I was referring to Atonement - the various theological definitions.
"Whether you're right to dismiss these passages or not, you're not worshipping God as the Bible reveals Him and describes Him."
If..if... that is what I am doing - then no, I wouldn't be worshipping God as you see Him in the Bible and as you think the Bible reveals Him and describes Him.
"This conclusion sounds terribly harsh, but it's unavoidable, and someone has to have the courage and decency to tell you this."
And you happen to be just the person who is happy to set me straight.
Thank you kindly. I now offer you my left cheek.
Thank you sir! May I have another?!
Craig, regarding this...
you need to be aware as Dan talks about God taking "innocent" life, he has actually advanced the notion that children from birth to some (undefined) age are literally innocent (actually sinless).
Do you realize how strange that sounds I think to most people out there?
Perhaps it's not how you intend it, but it rather sounds like you're saying...
you need to be aware as Dan talks about God taking "innocent" life, he has actually advanced the CRAZZZZY notion that children from birth to some (undefined) age are literally innocent (actually sinless! Can you believe that??! How nutty is that?).
You do recognize that for most people out here (I'm guessing) that babies and the littlest ones ARE the epitome of innocence and sinlessness?
No, I'm not saying they don't have a sinful nature, but yes, most people (I suspect) out there recognize the extremely logical notion that people like babies and the mentally challenged CAN'T sin in the normal sense of the term. You can't CHOOSE to kill, or lie, or cheat, or cause harm, or pollute, or be greedy, or slander, etc, etc, etc... you can't CHOOSE to do any of that when you are two months old!
So yes, I suspect that most people agree that a child up to some age of mental development CAN'T sin in the standard English definition of that word.
So, when you make your case as you do (Believe it or not, Dan ACTUALLY BELIEVES that babies are innocent!), it just sounds really odd to most people, I suspect, and makes your reasoning and religion suspect.
If the answer is not, why would Jesus make such a big deal of celebrating a metaphorical event?
If the story of Jonah is metaphorical, are you then saying that it is metaphorically OK for God to use threats of destruction to cause people to worship him?
Is salvation metaphorical?
Since you are not a Greek scholar which of those translations of Matt 5 would you argue is literal. Or are you arguing that the SOTM is not actually a literal event, but rather a compendium of other events?
As to your last, are you certain that God determines innocence based on the "standard" engilsh definition?
I have been down this road before and I will not go further down than this. I will let others decide if your notion of "innocence" is supported by the text.
As I told you earlier I will address you questions when I have time to wade through the lengthy posts and sort out the questions. Patience.
Marty, your eagerness to make yourself out to be a martyr is distasteful, since all I'm doing is pointing out the obvious.
About your dismissing parts of the Bible as the result of evil delusions, you write, "I wouldn't be worshipping God as you see Him in the Bible and as you think the Bible reveals Him and describes Him."
It's not just "as I see Him in the Bible," and it's not just "as I think" God is described in the Bible.
It appears that we both agree that the Bible attributes to God the command to wage wars of annihilation.
You don't disagree about this interpretation; you just think the Bible is wrong.
I wrote that there's no REAL way to work around its claim that God really did, historically and literally, command wars of annihilation.
Your reply?
"Yeah there's a way to work around it. One can say that the people themselves and those writing the scriptures truly believed that it was God telling them to do these things, but in reality it was their own evil minds telling them to do these things and God didn't have anything to do with it."
If that's what you think, then you don't just reject some specific interpretation of certain passages of the Bible. You reject those passages THEMSELVES.
You reject part of what the Bible says about God, so, Q.E.D., you do not worship God as the Bible describes Him.
This is not some insult for which you think you must turn the other cheek. It's a simple statement of fact.
If a person is willfully deceitful, "liar" isn't an insult, it's an accurate description of what he is.
If a person cheats on his wife, "adultery" isn't slander, it's what he has actually done.
And if a person rejects what the Bible teaches about God, it's no insult to say that she doesn't worship the God of the Bible: it's a statement of fact.
Dan,
Here’s some answers
You asked. “So, how about you? How do you determine which lines in the bible to take literally and which ones are imagery and which ones to take "fairly literally..."?”
1. I look at the type of literature under consideration. If purports to be history I treat it as history, if poetry then poetry, if allegory then allegory, if metaphor then metaphor, etc.
2. I then look at them as literally as passages of the type they purport to be.
3. I look at the in the light of scripture.
4. I look at the context.
5. I look at the intent of the author.
6. Ultimately I take them all literally. Because each passage or type of passage was written by a literal person, with a literal purpose, to a literal audience(s). It is a matter of determining what those were/are.
7. If something is metaphor (or allegory or a figure of speech) I assume the text is a literal rendition of the words of the author, then look at what the imagery represents.
8. The term “fairly literally”, literally has no meaning for me. It is a nonsense term that could mean nothing, everything, or anything. It is not a term I would ever use. So I would never decide something is “fairly literal”
You also asked. Or how do you decide that passage ought to be thusly considered? (as a metaphor)
For the purpose of this answer I will use the term metaphor (or metaphorical) to refer to all types of figures of speech.
I decide whether a passage is metaphorical by reading it. If I read that “we are his people and the sheep of his pasture” I recognize that as a metaphor, I am aware that people cannot be people and sheep simultaneously. Generally metaphor is pretty clear upon initial reading. If there is a question then I would look elsewhere for guidance regarding meaning. One way to gain some insight is to observe what people do with the stories. If, for example, we see a story that could be metaphorical but is treated as non metaphorical throughout the OT and the NT, then that is a clue that it is probably not metaphor.
Dan,
I believve that this will finishing aswering all of your questions from post 201-324. If I missed any before that let me know, but this should be it.
Yes
Do you take those laws literally?
Yes
Do you in all those cases take it literally?
Yes
Do you agree that it seems likely that Jesus may well have preached two different sermons, one time using the phrase "Blessed are the poor in spirit," and another time saying "Blessed are you who are poor... WOE to you who are rich..."?
Asked and answered.
What makes you think that God gave anyone wealth?
Answered
I do not think that Jesus was affirming as good the wholesale killing of a city full of first born children. Do you think Jesus was affirming that?
Yes, answered elsewhere. It seems bizarre that you could somehow separate the effect from the cause. (plagues=cause, release from captivity=effect)
Now please consider the hoops all jumped through.
I believe I've addressed these earlier, but I'll quickly respond again.
Craig asked...
If the answer is not, why would Jesus make such a big deal of celebrating a metaphorical event?
Because releasing the captives IS a big deal, even if it does not involve God actually slaughtering babies.
If the story of Jonah is metaphorical, are you then saying that it is metaphorically OK for God to use threats of destruction to cause people to worship him?
No. That is, God is God and can do as God wishes. I don't think God is in the business of using threats of violence or "metaphorical threats" of violence. I don't think this notion is supported in the Bible or logically.
Is salvation metaphorical?
No.
Since you are not a Greek scholar which of those translations of Matt 5 would you argue is literal. Or are you arguing that the SOTM is not actually a literal event, but rather a compendium of other events?
I'm saying that the SOTM was an actual event, as the SOTP was - that these were likely just a sampling of many sermons that Jesus gave. I think that Jesus likely gave variations of similar themes and sermons. I think it is likely that sometimes Jesus taught "blessed are the poor" and meant it literally and other times Jesus taught "blessed are the poor in spirit" and meant it literally.
All of these are answered above and now I have answered them twice.
As to your last, are you certain that God determines innocence based on the "standard" engilsh definition?
God determines innocence based on whether or not we're guilty or innocent. And all of us who have reached an age of understanding right and wrong are guilty of something. And yes, I'm using standard English definitions of "guilt" and "innocence."
What definition SHOULD I use?
Are you suggesting that when God said "I hate the shedding of innocent blood" - or its hebrew equivalent - the writer of the passage had some other notion of "innocent" in mind other than the standard English? What definition would that be? And on what do you base this? When the psalmist is condemning those who "condemn the innocent to death," do you think he meant something other than the standard English definition? What definition do you suspect he's using?
Craig said...
I will let others decide if your notion of "innocence" is supported by the text.
It's not "my notion of innocence," it is the standard English definition. There are words in Hebrew and Greek that are translated "innocent," because that is what they mean in English. Do you suspect that the translators found these Greek/Hebrew words and decided to translate them "innocent" even though that's not what they meant?
QUESTION:
WHAT DEFINITION WOULD YOU SUGGEST WE USE, IF NOT THE STANDARD ENGLISH DEFINITION?
WHY?
Now, I'm not saying there's no reason to use some other definition. I gave an example in the Atonement example, for instance. Sometimes there may well be reasons for using other definitions beyond standard English. I'm just saying you should make that clear if you're trying to communicate in an English language conversation.
Dan, you harp on dictionary definitions when what matters is whether the Bible teaches that we are all sinful, AND IT DOES.
Your emphasis on what the dictionary says strikes me as inconsistent. This past election cycle, you insisted that Obama fit the definition of a capitalist, but now you're back to quoting Twain's denouncing of capitalists.
"Who are the oppressors? The few: the king, the capitalist and a handful of other overseers and superintendents."
"...I don't know what else to call someone who wants to have ownership and control of the means of production to stay within the hands of private individuals (even if we try to reasonably regulate some areas) but a capitalist. This is what Obama is."
Logically, you must think Obama is an oppressor. I'll have to keep that in mind.
About your wife's idea that God is -- what? gender-neutral? female? -- I certainly don't think this issue is the most important in all of Christian theology, but your conclusion simply rings false.
"Because I took the Bible seriously and was not willing to make claims about it that it didn't make, I had no good answer other than a sheepish and uncertain, I guess it's okay...
"Little things like that through out my spiritual growth have led me to where I am. All because I take the study of the Bible seriously and the teachings of Jesus as primary."
You're not willing to make claims about the Bible that the Bible doesn't make? That's not true, Dan, because you have no problem speculating that Paul's teachings -- y'know, teachings found IN THE BIBLE -- contain evidence of sexism and bigotry on his part, a position that the Bible itself supports absolutely nowhere.
I don't think you actually revere everything Christ taught, not between your approach to Scripture that DOES NOT accord with Christ's affirmation of Scripture's the authority to the smallest penstroke; your beliefs regarding "gay marriage" which defy Christ's teaching about why we were created male and female; your denial of Christ's teaching about why He was to die; and, most recently, your suggestion that Christ's choosing of only men to be His twelve closes followers was a "nod" to the surrounding cultural sexism.
If you really did take the teachings of Jesus as primary, then you would have had an answer to your wife: when teaching us how to pray, Christ addressed our FATHER specifically, and when Christ Himself prayed, He also specifically addressed His FATHER.
See Matthew 6:9, 11:25-26, 26:39, and 26:42; Mark 14:36; Luke 10:21, 11:2, 22:42, 23:34, and 23:46; and John 11:41, 17:1, 17:5, 17:11, 17:21, and 17:24-25 -- to say nothing of the more than a hundred other verses where Christ taught about the Father.
(Or may we suppose that all of this is "clearly a nod to the sexist society in which he lived"?)
Are we given a command that we MUST refer to God as "Father"? No, but we're sure given such a repeated and emphatic example that any of Christ's followers who are asked about the subject should be more than equipped to offer something other than sheepish uncertainty.
[continued]
[continued]
I wonder about your ramblings about Acts 5.
"I suspect that this reflects a literally true story from the early church. True in the sense that there probably was an Ananias and Sapphira and that they probably DID try to not share freely and lied about it and that they may have even died.
"I further suspect that, being a pre-scientific people, it may well be that the people around would ascribe that death to God. The Bible does not say God did it, but the people WERE afraid for some reason.
"The point is, we have stories that get told and assumptions are made. The assumptions and extrapolations get passed on and the story evolves."
Acts was probably written by the author of Luke's Gospel -- namely, Luke. (Compare the introductions.) If you're so uncertain that Acts 5 is an accurate account of history, why do you seem so confident about, say, Luke 4 and Luke 6?
Are you sure that those passages are historically trustworthy? Or are they just useful to your pre-existing philosophy, and because they are useful, you treat them as true?
You've said in the past that you affirm the bodily Resurrection of Christ? Why do you do that?
After all, the witnesses to the Resurrection were the same sort of people as those who witnessed Ananias' death: you know, "pre-scientific" people whose testimony is therefore apparently suspect.
You know the drill: we have stories that get told and assumptions are made. The assumptions and extrapolations get passed on and the story evolves.
So how are you certain that Jesus rose from the dead?
Or are you certain? You CONTINUE to mention "Big Truths" but refuse to clarify whether these Truths -- about which all of us should agree, and which is the real focus of the Bible -- contain any historical claims, specifically Christ's bodily Resurrection, His Crucifixion, and His historical existence.
And I wonder, just how does your hermeneutic get you to the point of denying the historical accuracy of this passage, suggesting that it's only possible that the passage is right that Ananias "may have" died?
You mention your "spiritual growth." Just as all change isn't progress, not all change is growth.
If you're honest about your past theological conservatism, you certainly haven't grown in your trust of God's written word, or perhaps even your knowledge and understanding of the Bible.
I don't see growth. I see shrinking, where you trust less and less of the Bible, and where you affirm less and less of what is essential to Christianity.
The endpoint is obvious: a secular religion defined by political progressivism, with vaguely Christian detritus serving as ornamentation.
I'd hardly describe that as growth.
"Marty, your eagerness to make yourself out to be a martyr is distasteful, since all I'm doing is pointing out the obvious."
Martyrs are dead Bubba. I'm still quite alive.
"It's not just "as I see Him in the Bible," and it's not just "as I think" God is described in the Bible."
Yes it is.
"If that's what you think, then you don't just reject some specific interpretation of certain passages of the Bible. You reject those passages THEMSELVES."
I never said that is what I think...I said "one can say".
"It appears that we both agree that the Bible attributes to God the command to wage wars of annihilation"
It certainly appears that the writers thought God commanded it. Yes.
My question is, were the writers or those telling the stories, mere humans, infallable?
"You don't disagree about this interpretation; you just think the Bible is wrong."
I've just given you another way to view it. Honestly I don't know what I personally think about it. I actually try not to think about it.
"You reject part of what the Bible says about God, so, Q.E.D., you do not worship God as the Bible describes Him."
Well I certainly am reluctant to interpret it as you do. Rejection is a strong word. I've just not figured it out yet. And you telling me it's so doesn't make it so.
"This is not some insult for which you think you must turn the other cheek. It's a simple statement of fact."
Whose fact? Yours or mine?
Anyway, that was done tongue and cheek. Pun intended! I just couldn't resist it. You're always trying to set people straight when you think you see heresy. It amuses me.
"And if a person rejects what the Bible teaches about God, it's no insult to say that she doesn't worship the God of the Bible: it's a statement of fact."
I doubt I will ever have it figured out like you Bubba. And in the end I may reject your interpretation of the events, but that is not the same as rejecting the Bible.
Dan said,
"Well, I AM human, after all. What terms would you have me use?"
I would say that you are not in a position to judge God at all. I would also say that what He does might not be understandable by you, but that doesn't mean you can make assumptions about whether or not the Bible accurately depicted the events in which He acted in a way you find disturbing. Frankly, I think you should embrace that disturbed feeling you get to understand what the downside of being on the Almighty's bad side is all about. Then you'll get an idea of what it is from which we need to be saved. All your protests regarding what you think are examples of God committing or mandating atrocities suggest there really is no justice for sinners since the god you worship would never do anything atrocious. What could be more of an atrocity, to use your word, than to expell one's creation from a suffering and death free arrangement in the Garden of Eden, into a world where suffering and death is a regular feature. What could be a more atrocious act than to condemn someone to hell for all eternity?
"Jesus states that he came to fulfill scripture. That does NOT say he came to read certain passages as literal and other passages as not literal based on his feelings."
You miss the point. If He was spending time explaning how the people had misinterpreted God's meaning, is it not logical to conclude that He would also correct them about something so mistaken (in your opinion) that they all took as fact, that is, God's part in the total destruction of entire peoples? Since neither the Bible, or any quote of Jesus in the Bible discusses it, you can't then say He ever made such a correction. And since God's vengeful and jealous side was depicted so often in the OT, as well as His expulsion of Adam and Eve to a life of suffering and death for them and all their descendants, and as well as the fact that some people will be cut off and condemned to hell, your hippie god makes no sense.
continued---
And still again,
"When you surmise that God operates on a "totally different set of rules" what rules are you guessing these are?"
I don't surmise anything. Isaiah says God's ways aren't our ways. What the hell does that mean to you? Nor do I guess about what rules God has set up for Himself. What I'm saying is what you demand of God is that which He demands of us. What He demands of us is not necessarily the same as what He reserves for Himself and you have no standing to have any expectations about what He may or may not do. NOR are you entitled to a full explanation for why He commands anything whatsoever. I defer to his supreme sovereignty and privilege to do as He pleases without my having to understand any of it. Indeed there is much I don't understand now, like why can't I get it one with any woman I want, or why can't I get hammered on a regular basis, or why this or why that? There are tons of things for which I can only speculate and there's no problem with speculation. But YOU make assumptions that totally conflict with what the Bible clearly states and rather than trust that God has a good reason for doing that which you find to be reprehensible (and would be if done by any human), you dismiss it as error or the imaginings of the writer. Talk about hunches. My hunches are for those things I listed just a moment ago, not about whether or not God did what the Bible says He did. That's a liberty taken you can't justify.
"If God can kill babies, can God also rape them? IF it's for God's ultimate "God goodness"? A goodness that's beyond our understanding? Is it permissible for God to command baby rape?"
Why do you persist with these incredibly stupid questions? You dare to question my reasoning with this shit? My point is that God is perfectly free to do whatever He wants. I don't see it as a logical possibility that He would rape anyone or command such a thing. Yet, as I am not God's equal, it is not for me to question anything He might ask of me. Abraham made points with God for his willingness to kill his son on God's command. Don't you think Abe wondered on that one until God stayed his hand? Peter, on the other hand, was NOT making point for refusing to eat of the animals being offered to him that were outside acceptable Jewish standards. So you tell ME how to respond to a strange request from God. You obviously don't trust Him.
"What rules is God operating under that are different than our normal understanding of good and evil?"
Again, I don't know what God's rules for Himself are and the point is that I don't need to know, nor do I have any right or standing to insist that He tell me or that I can dismiss anything about what the Bible tells me about Him if I find something I don't understand.
"Jesus does NOT tell us how to refer to God. Jesus uses the terminology of "father" and "he," typically, but that is not a command or even a guideline."
So this part of how Jesus lived is unimportant to you. You are the one who likes to refer to the purpose of Jesus' existence as being to show us how to live. So, by His example, we should refer to and think of God in the masculine. Or are you gonna change your tune on this one?
"If you came to the conclusion the Bible suggests without ANY outside reasoning or context, you would think the earth has four corners."
This is my bad. I should know better than to not paint a better picture for Dan. The outside reasoning or context to which I refer would like, influence by homo-enabling psuedo Christians, or totally secular science worshippers who can't deal with the concept of the miraculous, not a twenty-first century understanding of the shape of the world, and understanding that goes back to ancient times. I guess to Dan, my comment suggested to him that one must live life in a box or cave without any input at all. It's no wonder he has such trouble understanding Scripture if he makes stupid assumptions like that. But it's my own fault. He's demonstrated this intellectually dishonest method of debate for years.
In fact, Dan, your whole argument regarding what is literal what isn't, what should be taken literally and what shouldn't is falacious and deceitful. Even an idiot should be able to determine that a phrase like "the church is a tree and its members the brances" is a figure of speech not meant to imply that a church is an actual tree or the members actual tree brances. Are you no better than an idiot? Are you accusing me of being no better than an idiot? Only an idiot would miss the rhetorical flourish of a phrase like "four corners of the earth". So don't waste my time with stupidity, as hard a request as that might be. Such tactics compel me ( and others I would wager ) to believe you lack conviction in your beliefs if you must stoop to pretending such a tactic is worthy of my response. So I will make this plain:
I contend that OT events such as the Passover, the parting of the Red Sea, the God mandated destruction of towns and villages, are actual events and there is absolutely no logical or intelligent argument to justify believing otherwise. Phrases such as "four corners of the earth", "Christ is the shepherd and we are His sheep", and others like it are metaphors so obvious that only those looking to support foolish beliefs would attempt to insist upon any criteria or process be needed or presented to explain why they are taken as such.
Marty, it wasn't clear that your theory -- that what the Bible attributes to God is sometimes the result of evil delusion -- is what you actually believe or merely a speculation about what one could believe.
That's why, in my first comment about the subject, I prefaced my entire point with, "if you really believe..."
And that's why, in my second comment, I wrote, "If that's what you think..."
"Honestly I don't know what I personally think about it."
Okay, then, what I said doesn't apply to you: it's only what would happen if you did decide that the Bible's teachings contain the result of evil delusions.
"I actually try not to think about it."
This, honestly, is probably not the most mature approach to difficult passages in the Bible: given the respect accorded to Scripture by Jesus and His hand-picked Apostles, it strikes me as disrespectful to their example and even their explicit teachings to ignore the Bible's more difficult teachings and pretend they're not there.
"Well I certainly am reluctant to interpret it as you do. Rejection is a strong word. I've just not figured it out yet. And you telling me it's so doesn't make it so."
No, but my telling you so doesn't make it false, either. Either what I say is true or it isn't, apart from the fact that I said it.
"Just because you say something doesn't make it true" is a tautology, but it's also devoid of any real substance, and it's a cheap way to punt a troubling assertion that may well be true after all.
"Whose fact? Yours or mine?"
It's not a fact "belonging" to anyone in particular: it's an objective facet of reality that, if a person believes that passages of the Bible are the result of evil delusions rather than the divine revelation that it claims, that person does not believe in God as the Bible describes Him.
It's simple logic: if a person thinks that passages in a biography of Tiger Woods were the result, not of research or interviews or a relationship with the man, but of hallucinations induced by a combination of absinthe and LSD, then that person rejects at least those parts of the biography's description of the pro athlete.
Logic doesn't cease to be logic because the subject is God and not golf.
"I doubt I will ever have it figured out like you Bubba. And in the end I may reject your interpretation of the events, but that is not the same as rejecting the Bible."
That depends on what your interpretation is: if your interpretation is that some passage is the result of evil delusions, you necessarily reject that passage -- and logically, the comprehensive picture the Bible paints.
Finally, you write:
"You're always trying to set people straight when you think you see heresy. It amuses me."
I would think that it's simple decency to correct those who claim to be your brothers in Christ when you think they're making grievous errors, to say nothing of the fact that men should sharpen each other "as iron sharpens iron," (Prov 27:17) a process which metaphorically entails heat and friction, and which literally entails the occasional rebuke and correction.
We are called to love one another, are we not, Marty? Is one's brother really best served by ignoring his needs and doing nothing as he continues to live in error and, potentially, sin? Is finding it "amusing," the correction that is absolutely necessary for mutual growth, really a sign of Christian charity for others?
It's something to think about, while I make clear that I don't believe you find correction amusing at all -- so long as you're the one doing it. Do you find amusement in your own efforts to explain how we're judgmental and self-righteous, or are you just being hypocritical? I suspect you're not thinking things through.
Dan, if you're open to fielding another question or two, I would like to ask you a couple things, about issues I've already raised, and related to this particular comment about "miscellania of the Bible" (your words) -- a comment you've reiterated.
About the Passover, you write:
"Those details would not line up with God's teachings as I understand them in the Bible so I tend to think it is more of an allegory, but the truth is, I don't know if there was a literal passover that happened just as it is described, or if there was a literal "whale" that swallowed Jonah, or if the Red Sea literally split like it did for Charlton Heston. In general, the facts of those stories don't impact the truths of the stories."
You claim to believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead, but you have trouble accepting the historicity of frankly much less astounding miracles: Jonah surviving in the belly of a beast, and Ananias dying after his deception, an event which you only concede "may have" happened.
(After all, assumptions get made and the story evolves: and the witnesses were pre-scientific people who apparently cannot be trusted.)
This is untenable, Dan. If you accept the physical and historical Resurrection -- of God Incarnate, no less, the Incarnation being the literally Infinite becoming finite man -- then you have no good reason to dismiss the credibility of the Bible's accounts of other, less literally fantastic miracles.
And the Passover and the Exodus are significant, ultimately indispensable parts of the Jewish faith: Scripture repeatedly calls Israel to remember how God brought them out of Egypt, and God commanded them to commemorate the Passover yearly, which Jews have done for at least THREE THOUSAND YEARS.
More to my point, both stories are also, unlike (say) Job and Jonah, MAJOR parts of the main narrative of Jewish history -- the history that runs from the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; to Joseph and the settlement in Egypt; to Moses and the Exodus from the subsequent Egyptian slavery; to Joshua and the conquest of the Promised Land; to the judges and then the kings, including Saul, David, and Solomon; to the two kingdoms, the Babylonian exile, and the subsequent restoration of Jerusalem under Nehemiah.
This history is covered in detail in half of Jewish Scripture -- 17 of the 39 books in the Old Testament canon -- and the rest touches on these events time and again, from Psalms to Isaiah to the other Prophets.
The difficult passages in which God either commands or performs the taking of human life isn't limited to one section of this history, but is scattered throughout, from the sacrifice of Isaac, to the Passover, to the conquest, to commands given through Samuel.
Here are my questions.
QUESTION 1. You write, "Those details would not line up with God's teachings as I understand them in the Bible so I tend to think it is more of an allegory." Do you believe the ENTIRE HISTORICAL NARRATIVE is one big allegory; do you believe that the narrative switches imperceptibly between history and allegory, time and again, over and over; or do you have some other interpretation for the narrative as a whole, an interpretation that I haven't considered?
QUESTION 2. You write, "the facts of those stories don't impact the truths of the stories." Are the central claims of Jesus' life -- His Crucifixion and Resurrection -- central "truths" that we must affirm, or mere "facts" that don't impact the "truths"?
That last question I've asked a number of times already, and you have yet to acknowledge the question, much less answer it.
For myself, I believe that the Crucifixion and Resurrection are absolutely central and essential truths of the Bible, and if somebody thought *I* was being unclear about that point, I would correct them sooner rather than later.
Dan,
Since you are so enamored with English dictionary definitions, why do you have such a problem with this one.
all
/ɔl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [awl] Show IPA
Use all in a Sentence
See web results for all
See images of all
–adjective
1. the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration): all the cake; all the way; all year.
2. the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars, taken collectively): all students.
3. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree): with all due respect; with all speed.
"For ALL have sinned"
No matter how hard you try you are not going to suck me back into this. If MA and Bubba want to go there, great. I've been down this road and it dead ends at Dan's Reason and Dan's definition of all.
"Are you suggesting that when God said "I hate the shedding of innocent blood" - or its hebrew equivalent - the writer of the passage had some other notion of "innocent" in mind other than the standard English?"
Yes I am. I am suggesting that the Psalmist did not know what the standard English definition of the word would be thousands of years later. I am also suggesting that God is not bound by definitions (standard English or otherwise). I am willing to allow Him in His sovereignty decide who is innocent by His standards and who is not. I suggest that for me (or you) to try to impose our definition on God is the height of hubris.
This digression is not about how WE define innocence, it about how we as humans relate to a perfect God. God=perfect, without sin
"It's something to think about, while I make clear that I don't believe you find correction amusing at all -- so long as you're the one doing it. "
I find your corrections of me amusing. Yes.
"Do you find amusement in your own efforts to explain how we're judgmental and self-righteous"
Yes. I had fun with that too.
"Is one's brother really best served by ignoring his needs and doing nothing as he continues to live in error and, potentially, sin?"
The only one who knows my "needs" is God. He doesn't need you to point it out.
No one here is without sin Bubba.
"No one here is without sin Bubba."
Don't think anyone here's said otherwise, Marty. The point was whether a Christian is justified in standing silent when an alleged Christian is obviously in error regarding his beliefs and understanding of the faith. The question has come up before. I believe it was ER who took the position that God will handle that, not acknowledging or accepting the possibility that his very presence in the vicinity of the eroneous brother would allow God to handle it through ER if he would only man up and provide the correction. I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall you echoing that sentiment. Bad form that, to allow someone to believe something untrue when you have the truth and the opportunity to offer it.
It's one thing to disagree, call someone judgemental or hypocritical Marshall or even to tell them are wrong, but it's quite another to go a step further and and say that person isn't worshiping the God of the Bible because of what you perceive is wrong. To do that calls their salvation into question. And with regard to that I do believe ER has it right when he says God will handle it. Sure you can point out what you believe to be errors and well you should, but you can't step over that line which God has reserved for himself.
I believe Bubba has stepped over the line.
Marty,
If one is believing and preaching something that is counter to Biblical truth, they're worshipping a false god. If that sounds offensive, then that's unfortunate. Hurt feelings are far easier to endure than eternity cut off from God, wouldn't you think? The fact is when someone strays too far from the teachings, that person's salvation IS in question. More to the point, it is in jeapardy.
If you, or ER, were to encounter someone who's beliefs were incredibly wacky but firmly held, the fact that you are there witnessing his error might be part of God's plan to bring that person to the truth. Where do you think the line is that shouldn't be crossed, and how do you see any of us, be it me, Bubba, Neil, Craig or anyone else crossing it? To say that someone has created their own false god by virtue of their Biblically unsupported beliefs doesn't cross the line; surely God would say as much, for He would say "I am not like what you believe." We don't force anything (as if we could through the blogosphere) on anyone, but holding fast to what is true is not forcing anything on anyone. You make accusations about us that aren't true. We are defending what we understand against that which is plain to us is a poor interpretation at best. We do so boldly, with support of Scripture and all we say is consistent with what we've said before. Our arguments are logical and reasonable by virtue of our ability to support them so consistently and solidly. We point out the holes in Dan's arguments and he accuses us of misinterpretations, but does so without firm support to back it up. Worse, he wastes time and keystrokes over the definition of "is" (caution: metaphor in use) and wails and laments the reluctance to join in that dance, as if WE'RE the goofy ones.
One more thing. Keep in mind that I don't believe any of us on this side of the argument is under any delusions regarding what other people choose to believe and their freedom to do so. But as long as a strange and/or goofy notion is posted as if it has any merit, particularly on one of OUR blogs, we are totally free, if not compelled by our undrestanding of truth, to counter that goofiness with extreme prejudice.
"Where do you think the line is that shouldn't be crossed, and how do you see any of us, be it me, Bubba, Neil, Craig or anyone else crossing it?"
When you begin to accuse someone of "not believing". When you do that you have crossed the line. That judgement is reserved to God alone. Once you have shared your beliefs about this or that passage then it is out there and has been said. God said his word wil not return void. It is then up to God to use that as he will. It is not necessary to beat someone over the head with scripture over and over again. Doing that will drive a wedge and then it becomes a back and forth "yes your are" "no I'm not" with each person defending themselves against each other.
You know as well as I that God sees into the heart. He knows what we can't know so he is the one in the best position to handle the rest.
"We do so boldly, with support of Scripture"
With your interpretation of Scripture Marshall. I really get the feeling that you think there is only one way to interpret things and it's your way or the highway.
Could it be possible that you are confusing boldness with arrogance?
"We point out the holes in Dan's arguments and he accuses us of misinterpretations,"
I've witnessed misrepensentations quite frequently. It always ends up with someone accusing him of being a heretic or traitor. That is crossing the line.
"But as long as a strange and/or goofy notion is posted as if it has any merit, particularly on one of OUR blogs, we are totally free, if not compelled by our undrestanding of truth, to counter that goofiness with extreme prejudice."
I'll give you that right. However, keep in mind you could cause a stumbling block with that kind of extreme prejudice.
"When you begin to accuse someone of "not believing"."
We don't. We question in whom they believe. By their own words they demonstrate that they are not believing in the One True God when they dismiss that which they don't like or can't accept regarding his nature, as it is revealed to us in Scripture. We question in whom they believe when they draw conclusions from the holy text to which the words therein cannot lead.
"It is not necessary to beat someone over the head with scripture over and over again."
We don't. Ever. (At least not mostly ever.) We continue to correct and demand support for their goofiness that would trump what we have pointed out. Then, we show how that support or evidence is lame, fallacious, or lacking in logic and reason. Then more from the other side. It's called debate and conversation. I will allow that when one's position becomes to heavy to lift in the face of common sense, logic and clear explanations, it might seem as if one is being beaten over the head. That's because the truth can sometimes hurt. But it ony does if one doesn't like what the truth means to their position.
Doing what we do doesn't drive any wedge into anything, anywhere or anyone. Indeed, we seek to remove the wedge that has been placed between us and the one with the poor interpretations.
"I really get the feeling that you think there is only one way to interpret things and it's your way or the highway."
Not MY way. God's way. And as I said, there are indeed aspects that cannot be interpreted any other way without changing the meaning of words or insering one's own ideology. It takes ideology, for example, to ever come to believe that God would bless homo marriages. It defies logic and common sense as well as everything the Bible speaks of concerning marriage, family and human sexuality.
"Could it be possible that you are confusing boldness with arrogance?"
No. But I think you're seeing arrogance where conviction exists.
"I've witnessed misrepensentations quite frequently."
Nonsense. You've seen Dan accuse us of misrepresentation when we present conclusions based on his previous words. If we contiually misrepresent him, it's not because we have trouble understanding the words he uses. It's because he has trouble using words to explain what seems so incredibly goofy. That we continue to converse shows our extreme and loving patience. But if he continues to support that which is not Biblical and calls it such, he is indeed then a heretic and a traitor to the faith whether he means to be or not.
"I'll give you that right."
Thanks a lot, Marty, but it's not yours to give. :) The truth SHOULD be a stumbling block to those who don't abide the truth. It's supposed to make them stumble and then when they stand up, brush themselves off and look for what tripped them, they will see the truth. What they do then is up to them but if one of the actions they take is to continue publishing comments that counter the truth, then we must continue to put that stumbling block before them again and again and again.
You're good Marshall, really good at what you do here. I'll give you that.
But I disagree with you, mostly but not completely.
I should have said I'll concede you that right. I knew as soon as I hit publish how you'd respond to that one. LOL
Marty, I'm trying to be concise but I acknowledge that I run the risk of appearing flippant.
Is it inappropriate to tell a professing, self-described atheist he doesn't believe in God?
I ask, because of where you say you draw the line: "When you begin to accuse someone of 'not believing'."
In the case of a professing, self-described atheist, I wouldn't be telling him anything he hasn't already claimed to be true. He already claims that he does not believe in God, so I don't see the problem with restating that claim.
The same thing holds true for the theory you presented as a possible biblical interpretation that you don't necessarily hold.
"One can say that the people themselves and those writing the scriptures truly believed that it was God telling them to do these things, but in reality it was their own evil minds telling them to do these things and God didn't have anything to do with it."
If a person dismisses the Bible's descriptions of God as evil delusions, it's plain to see that he doesn't accept the Bible's comprehension description of God, and that leads INEVITABLY to the conclusion that, even if he could be said to worship God in some way, he CERTAINLY does not worship God AS THE BIBLE DESCRIBES HIM.
In other words, he doesn't worship the God of the Bible.
I think that's an entirely fair conclusion to draw, and the only conclusion that can be drawn: if a person dismisses AS EVIL DELUSIONS the Bible's description of God, he does not worship the God of the Bible.
I don't understand your taking offense at that conclusion, unless you require others to believe (or at least pay lip-service to the claim) that everybody already believes in the God of the Bible, regardless of what they say they believe, including even explicit rejections of the God of the Bible.
But if you do take that position, I do hope your consistent about it: I hope you wouldn't dare suggest that anyone doesn't believe in the God of the Bible if they reject some particular teaching from the Bible -- such as the the teachings that we should love our neighbors, love our enemies, and care for the poor.
You apparently think it's wrong to tell a person he doesn't worship the God of the Bible if he attributes some of the Bible's difficult teachings to literally evil delusion.
I presume that you still think it's wrong to tell him he doesn't worship the God of the Bible if he believes that we should let the poor starve to death.
Your doing so would at least be consistent, though still quite bizarre.
"Is it inappropriate to tell a professing, self-described atheist he doesn't believe in God?"
Is it appropriate?
No.
Why would you even bother to tell him? My best friend is an athiest. What I have told her is that I've seen God in her (it's the truth) even though she doesn't recognize it. When I told her that she just smiled and gave me a hug and said "I love you". I just hugged her back and told her I loved her too. She tells me she finds strength through my faith and her husband's (he's a christian and faithfullly attends church).
"I don't understand your taking offense at that conclusion"
No offense was taken I assure you.
"You apparently think it's wrong to tell a person he doesn't worship the God of the Bible if he attributes some of the Bible's difficult teachings to literally evil delusion.
I presume that you still think it's wrong to tell him he doesn't worship the God of the Bible if he believes that we should let the poor starve to death."
I suppose a person could come to that conclusion based on Jesus' teaching that we will always have the poor with us, but he would not always be with us. As if to say the presence of Jesus was more imporant than a hungry belly. Someone could say then why bother to feed them if they have Jesus. I would disagree with their interpretation of that passage, but would never presume whether they worshiped the God of the Bible or not. Only God could know that.
Marty, I appreciate your honesty and consistency, but I don't understand your position.
It seems to me that worshipping the God of the Bible requires a few prerequisite beliefs.
A man must believe in God generally in order to believe in the God of the Bible specifically, to say nothing of worshipping Him, so I believe it *IS* true -- if not always polite -- to say that an atheist doesn't worship the God of the Bible.
More than that, worshipping the God of the Bible entails the belief that God inspired the Bible, or at least the belief that the Bible accurately describes God.
If a person believes that the Bible's description of God includes the result of literally evil delusions rather than divine revelation, it's a simple and straightforward fact that, whatever deity the man worships, his conception of that deity is NOT biblical. It can't be biblical, because he dismisses parts of the biblical description as literal delusion.
With Thanksgiving approaching, I'll be out of pocket for a while, but I'll check in next week to see if this thread still lies relatively dormant.
If Dan hasn't completely abandoned this discussion, I would appreciate his answering my questions.
In the meantime, I believe that Dan's positions are untenable.
If he dismisses the account of Ananias' death as untrustworthy because the witnesses were such unscientific people, just how can he say that he believes in the far more astounding miracle of Christ's bodily Resurrection?
If Luke didn't get the facts straight in his account of Acts -- since stories evolve -- just how can Dan know that Luke's reporting is accurate when it comes to Dan's Favorite Sermons of Christ?
And if he interprets some of the Old Testament's central narrative as allegory, what does he do with the rest of the indispensible history? Is it all allegory, or does the story switch repeatedly (and imperceptibly) between allegory and history?
Is either approach even remotely plausible? I don't think so.
Dan's current explanation for the Bible's difficult passages is unnecessary: these passages are far more easily reconciled to the rest of Scripture by concluding that taking human life is God's prerogative rather than an intrinsic evil.
But his current explanation is not only unnecessary and frankly absurd, I question whether he really believes it. Dan used to write that the passages were "less than perfect" revelation, and he speculated that they reflect Israel's experience of God rather than God's revelation to Israel -- going so far as to speculate that the passages were post-exilic revenge fantasies, not a million miles away from Marty's theoretical evil delusion.
My theory -- completely unprovable but quite sensible -- is that Dan realizes that his stated love for the Bible is far too obviously undermined by an outright rejection of the accuracy and authority of so much of what it actually teaches.
So, instead of dismissing the passages as error, he dismisses them as imagery. THERE IS NO REASON FROM THE TEXT to conclude that even THE PASSOVER is allegory, but it's easier to hide one's contempt for what the Bible actually teaches by clinging to quite impossible figurative interpretations, than it is by admitting that you think the text is full of simple error.
"Marty, I appreciate your honesty and consistency, but I don't understand your position."
I know you don't Bubba and I really don't know how to help you understand it.
It's really simple for me. If someone tells me that they believe in Jesus and are saved by grace through that faith, then I accept them as my brother or sister in Christ. How they interpret this or that passage is between them and God. I may disagree and share with them what that passage means to me, but I don't rely on "a few prerequisite beliefs" to determine if one really worships the God of the Bible or not. Determining that, in my mind at least, is reserved for God alone.
Happy Thanksgiving to all.
I was off enjoying, playing, praying and worshiping with my church at a church retreat this weekend and have thus been indisposed. I'd ask Bubba WHY he thinks my answering some of his questions will help when they haven't helped repatedly thus far. I don't mind answering questions at all (witness the ten thousand answered thus far), but when it only (mostly) produces false understandings of what I believe - and those false understandings uttered in uncivil and ungracious tones - one has to wonder why I ought to continue to answer, only to be misunderstood yet again.
Nonetheless...
Bubba said...
In the meantime, I believe that Dan's positions are untenable.
Understood that you think so. With the understanding that I think your positions tend to be logically and biblically untenable, as well.
Bubba said...
If he dismisses the account of Ananias' death as untrustworthy because the witnesses were such unscientific people, just how can he say that he believes in the far more astounding miracle of Christ's bodily Resurrection?
I have not dismissed the account of Ananias' death as untrustworthy. I have said that THE INTERPRETATION of the words that insist that the story can only be taken to mean that God killed Ananias and Sapphira is not trustworthy. The text says what it says. It does not say that God killed them and it certainly does not insist that this is the one and only way to understand it.
See the difference?
Bubba said...
If Luke didn't get the facts straight in his account of Acts -- since stories evolve -- just how can Dan know that Luke's reporting is accurate when it comes to Dan's Favorite Sermons of Christ?
The sermons were/are an integral part of the teachings of Jesus. They were probably repeated over and over and, as some have rightly noted, such repetition was part of the process of how they memorized and reliably held on to such teachings. When I referenced the story evolving, I was more referring more to modern interpretations of biblical stories. The actual text does not say God killed Ananias. People have taken it that way, preachers have preached it that way, Sunday School teachers have taught it that way over and over until many people have come to believe that this is what the text says (when it doesn't) and that this is the one and only way the text can be interpreted, which the Bible does not support.
See the difference?
It's like the story of the feeding of the 5,000. A miracle, right? Jesus magically produced food for thousands of people out of 2 fishes and five loaves of bread, right?
Except that the text does not say that. The text just says that Jesus split the bread and there was enough for everyone. Could the REAL miracle be that poor, hungry people were hording their food, but when a little boy shared of what he had, the spirit of sharing caught on and it turns out there WAS enough for 5,000?
I don't know. The text does not say that, either. It does not call it a miracle, nor does it claim people ended up sharing. It just says there was enough.
BUT, we have heard it preached and taught and repeated that it WAS a magical miracle and that this is the one and only way of understanding that.
This is the evolution of stories that I'm mostly speaking of. Our modern understanding of stories based on modern reading and study styles that are anachronistically applied to ancient texts leads us to demand that some stories MUST be read one way and one way only and when we do that, we have stepped beyond the text.
I'm sure I'm mistaken, though...
Bubba said...
And if he interprets some of the Old Testament's central narrative as allegory, what does he do with the rest of the indispensible history? Is it all allegory, or does the story switch repeatedly (and imperceptibly) between allegory and history?
I have not said that it is all allegory. I have stated fairly clearly and repeatedly that these are likely real stories based on real people. I have just said that...
1. We can't know if the facts are all exactly right in most of them
2. In most of them, the "facts" are not central to the storyline and the Truth being taught
3. And if we get hung up on the facts, we risk losing sight of the Truth.
And we'd be wrong to do that.
Is either approach even remotely plausible? I don't think so.
You are free to think so. I think it incredibly implausible to suggest that God sometimes commands the killing of innocent babies. You're welcome to your hunch. I'll stick to mine, thanks.
"They were probably repeated over and over and, as some have rightly noted, such repetition was part of the process of how they memorized and reliably held on to such teachings."
What it sounds like you're saying, Dan, is that when you agree or like what is stated in Scripture, then, and only then, is the story or info repeated over and over accurately. However, when we are speaking of the miraculous, somehow the constant repetition went astray somewhere. Is that an accurate interpretation of what you just said? How is it that all the stories regarding the miraculous were not repeated accurately throughout history, but only SOME teachings of and about Christ and the Father were? You can't have it both ways.
As far as specific language, if a story has been understood to mean a miracle took place, don't you think that something so fantastic would have been corrected somewhere at the source? Yet, less fantastic things, like the SOTM (by fantastic I mean miraculous stuff) came down through the ages unchanged. This seems mighty convenient to your position.
Marshall said...
What it sounds like you're saying, Dan, is that when you agree or like what is stated in Scripture, then, and only then, is the story or info repeated over and over accurately. However, when we are speaking of the miraculous, somehow the constant repetition went astray somewhere.
You're getting closer but not quite there yet. What I'm saying is that you are reading the Bible as if it were written in a modern time with modern writing mechanisms and styles and it wasn't, so you are drawing possibly incorrect conclusions.
I'm saying that when the Bible teaches Truths, it does so clearly and consistently.
It IS wrong to murder.
We OUGHT to love everyone, even our enemies.
We OUGHT to stand up with and for the least of these.
We OUGHT to live lives of simplicity, being content with what we have.
God DID create this world and we ARE to tend it well.
We OUGHT NOT harm innocent ones.
Etc, etc, etc. It's not hard to understand these truths and the Bible is quite clear and consistent in these teachings. BUT, when we start trying to misapply modern norms to ancient Scripture, we err by thinking that OUR modern cultures and norms are the one and only right way of reading and thinking about things. It is cultural chauvinism and makes for poor biblical exegesis.
That's what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with it. (I didn't agree with the notion of gay marriage, for instance, I was not always a pacifist or a simple living advocate for instance - I have had to change my morals to align with the teaching found in the Bible's clear truths. So, your charge makes no sense given the facts of the situation.)
It has everything to do with striving to seek God's will and understand as best we can an infinite God without striving to remake that God in our image.
But you're making assumptions nonetheless. Though you may THINK the "truths" you list are easy to understand, how do you know that they were handed down accurately or that we are understanding the ancient ways of writing in a manner that doesn't distort these? Do you have any evidence to support the notion that we are NOT understanding the miraculous properly, or in other words, that we haven't had such passed down as accurately as you believe the teachings of Christ were handed down? Don't forget, just as God didn't literally write down the OT, Jesus didn't personally write down anything, either, as far as we know. Are you suggesting that the NT stuff regarding Jesus' teachings were handed down without human error but that which appears to be testimony of the miraculous was not?
To a large extent, it seems you care more for the teachings than for the teacher. If what the Bible says about Christ, and indeed what it says about what He said about Himself are suspect, then the teachings are equally suspect to the extent that it is a judgement call as to whether or not anyone need abide.
Strive to understand that I'm not saying the Bible is suspect. I'm saying many modern [and some not-so-modern] interpretations of the Bible's various teachings and points are suspect.
I'm not saying that "Love your enemies" is suspect at all. It's verified by the bible itself as well as other ways. However, the teaching "sometimes God might command us to kill innocent children," THAT INTERPRETATION is suspect.
In other words, I don't have a problem with the Bible, but with SOME OF YOUR interpretations of the Bible.
Do you think that maybe it's the case that some people conflate and mistake their interpretation with the Bible?
"Do you think that maybe it's the case that some people conflate and mistake their interpretation with the Bible?"
Well that's kinda what this whole conversation has been about, hasn't it? But you seem to only question what isn't expressed in specific terms on one had, but make giant leaps without specific language on the other. We know that Christ performed miracles. He has even said so. When asked by John the Baptist through others if Jesus was the Messiah, he replied that they should tell John about the lame walking, the blind seeing, etc. The Bible is specific about Jesus turning water into wine, walking on water and other miracles. This would indicate something about Christ that speaks to who He is in a manner that lends more importance to what He teaches. That is, that God is directly telling us how to live. That's a significant difference compared to just some pious dude telling us how to live.
Further, since we know miracles have happened, as stated specifically in the Bible, we can then easily conclude who was responsible for the dropping dead out of the blue of both Anannias and his ol' lady. It's not a great leap at all
Still further, the number of events in the OT, together with the tales of judgement, hell being so bad that Jesus simply warns, "Choose life!", that we can easily affirm that God's wrath and jealous nature is indeed great. So great that the destruction of towns and villages down to the last living creature directly or through Hebrew armies is NOT a leap, particularly when we are told that God's way is not our way. You demand a reason why He would do such a thing. Without it, you reject it as something related improperly or interpreted improperly. But that which appeals is accurate. You're picking and choosing based on your own sense of justice and goodness, not deferring to the very real liklihood that God might command things that you find objectionable, and do so with good reason that He chooses not to impart to you. No. There, the writers were being less than accurate. There the writers were being metaphorical for reasons unknown. There the scholars who would come later would be incapable of properly interpreting THOSE passages.
Yet as we read the entire Book, we see far less inconsistencies and can resolve these issues in a far tighter manner than speculation about the authors' abilities, the abilities of later peoples to accurately carry forth the story in it's entirety (and not just the parts Dan likes), or the abilities of later scholars to accurately interpret the entire book and not just those areas Dan finds appealing to his sensitivities.
This is what seems to separate us. There seems to be far more speculation on your part than on ours to get to our individual conclusions. It all ties together nicely for us. For you, not so much. That leaves you with far more room to create for yourself something that is just as you'd like it to be.
It ties nicely together IF you don't think it a ridiculous and offensive thing to suggest that the perfect God of Love and Justice would command people to kill innocent children.
As it is, your position is logically and biblically unsustainable to me. You are welcome to your position, but I shall think you're WAYYYYY off when it comes to good biblical understanding of the nature of God.
You can, of course, disagree with me. What you CAN'T realistically do is say we disagree because you love the Bible and I despise it. It is precisely out of respect for the Bible and - more importantly - seeking God's Will that I disagree with your hunches as to when to take the Bible literally and when not to do so.
On Annanias and Saphira.
Couldn't they have just as easily dropped dead of heart attacks from the shock of being found out. I mean really guys, they sold their land and then held some of the money back. Secretly I'd suppose. Who would go and blab about that little selfish behavior? So when they were exposed for the liars and frauds that they were, it shocked the hell out of of 'em and their hearts couldn't take it. I mean, that is possible, right?
Entirely. My point, to be clear, is not to say that miraculous things don't occur in the Bible, just that they don't tend to be the point of the stories.
Indeed, Jesus rebuked the pharisees...
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you."
He [Jesus] said to them in reply, "An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign..."
The signs and miracles are the lesser part of the story. The greater part of the stories tend to be that God is love, that we are to love, that we are to be there for the least of these, for our neighbor, for our enemy.
As I have said, I don't have a problem with saying, for instance, that Jonah may have been literally swallowed by a literal "great fish." I'm saying, it's not the point of the story, and to get hung up on facts is to run the risk of missing the point of the story.
My problem is not with miracles in the Bible. My problem is with people being hung up on them and even finding miracles where none are proclaimed and saying "THIS and this interpretation alone is the one true interpretation that God wishes us to have!"
To my way of thinking, a hungry child sharing his few loaves and fishes and invoking a sharing frenzy is a MUCH more impressive miracle than mere magic tricks like pulling fish out of Jesus' hat.
I certainly believe in the miraculous. I see them too often and am too impressed by them not to be.
From Luke 1
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
To establish that Luke's intention was to take eyewitness accounts and provide an accurate account of events that happened.
From Luke 9
"16Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke them. Then he gave them to the disciples to set before the people. 17They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over."
What in this would you to conclude that there were more than 5 loaves and 2 fish?
Again from Luke 9
" 20"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Peter answered, "The Christ[a] of God."
21Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. 22And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life."
Why would one disbelieve Jesus when he says he MUST suffer, be rejected, and be killed?
From Luke 9 & 10
"6So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere. "
"9Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you.' "
Notice; no mention of feeding the hungry, or freeing slaves, economic "justice".
From Luke 10,
"10But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' 12I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.
13"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.[b]"
Sounds like Jesus thought the the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was something that actually happened (or that He actually did). Also sounds like Jesus thought that the miracles had a fair degree of value. Also sounds like Jesus was condemning at least some "innocent" people will be going "down to the depths".
Or maybe this is an area where we can't trust Luke, it's all very confusing.
Yes, sharing is SOOOOO much more miraculous that creating something from nothing.
Yes, it is Craig. At least to me. Just like overcoming an enemy by befriending him is a much greater miracle than having an angel with a death sword wipe out a million "bad guys," at least to me.
Some people are more impressed with magic than "ordinary" miracles. Not me. To each his own, I guess.
Craig said...
To establish that Luke's intention was to take eyewitness accounts and provide an accurate account of events that happened.
After quoting Luke, which concluded...
so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke tells us quite specifically WHY he tried to account for things: SO THAT you can know "the things you have been taught."
THAT is exactly what I'm saying. What WERE the things that Jesus taught? To love our enemies, to turn the other cheek, to feed, aid, comfort and clothe the least of these, to overcome evil with good, to beware the trappings of wealth, to not worry, to not seek after "all these THINGS," to be people of grace, to eschew the hypocrisy of the religious pharisees, to be people of justice, to NOT live by the sword, to learn that God desires mercy, not sacrifice, etc, etc.
THESE are the BIG TRUTHS that Jesus taught and that is what Luke wanted us to grasp. And so, whether or not there was a magical type of miracle in feeding the 5,000 or a more "every day" sort of miracle found in sharing, whether any of the miracles were actual magical miracles (and I'm not saying they weren't) is rather besides the point. The miracles were for a faithless and stubborn generation. The bigger truth is to believe in Jesus' actual teachings.
For at least some of us, there are no greater miracles than the miracles of sharing, of grace, of mercy, of offering a cup of cold water to a child or enemy in need.
Amen.
Dan, I think my questions are useful even if they are never clearly answered -- and they're often not -- because the questions highlight the absurdity of your positions and the less-than-forthright manner in which you explain your positions.
You write:
"I have not dismissed the account of Ananias' death as untrustworthy. I have said that THE INTERPRETATION of the words that insist that the story can only be taken to mean that God killed Ananias and Sapphira is not trustworthy. The text says what it says. It does not say that God killed them and it certainly does not insist that this is the one and only way to understand it."
It most certainly seemed like you dismissed the account as untrustworthy, because you didn't merely focus on the conclusion that God killed Ananias: you questioned the VERY explicit claim that Ananias died in the first place.
"I suspect that this reflects a literally true story from the early church. True in the sense that there probably was an Ananias and Sapphira and that they probably DID try to not share freely and lied about it and that they may have even died."
Acts is clear that the two people did exist: you write that "there probably was" two such people.
Acts is clear that the couple were deceptive: you write that "they probably DID" lie to the church.
Acts is clear that the couple died: as if you're being oh-so-generous to the text, you write, "they may have even died."
And on top of all this, in the next two paragraphs you denigrate the eyewitnesses by calling them "pre-scientific," and you undermine the account by writing that stories evolve.
And you're not questioning whether the account is trustworthy?
Pardon the uncivil and ungracious tones, but you're so full of shit, Dan, it defies description.
Craig asked...
Why would one disbelieve Jesus when he says he MUST suffer, be rejected, and be killed?
Who disbelieves? I think it is quite obvious that Jesus suffered was rejected and killed. I'm unsure of your point, here.
Sounds like Jesus thought the the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was something that actually happened (or that He actually did). Also sounds like Jesus thought that the miracles had a fair degree of value. Also sounds like Jesus was condemning at least some "innocent" people will be going "down to the depths".
Or maybe this is an area where we can't trust Luke, it's all very confusing.
I actually dig Luke pretty well. It's YOUR interpretation of Luke that I think is sometimes found wanting.
I don't know how many times I need to say it: I'm not opposed to the Bible. I LOVE the Bible. I take it quite seriously.
It's not the Bible I'm in opposition to. It's some of your interpretations of the Bible.
Again, we need not mistake OUR interpretation of the Bible with the actual Word of God. It's that kind of thing that makes some of us wonder who is worshiping whom/what.
Bubba said...
Pardon the uncivil and ungracious tones, but you're so full of shit, Dan, it defies description.
Okay. You're pardoned.
Now, Dan, about the supposed allegories within the Old Testament's central historical narrative, you write:
"I have not said that it is all allegory. I have stated fairly clearly and repeatedly that these are likely real stories based on real people."
Okay, then I take it your position is that the overarching narrative in the Old Testament oscillates -- imperceptibly, invisibly, and frequently -- between allegory and history.
This is what's untenable: it's simply absurd.
You continue:
"I have just said that...
1. We can't know if the facts are all exactly right in most of them
2. In most of them, the "facts" are not central to the storyline and the Truth being taught
3. And if we get hung up on the facts, we risk losing sight of the Truth.
"And we'd be wrong to do that."
That position sounds noble enough, but it doesn't jive with the example given to us, not only by Christ's hand-picked Apostles, but by Jesus Christ Himself.
The Apostle Paul justified his position that we are justified by grace and not works -- a position that you apparently defend -- by noting that Abraham was justified long before he was circumcized.
The chronology matters.
And Jesus Christ Himself justified His affirmation of the resurrection of the dead by pointing to A SINGLE VERB TENSE in the Torah: "I AM the God of Abraham," not "I was."
Even individual verb tenses matter.
In fact, I have it on good authority that it all matters: even the smallest jot and tittle.
About the feeding of the multitudes, I'll remind you that John pointed to this miracle as one of the seven signs.
The other six is turning water to wine, curing the nobleman's son, curing the paralytic, walking on water, giving sight to the blind, and raising Lazarus.
If the feeding of the multitude wasn't a literal miracle, it kinda doesn't belong in that list.
But what gets me is why you would even suggest that the feeding wasn't a literal miracle. SUPPOSEDLY you believe in the bodily Resurrection, a far greater act.
Now, about the "Truths" of the Bible, you write:
"I'm saying that when the Bible teaches Truths, it does so clearly and consistently.
It IS wrong to murder.
We OUGHT to love everyone, even our enemies.
We OUGHT to stand up with and for the least of these.
We OUGHT to live lives of simplicity, being content with what we have.
God DID create this world and we ARE to tend it well.
We OUGHT NOT harm innocent ones.
"Etc, etc, etc."
Once again, certain key claims of Christianity are missing. I will ask you a question I've now asked repeatedly, a question that you have yet to answer clearly.
Dan, do you include Christ's bodily Resurrection, His Crucifixion, His Incarnation, and His very historical existence among these "Truths"?
Dan:
"The signs and miracles are the lesser part of the story. The greater part of the stories tend to be that God is love, that we are to love, that we are to be there for the least of these, for our neighbor, for our enemy."
The Bible teaches this, where, exactly? The same place that convinced you that God blesses gay marriage despite Christ's explicit teaching about why we were created male and female? The same place that convinced you that "overcome evil with good" implies pacifism, even though Paul wrote, in the very next passage, that the government does not bear the sword in vain?
And, again, the question is raised:
Do you say this of all miracles, INCLUDING the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Even though Paul taught that, if Christ wasn't raised, we're still dead in our sins?
Frankly, I think the miracles ARE important, because they confirm that Jesus is who He said He is.
And who Jesus is and what He does is more important than what we are to do: if you disagree, you come perilously close to embrace a works-based religion.
Dan:
"For at least some of us, there are no greater miracles than the miracles of sharing, of grace, of mercy, of offering a cup of cold water to a child or enemy in need.
"Amen."
And some us preach Christ crucified, buried, and resurrected.
Our difference of opinion wouldn't be so grating if you didn't pretend your Hallmark-card philosophy has any real resemblance to biblical Christianity.
You write, "The miracles were for a faithless and stubborn generation. The bigger truth is to believe in Jesus' actual teachings."
The problem is, the "actual teachings" include the teaching that Jesus must suffer and die, to be raised on the third day.
And, frankly, your emphasis on Jesus' teachings would be a little more believable if there were evidence that you believe Him when He affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke; when He taught why we were created male and female; AND WHEN HE TAUGHT THAT HIS BLOOD WAS SHED FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
You know, Jesus' actual teachings.
And, Dan:
"Okay. You're pardoned."
I noticed you didn't actually address the substance of my comment: the fact that it's clearly not accurate that you accept as trustworthy Acts' record regarding Ananias.
You're playing the game very well, pretending that ours is a difference only of interpretation and that you really do love the Bible and respect its teachings.
The problem is, too many of your interpretations -- e.g., that the Old Testament's historical narrative slips imperceptibly and repeatedly into allegory -- are not the least bit reasonable.
They're fig leaves, almost certainly intended to obscure the fact that you really dismiss the passages altogether: you used to be honest in questioning the passages' authority and veracity (by saying that they were "less than perfect" revelations, and speculating about Jewish revenge fantasies) but now you appeal to vague and utterly implausible alternative interpretations.
The net result is still the same.
You do not attempt to conform your beliefs to what the Bible teaches; you attempt to pervert the Bible into what you already believe, which you justify -- blasphemously -- as "God's word written on your heart."
On the question of God's taking of human life and His occasional command to do so, this rigmarole is not the least bit necessary. Instead of clinging to the un-Scriptural and anti-biblical premise that taking human life is intrinsically wrong, you could consider the possibility that it's God's prerogative and that our taking human life is wrong except when God chooses to take life through human agency. If you did that, it would all fall into place.
The rest -- the emphasis on so-called "social justice" and the de-emphasis on why Christ died and the fact that He bodily rose, and on the authority of Scripture and the complementary nature of the sexes -- is just a rather blatant attempt to use God's written word to justify your own pet political philosophy.
Speaking of Annanias and Sapphira Bubba said "Acts is clear that the two people did exist"
It would appear so, but scholars don't necessarily agree. Some think that this is the story of Achan (Joshua 7) being re-told.
I don't have a clue. I ain't no scholar. But the big truth of the story is that you can't lie to God and get away with it.
And, yet, Marty, you seem content to entertain the thought that the writers of the Bible lied about God and got away with it.
There are scholars who believe that Jesus never existed, that He is an amalgam of pagan myths. Nevertheless, the Bible is clear in its teaching that Jesus is an actual figure of history.
Just because some scholars theorize that the Bible is not to be trusted, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that the Bible is unclear about its claims.
Obviously, I had some extra time tonight, but in case I'm away for the duration of the Thanksgiving holiday, I do hope Dan would actually provide some clear answers to those questions I've reiterated time and again. I doubt he will, and that lack of a clear answer will itself be informative.
And, Marty, I really wish you would stop trying to undermine any discussion of the fundamentals of Christian faith, on the apparent idea that all we need to do is remind each other that God is nice, and that we should be nice to each other. In Christianity, doctrine really does matter, regardless of whether you have a problem with that or not.
"Hallmark-card philosophy"
What an apt analogy! Especially as regards the subject of miracles. Lots of people consider the mundane miraculous. I mean mundane compared to walking on water, or parting the Red Sea.
But people seeking to engage in honest discussion and debate wouldn't use the word so loosely. The word has a specific meaning and even "the birth of a child" doesn't qualify as a bonafide miracle.
"Luke tells us quite specifically WHY he tried to account for things: SO THAT you can know "the things you have been taught.""
And those things wouldn't include the miraculous? To discount them as secondary to whatever "lesson" might be a part of an event misses important aspects of who God/Christ is. Indeed, what difference does it make to speak of God at all if the "truths" are supposedly the point?
On top of that, you wish to believe that only love describes the nature of God, as if He is that one dimensional. A god that has no capacity for anger, for justice provoked by a righteous anger, leaves us with no reason to suspect that there is any penalty for not abiding the all important "truths" for which you feel the Bible exists to teach us.
In a very real way, Dan, you preach of a Walt Disney presentation of God. A presentation that smooths over the rougher aspects so as not to offend the more sensitive viewer. You find it hard to believe in a loving God who's anger and jealous nature can yield intense and violent repurcussions should He deem such necessary. But then, it's easier to mold Him into a god easier to worship and follow, than to accept the reality of His nature as revealed to us in Scripture.
"And, yet, Marty, you seem content to entertain the thought that the writers of the Bible lied about God and got away with it."
There you go Bubba. Doing it again. Misrepresenting what was said. I never said the writers of the Bible lied about God.
"I do hope Dan would actually provide some clear answers to those questions I've reiterated time and again. I doubt he will, and that lack of a clear answer will itself be informative."
He has provided clear answers. Again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
"And, Marty, I really wish you would stop trying to undermine any discussion of the fundamentals of Christian faith"
What fundamentals of the faith? Those you've deemed are fundamental? You undermine when you accuse a brother in Christ of blasphemy because his reading of scripture doesn't jive with yours.
Where I grew up the right you have to read and interpret scripture for YOURSELF was called the priesthood of the believer. Guess it's meaning has changed over the years. Or perhaps there is no such thing in some circles anymore. It used to be said of Baptists..."you can put 10 of them in a room with a scripture verse and you'll get 10 different interpretations." I guess that's not allowed anymore.
Marty, it simply is not true that Dan has provided clear answers -- even once -- to many of our difficult and inconvenient questions.
And it's simply not the case that we deny all good-faith disagreement over interpretation just because we find Dan's particular interpretations so ridiculous and ultimately so at-odds with biblical Christianity.
The details matter, and there are interpretations that are so ridiculous and so antithetical to orthodoxy that they cannot be accepted within the bounds of reasonable disagreement.
You're making the same mistake Dan has frequently made, framing our objections as if the problem is that we disagree per se, rather than the fact that Dan apparently believes the Bible's account of the Passover is ahistorical; and that the Bible is unclear about the Virgin Birth; and that the Bible contains sexism and bigotry in what Paul taught and commanded.
You write, "I never said the writers of the Bible lied about God."
Well, I didn't say you did. I wrote that you seem content to entertain the possibility. When you write that a valid interpretation of Scripture is that it was the result of a literally evil delusion, you do entertain that possibility.
You suggest that some might say, about some certain difficult command recorded in Scripture, the idea really came from "their own evil minds telling them to do these things" and "God didn't have anything to do with it."
Well, if God had nothing to do with the command, and yet the Bible's writers attribute the command to God, they would be guilty of misrepresenting Him.
Worse, they would be guilty of literal blasphemy, attributing to God things that are not true about Him.
Funny how you have a real problem with the spectre of blasphemy when discussing what Dan writes, but not the writings of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, Peter, James, John, and Paul.
"What fundamentals of the faith? Those you've deemed are fundamental? You undermine [sic] when you accuse a brother in Christ of blasphemy because his reading of scripture doesn't jive with yours."
It's not clear what you think I undermine, but there are obvious fundamental doctrines that Dan seems to deny.
He seems to deny that Christ died for our sins, and he seems to deny that Christ's death is even essential.
("...if Jesus lived to be 70 and died of old age, we would STILL be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.")
And though he claims to believe personally in the historical, bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, he seems to believe that that historical, bodily Resurrection isn't an issue about which all Christians must agree.
These are at least some of the fundamental doctrines that he denies, and they very serious indeed.
The KEY line in most of what you've said, Bubba is, "it SEEMS..." as in, "it SEEMS TO ME - BUBBA - that this is what Dan is saying. He hasn't said that, in fact, he's said just the opposite of much of what I've suggested it SEEMS (to me, Bubba) like he means. THIS is what I, BUBBA, think Dan means when he says something else altogether."
SEEMS TO BUBBA, that is the key difference between what he's thinking and what I've actually said. He SEEMS to find things in what I've said that just aren't there in the actual words.
And this, from the "inerrantist." If brother Bubba can't accurately understand my words written from the same culture and in the same language mere days ago, it does not fill me with confidence that he can accurately assess what the Bible is saying, since it was written over millenia, over hundreds of years ago, in different cultures and languages.
No joke Dan. No joke. Sheesh.
1. Look, we all agree (I think) that IF God wanted to, God could create a Bible using only parables, only metaphors, only imagery and very little fact. IF God wanted to. God could have created a Bible using talking animals, as in Aesop's fables, IF God wanted to, right?
I don't think we disagree on the notion that God COULD create a Bible using just about any literary stylism - or any combination of literary stylism - God wanted to.
2. And we further AGREE that God DID do this, to some degree. Clearly, we all agree that there are parables and poems and "history" (setting aside for a minute that we may not all agree on what that looks like), allegory, metaphor, etc, etc. We are agreed that this is what we have in the Bible, right?
3. Further, we AGREE that not each line in the Bible is to be taken literally. Sometimes, people use imagery in conveying a story. Sometimes a whole story is imagery. Sometimes, it drops back and forth between fairly literal and imagery (as in Jesus teaching and then dropping into parables).
I believe we agree on all this, if I'm not mistaken. Then where we DISAGREE, it seems to me, is when it is appropriate to conclude that a story either DEFINITELY is imagery, or when a story MIGHT BE engaging in imagery and when a story MIGHT Be fairly literal and when a story is DEFINITELY literal.
I have asked what criteria you all use to decide when to draw your conclusions and have not had much in response. I believe Craig confirmed that he had criteria fairly similar to mine. I gave a fairly clear (although probably not full) description of my criteria.
Given all that, consider these thoughts from religion-online...
Sorry, bad link above. Try religion-online...
"A work of fiction, for instance, operates differently from a work of history. If David McCullough simply made up some of 'the episodes recounted in his biography of Harry Truman, then that counts as a fraud-it's not as good a book as we thought . s was, not to be trusted after all. But if Charles Dickens made up Oliver Twist, that doesn't make the novel a lie. Since it belongs to the genre "novel," it isn't supposed to report historical facts accurately.
"The distinction between McCullough and Dickens is obvious. Other cases are more difficult. If we pick up one of James Michener's big historical novels, for instance, we know we're reading a work of fiction. Most of the leading characters are imaginary But Michener is famous for his thorough research, and we'll expect that the backgrounds, landscapes and historical contexts are presented with considerable accuracy. If not, then Michener hasn't done his usual homework. If we're reading Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, on the other hand, we soon recognize that Twain is having all sorts of fun with deliberate anachronisms, and we don't expect any sort of historical accuracy. To take another example, if we're reading a movie star's autobiography, we assume it will have a more casual relation to the facts than an academic historian's biography of a British prime minister. Different genres have their different rules...
"The opening chapters of Genesis represent a different genre - Karl Barth called it "saga," "an intuitive and poetic picture of a pre-historical reality of history" (Church Dogmatics 3/1). Events get described which no human being could have witnessed. Animals talk. People live for centuries. We're in a different genre here from that represented by, say, the Gospel narratives of Jesus' last days or the stories of the reign of King David in 2 Samuel, which read much more like eyewitness history.
"In its intuitive, poetic way, saga communicates truths about the ultimate origins of things, just as the narrative history in the Bible presents truth in a different way, stories with a moral lesson like the good Samaritan in another, and the poetry of the Psalms in yet another. "We are," Barth says, "no less truly summoned to listen to what the Bible has to say here in the form of saga than to what it has to say in other places in the form of history, and elsewhere in the form of address, doctrine, law, epigram, epic and lyric." But we listen faithfully only when we realize what genre we are encountering.
"Texts often provide clues as to their genre. When a story begins, "Once upon a time . . ." we expect a fairy tale. When we flip on the television and see someone saying, "A guy walked up to a man in a bar. . ." we know we're watching a comedy club, not the evening news.
"But sometimes, particularly when encountering a text from a different culture [and time and language, I would add], it's hard to recognize the genre...
"Somewhat different from the question of genre is the issue of how different cultures and different authors understand history and its recording...
"if biblical authors wrote in a culture with an attitude different to historical reporting from ours, then they wrote as the products of such a culture. The Gospels, John Calvin once remarked, were not written "in such a manner as to preserve, on all occasions, the exact order of time." "We know that the Evangelists were not very exact as to the order of dates, or even in detailing minutely everything that Christ said or did." The standards of the best modern journalism or critical history were simply not around in the first century, and it's an anachronism to expect the biblical authors to have followed them..."
You can read the full article if you want. The points I'm making are...
1. We don't disagree on taking the Bible seriously.
2. We don't disagree on taking its truths literally.
3. We agree we need to seek God's will, not some human agenda.
4. Where we disagree is when it is and isn't appropriate to consider SOME given lines in the Bible as a literal truth.
You, for instance, think the Bible teaches that God LITERALLY might command us to sometimes kill innocent children (setting aside for the moment that you disagree with the notion that children are innocent!) and I think that taking such a line literally does a disservice to the Bible's teachings and undermines the Bible's authority. You think my disagreeing with you on this point undermines the Bible's authority. But we are all seeking God's will, just disagreeing on which interpretation is best.
Can we just leave it at that and do away with the suggestions of, "Well, if he disagrees with the way I interpret the bible on this point, he obviously hates the Bible and is a liar and trying to set up his own political agenda!"?
I'd suggest that would be the wiser, more grace-full approach.
Dan, the biggest difference between the Bible and what you write isn't the original language, or the time of writing, or the surrounding contemporary culture.
It's that the Bible was written by honest men of character. Your comments are not.
I'm careful to comment on what you seem to believe, not because I have trouble understanding the English language, but because you have proven to be fundamentally dishonest.
You can believe that if you wish - even though you have no evidence to support such a claim - and slander if you wish, I certainly can't stop you.
For my part, I believe you sincerely believe what you say you believe and simply have a difficult time understanding my words and accepting that what I've written is what I believe.
It would be my guess (and it's just a guess, since I don't know you) that you have a problem of cognitive dissonance and are having trouble wrapping your mind around the reality that someone can be an honest Christian AND YET disagree with you on some points.
Good luck with that, brother Bubba, or whatever it is that feeds your hostility and paranoia so. May God's peace be with you.
Dan:
"You, for instance, think the Bible teaches that God LITERALLY might command us to sometimes kill innocent children (setting aside for the moment that you disagree with the notion that children are innocent!) and I think that taking such a line literally does a disservice to the Bible's teachings and undermines the Bible's authority."
1. If you want to set aside the disagreement over whether the lives taken included innocent lives, don't include the adjective at all.
2. On the subject of comprehension skills, no one here has argued that God "might command us" to sacrifice a child or wage wars of annihilation. NO ONE ARGUES THIS. What we argue isn't that God might give us such commands, but that God DID give such commands to Abraham and the nation of ancient Israel: since God will almost certainly not make a covenant with any of us personally, and since God does not lead us through a literal theocracy -- and, instead, we are under a new covenant where, as His church, we're primarily an agent of God's grace and not His wrath -- these OT situations don't seem at all likely to apply to us now.
3. It's clear you don't like what we belief, but that doesn't justify your position that our belief "does a disservice to the Bible's teachings and undermines the Bible's authority."
Since you cannot point to a clear teaching that explicitly contradicts a literal interpretation, AT MOST it does a disservice to the Bible's teachings AS YOU UNDERSTAND THEM -- that is, if you're going to be as modest about YOUR interpretation as you insist for others.
And since a literal interpretation affirms the passage's divine authorship and inerrant content, I don't see how it undermines the authority of the text or the Bible as a whole.
About the Bible and language, it's true that the Bible, like all works of language, frequently switches between literal language and things like metaphor and simile. I readily admit that fact, and I'm not beating around the bush.
(See, there I wrote a literal statement immediately followed by a cliched figure of speech.)
And what you quote is right, that different genres have different rules, and even that the genre of an ancient work may be hard to determine.
BUT GENRES DON'T OSCILLATE.
About the Bible, you write, "Sometimes, it drops back and forth between fairly literal and imagery (as in Jesus teaching and then dropping into parables)."
THE BIBLE DOES NO SUCH THING.
The teaching of the parables are presented as literal historical fact along with the rest of the Gospels.
Matthew 21, for instance, DOES NOT switch between literal history and parable or allegory.
1. Jesus literally entered Jerusalem (21:1-11).
2. Jesus literally drove the moneychangers out of the Temple (12-17).
3. Jesus literally cursed the fig tree, and it withered (18-22).
4. Jesus literally spoke with the religious leaders, addressing their question about His authority to cleanse the temple (23-27)
5. Jesus literally told the parable of the two sons (28-32).
6. Jesus literally told the parable of the householder (33-46).
We know that the parable is part of the same literal historical account, because at the end the priests realized that Jesus was criticizing them.
Now, THE CONTENT OF THE PARABLES are indeed figurative, but THE FACT OF HIS TEACHING THEM is not.
It's not as if the chapter switches imperceptibly between history and allegory in the actual events it relays: it's not as if the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple (somewhat troubling events for some people) can be taken as some allegory while we accept that the triumphant entry and the dialogue with the priests were historical.
The events of 21:33-39 -- where the steward beat beat and killed first the householder's servants and then his sons -- CAN be treated as parable because IT WAS NEVER PRESENTED AS LITERAL HISTORY. It was clearly within Christ's dialogue, and here is a particularly clear instance of a parable because Christ introduces the story with, "Hear another parable:" (Gk, parabole).
What you want to do with the Old Testament -- switching between literal history and allegory -- is something that cannot be justified by the Gospels.
In the Gospels, Christ certainly preached using figurative language including both similes and parables, but the Gospels present all the events of Jesus' life -- INCLUDING the teaching of parables -- as literal, historical events.
Wow. Who's really the one having trouble with understanding. I don't believe anyone's doubted you believe what you say you believe, Dan.
The point has always been what you believe vs how you justify that belief; how you support it Scripturally. From there, what you call literal and what you call figurative is not so clear.
You've asked how I determine which is which. But I simply don't think in terms of processes in that determination. What process would I need to assess a phrase like "four corners of the earth" to be a rhetorical flourish meaning basically "everywhere on earth"? What detailed procedure is required to understand that Jesus is telling a story when He speaks of the Good Samaritan, or any other parable, particularly when He (or Scripture) says it's a parable?
To speak of those examples to put forth the notion that Moses parting the Red Sea, or God destroying entire towns, or God sending and Angel of Death to take out Egypt's first born are figurative, metaphorical or parables is for you to take make an assumption that you can't rationally support.
You simply don't like the idea that God would eliminate an entire town and all it's inhabitants young and old, so you put that in the metaphor category, even though there's nothing in the text that says it's anything but an accurate representation of actual events. YOU say the process you use is that it doesn't match what think the Bible is telling us about God being a loving being.
There's two problems with this. The first is that such behavior doesn't mean God isn't loving. A good parent must sometimes punish his children. It doesn't mean he isn't a loving parent. A judge must often sentence a person to death. It doesn't mean he (or the law) is unloving. And as all life is God's, to do with as HE pleases w/o explaining why to Dan's satisfaction (you DO believe He has that perogative, don't you?), He can certainly remain a loving God while having reason to engage in such behavior.
The second problem is that your process of comparing one aspect of God's nature as unlikely because there aren't enough examples of it compared with verses describing His love is rather a childish way of looking at things. This is the same foolishness that brings about your arguments from silence regarding homo marriage. How many times does God have to say something for you to abide it or believe it? What is the minimum for you? The text tells us of God's wrath, Jesus speaks of Scripture as authoritative, but that's not enough for YOU? Rather arrogant, if you ask me.
continued---
Dan, you write that it would be wise and graceful to drop the invective:
"Can we just leave it at that and do away with the suggestions of, 'Well, if he disagrees with the way I interpret the bible on this point, he obviously hates the Bible and is a liar and trying to set up his own political agenda!'?"
As I pointed out before, you seem quite willing to use harsh words to criticize those who disagree with you about a particular interpretation.
"I DON'T think that we ought to spiritualize Jesus' teachings ('well, when he said "Good news to the poor," he didn't mean LITERALLY for the poor, but something more symbolic...') - that to me is anti-Christ, to deny his words and we ought be careful about that sort of thing." (emphasis mine)
I don't remember you ever retracting this comment.
For that matter, you still invoke the spectre of idolatry in criticizing inerrantists, as a matter of course.
Your call for what you say is wise and graceful behavior is hypocritical.
Even if it were consistent, it wouldn't be right. One should be careful about not being too quick to draw harsh conclusions, but such conclusions are sometimes necessary and must sometimes be aired. Paul cursed those who preached a different gospel, John wrote that those who deny Christ's coming in the flesh were anti-Christ, and our Lord Himself taught us that we must sometimes ostracize brothers who are unrepentant about flagrant sin.
And, for the record, the problem is not simply that I disagree with you. I concluded our discussion at Craig's, and I've repeatedly noted here that the problem is in the details of what you believe and how you go about defending and even presenting your beliefs.
And, for what it's worth, Dan, I'm not sure you really believe it's not graceful and wise for me to conclude in public that, from what you've written, you're a liar who's working to subvert the Bible's clear teachings to advance your political agenda.
After all, you have no problem speculating that I'm suffering from cognitive dissonance and paranoia.
You disagree with my conclusions.
Ahem.
Can't we just leave it at that?
Of course we can't: you want to rule as out-of-bounds the conclusion that you're a liar whose true religion is political progressivism with only Christian ornamentation, but you keep for yourself the right to accuse others of paranoia and slander inerrantists as idolators.
That's because you're a hypocrite.
Your link is also suspect for much of the same reasons. It speaks of the Genesis tale as metaphor or a cultural representation of events. Again, that assumes God's power isn't great enough to form the universe in just the manner described. I put nothing beyond God's ability, even the ability to create all in six days with the effect of that being that to us it appears that it must have taken longer. To look at it any other way puts faith in man's ability to understand above faith in God's almighty power.
Later, the author speaks of the Gospel writers not being precise in the chronology of events. This is hardly the same as saying the events didn't happen as depicted. And it's definitely different than saying that certain parts are metaphor or parable if it isn't so stated as such.
So once again, I don't see any real process of yours that isn't totally forced so as to come to a pre-decided conclusion. You'll throw out what doesn't work for you. I'll leave it all in and then make my conclusions based on the entirety of Scripture. I'll leave in all the harsh stuff and realize it is just that from which I need to be saved and Christ's death on the cross, being the perfect atonement for my sins, by virtue of the shedding of His blood, has done just that. It is this belief that allows me the full benefit of God's saving Grace.
Marshall...
I don't believe anyone's doubted you believe what you say you believe, Dan.I don't believe anyone's doubted you believe what you say you believe, Dan.
Bubba [to Dan]...
you're a liar who's working to subvert the Bible's clear teachings to advance your political agenda.
Clear enough? Or, by "Liar" did he not mean that he thinks I am a liar, but something else - that I'm a liar who believes my lies?? And, if someone believes his lies, does that not mean he is NOT a liar (which implies intent) but deceived?
I could be wrong, but I don't think Bubba thinks I believe what I believe. I THINK Bubba thinks I'm deliberately out there trying to deceive people for kicks or something to support a political agenda and that I'm only SAYING that I love the Bible, but don't really even think that.
Maybe I'm mistaken on that point.
Marshall said...
Your link is also suspect for much of the same reasons. It speaks of the Genesis tale as metaphor or a cultural representation of events.
You're begging the question. The question I'm asking is WHY must we consider a given story as being written in a historical format similar to the way one would write history today? That is poor exegesis and anachronistic. It is prejudiced in favor of modernist reading and writing styles and presuming uncritically that the ancients recorded history in a modernist style. It's not logical and it's not biblical.
So, WHY would we assume that when Genesis 1 says the world was created in six days, that the author was employing modern historic storytelling conventions? For what reason, biblical or logical?
I know that to do so conflicts with your scientific understanding of Creation. But for me, I see no reason to assume that the author is speaking metaphorically, particularly in light of God's power. The miraculous does not abide the laws of physics.
It is commonly believed that the author of the first five books is Moses (as I understand it). Moses is said to have had an unique relationship with God. That being said (unless you doubt the honesty of Moses), I have no reason to question anything within those first five books. As you yourself have suggested, larger truths are laid out for us in the Bible. You assume the lack of detail diminishes the veracity of the presentation of events. It seems to me that before you can question the validity of the story, you must establish the quality of the author's character. Is there reason to believe that the author is a liar, incapable of accurately relating events, prone to rhetorical flourish or likely to confusingly alternate between the literal and figurative in a manner that lessens our ability to understand?
I find it much harder to believe that the authors would be careless in their reporting, particularly where they are so greatly and directly influence by God or Christ. Throughout the Bible, most of the contact with God/Christ is verified by witnesses to the events, if not, for example, witness to conversations between, say, Moses and God, then witnesses to God's power made manifest through Moses.
Indeed, I cannot fathom the possibility that one could be so close to God/Christ and remain capable of error in the reporting.
From there, we are left to wonder about the story telling style of the author? The guy's got life and death, salvation and condemnation information to impart and he's going to wax poetic? I don't see that as a logical assumption at all. Particularly when one considers the ultimate source is God or the witness of His power.
Marshall said...
I know that to do so conflicts with your scientific understanding of Creation. But for me, I see no reason to assume that the author is speaking metaphorically, particularly in light of God's power.
This has nothing to do with my "scientific understanding of Creation." It has to do with the Bible and logical Bible Study. What BIBLICAL reason would you have for presuming that the writers wrote in a modernist style that you expect to read in?
It is anachronistic cultural prejudice and poor biblical exegesis to PRESUME that the writers would write in a manner to which Marshall is accustomed. WHY would we do that? What BIBLICAL, LOGICAL reason would we have for reading the Bible in this manner?
Marshall said...
I find it much harder to believe that the authors would be careless in their reporting, particularly where they are so greatly and directly influence by God or Christ.
Again, this seems to reflect a modernist cultural prejudice against the authors of the Bible and ancient writing in general. It is, in effect, saying, "IF the writers of the Bible were SERIOUS about what they were doing, then they would write history in a manner similar to what a 20th century reader would be expecting..."
It makes no sense.
You would find error where the author (or God, if you prefer) was telling a story to tell a truth.
Tell me this, Marshall: IF God appeared to you and said, "My beloved son, WHY are you taking this Genesis story literally? That was NOT my intent in inspiring it in that manner. The people recorded that history in a manner fitting with the times, it was never intended to be taken literally..." What would you say to God? Would you call God a liar? Would you suggest that God was out to subvert Christianity?
Dan:
Do I believe that you honestly believe, for instance, that the Bible's account of the Passover is ahistorical? That Jesus didn't die for our sins, and that a Christian can deny the bodily Resurrection and not abandon the faith? That the Bible records evidence of sexism and bigotry in Paul's commands to the early church? And that Christ's choosing of the Twelve was "a nod" to the surrounding culture's sexism? Yes, I believe that you believe these things.
But do I believe these beliefs are evidence of a sincere love of the Bible as God's written word? Absolutely not.
I also don't believe your claim that careful and prayerful Bible study is the reason you believe that God blesses "gay marriage." Prompted to produce what specific passage convinced you of this, you produce nothing. Instead, you rely on a question-begging argument from AT BEST complete silence. In truth, your argument is in opposition to the Bible's consistent prohibition of homosexual behavior, its consistent portrayal of marriage as heterosexual, and -- most crucially -- Christ's own stated reason for why we were created male and female in the first place. But while you accept the radical's position on absolutely nothing, you apparently demand impossible perfection in support of the traditional view, which is clear evidence that your position was pre-determined.
I don't believe that you're genuinely concerned about slander, as you claimed in defending Jeremiah Wright, because you were so blase of his slander of the American government, and you engaged in slander of your own, accusing us of a "digital lynching."
I don't believe your claim that "red flags" consistently go up for you when you come across overly partisan news stories, because you cited the explicitly partisan Media Matters (and only Media Matters) to prove your ridiculous claim that conservatives tend to lie.
And, here, I don't believe you're genuinely interested in expressing disagreement to "leave it at that." You have no problem invoking "anti-Christ" against those who interpret Luke's beatitudes figuratively, you have no problem bringing up idolatry to discredit inerrantists, and you have no problem accusing me of paranoia.
And I don't believe you're genuinely trying to answer the most serious questions that have been raised. You make sure to ADDRESS many of them, often at length, but you don't ANSWER them in a coherent manner.
For your dishonest blather about how I never produce evidence to support my critical conclusions about your behavior, I have numerous reasons to believe you're dishonest and deceptive, NOT about the beliefs you reveal, but about those you don't reveal, and about how you got to those beliefs, and about how you generally behave in rigorous discussions of the issues.
Dan:
"Tell me this, Marshall: IF God appeared to you and said, 'My beloved son, WHY are you taking this Genesis story literally? That was NOT my intent in inspiring it in that manner. The people recorded that history in a manner fitting with the times, it was never intended to be taken literally...' What would you say to God? Would you call God a liar? Would you suggest that God was out to subvert Christianity?"
If you're going to ask this question, you should probably answer it yourself for passages where you oh-so-very certain about the interpretation.
Just how would you respond if God told you that the Passover and the conquest of the Promised Land were historical events recorded accurately in Jewish Scripture? That the death of the firstborn really is a historical event for which God REALLY IS personally responsible? And that God really did command ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation?
Your question is a complete digression, nothing more than an argument from outrage: why, Marshall, you're not so sure of your interpretation that you would defy God Himself, are you?
That's not the issue at hand: the issue isn't whether the traditional understanding of the historical narratives is something we should argue over even with God, but whether the understanding is more reasonable than your radical and ridiculous alternative.
To put it mildly, our skepticism at the idea that the book of Joshua oscillates between real history and figurative allegory is hardly the result of modernist bias, anachronistic cultural prejudice, and poor biblical exegesis.
I repeat that your question is a digression, but if you're going to have us go down this road, you should take the first step.
Much more importantly, I think you should FINALLY answer my question about whether you think the central claims about Jesus -- His historical existence, His deity, His crucifixion, and His bodily resurrection -- are among the "Big Truths" that is the REAL focus of the Bible.
You quote an essay arguing that the early chapters of Genesis aren't historical because, in them, "People live for centuries."
Well: are we to draw the same conclusion about the Gospels, where people are raised from the dead, both Lazarus and Jesus Christ Himself?
The question you raise to Marshall, about Genesis, would you raise a similar question about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
I think it's vitally important just how far you take this approach, because if you have the courage of your convictions to strive for consistency, you will probably end up abandoning Christianity altogether.
Bubba...
Do I believe that you honestly believe, for instance, that the Bible's account of the Passover is ahistorical? That Jesus didn't die for our sins, and that a Christian can deny the bodily Resurrection and not abandon the faith? That the Bible records evidence of sexism and bigotry in Paul's commands to the early church? And that Christ's choosing of the Twelve was "a nod" to the surrounding culture's sexism? Yes, I believe that you believe these things.
Interesting, as I have not said most of those nor do I believe most of that. You believe that I believe things that I DON'T believe and yet you DON'T believe those things that I patently DO believe.
I would just ask: Who is better suited to know what Dan believes? Dan or Bubba?
Bubba said...
I think you should FINALLY answer my question about whether you think the central claims about Jesus -- His historical existence, His deity, His crucifixion, and His bodily resurrection -- are among the "Big Truths" that is the REAL focus of the Bible.
How many times do I need to answer it before you'll quit asking the question? How many times do I need to say clearly that I DO believe that Jesus' physically rose from the dead and that it is a central teaching to Christianity before you quit changing my answers to some OTHER answer that I HAVEN'T said?
Yes, Bubba, it is my belief that Jesus' life, teachings, ministry, example, persecution, "prosecution," crucifixion, death and resurrection are ALL amongst the Big Truths of the Bible because they point directly to the BIG Truth that we are saved by God's grace.
Would you like to ask again? My answer will remain the same. I may not have used those exact words and I may not use those exact words in answering yet again, but it would be essentially the same - as it has been every time I have answered these sorts of questions before.
Bubba asked...
Just how would you respond if God told you that the Passover and the conquest of the Promised Land were historical events recorded accurately in Jewish Scripture?
I would ask God how that squares with commands to NOT kill innocent people? God is God, of course, and who am I to debate God, but I would be confused if God said that God sometimes might command people to kill babies.
Now, I would ask you a question that I believe remains unanswered: IF God commanded you to kill a baby, would you? IF God commanded you to rape a child, would you?
OR, would you defer to what you know - by God's Law written upon your heart and seared in your conscience - that such actions are inherently contrary to the notion of a good and just God, even if it meant contradicting god? Yes, we are ALL God's creation and God is God and can do what God will without asking our permission or without us understanding it.
I'm suggesting that the notion of a being asking us to kill babies or rape children would be wrong and should be rejected out of hand as wrong. Where do you stand on these questions?
Tell me this, Dan: IF God appeared to you and said, "My beloved son, WHY are you not taking this passover story (or Sodom, or any other story you don't like) literally? That was my intent in inspiring it in that manner. The people recorded that history in a manner fitting with the times, it was always intended to be taken literally..." Or if God was to say, Dan why do your persist in insisting that homosexuality is not a sin? Why do you not listen to my clear teaching? What would you say to God? Would you call God a liar? Would you suggest that God was out to subvert Christianity?
So what is it?
I didn't see your response to Jesus treating the destruction of Sodom as a literal historical event.
Sorry to be repetitive, you already responded to something similar. Maybe you could actually answer. Bonus points if you say (as have at least 2 ordained PCUSA ministers) something like "God if that's true then I don't want anything to do with a God like you".
For the record if I had a confrontation with God, I don't think I would be impudent enough to question anything he said or the my face would be far enough out of the dirt for anyone to hear anyway.
Post a Comment