I saw this in my inbox today and just had to present it here. In other discussions regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the move to eliminate the restrictions on homosexuals in the military, I had expressed concern about those who must deal with the change should it occur, they being the officers in command positions. The linked piece contains a letter from a retired Navy Captain with 30 years in the military. He lists his credentials and relates his experiences and in doing so, touches on some of the points I tried to make albeit with more eloquence and authority. He also relates problems already experienced with regard to homosexuals already in the Navy, to answer points made by some that they are rare. They apparently are only rare as compared to non-homosexuals who comprise a larger percentage of the service.
Many of the points and concerns raised by the captain are dismissed as inconsequential in the larger picture by those for whom homosexuality is a cause on par with racism, which of course it is not. They only want it to be seen as such because it helps the cause. But the captain makes a great case and as he says himself, shows that he has really considered the question, rather than what appears to be merely a bow to politically correct inanity so typical of the pro-homo activists and their enablers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
503 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 503 of 503Upon moving further down your comments I see you pull out 2 words that I could have chosen better. "it doesn't". My bad, I probably should have qualified that by saying that your snippets could lead someone tobelieve certain things or something else.
So, then, Craig, you are NOT claiming that there is anything wrong with my snippets?
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, I thought that you, by saying "it doesn't," were suggesting that there was something un-Christian or somehow wrong with those excerpts. You are clearly stating that is NOT the case? That those are perfectly GOOD Christian words?
I hope you can see how, in context, it did seem like a criticism of the words and, if so, I wasn't being thin-skinned, I was offering you a chance to defend the crazy notion that there is something wrong with those words.
Those words which come from eight separate short excerpts amounting to 800 words - 443 of which are dealing directly with Jesus' life, death and resurrection and the remaining 357 "only" dealing with matters such as God's justice or a communion hymn about "bread for the journey."
It truly seems impossible to believe that a fellow Christian could conceivably discount those words, considering them somehow problematic, and I thought you were. I'm glad to hear you appear not to be.
Although, I'd appreciate if you would clarify with a, "Yes, Dan, there is NOTHING at all wrong with those texts and it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise."
I ask this because it seems like you are sympathetic to the ridiculous attacks upon these Godly words. You say, "I believe that MA and Bubba have taken issue with specifics and provided areas where they have problems with your snippets."
Do they have a point or do they not? Perhaps you can see where I'm not clear on your position.
If you think they HAVE a point - that there IS something wrong with those words - then say so and make that case. If you think Bubba and Marshall are being un-gracious and unnecessarily argumentative), then say so to that. I'd appreciate the clarification.
Craig...
You could have, had you chosen to put forth the effort, chosen snippets that more fully represent the broader scope of your Easter celebration and all of this digression could have been avoided.
Well, I didn't know that they could possibly go off on so clearly Christian words and songs and teachings. Or, at least I did not foresee that they would do so (unfortunately, I'm not omniscient). The purpose of offering those words was to, as I asked and said...
In any of our ACTUAL words, Bible passages, hymns, sermons, etc, do you find fault with them? With what we have actually said in our services? I know you have never attended them, but you can read our words and, if you wish to raise concerns about what we've actually said, please do, if you can do so in love and grace.
I'm just saying that I think the Christian thing to do is to deal with a person's/a group's actual position, rather than caricatures of them.
Where have we sinned?
THAT was the stated purpose of why I offered those words. I DO see that you all are referencing a line where I mention Easter, which appears to have led some to think that I was offering the quotes as representative of all that we spend time talking about at Easter time, but that was not my point.
My point was to ask WHAT, in what we have actually said (that I've quoted), do you find problematic?
Bubba appears to have "deduced" that these excerpts (half of which talk about Jesus' life, death and resurrection) were representative of ALL we have to say, pray or sing and, as noted, they are not. They are just representative of what, at the time, I felt like quoting. Perhaps they were especially meaningful to me.
But there is no crime in that, is there?
Dan,
Let me first of all say that after reading your last, the compulsion to use much stronger language toward you was quite strong. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be "more gracious" for His sake in dealing with the graceless dishonesty of your comments. To wit:
You chose different poems for Craig just now than you did earlier. These new exerpts at least make some reference to Easter. Those of earlier comments didn't. As we, or at least I, continually remind you, our comments are based solely on those you print in this little comment box. Don't rag on us over the conclusions YOUR comments provoke.
Another dishonest point is your suggesting that there is some similarity in our making conclusions about the church of which you so often have spoken over the years, combined with the comments regarding yourself, and suggesting something about MY church based only on comment I make regarding myself. You tie yourself together with Jeff St with such regularity that conclusions about the church itself are more than justified. Still, if you were to say that you could make assumptions about mine, you wouldn't be wrong to wonder about St. John's (my church) based on what I say about what I believe. But you you wouldn't be nearly as justified in doing so. That being said, say whatever you like about St John's. I'll simply demand you explain why you think my beliefs automatically indicate the beliefs of St John's. I'm not about to whine on you about "not being gracious" (sniffle).
But if I did make comments about St John's, especially doing so as much as you reference Jeff St, I would be even LESS inclined to whine about any critiques of yours because I'd assume, without any great process of thought necessary, that you based those opinions on my own words. (However, based on our history of debate, discussion and discourse, I feel justified in believing your interpretation of my words would be really goofy and thus your critique of my church would be unfounded and not truly based on my comments.)
Once again, and you lie by not acknowledging this, not to mention how you repeat I'm doing otherwise, I have ONLY in this discussion been speaking of what you do during Easter service, not your church's entire calender. YOU presented those snippets as an example of your Easter service and I found them to be woefully lacking in reference to the reason for the season. I never even mentioned whether or not Jeff St has any "right" to add irrelevant peripheral crap to their Easter service. Heck no. You can do what you want. But is it the best use of the time provided for an Easter service? I say absolutely not. Not on the day which is recognizes the single most significant event in history. And this has been the crux of both my and I take liberty in saying, Bubba's comments regarding your church and what it preaches and teaches on Easter.
more---
As to the rest of the year, those conclusions are also, as I said, based on your words about Jeff St and never said to describe the place in any detail. To insist that we are doing more than drawing conclusions about ANYTHING based on the words you choose is the real and only lying and slander that is happening here.
Further, and I alluded to this moments ago, we have been engaged in discussions for a few years. We have plenty from which we can base our conclusions that very likely would not be more than slightly tweaked by a month of Sundays personally visiting Jeff St. If our conclusions, then, are so fatally off base as you insist, it's more than apparent that the fault lies with you, for certainly in all this time, at some point our conclusions should have been corrected or altered to a form more palatable to you. Instead, the more you talk, the more you confirm our conclusions.
Thus, if our conclusions bother you so much, perhaps you need to be rethinking just what you believe if restating it back to you angers you so.
Finally, you parting shots confirm also what I've recently said about you insisting these conversations proceed according to your terms, with no tolerance for deviation whatsoever. Yet those terms are not firmly laid out nor are they evenly applied to either situation or participant, leaving yourself far more leeway to step outside the lines not clearly drawn. This too, is dishonesty.
Craig told me to look at March 5 at 10:30 to find some point that remains unaddressed.
I looked there and I see nothing that has not been addressed or answered.
For instance, Craig had said...
I would suggest an alternative to the Calvin topic. Why don't you do a post on what the metaphorical or figurative meaning is for one of these passages you find so troubling. I would especilly be interested in why God would use stories where He is metaphorically doing things that he wouldn't do in reality (ie killing). Why would God use stories that portray Him in such an innaccurate way to convey His truth.
And I've answered this, when I said...
If you'll read what I wrote, you'll see that I didn't say that some of the OT stories were, by definition, inaccurate. I said that they seem obviously to be written in the style of the day - myth and epic.
I will ADD to what I've already addressed, by way of hoping to add clarity, that I think the most logical, biblical way (by my way of thinking, anyway) of explaining passages where God commands the killing of whole peoples, including their innocent children and infants, is that it appears to be written in an epic style.
The genre it appears (to me, at least) to be written in, appears to be Epic storytelling. We all agree that understanding the style of writing and techniques being used is critical to good exegesis. We agree that part of our criteria for interpreting the Bible is to interpret difficult and obscure passages through clear and obvious passages.
In that sense, I don't think the stories in question are metaphorical, but more rightly, they appear to me to be employing epic storytelling devices.
WHY might God inspire Epic storytelling? Well, as I have said, perhaps to inspire and comfort an oppressed people. In the same sense that Depression era folk may have been comforted by lighthearted Hollywood stories, the same reason why slaves sang blues-type songs.
Why would Jesus or Paul use hyperbole? Why would Jesus use parables? Why would any biblical author use any literary device? Why not just write plain, literal sentences every time? Because that's not how we communicate in our world.
We all use mythologies, epic storytelling, hyperbole, parables, etc, etc.
Do I know for sure that God inspired Epic type stories in the Bible? No. Do you know for sure that God inspired stories designed to be taken as fairly literal history? No.
Where does that leave us?
Why does your hunch win over mine?
But that can't be what you're referring to, since I've addressed all of this. Multiple times, now.
Let me address at least one more thing, but really, what's the problem with you saying, "Dan, what I'm still wondering is...." rather than have me play guessing games as to what you feel like I have not sufficiently answered?
"But there is no crime in that, is there?"
Here's the crime:
The original "snippets" were offered to provide an example of your Easter service in order to show how Biblical and orthodox you all are at Jeff St. We clearly found that those snippets did not support that notion in the least, particularly since no blatant mention of the reason for the season appeared in those exerpts. If you meant to provide such support, then what is meaningful to you should probably demonstrate the stated purpose of providing the snippets in the first place. With those "meaningful" snippets, meant to convey a typical Jeff St Easter service as our only evidence for what might be typical, how can you then pretend there is any wrong doing, ungracious or otherwise (and let me be clear that "ungraciousness" on our part is all in your ungracious mind) in our conclusions about SPECIFICALLY your Easter service? THAT'S the crime you commit.
Craig said...
The issue is can you defend your contention that all stories of antiquity MUST be written in some sort of "epic/mythical" style.
Can I defend it? I don't know. I'm just telling you what makes sense to me. I'm no historical scholar, I'm no theologian. Nor are you all, as far as I can tell. I've read the Bible through a bunch and this is what makes sense to me.
If you want to believe the Creation story was designed to be taken literally, go ahead. I don't mind a bit.
You see, the difference is, I'm not trying to "prove" my position. I'm simply trying to say that 1. THIS is what makes sense to me and 2. There is nothing wrong or unbiblical or un-Christian with my holding such a position.
I see no evidence for your position. You want to convince me, you can try to make your case better than you have.
I have no great desire to convince you of my position, I'm just trying to convince you that it IS my position, one I hold out of respect for and love of the Bible and, more importantly, out of seeking God's will.
Dan,
I've had many questions regarding this "epic style" argument for POST CREATION stories, focussing on those telling the battle stories wherein entire populations are wiped out. This idea of "comfort and encouragement for an oppressed people" makes no sense. So, I'll ask again:
1. How does one give comfort and encouragement to anyone by telling lies, myths or fictitious stories?
2. With a people routinely in direct or near direct (through prophets) contact with God, how can stories with untrue and "atrocious" acts commanded by God NOT have been corrected and in some cases, still celebrated generations later even by Christ, who was there?
3. Where's the "most sense" in a people commanded not to bear false witness against their neighbors telling tales that bear false witness against God Himself...
3b ...particularly concerning His commands to do that which is supposedly against His nature?
4. How is that for a people that God mandated should live and act in a way unique, so very different than the rest of the world, be it their diets, sartorial expression, rituals, notions of morality, that they would not also write their history in a different more truthful and accurate manner, including commands by God that YOU might not understand?
5. If we can't then know with any certainty if they indeed wrote in this "epic style", how can we not assume the information is accurate about the details of those battles and God's participation in them?
6. Why do you skip these questions that would inform us more deeply into the workings of your understanding of Scripture in favor of lame and false accusations about us lying and being ungracious?
Dan,
I misspoke, I really have no opinion on the rightness or wrongness of your snippets. I simply feel that you have blown Marshall and Bubba's response out of proportion. YOU posted the snippets in order to demonstrate how orthodox your church is, YOU then asked Marshall and Bubba to respond. They did, with their opinions of the impression YOUR snippets give of your church. This is getting old. Can we move on from this? Since you insist on belaboring this "point" I will clarify further (though I will not use the words that you demand that I use, and am surprised that you would demand that I use certain words). I don't have any problems with the individual words, nor do I have a problem with the out of context snippets. I can see how someone could take those snippets in conjunction with what you have written and come to the reasonable conclusion that your church was out of the mainstream of Orthodoxy. But mostly I don't care, as I think that this is all a smoke screen to move away from more serious issues. So hopefully this will be enough clarifying and you will actually address some of the rest of my points.
Dan,
I appreciate you finding one question and responding to it. The problem is, you didn't answer it.
The question quite clearly was; Why would God inspire stories that depict Him doing things that are not in His character? Or to put it another way; If God inspired a story about how he killed the enemies of Israel, but it is not in His character to kill, then He would be giving His audience false hope, in effect lying to them. Why would he do this?
"Do I know for sure that God inspired Epic type stories in the Bible?"
You are correct, we don't, and you have given us no reason to assume that He did. The existence of other cultures using a certain literary style does not imply, demonstrate, or prove that the Israelite culture used those styles in the same ways.
""Dan, what I'm still wondering is...." rather than have me play guessing games as to what you feel like I have not sufficiently answered?"
I'm not sure you understand how this could work, normally when one person in the conversation asks a question, the others answers. I really fail to see why I should continue to re ask questions you haven't answered. The ball is in your court. The best part is you didn't even read what I said about where to look or you wouldn't have just assumed that there was only one post. So, if you answer questions (or acknowledge that you aren't going to answer them), then I can ask follow up questions to clarify.
"Can I defend it?"
It would have been easier had you just said no. I realize that it is your opinion, but you apparently have nothing you can offer to support your opinion so why should anyone take it as anything other than taking the easy road around passages that are problematic.
You seem so proud of your exegetical skill, then exegete.
Marshall and Bubba, I apologize for this.
Dan,
In a desire to be gracious I will cut and paste earlier comments that contain un or incompletely answered questions. Given your often stated desire that we promptly and completely answer your questions I feel confident that you will live up to your own expectations.
"Similarly, you stating Simply stating "God doesn't work like that" is not exegesis is not exegesis. Nor is it reasonable."
Since I haven't done that you point is lost on me.
"to explain or tell the meaning of."
Great, now lets hear what the meaning is. You've come up with some unsubstantiated hunches, great. Now, how about some meaning, the why, as it were.
"...appear obviously to be told in such a way as to explain creation and our place in this world to pre-scientific, pre-literate, pre-historic peoples. Not unlike OTHER creation mythologies."
The first key word in your isegesis is APPEAR. So, your new position is not that these ARE xyz, but that they appear to be xyz. Significant difference, please choose one. The remainder of your isegesis is clearly based on your assumptions about the peoples at that time, and what they did or did not know. For example, just because science (as we know and define it) did not exist at that time it seems as though it is quite a leap of logic to say that they had NO way to interpret the world around them beyond "myth". Again, fine hunch, but no support. Just your opinion. It seems as though your isegesis assumes too much based one what appears to be some sort of perceived cultural superiority you perceive exists with today culture. Unsupported hunch.
"God could easily have explained to them about molecules and atoms and light years and so forth, EXCEPT that it would mean nothing to them. Why would God do that?"
Since you have provided no support for your hunch, beyond a question, one must ask. Why wouldn't He do that? OR Why couldn't He have done that? OR How can you demonstrate that He didn't do that?
"No, I'm not saying God lied. I'm saying that people were inspired to tell stories (and on that question, I think you're speaking more specifically of the slaughter stories) in the style of the day to give them comfort and courage."
So, your isegesis is that "people" made up stories about what God had done, or would do, that consist of "God" doing things against his nature in order to give other people comfort. Why? What possible comfort will come from being told "God will destroy your enemies" then to find out that God is NOT going to destroy your enemies because he doesn't roll like that? Why would the NT writers (and Jesus) not clarify this? Since you seem to agree that the Bible is in some sense God's word (or primary means of communication) why would He not have set the record straight? Why would He institute a practice (sacrament) that is completely based on non factual events that don't reflect His character? How is giving false hope comforting? Why would these stories have "made" the Hebrew scriptures? Are the entire stories "non factual" or just parts of the stories? These are the kinds of questions that you breeze over in your facile isegesis.
March 8, 2010 12:45 PM
AGAIN A CUT AND PASTE TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR DAN
"No, I think he was part of a people who told stories, passed down from generation to generation, to explain their place in the cosmos in ways that made sense to them."
So, your awesome isegesis leads you to the conclusion that Moses and his people made stuff up, but they had a reason. What would lead you to conclude that "they" were uninterested in their actual place in the cosmos and made no effort to find out what it was? Why would you discard a priori the possibility that they were accurately describing their communal relationship with the one who made the cosmos, and that He chose to instigate a relationship with that group of people unlike any other in the history of the world? Why would you conclude that God is bound by the rules he sets for us?
"What reason would we have for thinking it is anything else?"
As I have said, I will address this in a desperate post. However (so I can't be accused of dodging or not answering the question), my short answer is this.
I believe in a God who is sovereign over all His creation. I believe in a God who has the authority to communicate Himself through human agency in a manner that accurately reflects what happened. I stand with those who refer to certain books of the Bible as history ( as opposed to prophecy or poetry etc). I believe that a God who loved humanity so much that he provides us with a way to be reconciled to Him despite our sin, can communicate His love and plans without using "non factual" history. Finally, I believe in a God whose ways are beyond our ways and whenever I'm tempted to question His wisdom or interrogative I simply remind myself who He is and who I am, and assume He's right.
Not exegesis, but an answer.
Dan, you have offered explanations, but no support. I'm looking for more than a surface explanation, I'd like to see a little depth and substance. Maybe that all it takes for you, is one possible, semi plausible, explanation that fits with your preconceptions. If that's all it takes for you, then great. I'd like some more.
I do plan to address this elsewhere when I have time, but am not going to do much more unless you deal with my earlier comments regarding your standard of evidence. If you continue to ask for what seems like an unreasonable standard of evidence (ie records), without providing a similar standard of evidence, then it seems like a waste of time. Further, if you are going to simply dismiss anything offered by anyone but yourself without actually checking it/them out and providing some form of rebuttal it will probably be a waste of time. So, the ball is in your court. I'm still waiting on a response from a source or two so it might be a while.
Out for now.
March 8, 2010 12:45 PM
In closing I can't believe there was no reaction to the Dan Rather P-BO couldn't sell watermelons quote.
Dang. I just lost a comment to your reply about the snippets.
I really have no opinion on the rightness or wrongness of your snippets. I simply feel that you have blown Marshall and Bubba's response out of proportion. YOU posted the snippets in order to demonstrate how orthodox your church is
I'll try again...
1. It seems odd to me that you have no opinion on the rightness or wrongness of the snippets. Clearly, they are all biblical, Godly, Christian posts dealing either with Jesus' life, Jesus' teachings, God's justice, Resurrection and/or finding God revealed in Creation.
2. What is there possibly that one could find to be troubling with ANY of it? How can you NOT have a positive opinion of at least the thoughts expressed there, if not the manner in which they're expressed? I am sure you're not opposed to Jesus' teachings, to God's justice, to Jesus' resurrection, right? Why would you not have a positive opinion of them?
3. I'm also puzzled by your thinking I've blown out of proportion the attack upon my church. They claimed that we "uses Easter to celebrate nature and political protest," which is an obvious falsehood to anyone who's ever, you know, actually BEEN to one of our services. Why would you defend the attack and the spreading of slander based upon ignorance and unsupported charges?
4. As I SAID, I posted the snippets to get them to respond to WHAT WE ACTUALLY SAY, not to their hunches and feelings about this church THEY HAVE NEVER ATTENDED, not necessarily to defend how orthodox we are, as you say.
As I clearly noted in the post, defining WHY I posted the snippets...
In any of our ACTUAL words, Bible passages, hymns, sermons, etc, do you find fault with them? With what we have actually said in our services?
THAT was my reason for posting the comments. And apparently, IN OUR ACTUAL WORDS, they have very little serious to criticize. It's all in their heads, and yet, they feel justified to attack our church with false charges tha they can't support.
What's overblown about calling them on the carpet for that? And why would you think my response is overblown, but their false charges are not?
As to the rest of your comments, I see that you have copied and pasted some of the comments and questions you have made before and which I've responded to multiple times.
I see that you are not satisfied with my answers, that you think they are "responses" but not answers.
For my part, I'm quite sure that they ARE my answers. If you ask me 100 times why I think some of the Genesis stories appear to be written in mythological style, my answer will remain, "that's what it looks like to me - I'm no trained theologian or historian, I'm just telling you what it looks (obviously) like to me - what possible reason would you have for taking it to be a literal retelling of history using factual points?"
Shall I copy and paste my answers to your copied and pasted questions?
I guess what I need from you is some clarification: What WOULD constitute a "legitimate" answer to you? If you could provide that, perhaps I can see a reason or way to answer in such a way as to satisfy your curiosity.
I don't think there's any real way to re-interpret the Bible so as to remove its clearly historical claims that God has taken human life through natural (or supernatural) disasters and through human agency.
That's a thread that runs too far through the main narrative, one that's too tightly woven with everything else.
We're not just talking about the first two chapters of Genesis, which largely and necessarily preceded any human eyewitnesses and, if the chapters are true, must therefore be the result of some sort of direct revelation. And we're not talking about the epic poetry of Job, a story written who-knows-when, by who-knows-who, about a man who doesn't directly fit into the main narrative from the Patriarchs and the first covenant to Christ and the new covenant.
No, as we can partially see from what Dan pointed out a few years back, we're talking about the Old Testament's most central figures: Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah.
(The Book of Isaiah isn't just about the judgment against other nations: it's about the judgment against Israel, where God uses OTHER human agents -- Assyria and then Babylon -- to punish His chosen people using even deadly force.)
One could argue that any Jewish Scripture that predates the Babylonian exile is suspect, but...
1) Jesus Christ affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke and repeatedly quoted some of its oldest texts as authoritative commands from God.
2) Many of these same historical figures are in Christ's genealogy, including Abraham and David, while Moses and Elijah were present in the Transfiguration.
3) Much of what Christ taught about the judgment to come is along the same lines AND are more dreadful, since eternal damnation is infinitely worse than physical death.
4) What Christ taught even directly implies the historicity of some of the difficult OT events, such as the destruction of Sodom; other events are treated historically elsewhere in the NT, as the author of Hebrews praises Abraham for his willingness to sacrifice Isaac.
One cannot so radically reinterpret those difficult OT passages without damaging significant teachings in the NT.
Even Dan's own favorite passages aren't immune from the effects. He routinely cites (and, I think, misinterprets) Luke 4, where Jesus Christ cites Isaiah 61 as authoritative: the prophetic authority of that passage is undermined by Dan's theories about passages like Isaiah 13.
I don't believe there's some ingenious way to pull out the claims that God has taken human life while keeping intact the internal consistency and coherence of the Bible.
Dan's approach is particularly implausible. He argues that the command to wipe out His enemies contradicts the prohibition against shedding innocent blood, when both are affirmed SIDE-BY-SIDE in Psalm 106, where Israel is condemned for disobeying BOTH and where the shedding of innocent blood appears to have resulted from their not annihilating God's pagan enemies as God commanded.
But even if some ingenious approach existed, it misses the point, and it damages the clear teachings of Scripture.
Someone might be able to approach the Bible with the assumption that miracles don't happen and devise some ingenious method to re-interpret the entire Bible so that it all still makes some kind of coherent sense, but that approach and the anti-biblical assumption on which it is built miss the point: the God of the Bible is a deity who works miracles, period.
Likewise, while He is also a God of mercy who gives and sustains life, it is absolutely clear that the God of the Bible is also a God of judgment who takes life.
Reasonable disagreement on this point is not possible, and so if Dan denies God's moral right to take human life when and how He pleases, he should do so honestly and reject the authority of the Bible altogether, since it clearly teaches exactly that.
His conclusions about God are so contrary to what the Bible teaches that Dan's claims to love the entire Bible and deeply respect all its teachings cannot be taken seriously.
And since Dan goes so far as to claim that Christ's death didn't cause our salvation, that His Resurrection need not be a bodily and historical resurrection, and that His Supper is really an ancient church tradition rather than an ordinance from the Lord Himself, I cannot help but conclude that -- barring evidence of the most dramatic kind -- his beliefs place him outside of Christianity.
Dan:
"In any of our ACTUAL words, Bible passages, hymns, sermons, etc, do you find fault with them? With what we have actually said in our services?"
I reiterate:
I have no problem with a bridge club that has chips and sandwiches -- there's nothing "immoral" or "wrong" with having food before or after the game -- but if the members never get around to playing cards, they're not really a bridge club.
From what you've posted, your church doesn't actually seem primarily interested in proclaiming the gift of forgiveness and eternal life through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
That message appears to be AT BEST an afterthought, at worst a cynically placed fig leaf to hide the priority of your political agenda.
Indeed, it's impossible to know that with epistemological certainty aside from regularly attending Jeff Street, but educated guesses are not out of the question in light of evidence from your other blog, from what you excerpted here as "meaningful," and from your own beliefs about why Christ died and whether it's essential that He rose bodily from the grace.
You write:
"Clearly, [the snippets] are all biblical, Godly, Christian posts dealing either with Jesus' life, Jesus' teachings, God's justice, Resurrection and/or finding God revealed in Creation."
Right, but AT LEAST in what you quoted, the Resurrection takes a back seat to celebrating nature, and your church seems to commemorate Christ's death only (or at least primarily) as an act of political martyrdom than as a sacrifice for our forgiveness -- and all of this is contrary to the clear and emphatic teaching of the Bible.
Celebrating nature and stumping for justice are fine things (regardless of obvious disagreements on what is just), but they're simply not the first priority of a Bible-believing church, and I'm not fooled by your using as mere window dressing what ought to be the central focus.
"In any of our ACTUAL words, Bible passages, hymns, sermons, etc, do you find fault with them? With what we have actually said in our services?"
Asked and answered, move on please.
"I guess what I need from you is some clarification: What WOULD constitute a "legitimate" answer to you? If you could provide that, perhaps I can see a reason or way to answer in such a way as to satisfy your curiosity."
I would consider a legitimate answer, one that addresses the questions asked. Maybe if you would so as I have so often done for you and cut/paste the actual questions then the answers that would be helpful.
For example, I have asked several times why God would inspire someone to tell a story about Him that was based on something about Him that is not true. Your answer is "they are using myth" or some such. But that doesn't answer the question. If (as you contend) God will never take human life or command others to take human life, how can a story based on the false premise that God will destroy Israel's enemies be comforting. According to your hunch God will NOT destroy Israel's enemies. So why would a story telling folk that God will do what he will never do be comforting? Why would God do such a thing, surely the primitives would be able to understand that God could comfort them without destroying their enemies. Surely, they could handle the truth about the God who asked the to live set apart, and promised them that they would be His people and the blessings would come to the world through them. Why would you argue the need to for God to lie about His protection for His people? On the other hand if these are stories made up by people that are not inspired by God, then how can you suggest that they should be part of Gods revelation to his people? Do you think that God can't/won't make sure His story is told the way He wants it to be?
"Shall I copy and paste my answers to your copied and pasted questions?"
If you think that would help to match your answer up to my question then why not? I know that there are some questions regarding "ground rules" that I have not seen answers for. I see no point in going to the trouble of writing and posting my research on this whole "non factual truth/what is history" topic if you won't answer some simple questions about how this will work.
One more question. Your entire hunch seems to hinge on the hunch that at some point in time people started treating "history" as history and became concerned with accurately recording the facts of what happened. Can you please (with some support beyond "it seems to me") point out when that change occurred?
Craig clarified a question, asking...
If (as you contend) God will never take human life or command others to take human life, how can a story based on the false premise that God will destroy Israel's enemies be comforting.
1. I have not said that God won't take a human life. I have said I see no reason to believe that God operates that way. Not biblically, nor in the real world.
2. As I have noted, stories have great power. I sometimes LOVE watching stories with redemptive violence themes. True Grit, for instance, I cited as a story where I find some good deal of delight in seeing the bad guy get his comeuppance by a deadly violent response.
That does not mean that I think it is good or valid MORAL teaching, but that does not mean I don't find some release in watching some such stories.
Consider, in the Psalms, the imprecatory prayers for vengeance and violence. Consider...
"May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever. Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them..... Charge them with crime upon crime; do not let them share in your salvation. May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous."
Psalm 69
Or...
"May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes. May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor. May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children. May his descendants be cut off, their names blotted out from the next generation."
Psalm 109
Or...
"O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us -- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks"
May HIS ENEMY'S CHILDREN be wandering beggars!? May no one take pity on his children and may not only his enemy, but the enemy's descendents! be blotted out!? Happy are those who dash THEIR CHILDREN's heads against the rocks!?
These are some pretty harsh curses. Do they represent good theology? Good Christian practice? OUGHT we go around brutalizing the children of our enemies?
No! Of course not. These Psalms, like True Grit, and like (I think) the telling of these type of poems, prayers and stories of brutalizing children elsewhere in the Bible are a comfort and a release to an oppressed people. Are you wholly unaware of the concept? That it's one thing to enjoy a revenge story - it can be a great release - and it's another thing to act it out?
It's a very human reality that we need ways of blowing off steam, of releasing pent up frustration. Such stories could do this.
THAT is how it can be comforting - as a release mechanism.
Do you disagree?
Sorry, that last passage I quoted was from Psalm 137.
Craig asked...
Your entire hunch seems to hinge on the hunch that at some point in time people started treating "history" as history and became concerned with accurately recording the facts of what happened. Can you please (with some support beyond "it seems to me") point out when that change occurred?
No.
No, I can't. I thought I've been pretty clear about that. I'm no biblical scholar or theologian. I just know what makes sense to me.
The only prehistoric stories that I know of at all out there are stories like Gilgamesh or that are mythologies, written in a clearly mythological style. Do you know of ANY exceptions to this rule?
I don't. And that is at least partially why I see no reason to suspect that this is written in some style other than what was apparently common to the day.
Can you provide any proof at all to support your hunch that people always wrote history as factual history or that the biblical authors did so?
Dan,
This is a distinction without a difference, that doesn't change the question nor the answer.
"Do you disagree?"
To a point, I think that these are indeed cries from desperation for God to right a wrong. However, I think that the persons who wrote the psalms in question had reason to believe that God would supernaturally intervene, and that that intervention could take the form of "violent" action. Again, if you discount any instance of God using "violence" then you preempt any response.
"THAT is how it can be comforting - as a release mechanism.
Do you disagree?"
So, your answer, is not to deal with the passages under discussion, (you know, the ones found in what theologians refer to as the historical books), and instead to use passages from psalms (which most theologians refer to as poetry, not history). I don't see people crying out to God for justice/vengeance as a particular problem, it could be (as you say) a way to blow off steam. But, how do these pleas sync up with corresponding incidents in the historical books? How did God actually deal with these pleas?
"These are some pretty harsh curses." Yes, what is your point? Are they harsh in comparison to the oppression that brought on the curses? Is there something intrinsically wrong with cursing your enemy?
"Do they represent good theology?"
If the represent the fact that God's people can call on Him for deliverance, then why not? Are you saying that God is somehow bound to do exactly what He is asked? Is it necessarily bad theology? By what standard do you determine good/bad theology when dealing with poetry/figurative language?
"Good Christian practice?"
Is what good Christian practice? Praying, yes. Calling out to God to right wrongs, yes. Acknowledging God's sovereign power, yes.
"OUGHT we go around brutalizing the children of our enemies?"
If this is an example of your vaunted exegetical skills then we have problems. Nowhere in the texts that you pasted does it say the WE are to go around brutalizing the children of our enemies. So why would you make such a leap of logic and bad exegesis? Clearly (as you seem to be saying elsewhere in your response) this is a cry for help or an emotional release. Are you now saying that it is a call for people to brutalize the children of our enemies? Please pick one.
"No, I can't. I thought I've been pretty clear about that. I'm no biblical scholar or theologian. I just know what makes sense to me."
This doesn't answer the question. If you can't/won't provide support then, how about your hunch as to where we draw the line? Are you saying that it is impossible to know when this transition took place? Are you saying that you don't care? Are you saying that no one knows the answer?
"Do you know of ANY exceptions to this rule?"
I would argue that the Bible, if it is accepted as the revelation from God to man of how God has acted through history, would seem to qualify as being worthy of being considered as an exception.
"I don't. And that is at least partially why I see no reason to suspect that this is written in some style other than what was apparently common to the day."
So, because you don't know the answer there is no reason to try to search out what the truth might be. Why would one not do the research to determine if ones opinion is correct. On what basis can you even make the statement that there was even a common style of the day? Are you suggesting that Egyptian myth was not stylistically different from Sumerian myth? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that the Hebrews (after having been called to live apart from the cultures around them) lived out that calling by how they recorded what happened?
"Can you provide any proof at all to support your hunch that people always wrote history as factual history or that the biblical authors did so?"
Since one of my unanswered questions regards what you will accept as "proof", I am not sure I can answer this question to your satisfaction.
What I hope to provide, is enough research and sources to demonstrate that your hunch (for which you have provide NO (that's zip, zero, nada proof of) is not the only reasonable option. As you may be aware history is not about "proof" but about reasonable degree of probability. I believe that I can (providing that you don't dismiss out of hand what I provide) demonstrate that a reasonable person who will consider evidence in a reasonably objective fashion can conclude that your contention is not the only option.
One note on the topic of "proof". As things stand right now you have made a claim. Summarized as follows; "Since the only works of ancient (with the word ancient undefined)"writing" with which I am familiar seem to be "written" in a epic/mythical style. Therefor I can see no reason why all ancient (again undefined) works should not be assumed to be written in the same epic/mythical style."
So, to make my point I don't have to "prove" the existence of any specific work in a style other than epic/mythical, I just have to demonstrate that there are other possibilities beyond epic/mythical.
So, if you can be patient, I will attempt to come up with something. As I said earlier, I am waiting on an e mail from one of my sources that will help determine which direction I go with this.
Short on time. Two quick points...
Is there something intrinsically wrong with cursing your enemy?
Umm, yes. We are to love our enemies. I would think that precludes cursing our enemies.
Do you disagree?
Craig...
I would argue that the Bible, if it is accepted as the revelation from God to man of how God has acted through history, would seem to qualify as being worthy of being considered as an exception.
Why? If the Bible is accepted as the revelation from God to humanity and how God has acted through history, then ought we assume that Jesus was issuing a literal command rather than using hyperbole when saying we should cut off our hands?
You're begging the question.
The question: What reason do we have to presume that the oldest Bible - the revealed word of God to humanity - stories were written in a factually correct historic manner?
Your answer is: Because the Bible is the Word of God (a point which I don't dispute) is accepted as a revelation of God (which I don't dispute) it ought to be considered an exception to the norms of writing for the day.
Or, in short, we should think the oldest stories in God's revealed Word are factually true, because the Bible is the word of God and its oldest stories are factually true.
What?
We agree it's God's revealed Word, the question is: WHY would we think its oldest stories are necessarily to be taken as literally factual history?
Your answer? Because it's God's Word.
But that's not in question. You're engaging in circular reasoning, You're presuming the answer is correct and then offering that as proof that the answer is correct.
Dan,
The Psalms you offered are simply pleas of the writer for redress. He is simply asking that God deal with his enemies in the manner the enemy dealt with him. It is somewhat an "eye for an eye" situation, with the difference being that he is putting it into God's hands if He is so willing. It is not much different in style that "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" but in the other direction, that is, not do to us as we have done to others, but do to others as they have done to us.
However, whether or not this is proper for a believer to ask of God is not the issue here. This issue in this case is that Psalms are not history of the Hebrews, the battle stories are.
When you speak of Mark 9, Jesus is NOT recommending that ANYONE chop off his arm or pluck out his eye. In the context of the verses, He's merely saying that it would be better for you to be crippled than to sin if that arm causes you to sin. Can your arm actually cause you to sin? Do you really think Jesus believed that? One would have to be mentally retarded or a clinical idiot to believe it, and to even suggest that anyone MIGHT take it to mean chopping off one's own are is in any way a mandate indicates a need for counseling.
This type of rhetorical flourish to make a point is NOT what we see in the battle stories. The point Jesus makes is clear (to US and most of Christendom, at least). But what is the point of God commanding complete annihilation if not complete annihilation?
Regarding "giving comfort and encouragement to an oppressed people", where's the Biblical proof (that you insist upon from us) to support this claim? What makes you think the author had an oppressed people in mind when recording this history rather than to simply record it as accurately as possible for later generations, free or oppressed? And if you're right about the oppressed, then what of the free? They now have an inaccurate history.
Mythological stories are generally notions of what came before when there was really no one to see. Unlike the great-great grandson of Aaron or Joshua or whomever, who have had stories handed down form eye witnesses, there is no such eyewitness at the time the myth stories supposedly happened. This, then, might explain the Creation story, but not later stories, at least from Abraham on and including the battle stories. They are NOT written like a mythological epic. You simply need it to be in order to justify your belief that God would not wipe out an entire city, call for stoning of adulterers and homosexuals (so labeled for being caught in the act) or any other seemingly harsh edicts or commands. It gives you the wiggle room you need for redefining words and reinterpreting passages in a manner that reflects you unwillingness to accept what the words are actually saying.
I was wondering when Dan would bring up this flawed analogy again.
"If the Bible is accepted as the revelation from God to humanity and how God has acted through history, then ought we assume that Jesus was issuing a literal command rather than using hyperbole when saying we should cut off our hands?"
This is a clear allusion to the Sermon on the Mount.
"When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying...
" 'If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.' " - Mt 5:1-2, 29-30
One must distinguish between the FACT of the command and the CONTENT of the command.
It's clear that Jesus LITERALLY went up a mountain, sat down, and taught His disciples.
He LITERALLY did speak, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off" -- obviously, the Aramaic or (arguably) Greek equivalent of that teaching, not the English translation.
The question is ONLY whether the **CONTENT** is to be interpreted literally or figuratively, and since the NT doesn't record any self-mutilation on the part of any Christians, it's probably a good guess that it's to be taken figuratively.
(Or one can simply note that, since one's eye and hand doesn't cause him to sin -- except in fantasies like the sophomoric comedy Idle Hands -- this is a situation that doesn't actually come up: Jesus was presumably using this vivid language to make a memorable point about mortifying the self's desires when those desires lead to sin.)
[cont]
[cont]
The Lord apparently used figurative language in the Old Testament, too, but we must still make the distinction between the speech's historical FACT and its CONTENT.
"Then the Lord said, 'I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them from the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the country of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites." - Ex 3:7-8
The text is clear that the Lord LITERALLY DID speak to Moses at Horeb (Sinai), the "mountain of God" (3:1)
What the Lord spoke LITERALLY included the promise to bring the Israelites to "a land flowing with milk and honey" -- not in English, of course, but the equivalent in some ancient dialect, possibly Hebrew.
The only area where there is a question about what's literal is the **CONTENT** of that speech, whether the promised land LITERALLY flowed with rivers of milk and streams of honey; those who can't discern that that phrase is clearly figurative probably can't grasp any figurative language -- including my use of the word "grasp," just now.
About God's difficult commands in the Old Testament, if Dan wants to argue that the CONTENT of the commands were meant to be taken figuratively, he must do so against the clear context of the command -- namely, that the Israelites obeyed the commands in a straight-forward and literal fashion and weren't EVER rebuked for doing (then or anywhere else in the Bible) and were instead frequently rebuked for **NOT** obeying the command fully, as we see in Psalm 106.
But if Dan wants to say that the FACT of the command should be taken figuratively, then the comparison isn't to Matthew 5:29-30.
It's to Matthew 5:1-2.
For Dan to make a valid comparison between apples and apples to argue against the literal FACT of the difficult OT commands, he must argue that **WHAT CHRIST DID** is meant to be taken figuratively -- that His biography as recorded in the Gospels is ITSELF an allegory.
It's a category error to note the figurative language in Christ's parables, sermons, and other speeches: the only valid comparison is if we're supposed to take as figurative His ACTIONS -- His miracles, His walking from one town to the next, and His climbing a mountain to teach His followers.
To make this distinction clear, there are broadly four different approaches to interpreting a text that records someone's speech -- two different approaches to each of two different aspects:
1) LIT-FACT: A literal approach to the fact of the claim that someone spoke.
"The text says that he went up a mountain and taught his followers, and he literally did just that."
2) FIG-FACT: A figurative approach to the fact of the claim that someone spoke.
"The text says that he went up a mountain and taught his followers, but he didn't literally and historically do that: it's JUST an allegory for how we should separate ourselves from the day-to-day world to listen to God."
3) LIT-CONTENT: A literal approach to the content of what was spoken.
"He taught that we are salt and light, and he meant that we are literally bioluminescent sodium chloride."
4) FIG-CONTENT: A figurative approach to the content of what was spoken.
"He taught that we are salt and light, and he meant that we are to prevent moral decay and reveal moral truth."
The four approaches are the combinations:
- LIT-FACT/LIT-CONTENT
- LIT-FACT/FIG-CONTENT
- FIG-FACT/LIT-CONTENT
- FIG-FACT/FIG-CONTENT
The obvious approach to the "salt and light" comments from the Sermon on the Mount is a combination of LIT-FACT (the speech literally happened) and FIG-CONTENT (the comment was meant figuratively).
The reverse can be true in other works. If Christian says, "Walk to the garden" in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, the proper approach to that short comment is FIG-FACT and LIT-CONTENT: the content of the speech is to be interpreted literally, in the context of a speech that didn't literally occur -- a speech that is part of a large and complex allegory.
(An example of FIG-FACT/FIG-CONTENT is when Christian's allegorical speech ITSELF contains figurative language, such as similes.)
If Dan wants to argue a LIT-FACT/FIG-CONTENT approach to the OT's difficult commands, **THAT** would be an apt comparison to Christ's teachings about self-mutilation -- unless Dan thinks that the Gospels are allegories, and that Jesus is a figure of literature but not history.
But from his theory that the histories were written long after the fact to "comfort" the oppressed with no real regard for historicity -- that they're "revenge fantasies" as he put a while back -- it seems he's suggesting a FIG-FACT/LIT-CONTENT, the EXACT OPPOSITE approach, and it cannot be compared to the Sermon on the Mount.
And if that's his theory, that the OT history books are revenge fantasies, probably for post-exilic Jews, numerous questions are raised.
He says he doesn't dispute that the Bible is "the Word of God" and is "accepted as a revelation of God," but would God inspire writers to provide His people FALSE comfort about what He has done for them in the past and will do in the future?
Or did God not inspire these passages? Are these passages chaff from which we must sift out the wheat?
And if there is such chaff, why did Jesus Christ affirm Scripture to the smallest penstroke, allude to Sodom's destruction as if it were historical, and derive theological truth from a single verb tense in Exodus 3? And just WHAT were Moses and Elijah doing on the Transfiguration Mount if they weren't the people that Scripture describes?
I doubt Dan would even attempt to answer these questions, because they expose the perverse and erratic assumptions at the heart of his approach to the Bible.
"We are to love our enemies. I would think that precludes cursing our enemies."
You earlier suggested that these verses represented some sort of healthy catharsis, are you now saying that they represent some sort of sinful healthy catharsis? Or are you just saying that these passages (which YOU choose as examples of how passages could be comforting) are in fact, comforting but sinful. Sorry, can't keep up.
I would also suggest that expressing anger and a desire for justice is not always mutually exclusive to moving through that stage into a stage of showing love. Of course, if you design a god who all love and no justice then that's not a very satisfying god really.
"What reason do we have to presume that the oldest Bible - the revealed word of God to humanity - stories were written in a factually correct historic manner?"
Two possible answers.
1. It seems reasonable that if God is able to do whatever percentage of the miraculous you acknowledge, then it seems a small matter for him to shepherd the collection of HIS word into a format that is instructive for everyone.
2. I would hope that we can agree that lying would be against God's nature. Therefore, if the stories are written, (using your words) to be "the revealed word of God to humanity", then they would reflect the character of God (this is your argument). So why would God go against His own character by filling His communication, to His people with a bunch of "non factual" stories? Stories, that in addition to being false, represent God as acting against (what you would argue)His nature. The question (which has still not been answered) remains, why would God lie about His nature in order to "comfort" His people?
"But that's not in question. You're engaging in circular reasoning, You're presuming the answer is correct and then offering that as proof that the answer is correct."
This is the kind of stuff that annoys me to no end. You obviously didn't read my response before you spewed. How can you cut and paste, without reading what you are C&P ing.
My exact words were " would seem to qualify as being worthy of being considered as an exception.".
My comment is less about the Bible and more about God. I am suggesting that if the Bible is what you agree it is, then it is reasonable to presume that He has some interest in what it says and How it says it. Given that, it seems reasonable to think that the Bible might be looked at differently than other works.
This is no more circular that "Gilgamesh is a non factual epic/myth, therefore all stories of (still undefined) antiquity must also be. It is inconceivable that the primitives could have known then what we know now, and there is no way they could have handled or comprehended the real truth."
Finally, given the relative positions of both God and myself, I'm willing to give both God and the Bible (which you agree is God's revealed word to us), the benefit of the doubt on this.
Again, you ask for proof, but provide none.
Marshall,
Well said.
Bubba,
"...for your whole body to go into hell.' " - Mt 5:30"
But Dan has argued that this section is non factual.
"but would God inspire writers to provide His people FALSE comfort about what He has done for them in the past and will do in the future?"
I've asked this multiple times with no answer.
(Blogger's comment editing page says there are 1028 comments. I know this conversation has involved a lot of comments, but...)
Craig, I'm not quite sure what you mean about Matthew 5.
About those passages of supposedly misleading and ahistorical "comfort" about how God will intervene on the behalf of the oppressed, it seems to me crucial that Dan attributes the passages to Jewish writers BUT NOT to God explicitly.
Asking about why God would inspire such misleading words of solace presumes that Dan thinks God inspired those words. Since Dan denies the Bible's inerrant authority, I think that presumption is probably way off base, but I would appreciate it if Dan made clear whether he thinks these passages are divinely inspired.
About whether curses violate the command to love one's enemy...
I think the question can be answered with the same approach I have for whether the use of lethal force violates that command.
We're commanded to love our enemy, yes, but we have other duties, too.
If our enemy is threatening our neighbors, our duty to love him is in conflict with our duty to love them, and we might be forced to use even lethal force against him to protect them.
(No one ever said that our moral duties would never be in conflict, and the idea that they can be perfectly reconciled in all circumstances is the sort of naive thinking of the totalitarian. Sowell is right: there are no "solutions" on this side of history, only tradeoffs.)
And if our enemy is flagrantly defying God's law, our love for him should lead us to desire his repentance and God's mercy for him, but our duty to God might require us to desire the enemy's punishment **IF** such penitence is not forthcoming.
The same Apostle who taught us to overcome evil with good in Romans 12 *HIMSELF* pronounced a most serious curse, in Galatians 1, against those who preach a different gospel -- God's enemies, not his own personal enemies.
And let's not forget the logic of Romans 12.
"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. [B: Note that Paul cursed those who preached a different gospel, not those who persecuted him.]
"Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are.
"Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' No, 'if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." - Rom 12:14-21
Notice: we're taught, "Vengeance is mine," saith the Lord.
NOT, "Vengeance is BAD," saith the Lord.
Vengeance, judgment, and (I would go so far as to say) the taking of human life: these things are GENERALLY forbidden from us, except when God assigns us the task -- as with the state, see the very next passage in Romans -- **NOT** because these things are inherently immoral...
...but because THEY'RE GOD'S PREROGATIVE, and His alone.
Bubba,
Dan has stated (I think earlier in this thread) that Hell does not exist, but rather one can have some vaguely defined "hellish existence". This would then appear to be another "non factual truth" or something.
I have not stated that hell does not exist. It certainly does.
I have stated that popular modern notions about hell derive more from ancient fiction than from the Bible (ie, Paradise Lost and Inferno).
I don't know that the Bible teaches a literal hell burning people alive forever. I think it more reasonable to assume (from what the Bible teaches) that hell is separation from God, which is far worse than even being burnt alive. Still, I believe in hell.
Just not Milton's or Dante's version of it.
Dan,
Thanks for your correction, I obviously misunderstood your term "hellish existence" to mean something other than hell.
I am sure more responses/answers will be forthcoming.
I'm guessing we are having a failure to communicate because I have been providing my answers to your questions over and over, using different approaches sometimes and sometimes just repeating myself.
How long is it worthwhile to do that?
I'm starting to wonder.
Craig...
I would hope that we can agree that lying would be against God's nature. Therefore, if the stories are written, (using your words) to be "the revealed word of God to humanity", then they would reflect the character of God (this is your argument). So why would God go against His own character by filling His communication, to His people with a bunch of "non factual" stories? Stories, that in addition to being false, represent God as acting against (what you would argue)His nature. The question (which has still not been answered) remains, why would God lie about His nature in order to "comfort" His people?
You keep using words like "Lying," and "false." Hear this and understand this:
1. I DON'T THINK GOD IS LYING.
2. I DON'T THINK IT IS IN GOD'S CHARACTER TO LIE, TO TEMPT US TO DO EVIL, TO CAUSE US TO DO WRONG.
3. I DON'T THINK THE (what seem like to me) NON-FACTUAL STORIES IN THE BIBLE ARE FALSE.
Those are your terms, not mine.
I have clearly stated that I don't think God is lying in the OT stories where I think imagery is used, NOR in the NT stories where imagery is used.
Nor do you.
As we have repeatedly agreed, the Bible CAN and DOES contain stories that contain imagery rather than literal facts and commands and not be lying.
I believe it is entirely possible that God can inspire folk to write an epic type story. I believe God can inspire folk to write a mythological type story.
Do you think that the God of the universe who can do anything that is not against God's nature, the God who is omnipotent and omniscient, do you think that God is not capable of inspiring epic stories or mythological stories?
I will assume you agree, that God CAN INDEED do just this.
Then, the question comes down to: Is that what we have here in the stories of Creation, for instance, or the stories of genocide commanded by God.
I have repeatedly offered MY OPINION that this is what we have.
a. Because I love the Bible and want to take it seriously,
b. because I have read the Bible and read a bit about context and history,
c. because I have a systemic hermeneutic I apply to serious Bible study in search of God's will,
d. because of all this, I find the stories of God-commanded genocide to be impossible to take literally in the context of the rest of the teachings of the Bible,
e. because of this, and because there is NO REASON that I know of (and no serious reasons that anyone here has offered) not to assume that some stories in the Bible might not be written in an epic manner, I think that is the best explanation for these genocidal passages.
That is my opinion of those passages. I'm not trying to convince you of my opinion, thus, I have not offered a great deal of research to support my position. I'm simply trying to explain that this IS my position and it is one I reached because, as noted, I'm striving to learn God's will.
If you wish to hold another position - if it makes MORE sense to you that God actually DOES sometimes command the slaughter of innocent people (including infants) than it does to assume that this story might be more of an epic type story - then hold that position.
It does concern me because of the very ugly picture that paints of God - how it UNDOES the notion of God as a God of justice (the very thing you think it supports, amazingly!) and as a God of love, and so, I DO offer my opinion so that people can hear another Christian voice weighing in, so they know that your side does not represent the totality of Christian thought on these sorts of passages.
But you are welcome to hold it, if you wish. Just don't demand that I have to hold it if I want to be an orthodox Christian, or suggest that my position somehow suggests I'm not taking the Bible seriously, since that is not the case.
cont'd...
So, to your question...
The question (which has still not been answered) remains, why would God lie about His nature in order to "comfort" His people?
It does not remain. I have answered it.
1. God isn't lying.
2. Humans do, in fact, find some comfort in escapist stories in which the bad guys get what is coming to them.
Do you disagree with this notion?
3. If you agree, then do you think that it is impossible that God would inspire a story of comeuppance? Or that God would inspire prayers where the pray-er is praying for vengeance against innocent bystanders?
Assuming you think it's possible, then what reason would you have for suggesting this couldn't be such a story? And, IF God inspired such a story, you wouldn't call it "lying," would you?
Craig...
You earlier suggested that these verses represented some sort of healthy catharsis, are you now saying that they represent some sort of sinful healthy catharsis? Or are you just saying that these passages (which YOU choose as examples of how passages could be comforting) are in fact, comforting but sinful.
As noted earlier (and repeated yet again, now),
1. I think that stories in which the bad guys get their comeuppance can be cathartic, a healthy release.
2. I think this is true, AS LONG AS, you don't mistake a cathartic story or a depracatory prayer as good practice.
In brief, saying, "OOH! I hope he and his children rot in hell for their oppression of gays!" may be cathartic and healthy.
Saying (and following through with), "So, now I'll go and SEND him to hell, along with his children, with a good shotgun blast between the eyes!" is neither cathartic nor healthy and is certainly sinful.
It's the difference between blowing off steam and engaging in sin.
Dan,
We totally understand your position regarding so-called "epic story telling". The question here regards what is told. Even if we all concede that God inspired them to write in this style that your hunch promotes, there's still the problem of the authors ascribing to God acts that YOU believe are against His nature. Would God inspire THAT? It doesn't seem likely even considering your position on God's nature. Would He (as Father OR Son or even Holy Ghost), either directly or through one of His many prophets allow those falsehoods to stand, leaving future generations to believe that He committed acts YOU believe are against His nature? Consider how Jesus corrected the understanding of the people on so many OT issues, yet this discrepancy is never mentioned?
Logic would dictate that this is not a possible option for us to consider. You are putting human limitations on God based on limitations He has put on us. You assume that because an act is sinful if it originates from us that it is then sinful for God if it originates from Him, so therefore he would never do what is ascribed to Him in these OT stories.
You also make the great leap, and not a logical one, in suggesting that because the Creation story is told in a manner suggesting imagery (and let's assume there's no argument about it), then that means the battle stories MUST be written in the same or similar style. Stories today are told in many styles. Sometimes one author will use different styles for different stories he tells. Yet you insist that the ancients were all locked into one style and one style only and your support is that SOME other peoples wrote in a similar manner (so then the Hebrews did as well).
Basically our problem here at this point is not WHAT you believe, since we're quite clear on that, but how you arrive at it since so many aspects of it conflict with previously stated claims about God's nature and what He might or might not do based upon it. We wish to know how you reconcile those contradictions in YOUR own understandings.
Even if you're at a point where you are willing to say, "Well, I just don't know...", you've left it at a point where the Bible contains stories with "imagery" suggesting God unexplainedly acting in a manner contrary to His nature. Seems to me that doesn't speak well for the Bible and worse, it lessens the credibility of the whole Book as we can never be certain that what it seems to tell us is accurate or must be deciphered.
On the other hand, to us the battle stories are told in as straightforward a manner as the Gospels and Acts. Despite the different authors, there IS no difference in styles that suggests one is more or less believable than the other as regards commands of God/Jesus.
But your position does give us insight into your entire perspective about God and right vs wrong and which is which. We can see how your preference for how to interpret such stories ties in with your other inferences from Scripture and how it helps to allow you to draw those inferences. The question we deal with is which came first. You claim that all your positions are a result of your having re-studied the Bible and seeing what you hadn't seen before. It appears to us (and "appears" is all we've ever said or could say) that you found a way to see what you need to see in order to believe as you do. In any case, your perspectives and opions leave us with more questions than you have answers. Many more, but few that satisfy someone with even MY limited background and capacities.
"It's the difference between blowing off steam and engaging in sin."
But you don't believe telling stories about God that run counter to His nature isn't sinful? And that such untruths in the Bible isn't problematic for something considerd inspired by God? God would inspire someone to lie to comfort and encourage? How does this make the least bit of sense to even YOU?
And here's another: You seem to suggest by your position that there is no better way to give comfort and encouragement than to lie about what God might say or do. Are there no more honest ways to describe bad guys getting their comeupance without lying about God acting contrary to His nature?
The more you explain, the more questions of logic you provoke. Good interpretations don't do this.
Dan, while I agree that Hell probably doesn't involve literal fire, the imagery of hellfire long predates Dante and Milton.
"The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." - Mt 13:41-42
"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire... where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched." - Mk 9:43, 48
On more pressing concerns, Marshall has it right.
It's not impossible in terms of God's power, but inconceivable in terms of His CHARACTER, that God would inspire an "escapist" story where God plays a central role, where actions and commands are attributed to Him that (you think) would be literally blasphemous if they were literally believed.
Suppose someone's child was being bullied on the grade-school playground.
I could certainly see a good father telling him a clearly fictional story to provide cathartic release or some valuable moral -- maybe a story set in another galaxy, in which primitive teddy bears were able to defeat a legion of the Galactic Emperor's best troops.
I could certainly see a good father telling his son a TRUE, FACTUAL story about his own childhood, how he stood up to a bully and learned some life lesson.
What I cannot imagine is the father telling him a "non-factual" story ABOUT HIMSELF, attributing to himself barbaric behavior that the child is (SOMEHOW) supposed to know is fictional: how, when his younger sister was bullied, he sneaked into the bully's backyard, killed the boy's dog, and put his severed head on a pike as a warning. The child is supposed to derive some catharsis from this story, but he's also supposed to know, without any clear explanation EVER, that he shouldn't expect his father to so act on his behalf and he shouldn't emulate him as he describes himself in this fictional story that's presented as simple fact.
You say, "I have a systemic hermeneutic I apply to serious Bible study in search of God's will," but your theories about the Bible simply don't support that claim.
Dan, on a more basic point:
"If you wish to hold another position - if it makes MORE sense to you that God actually DOES sometimes command the slaughter of innocent people (including infants) than it does to assume that this story might be more of an epic type story - then hold that position.
"It does concern me because of the very ugly picture that paints of God - how it UNDOES the notion of God as a God of justice (the very thing you think it supports, amazingly!) and as a God of love, and so, I DO offer my opinion so that people can hear another Christian voice weighing in, so they know that your side does not represent the totality of Christian thought on these sorts of passages.
"But you are welcome to hold it, if you wish. Just don't demand that I have to hold it if I want to be an orthodox Christian, or suggest that my position somehow suggests I'm not taking the Bible seriously, since that is not the case."
I see you're back to demagoguery. None of us agree with your use of the term "slaughter," and the Bible simply DOES NOT attribute innocence to the targets of His wrath.
More importantly, I reject the gist of this comment.
The comment's hypocritical. Why is it perfectly okay for you to denounce our position as unjust and unmerciful, but unacceptable for us to conclude that your position is unorthodox and unserious?
Taken to its logical assertion, the comment is also absurd. You're a progressive pacifist who has reinterpreted Scripture -- absurdly -- to remove the divine actions and commands to take human life, and you believe that we cannot dispute the orthodoxy and seriousness of your position. Well, I see nothing in your writing that would arm you to take a principled stand against similar attempts to advance more radical views.
What would you say to a deist who re-interpreted Scripture to remove, not only the perplexing divine actions, but ALL divine actions, ALL claims of the miraculous? If he still insisted on being an orthodox Christian who took the Bible seriously, don't your current comments disarm you of any principled response?
What would you say EVEN to an atheist who took the same tack to remove, not just God's actions, but God Himself; who believed that the entire text was fictional; and who claimed to be a serious and orthodox student of the Bible?
You're not arguing about the line that we draw between orthodoxy and heresy. You seem to object to the mere existence of that line.
Well, we have the right to draw the line -- at least to hold our own opinions about where the line should be.
I disagree, strongly, with the Catholics who take the Council of Trent seriously enough to accuse Protestants of heresy, but I disagree with where they think the line should be drawn, NOT about the fact that the line exists.
Just as we have every moral right to hold to our beliefs about what the Bible teaches, we have every right to hold our own beliefs about where others' beliefs move from orthodoxy into heresy -- and where they move from serious beliefs to the frivolous.
I wouldn't expect you to agree with our conclusions, but it's daft to dispute our right to draw those conclusions.
Dan,
"3. I DON'T THINK THE (what seem like to me) NON-FACTUAL STORIES IN THE BIBLE ARE FALSE."
Since "non factual" and "false" seem to be synonomous how can they also be opposites.
This still doesn't answer the question though. You insist that it is wrong for God to take human life (or "innocent" human life), yet these stories depict God doing or ordering just that. If they are "non factual/non false" as you contend, then God is telling His people the He will (or has) do (or has done) something that you claim is against His character. Some how this "non factual" story about His non character traits are supposed to be comforting. You have yet to address this or provide a plausable explaination as to why falsehoods about God are comforting.
"2. Humans do, in fact, find some comfort in escapist stories in which the bad guys get what is coming to them.
Do you disagree with this notion?"
Yes, humans do find comfortr in just those types of stories, IF there is a basis in Truth for the stories. In your conception God will not do the things attributed to Him, therefore you conception is not rooted in a Truth about God.
I offer an example. Non factual of course.
Dan's son Bob has been beaten up by some bullies at school, and comes home in tears. Dan, as a good father would, strives to comfort his son. He tries tellingim that it will be ok, that the bullies are just jerks, etc, but to no avail. So, Dan finally says "Bob, here is how I have dealt with this in the past. I waited in ambush with a bat and I whacked my tormentors on the knees. It stopped them from picking on me. So, tomorrow I will wait in ambush with a bat and I will rush to your aid if they beat you up. I'll thrash them so good that they won;t ever bother you again" Bob, says "thanks dad", but is not comforted because Dan is a committed pacifist and has forsaken violence in all forms and at all times. Why would this comfort Bob, he knows that it will never happen, and as nice as it is to think about revenge, it's not real.
Maybe that will help get to my point.
3. If you agree, then do you think that it is impossible that God would inspire a story of comeuppance? Or that God would inspire prayers where the pray-er is praying for vengeance against innocent bystanders?
Assuming you think it's possible, then what reason would you have for suggesting this couldn't be such a story? And, IF God inspired such a story, you wouldn't call it "lying," would you?"
I have suggested that it is possible for God to inspire many different ways for His story to be told. Including (which you don't seem to) factual recitations of actual events.
I also think that peolple do cry out to God for deliverence or justice or vengence and that it is normal to cry out to the Creator, Protector God of the universe for redress of wrong. Where it strays into lying is when you accept your contention that God will not respond in the ways He is indicating that He will. If God says "I'm going to do X" when X is against His nature then why would He say He was going to do X in the first place? This is where your Logic and Reason desert you, and you either don't see the contradiction, or are just ignorin it in hopes that it will go away.
I'm reminded of a political point Jonah Goldberg made in National Review, in print and in a subsequent article online.
His central thesis is that, "In life we interpret all sorts of physical actions and espoused beliefs as indications of a person's adherence to an abstraction."
He thinks we're right to do so.
"Now, religions are funny things, so it's certainly possible that what is in a person's heart is a better indicator of the intensity of his or her Jewishness, Christianity, or Islamic-ness, etc. But not being God ourselves, we can't read people's hearts and so we have to go by what folks do or say. So, the principle still holds: We can reasonably say that someone is more X if he does things reasonable people recognize as very X-like." [emphasis mine]
His political point is that, "when it comes to patriotism we are expected to suspend this entirely reasonable rule of thumb."
"As I note in the mag piece, in American politics you can flagrantly indict someone's racial tolerance, their love of children, their charity, and so forth —- Democrats do it all the time to Republicans —- but if you 'question' someone's patriotism you're an ogre, a bully, an (always ill-defined) 'McCarthyite.' "
His broad point about politics applies here to religion.
Even in this one comment thread, Dan Trabue has not hesitated to accuse us of holding unjust and unloving religious beliefs, of being literally graceless, and even of idolatry -- or worshiping a "petty god."
But for us to question the orthodoxy of his beliefs or the seriousness of his study of the Bible, well, that's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
Again:
"We can reasonably say that someone is more X if he does things [or says things] reasonable people recognize as very X-like."
Dan apparently believes that Christ's death didn't cause our salvation, that His Resurrection need not be physical, and that the Lord's Supper is a mere church tradition rather than an ordinance of Christ.
I know what Christianity is, and those beliefs deviate significantly from it.
Dan also believes that God inspired the Bible's writers to craft stories that are "non-factual" (but somehow not false), stories that attribute to God words and deeds which are not His and which would be literally blasphemous to attribute to Him.
I know what serious Bible study is, and I do not think such a belief can possibly result from it.
Dan,
I need to apologize for my earlier apology. I actually went back and read what you wrote about hell, and want to try to connect some of the threads of what you have written.
You say you believe in hell, defined as "seperation from God". First, it is at least arguable from the words of Christ that hell is more than that. But for the sake of argument we'll accept that definition.
You also say that people can choose to accept or reject the salvation offered by God.
I think we can agree that not all will accept this gift.
Further, it seems logical that many who don't accept this gift will in fact actively reject it.
"Result of free will
Some apologists argue that Hell exists because of free will, and that hell is a choice rather than an imposed punishment. Jonathan L. Kvanvig writes[12]:
“ [C.S.] Lewis believes that the doors of hell are locked from the inside rather than from the outside. Thus, according to Lewis, if escape from hell never happens, it is not because God is not willing that it should happen. Instead, residence in hell is eternal because that is just what persons in hell have chosen for themselves. ”
Similarly, Dave Hunt writes:
“ We may rest assured that no one will suffer in hell who could by any means have been won to Christ in this life. God leaves no stone unturned to rescue all who would respond to the convicting and wooing of the Holy Spirit."
I think I have accurately stated your positions so far, but if we connect the dots the unescapable conclusion to be drawn from your hunches is that the "punishment" for people who have lived their lives seperated from God is SEPERATION FROM GOD. While you or I might see that as punishment, for someone whoes goal it is that would seem like a reward.
So, while this is another semi digression, it does relate to your earlier contentions and I felt like I needed to clarify.
I really hope this doesn't lead down another path, it's hard enout staying on the 10 or so we have already.
Craig...
Why would this comfort Bob, he knows that it will never happen, and as nice as it is to think about revenge, it's not real.
Maybe that will help get to my point.
Okay, I think I'm getting your all's point. You (Craig, Bubba, Marshall) can't conceive of God doing such a thing, therefore, since you can't conceive of God inspiring such a story, it couldn't possibly happen, because your perceptions and conceptions of God are infallible.
Is that your point?
At least for my position, I believe that the reason that we can't accept a literal telling of those stories as likely is because IT CONFLICTS WITH THE BIBLE. It has nothing to do with my feelings on the notion of whether God might or might not inspire such a story, but because such a story would conflict with what I think the Bible teaches.
In your case, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with what the Bible teaches or not, but seems to rest entirely on the assumption that, "Because I can't conceive it and because it does not make sense to me, it can't be true."
Fair enough?
Dan,
Your epic/wythical storytelling hunch does not address the place of the Passover celebration in both Jewish and Christian tradition. Unless you are willing to suggest that Gods commandment to celebrate the Passover is somehow "non factual".
Which brings up another tangent.
How can you credibly argue that any of the OT text you like, 10 commandments, Micha 6:8, are non non factual as well. In the 10 commandments case they are part of a longer narrative that (due to things like the plagues and the Red Sea incident) you have to consider as written in an epic/mythical style. It could also be argued that prophecy (Micha) by it's very nature is figurative language, so why single out that one verse. Is it your contention that verses 9,13,14, and 16 are somehow non factual? On what rational basis can you seperate snippets of what is clearly one oration and label them factual and non factual?
We understand that you have an isegetical method, we just don't understand what sems to be the capricous way you apply it. We don't even doubt the fact that you sincerely believe what you believe. We just can't see how you can randomly apply your isegetical theory in a way that makes it possible for anyone else to follow your logic.
Indeed, it is difficult to juggle our multiple threads. Which is one reason why I strive to avoid that (not always successfully) at my blog.
Craig said...
I think I have accurately stated your positions so far, but if we connect the dots the unescapable conclusion to be drawn from your hunches is that the "punishment" for people who have lived their lives seperated from God is SEPERATION FROM GOD. While you or I might see that as punishment, for someone whoes goal it is that would seem like a reward.
I don't think so. (You are, of course, free to disagree).
Someone may convince themselves that the ugliness, the hatred, the bitterness, the envy, the horrible isolation and destruction and killing and backbiting and gossip and lack of justice that IS separation from God is a "reward," but they will be suffering nonetheless.
In theory, I guess someone might be able to convince themselves that burning alive in fire forever is a reward, too, but I don't believe that either will enjoyable or preferable to being in God's presence. I am convinced that being in God's presence is SUCH a magnificent, wonderful thing and being separated from God is SUCH a horrible thing, that it is obvious, even to those who might try to convince themselves otherwise.
I've known too many people who were suffering through life separated from God who recognized and described their lives as living hells to think it isn't pretty obvious. But I guess if someone can convince themselves of that bile-filled life is a reward, it IS a reward, THEIR just reward. It just isn't a pleasant reward.
That's how it seems to me.
Craig asked...
On what rational basis can you seperate snippets of what is clearly one oration and label them factual and non factual?
On what basis can we separate ANY historical epic's facts from fiction? It would appear that there may well have been a Robin of Locksley. Parts of that story are based on real people in the real world (clearly, King Richard was a real person).
Epic stories tend to go back and forth between something approaching factual literal history and something approaching fiction. We separate it all out the best we can.
In the case of the Bible, it's easier, because we have Great Biblical Truths to which we can compare the stories and any scenes or lessons that seem to conflict with know biblical truths, we can set aside as likely not factual.
How do you discern that Jesus was using hyperbole in his "gouge your eyes out" statement? By using YOUR GOD-GIVEN REASONING ability. Same as me.
Also, you keep referring to an "isegetical method." There is no such word in the dictionary and I'm not familiar with the term (again, I apologize if I'm missing something because I'm not a trained biblical theologian). What does that mean?
I'm assuming you probably mean "eisegetical," which is defined...
an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.
In which case, I would have to say that this is not the case. As I just demonstrated, my belief about how to interpret the genocide passages comes from a biblical hermeneutic. Yours, on the other hand, appears to come from the notion that you all can't conceive of God inspiring a story using myth or epic storytelling conventions.
So, is THAT what you're referring to or is it something else?
"Is that your point?"
NO, it is not my point.
My point is you are contradicting yourself.
You continue to insist that God does not kill people.
You continue to insist that the stories of God killing people are designed by God to comfort His people.
How can His people be comforted by stories of something that YOU insist He will not do?
If you tell your son that you will defend him using violent means that is non factual, false, not true, and you have lied to your son. Why do I say that, because you are a pacifist. Presumably your son knows this, therefore he knows that your promise to violently intervene on his behalf is not true. Given that, how could he possibly find comfort in eing told that you will do something that you clearly will not?
Given the fact that Bubba, Marshall, and I have all three raised this point in three different ways, it becomes hard to believe that you truely do not understand our question.
"At least for my position, I believe that the reason that we can't accept a literal telling of those stories as likely is because IT CONFLICTS WITH THE BIBLE."
Not unless you are inflating your (to be generous, I'll include Anabaptists and some Baptists in my "your") interpretation. At best it conflicts with your isegesis of the Bible.
"It has nothing to do with my feelings on the notion of whether God might or might not inspire such a story, but because such a story would conflict with what I think the Bible teaches."
The key word there is "think" and you have yet to provide any support for your hunch that your isegesis is the correct isegesis. Except of course for "My Reason tells me otherwise".
"In your case, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with what the Bible teaches or not,"
Thank you for the psychoanalysis, but for you to serioulsy make this claim you would need to rebut the scripture that has been presented here and elsewhere with something beyond "I think...". Bubba has been asking you to deal with Psalm 106 forever, yet you haven't that I've seen. So you can cling to "it's my opinion and I don't care what anyone else thinks or to look at anything that might shake my hunch" or you can deal with the text and exegete away.
"but seems to rest entirely on the assumption that, "Because I can't conceive it and because it does not make sense to me, it can't be true."
Fair enough?"
No that is such an inaccurate representation of my thinking that I might have to consider accusing you of slander and lying. But I probably won't because it's a silly waste of time.
Yes Dan, I misspelled eisegetical and its other forms spell check let me down, sorry. My bad. But if the shoe fits.
So, "exegesis" of Micha 6 consists of V.8 is OK because it agrees with what I have decided are "great biblical truths", but the rest is crap. Brilliant.
Where in the Bible can you find a list of "great biblical truths" enumerated?
Your "exegesis" as to how we seperate "factual history" from "non factual truth" is "you just know" or "it's obvious"?
Isn't you whole point that epic/mythical stories are non factual? Please show us in detail how you come to the conclusion that Micha 6:8 is "factual" and Micha 6:14 is "non factual"?
Craig...
You continue to insist that God does not kill people.
Well, that's a fine point and it might hold some water IF I EVER SAID THAT or IF I thought that. But I haven't said that and don't hold to that as a rule.
What I HAVE said is that...
1. God is God and can do whatever God wants to do.
2. I don't believe God will act in ways that are against God's nature.
3. THE BIBLE tells us that God won't tempt us to sin, that isn't in God's nature.
4. THE BIBLE tells us that it is sinful for us to kill or rape innocent people.
5. Therefore, I don't think God will tempt us (or command us!) to do that which is sinful.
I'm speaking quite clearly of what we do and don't do.
Now, beyond that, I have offered that I see no reason to conclude that God would go around killing people, especially innocent infants. God CAN do so, since God is God, but I see nothing that suggests that God DOES do so. Nothing, that is, except for some stories which SEEM TO ME to be clearly mythological or epic, in nature, indicating that it's entirely possible that the "killing" that takes place is imagery, not factual.
Dan,
Do you really take comfort in fictional stories?
As opposed to experiencing some sort of vicarious thrill when the bad guy gets his in the end.
We all have that emotional sense of the "rightness" of the bad guy getting put down and the damsel being saved, but isn't that just an echo of our God given desire for justice. Isn't it the same sort of thing when Jesus is depicted casting the Satan and his minions into the lake of fire? Is your sense of justice satisfied believeing the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc are just hanging out seperated from God?
Your apocryphal story about people who refer to life as a "living hell" because they are seperated from God, actually makes a good point.
We were designed and intended to live in fellowship with God. Pascal talked about the vacuum that can only be filled with God, well the people you have talked to are obviously aware of the vacuum even they may be trying to fill it with stuff other than God. This would probably acount for their sense of being in a living hell. However, for someone who has actively tried to avoid God and the vacuum has been buried so deep that the ydon't feel it any more, seperation from God is their goal, and to suggest that somehow this represents justice seems hard to accept.
Craig...
How can His people be comforted by stories of something that YOU insist He will not do?
Okay, this is just silly. How many times shall I answer this question?
As noted, I MYSELF find some great comfort and release in watching violent shows where the bad guys get their comeuppance. HOW can I be? Well, I don't know, I would suggest it's something in human nature. I don't know HOW, I just know that it's a reality.
When I watch John Wayne killing a bad guy, it's not like I actually want the cops to kill the guy who broke into my house or anything in the real world. It's just a release. Escapism. In fact, I clearly recognize it would be WRONG of me to want to see it (or cause it to) happen in the real world.
I have the ability to differentiate between escapism and actual ethics. I don't think I'm unique in that way.
And I think I shall pass on answering that question any further, unless you're wanting to change the question for clarification.
Craig asked it another way...
We all have that emotional sense of the "rightness" of the bad guy getting put down and the damsel being saved, but isn't that just an echo of our God given desire for justice.
Yes, I think probably so.
But that doesn't mean it's how God actually operates in the real world.
Do you think God is in the business of going around like an assassin and taking out "bad guys" in the real world?
"What I HAVE said is that...
1. God is God and can do whatever God wants to do."
Except inspire the writers of the OT to write in a stlye other than that of epic/myth. Or determine guilt or innocence apart from Dan's opinion of what constitutes guilt or innocence.
"2. I don't believe God will act in ways that are against God's nature."
Again no problem. Except when He inspires comforting stories about that which He has not done nor will ever do.
"3. THE BIBLE tells us that God won't tempt us to sin, that isn't in God's nature."
Correct.
"4. THE BIBLE tells us that it is sinful for us to kill or rape innocent people."
But it does provide ample justification for killing (you just have to indulge your rape fixation don't you) who are guilty. Or at least those who God has deemed guilty
"5. Therefore, I don't think God will tempt us (or command us!) to do that which is sinful."
If God (as you affirm) can "do whatever God wants to do", and If God is the ultimate arbiter of guilt or innocence, and if we as humans are the primary vehicle for God's action on earth, and if it's OK for God to kill guilty people, then how can it be a sin for people to follow Gods commands? Who are we to pass judgement on anyones Guilt or innocence before God, surely God reserves that pergative for Himself?
NON FACTUAL COMMENT ALERT
" I have offered that I see no reason to conclude that God would go around killing people,"
No one here has suggested that either. We have suggested that the Bible contains what scholars refer to as historical accounts of instances where God has, either through human agency or supernatural, felt in necessary to do so. No one is arguing that this is the norm, simply that the stories are there and that they are treated like history.
"especially innocent infants."
EISEGESIS ALERT
You have yet to offer anything beyond "because I think so" to support this claim that God cannot determine the guilt or innocence of anything within His created order.
God CAN do so, since God is God, but I see nothing that suggests that God DOES do so.
This gets back to my earlier unanswered question about your demand for "evidence" or "proof". Since you will automatically dismiss anything that might suggest otherwise you have erected a fairly unbreachable position. The problem is it may or may not be the right one, you'll never really know. That's too bad.
Craig...
If you tell your son that you will defend him using violent means that is non factual, false, not true, and you have lied to your son. Why do I say that, because you are a pacifist.
You are presuming that the one and only way of interpreting the genocidal stories was that God intended to get across to the Israelis that God will kill their enemies, even their children.
That might be ONE way of interpreting that, but is it the only way? No, I don't think so.
Could it not also be more like the escapism that I just described? I find release in that sort of movie just because I do. Because it affirms the notion of Justice.
In other words, I'm NOT telling my son a story in which I imply that I will defend him with violent means. I MAY tell a story in which the bad guy gets theirs, but it's not an implication that I will use violence on him. Rather, it is an indication of what Dr King called the realization that the "arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."
I would be telling my son a story in which Justice does come one day. I may even tell a story where that justice involves violence, but the violence would not be the point of the story.
Fellas, this is really circular. I don't think we're covering any ground that we haven't already criss-crossed several times. I am really unsure of the point of this, much further.
YOU think it ridiculous to suggest that God might inspire an epic story.
I think it ridiculous to suggest that God might command us to commit evil and that a God that commands people to kill or rape infants, that would be commanding us to do evil.
You disagree with that.
I disagree with your disagreement.
How long can we continue this? And what's the point?
Dan:
"At least for my position, I believe that the reason that we can't accept a literal telling of those stories as likely is because IT CONFLICTS WITH THE BIBLE."
Where, exactly, does the Bible teach anything that necessarily conflicts with the claim that God has the moral right to take human life whenever and however He chooses, and that God HAS exercised this right in history?
I'm tempted to ask for proof that would meet your own ridiculous standards vis-a-vis inerrancy, but I won't.
About separating "factual literal history and something approaching fiction", you write:
"In the case of the Bible, it's easier, because we have Great Biblical Truths to which we can compare the stories and any scenes or lessons that seem to conflict with know[n] biblical truths, we can set aside as likely not factual."
Where does the Bible make a distinction between its "Great Truths" and those factual claims that you think are disposable?
And with what Great Truth does the claim conflict, that God can and has taken human life through disasters and even human agency?
The claim that taking human life is immoral? Does the Bible clearly teach that it's immoral FOR GOD -- that it's UNIVERSALLY immoral, for Him as well as us -- or does it merely prohibit US from shedding blood in certain circumstances?
You write:
"How do you discern that Jesus was using hyperbole in his "gouge your eyes out" statement? By using YOUR GOD-GIVEN REASONING ability. Same as me."
If you're going to gripe about what I say is obvious, you shouldn't use this comment as a prelude to introducing controversial claims about what's reasonable.
And if you're going to appeal to God-given reason and what you believe is God's word written on your heart, let's not pretend that you think the conflict is rooted in the text, the conflict regarding the Old Testament's difficult commands from God.
You say that our position "CONFLICTS WITH THE BIBLE."
Show us where.
Dan,
You have changed moved the goal posts on this one. Your earlier comments stated that God used those stories to "comfort" his people. Now, you say they are escapism.
Sorry, but how can anyone find the story of God killing "innocent" Egyptian children, when you clearly believe He would do no such thing.
If, as you continue to insist without providing evidence, these stories are "escapism" why would God tell "escapist" stories that are contrary to his very nature. That go against what you believe is the essence of His being. I don't deny emotional satisfaction in seeing Luke blow up the Death Star, but I'm not comforted by that. It is a representation of the abstract reality that ultimately good triumphs over evil. Now as a believer I might connect that to God's ultimate triumph over evil, but my comfort is in God, not the story.
"But that doesn't mean it's how God actually operates in the real world."
Can you state this as an epistemological fact or is this merely one more hunch?
Do you think God is in the business of going around like an assassin and taking out "bad guys" in the real world?
Interesting question, in an ultimate sense (the Satan) I would argue that yes God does take out bad guys.
In a historical sense I would argue that while God allows evil, he limits it. So I could see an argument that defeating NAZI germany was God "using" human agency to eliminate evil. I would also argue that God has "taken out" bad guys througout history. Sometimes through human agency, sometimes not. It certainly seems clear that God "took out" Annanias. But, ultimately this points out the circularity of your position. Because "I" (Dan) can't concieve of God "taking out" bad guys, then any stories that show Him doing that must by epic/myth. If you want to live in a vacuum, you can sustain the circularity, if not you have to defend your hunch to be taken seriously.
Dan, you ask, "Do you think God is in the business of going around like an assassin and taking out 'bad guys' in the real world?"
What is the point of the parable of the wheat and the tares?
Is that God isn't in "the business" of pouring out His wrath against evil-doers?
Or that God isn't doing so YET?
Can I guess that you think the Bible's promises of divine judgment at the end of history is yet more "escapist" fantasy for our comfort and catharsis and not one of the Bible's Great Truths? Even though Jesus Christ Himself REPEATEDLY warned of such judgment, and you claim to esteem everything that He taught?
In your numbered argument for why taking (innocent) life is immoral (I omit the non sequitor about rape), you miss a key point.
"4. THE BIBLE tells us that it is sinful for us to kill [...] innocent people.
"5. Therefore, I don't think God will tempt us (or command us!) to do that which is sinful."
But WHY is it sinful?
Is it sinful because it's INHERENTLY WRONG to take (innocent) human life, or because IT'S GOD'S PREROGATIVE? The answer makes a world of difference.
I believe the Bible points strongly to the latter.
Consider Genesis 9:6.
"Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind."
Notice **THE REASON** it's wrong to kill: God made man in His own image; we belong to Him.
And notice **THE RESULT** for those who kill: their lives are taken by other humans, presumably because GOD DELEGATES TO HUMANS THE TASK AND POWER WHICH RIGHTLY BELONGS TO HIM.
I could suppose that you think this too is a cathartic and comforting revenge fantasy that doesn't rise to the level of a Great Biblical Truth, but then there's Romans 12, which you quote frequently, when it's convenient.
"Vengeance is mine," saith the Lord.
Again, it's not "Vengeance is wrong."
Tell you what, to help end this merry go round, I'll only address any new questions you have, or at least new angles on old questions.
So far, I see nothing that has not been covered already ad nauseum.
For instance, this question...
Because "I" (Dan) can't concieve of God "taking out" bad guys, then any stories that show Him doing that must by epic/myth.
Is already answered.
1. I have not said that God absolutely does not go around killing people, just that I see no reason to think so. My ultimate point in this conversation is not what God does and doesn't do, but what we should do.
2. I have said that God does not tempt us to sin, so I'm not saying that...
"I" (Dan) can't concieve of God "taking out" bad guys, then any stories that show Him doing that must by epic/myth.
Rather, I'm saying, "God does not tempt us or command us to sin and that to take the genocide stories literally (stories that you all have not given the FIRST BIBLICAL REASON as to why we should take it literally, beyond, "seems like it to me...") would be contrary to that notion, therefore, I think it more likely that it is imagery, such as an epic story."
So, since I have already answered this sort of question multiple times, I shan't do so again, forthwith.
"That might be ONE way of interpreting that, but is it the only way? No, I don't think so."
But it is the most common way that I have seen.
Sorry, this is hopeless, you have so twisted the question that it is obvius that you are nevr going to provide a straight answer.
You change the hypothetical I presented then respond to YOUR version rather than the hypothetical as originally presented. In doing so you also alter the content of the OT stories. These are not presented in a "here's what happened to someone else and lets all feel good about it". They are presented as specific events that happened in specific times and places (there is archeological suport for the destruction of Sodom), not general stories of generic good v. evil.
The fact remains, even if you tell your son a story where good triumphs through violence your are suggesting n outcome that is at odds with your stated beliefs, which you argue are explicitly taught in scripture. Great example.
"YOU think it ridiculous to suggest that God might inspire an epic story."
OK this is my limit. This is a flat out boldfaced lie. It directly contradicts statements that I have made in this very thread. You have zero factual support for this statement, none. For you to resort to behavior you so vociferously decry says much about the quality of your arguments. If you want to move past this sub topic there's plent unaddressed just on this page, so feel free. But, either repost this comment without the lie, or quit accusing everyone else of lies and slander.
Your call.
I'll one up you Dan. I'll stop this line, if you just address the open issues raised on this page.
For example.
Specifically how do you differentiate the factuality of t Micha 6:8&,10-12, and Micha 6:9,13,14,&16.
There is more untouched up there if you're willing to honestly tackle it.
Dan, you frequently cite "overcome evil with good" to justify your strict pacifism, ripping the passage out of its immediate context to do so.
The context -- the end of Romans 12 and the beginning of chapter 13 (there were no chapter sections in the original letter) -- is worth studying.
"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'
"No, 'if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
"For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer." - Rom 12:19-13:4, emphasis mine
Note the claims:
1) Vengeance belongs to God.
2) All authority comes from God and is instituted by God.
3) The government is God's agent of wrath against the wrongdoer, and it does not bear the sword in vain.
According to Strongs, the word for "vengeance" in 12:22 is THE SAME WORD as the one for "wrath" in 13:4: orge.
This wrath or vengeance belongs to God, and the government is the servant of God to execute it against evildoers.
Now, I believe that God has the right to take human life and that, therefore, He has the prerogative to delegate that action even to human agents.
That would mean that, although God has GENERALLY forbidden us from taking human life, He doesn't tempt us to sin when He commands us otherwise. The sin isn't taking life per se, but doing so ON OUR OWN.
You believe that taking human life is intrinsically sinful and that, therefore, God won't do it Himself or command us to do so.
Looking at Romans 12-13, I think it's completely obvious which conclusion is more biblical.
"My ultimate point in this conversation is not what God does and doesn't do, but what we should do."
I could't leave this gem alone. Since no one here is even remotely suggesting that we should go out and kill people, why are you wasting all this time with the myth/legend crap. We are arguing that it is reasonable that God within the at certain times and in certain places acted in a certain way. We have never attempted to imply or suggest that this action is normative or that we take on the perogatives of God. Since you cannot provide one teeny tiny scrap of a snippet that any of us has ever advocated that we take Gods actions in the OT as normative for today, I must conclude that you are either really stuck and dodging for all you are worth, or just flat out lying.
I've tried really hard not to go down the lying road, because it is non productive, but two whoppers in the space of 30 minutes is too much to let pass.
Again, if you want to edit your comments to remove the falsehoods, I will remove all references to this and we can move.
Craig...
Specifically how do you differentiate the factuality of Micah 6:8&,10-12, and Micah 6:9,13,14,&16.
Micah 6: 8, 10-12...
God has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly
and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God...
Am I [God speaking] still to forget, O wicked house, your ill-gotten treasures and the short ephah, which is accursed?
Shall I acquit a man with dishonest scales, with a bag of false weights?
Her rich men are violent; her people are liars and their tongues speak deceitfully.
Dealing with just this first set of verses, first.
I'm not sure of what you're asking.
This is a passage that gives what appear to be some universal expectations/rules God has for right living.
God expects us to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly with God. Further, the passage goes on to expound upon what constitutes a LACK of doing justice, or of what doing INjustice looks like.
Clearly, the point of these first four verses is that God wants us to live in ways of justice, as well as living with mercy and "walking humbly with God," which I think sounds like our relationship with God (as opposed to the "doing justice and loving mercy," which seem to be more directly related to our relationship with people.
Are we agreed on this first part?
There's a third whopper, actually.
Dan, you write, "you all have not given the FIRST BIBLICAL REASON as to why we should take [these stories] literally."
I did: yesterday morning at 9:40 AM I gave four reasons from the New Testament alone.
I even numbered them, and so far as I can tell, you've never acknowledge those reasons, much less refuted them.
I repeat them now for your benefit.
1) Jesus Christ affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke and repeatedly quoted some of its oldest texts as authoritative commands from God.
2) Many of these same historical figures are in Christ's genealogy, including Abraham and David, while Moses and Elijah were present in the Transfiguration.
3) Much of what Christ taught about the judgment to come is along the same lines AND are more dreadful, since eternal damnation is infinitely worse than physical death.
4) What Christ taught even directly implies the historicity of some of the difficult OT events, such as the destruction of Sodom; other events are treated historically elsewhere in the NT, as the author of Hebrews praises Abraham for his willingness to sacrifice Isaac.
As I concluded that list, one cannot so radically reinterpret those difficult OT passages without damaging significant teachings in the NT.
Then, Micah 6: 9, 13, 14, 16...
9 Listen! The LORD is calling to the city — and to fear your name is wisdom — "Heed the rod and the One who appointed it...
13 Therefore, I have begun to destroy you, to ruin you because of your sins.
14You will eat but not be satisfied; your stomach will still be empty. You will store up but save nothing, because what you save I will give to the sword.
16 You have observed the statutes of Omri and all the practices of Ahab's house, and you have followed their traditions. Therefore I will give you over to ruin and your people to derision; you will bear the scorn of the nations.
Okay, so God has said that injustice annoys God. God follows it up with these declarations, saying "HEED THIS WARNING..." (ie, "heed the rod and the One who appointed it...") and God proceeds to warn of what will happen/what IS happening because of their sin.
Clearly, sin has consequences.
I guess what you're saying is that where it says, "I [God] have begun to destroy you..." is that I can't say that the declaration against injustice is True if the statement following it is only imagery?
If that's your point, then I would disagree. I DO think we can have Truths that are universal truths in one line and then follow it with lines that are imagery or less-than-literal following it.
Now, as I repeatedly have noted, I'm not saying what God does and doesn't do, BEYOND the notion that God doesn't do things that are contrary to God's nature. God won't lie, for instance. God won't tempt us to sin, for instance. I believe we agree on that point, yes?
COULD God have begun to "destroy you [Israel]?" Sure. How might God have done this? By a direct divine action - sending locusts to devour their crops or something similar? It's possible, I don't rule that out.
However, by our own experience, it does not appear that God works that way. Rather, TYPICALLY, we are "punished" for our sin by the very real consequences of our sins. If a people are perverse and crooked enough, I believe that such sin has consequences and that God allows us to suffer through those consequences.
So, in this passage, I think one of two things is happening.
1. God proclaims that God expects justice from God's people and, failing that, God directly intervenes - sending locusts to destroy their food, for instance or God "gives you over to ruin" (ie, allows Israel to be taken over by another nation or otherwise collapse economically or nationally - I don't think it says specifically at all in this passage). Anyway, it's possible that God directly intervened and caused "bad stuff" to happen. I'm not in a position to say that something like that absolutely did not happen.
OR,
2. God proclaims that God expects justice from God's people and, failing that, the people of Israel suffer natural consequences of their sin. I think this is the more likely, because it seems like that's how things work in this world. I don't see any great reason to presume God worked differently back then than he does today.
One of those two options seems to me to be the likely explanation of what's going on there. What do you think is happening?
Is that what you're asking? I'm not sure.
I think we ought to allow Gays in the military. They should train together and fight separately.
Here's how it should work:
War breaks out, we send in the Marines in to kick ass and take names etc. Then we send a bunch of women with PMS in to mop up the survivors. Then we send the gay guys in to clean everything up and hang curtains.
Craig...
"YOU think it ridiculous to suggest that God might inspire an epic story."
OK this is my limit. This is a flat out boldfaced lie. It directly contradicts statements that I have made in this very thread.
Sorry, Craig, that last one was directed to "you" as a whole. You are correct that you agree with me that God might inspire an epic story. I don't think that everyone here thinks that and I was addressing the whole.
My apologies for lumping you in with Bubba and Marshall. As I have noted, you are at least usually a bit more reasonable than they seem to be OR, put more fairly, you and I seem to have at least a little less trouble communicating successfully than B/M and I do.
Craig said...
Since you cannot provide one teeny tiny scrap of a snippet that any of us has ever advocated that we take Gods actions in the OT as normative for today, I must conclude that you are either really stuck and dodging for all you are worth, or just flat out lying.
And would it be fair to say that since you can't provide one teeny tiny scrap of a snippet that I am suggesting that you are saying the genocidal passages are normative for today, that this is not my position?
To be clear: IF anyone thinks I'm saying that Team Marshall thinks that the genocidal passages are normative for Christians today, that we are sometimes to go and kill our enemies and their infants, I'm not saying that.
SOME here HAVE said (I believe) that it's possible that God MIGHT ask us to kill our enemies and their babies and, if asked, they would do so, but they have not said it is normative and I don't think they think it is normative.
If there was any misunderstanding, I apologize.
OK. The preceding comment is just a joke.
However, I do believe gays should be allowed in the military. After all, Someone has to fight in Satan's army at Armageddon.
Dan:
About direct divine action to punish people for their sins, you write that you don't rule the possibility out.
"However, by our own experience, it does not appear that God works that way."
How the fuck do you know this? How would our experience tell us whether, when calamity strikes, it's just the "natural consequences" of sin or God's direct intervention?
About our suffering the "natural consequences," you write, "I think this is the more likely, because it seems like that's how things work in this world."
How could you tell the difference?
What would be the dead give-away of direct divine intervention, which you think is absent in "this world"?
When you make claims like this -- or claims about how we know free will operates because of our "real-world" observations, as if ANY OF US can observe the exercise of someone else's free will -- it galls me, because you are so quick to accuse others of literal megalomania for the MUCH less arrogant act of drawing conclusions from what you write.
And, Dan, you say this comment...
"YOU think it ridiculous to suggest that God might inspire an epic story."
...was to us as a whole, more to me and Marshall and less to Craig.
I'd love to see the comment I made that justifies this conclusion, because I don't think it's ridiculous that God might inspire an epic story, per se.
What I think is ridiculous is the idea that, WITHOUT ANY CLEAR INDICATION OF THIS INTENT, God would inspire such a story to attribute to Him words and deeds that would be blasphemous to attribute to Him literally.
Job is an epic which Chesterton compared to the major Greek epics in The Everlasting Man.
Because it's completely separate from the main narrative -- the covenant with the Patriarchs, God's rescue and rule of ancient Israel, and the new covenant that was established by Christ and proclaimed by the church -- there's nothing that requires the belief that the story is historical, though arguably some evidence that points to its historicity.
But I believe that Job, like the entire Bible, attributes to God words and deeds that are wholly consistent with God's nature in reality.
So while it might not be necessary to accept Job as historical, there's nothing blasphemous about doing just that.
(That is the word you invoked regarding those who believe God actually did command Israel to annihilate His enemies: blasphemy.)
It's epic in its form, but that doesn't preclude it being historical in its content.
And, anyway, Dan, about God's direct punishment of sin, you write, "TYPICALLY, we are 'punished' for our sin by the very real consequences of our sins."
"TYPICALLY."
Let me concede that point, at least for the sake of argument.
God's interaction through His chosen people through His hand-picked prophet isn't what I would call typical.
If ever there actually would be an exception to what's typical, this would be it, so to downgrade Micah's warnings from God's direct intervention to the mere natural consequences of sin is SHEER QUESTION BEGGING.
Y'know, Dan, we know from our own experience God doesn't TYPICALLY raise the dead.
That doesn't tell us that we should reinterpret the story about Lazarus, much less the -- ahem -- more theologically important story about a guy being raised from the dead.
"However, by our own experience, it does not appear that God works that way."
Dan wins the prize. As long as we judge everything by our own experience then it will never appear that God works "that way".
If possible I would ask that you guys indulge a theory (more of a WAG, but we've had plenty of those in this thread so why not one more).
What if the oral history that predates the written OT was factually true and correct and that it was passed down intact and factually correctly.
If this is the case it seems possible that is the Hebrews came in to other cultures they shared their historical stories with these cultures.
These cultures found the narrative so compelling, that they felt in necessary to embellish their own historical narratives in order to "keep up". This would result, hypothetically, in the (factually correct) Hebrew history being the archetype that inspired what shows up in other cultures as epic/myth/legend.
While I really have no support for this it seems reasonable that an incredibly compelling True narrative would inspire "competition" and embellishment from other cultures.
I have heard something similar to this argument in the context of those who would coincide the story of Jesus legendary/mythical/epic.
One other thought. It seems as though Dan is assuming that a story written in the epic/mythic literary style is by definition "non factual". I am not sure I would agree. Stylistically any set of events could be written in such a style. SO it doesn't seem that it necessarily follows that epic/mythical equates to non factual.
Just some somewhat random thoughts.
"My ultimate point in this conversation is not what God does and doesn't do, but what we should do."
"And would it be fair to say that since you can't provide one teeny tiny scrap of a snippet that I am suggesting that you are saying the genocidal passages are normative for today, that this is not my position?"
Dan as I read the first quoted snippet, it seems as though you are saying that the most important thing to you is what we do today, rather than what God did in history. If this is the case why are you basing your case for how we should act today in the "atrocity stories" of the OT? Why do you repeatedly ask questions about killing children and raping babies in the present tense. It seems as though you are trying to connect our belief that God did at one point in history in a certain way with our conduct today. I know that I have specifically addressed this and there should be no question where I stand on the issue.
Again, to me, this just looks like a smoke screen.
If your main point is really what we should do today, why are you so wedded to the epic/myth hunch. Is it beyond your imagination that GOD could act one way thousands of years ago, and expect US to act differently now?
There's still plenty of fodder if you want to move on, but lets try to be factual from now on.
An important question unanswered by Dan is his suggestion of what the point was of recording their history in the first place. Dan, you say it was done in a way to give comfort and encouragement to an oppressed people. As I don't recall this being proclaimed anywhere in Scripture, how do you support this over the more likely reason being to simply record their history for posterity, the reason most history is recorded? How do you come to believe that it was written down during a time of oppression as opposed to a time of being on top? Where's support for that? This is a very subjective possibility that only works if used to support your claim regarding the record's accuracy. But in doing so, a preconceived notion must come first; one can't derive the notion from the text or even subsequent texts.
Regarding subsequent texts, they don't support your notion of God's nature if the history stands alone. By this I mean that in recording history in a style repleat with exagerations and falsehoods, it's only a crock of shit. It is no longer history but something that only pretends to be. Yet it is not looked upon in that manner by Christ or Paul or even most of Judaism throughout its history to the present (except perhaps reformed Jews).
You asked, in a recent comment, what the point of all this it. I can agree the point might be hard to remember. But as in so many threads of the past, this one has morphed into a discussion seeking to find justifications for your beliefs that are markedly different from the mainstream of Chistendom. And yes, I'll reiterate that it is YOU who is out of the mainstream as most liberal/progressive Christians are. Our beliefs are based on how we read the Bible (mostly) as I think we can all agree. That is, what are we reading and are we reading it properly. We find that you don't read it properly and take liberties necessary to arrive at your conclusions and beliefs; liberties we don't take and haven't as yet been convicted of taking. Our study ties the whole 66 books together in a way that your reading can't and doesn't. So much of your version leaves so much just dangling unexplained or dismissed out right as to make them superfluous in including them in the Bible or lies that suggest they never had any place in a Book said to be God revealed to us in print.
Perhaps we should turn this around. Perhaps rather than Bubba, Craig and myself questioning YOUR interpretations, you should now question ours and see for yourself how and why it all makes so much more sense to us. For one thing, I assure you you'll not hear goofy statements regarding raping babies or crushing puppies.
Dan,
One other semi unanswered question.
At what point in time did the recording of history change from the ancient non factual epic/mythical type, to the modern factual non-epic/mythical type. I know you kind of said you didn't have an answer, but seriously when you read history there has to be some point in your mind where you see a change.
I still don't know, Craig. Clearly, many of the stories in Genesis appear to be written in a mythological genre, at least to this non-historical and non-biblical scholar. Clearly, many of the stories in other OT books appear (to me) to be written using epic storytelling conventions.
You all have produced not the first reason why I should think it was written in any other way. (That Jesus affirmed Scripture? Well, so do I, and yet I don't think these appear to be written in a modern historical style. That NT characters refer to OT events without questioning their historicity? Well, so do I oftentimes, so do we at my church. But it doesn't mean we take them literally.)
So, lacking ANY compelling evidence from your point of view and not seeing any reason to think otherwise, AND because I have compelling reasons to NOT take some of them literally, I will have to follow God the best I can, striving to discern God's will and God's word, by God's grace, as best I can. And in so doing, I have reached my conclusions in good faith.
I'm sorry that I have not been able to communicate my opinions to you in ways that you can understand. At this point, I don't see what purpose there is in continuing at least this particular conversation. I'm really pressed for time and have answered at least most of your questions multiple times in multiple ways.
May God grant us wisdom and grace.
Peace.
Dan,
Your final prayer in your last comment strikes me as being less than sincere. We've exposed a plethora of holes in your understanding of Scripture here, to say nothing of the previous several years of engagement between us. Yet, in the end it's always the same old story. It would be no different than if George Carlin really did believe that when you die your soul goes to a garage in Baltimore. "I'm no Biblical scholar, but that's what I believe. Why can't you understand that Christian brothers can differ on some points?" Because the points are so removed from truth and logic. I don't believe that there is anyone here on this side of these discussions that would not "convert" if there was any of either in your arguments. To be brought closer to God is everyone's desire.
Again, the purpose of this conversation surrounding your defense of your perspective on the history of the Jews found in the OT is a matter of impact on the rest of your understanding. It's just one more area that indicates you've gone off track due to the inconsistencies and holes in your argument.
A further question would be, why are you so sure you can't be corrected by the likes of us? That we don't hold in our perspective more truth than you do in yours? OR, why are you so insistent upon ruling out sections that do not appeal to YOU, in suggesting actions are contrary to God's nature, by insisting that God inspired men to act in a manner that would also be against His nature: to record history falsely, especially by ascribing to God actions that are against His nature? It doesn't make sense.
It seems clear that truth is no longer a requirement for you now that you have found interpretations that appeal to you personally. It seems graceless to reject any efforts to correct you (and prideful as well) by appealing for grace when you can't answers questions that would tie up the many and varied loose ends of your position. And there's certainly no grace in the demand for protocols that aren't even roughly explained, are unevenly applied, and seemingly not anything to which you feel obliged to follow.
I see all these discussions of faith and politics, even the minutia, as edification for me which is why I will allow them to go on and on and even take off on seemingly unrelated tangents. It's all good as far as I'm concerned. There's no wasted time as long as I'm willing to continue and/or return to a discussion, even one that's dropped off the front page of a blog. (Indeed, blogging at all is wasting time for many.) It seems to me far more indication of a desire for wisdom to meet the challenge of my opponents rather than to bail out with charges of ungraciousness, slander and other distractions and diversions, which is all those really are.
Dan, you shouldn't leave on such a dishonest note.
"You all have produced not the first reason why I should think it was written in any other way."
I have, and your parenthetical response is proof of it.
"(That Jesus affirmed Scripture? Well, so do I, and yet I don't think these appear to be written in a modern historical style. That NT characters refer to OT events without questioning their historicity? Well, so do I oftentimes, so do we at my church. But it doesn't mean we take them literally.)"
Here's the problem, Dan: that **IS** evidence that the events are to be accepted as historical and taken literally.
If it's not evidence ENOUGH, that would be one thing, except A) you have never explained what would be enough evidence, B) if your standard of proof actually exists, it's probably unreasonable, and C) your own position is supported by absolutely nothing that isn't question-begging or out-of-context quotes from Scripture.
Your behavior on this subject is exactly as it is with the question of "gay marriage:" you denounce as insufficient anything less than an explicit scriptural prohibition, even though the Bible consistently condemns the related sexual behavior and even though Christ Himself is clear about God's will for marriage, all while your own evidence for your own position is MUCH, MUCH weaker than ours, to say nothing of the fact that it couldn't possibly meet your own standards of proof.
If you're not quite finished, I would ask you to address your reasoning for why Micah's prophecy of divine judgment ought not to be taken figuratively.
You concede that it's "possible" God could directly intervene, but you immediately argue against its likelihood:
"However, by our own experience, it does not appear that God works that way. Rather, TYPICALLY, we are 'punished' for our sin by the very real consequences of our sins. If a people are perverse and crooked enough, I believe that such sin has consequences and that God allows us to suffer through those consequences...
"God proclaims that God expects justice from God's people and, failing that, the people of Israel suffer natural consequences of their sin. I think this is the more likely, because it seems like that's how things work in this world. I don't see any great reason to presume God worked differently back then than he does today."
1) This isn't an argument from Scripture itself. It's an appeal to your own personal experience.
YOU SAID that your objections were rooted in Scripture itself.
"At least for my position, I believe that the reason that we can't accept a literal telling of those stories as likely is because IT CONFLICTS WITH THE BIBLE."
There you were talking about the historical books rather than prophecy, but you're still objecting to the same basic claim that God directly intervenes to pour out His judgment, including in taking human life.
If it's true that that claim "CONFLICTS WITH THE BIBLE," you should stick with that very serious assertion and not dally about how God "typically" behaves, as if God would never act atypically.
2) On the question of what God "typically" does, I'll remind you that our experience is that God doesn't raise people from the dead.
Your appeal to your own experience doesn't just argue against a literal reading of Micah's warning; MUCH MORE CLEARLY, it argues against the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ which you say you affirm.
The logic of your argument undermines the central historical claim of Christianity. That serious flaw ought to be addressed.
I will address this question (again, again, again) from the slander man...
A further question would be, why are you so sure you can't be corrected by the likes of us?
My mind can always be changed. My desire is to follow God, to do God's will, to walk in Jesus' steps.
All you have to do to correct me is provide some reasonable support for your position. IF I thought you made a good, honest, Christian, logical point, I could be corrected. IF I think you're mistaken and that your "support" is not logical nor biblical nor Godly, then I won't be corrected.
Thus far, I don't think you have supported your case. It's as simple as that.
I CAN be convinced that I'm mistaken. After all, I used to believe that gay marriage was wrong and I was corrected on that front, and once I was convinced of the righteousness of my current position, I switched from my old position (with apologies to any I'd offended for my bad position) to my current position.
I CAN be taught, but it requires some sound evidence. That you have not been able to convince me is not an indication that I refuse to be corrected or a stubborn ego or anything except that I'm simply not convinced by your arguments.
As you are not convinced by my position.
That's all there is to that.
Dan, I'm reminded of your snark about how Sarah Palin isn't qualified to speak about energy issues, supposedly because she believes in Young Earth Creationism.
I pointed out that that logic would disqualify Christians from medicine, since we affirm the Resurrection of Christ.
You never had an adequate response for what really makes the difference between the two.
It seems you're developing a habit of disengaging from a conversation right when it becomes clear that the logic of your arguments undermines even the Resurrection of Christ. That's poor form, to say the least.
And, Dan:
"I CAN be convinced that I'm mistaken. After all, I used to believe that gay marriage was wrong and I was corrected on that front, and once I was convinced of the righteousness of my current position, I switched from my old position (with apologies to any I'd offended for my bad position) to my current position.
"I CAN be taught, but it requires some sound evidence."
Since you have never produced sound evidence that God blesses "gay marriage," this is, erm, probably not the best possible example of your willingness to conform your beliefs to strong arguments.
Dan,
This is the "slander man" again. (Nice example of graciousness--either I misunderstood the term, or your being hypocritical. My money's on the latter.) The label would be so much more fitting had I actually committed slander, something you have not shown to be true.
If my arguments against yours are unconvincing, I would think explaining why would be in order. This is how it works:
1. One side states a position explaining why the position is taken.
2. The other side rebutts the argument with a counter (with or without snark) showing why the original argument is unconvincing.
3. The first side then provides clarification (with or without whining about the snark) to show why the second side's rebuttal doesn't work.
5. The second side the provides a counter to the clarification should it not be any more convincing. More questions about the shortcomings of the position and defensive argument follow.
(See a pattern here?)
6. This process continues until one side or the other runs out of arguments or evidence, or one side says, "I don't know" or concedes, or in your case, whines about the other side being ungracious or slanderous or says, "that's your wild hunch" or "Just because YOU say so, doesn't mean...". Any of these possibilities suggest at the very least the extreme weakness of the position of the first guy, but likely means the position is just wrong and/or needs to be re-thought and re-studied.
What we have now is not much different than someone being burned but nonetheless insists he's not convinced that fire is hot. A good argument does NOT leave all the questions we've asked. It particularly does not leave questions that suggests the argument isn't contradicted by further arguments in support of the original premise, such as God not acting against His nature, while inspiring writers to use falsehoods to teach, especially falsehoods about God Himself that are contrary to His nature. And then to say that makes the most sense to you? Please.
"Clearly, many of the stories in Genesis appear to be written in a mythological genre,"
This one quote should forever ban you from complaining when someone uses the word "obviously". You have just surrendered the right to complain about obviously, unless you can provide a compelling reason why this is not the exact same thing that ticks you off.
So, you say you don't know when the change took place between primitive non factual "history" and moders sophisticated factual history. How do you judge ANY historical material? Is the NT now suspect of being epic/mythical? Caesers Punic Wars? Come on, you must have some internal point at which you trust the historians to have written factual history. I'm asking for your personal opinion here.
"That NT characters refer to OT events without questioning their historicity? Well, so do I oftentimes, so do we at my church. But it doesn't mean we take them literally.)"
NT characters ACT os though the OT stories were factual, not just refer. Otherwise why would Jesus have celebrated Passover? Passover is the either the celebration of a historical event or just one big multi thousand year charade. You have never dealt with the historic roots of the Passover in any meaning ful sense, why not?All you have to do to correct me is provide some reasonable support for your position. IF I thought you made a good, honest, Christian, logical point, I could be corrected. IF I think you're mistaken and that your "support" is not logical nor biblical nor Godly, then I won't be corrected."
This sounds great, except you won't provide any clue as to what you would aacept as "support". You have dismissed what I have offered as support without even reading it, or in the case of Scheaffer writing him off at "too Calvinist". That's great, but it's not rebuttal, it's not even honest consideration of counter arguments. I suspect you are in much the same boat as the 2 PCUSA pastors who have said (paraphrase) "If Jesus appeared bodily to me right now and told me that homosexual behavior was a sin, I'd tell him I want no part of you.". How can you claim to be open when you ignore or dismiss what is offered in support. When you dismiss thise who would argue for something other than a mythic reading of the first part of Genisis with "Clearly, blah blah blah...". You haven't dealt with their arguements, you've just dismissed them. What have you done to demonstrate any willingness to even honestly consider the positions of those who differ from you?
"
Don't hold your breath for a response, Craig. Lil' Danny's having a hissy fit over what he thinks are false charges leveled against him and his church. He might respond to you, or he may never return. I attempted to correct his cry-baby accusations at his blog and he ended up deleting my defense, accusing me of repeating lies and slanders that don't exist. You might have to go there in order to get answers from him.
Marshall,
I have not had much luck in getting what most would consider answers from Dan for quite some time. But I won't comment much at his place because I don't want to get into it with his homies. He alswys says he won't be back then comes back, who knows.
We'll see if he comes to my place when I finally post some stuff for him.
Considering this post is entitled "A Mature & Reasoned Objection", I can't help but smile at the delicious irony of Dan's immature and unreasonable behavior when it became clear he doesn't have a mature and reasoned response to the points made by Craig, Art, and Bubba.
Will Dan ever admit he's wrong? Perhaps. When he finds himself in the outer darkness repeatedly mentioned in the Bible that he no doubt dismisses as some kind of myth.
Mark,
When he's not weeping or gnashing his teeth;)
Personally, I'd prefer that all of our opponents come to their senses before their times come. At the same time, if any of them can show why we are wrong in our opinions, I wish they would do so. So far, however, that hasn't been the case.
Frankly, I've never considered myself more than average in intelligence. One would think it should be easy for our learned friends to enlighten us. But as we've seen here, which is a quite typical situation, only more questions are provoked which go unanswered.
I must also add that for me, I pay attention also to those who seem to be on my side of these issues, looking for holes that might exist in their reasoning, every bit as much as I do with my opponents. Yet, none open up so wide and deep as the chasms of the progressive arguments. No free flowing cascade of white water, the liberal argument stops suddenly with some dam of confusing and illogical imaginings drawn from who knows where. One must suspend disbelief and accept what never rings true to the objective seeker and then the water is again stopped up and new frustrations must be handled. Worse, in the case of Dan, one can never be sure when one can use a paddle, or even a raft to navigate the current.
Now, let's see, am I really talking about rushing rivers, or am I using metaphor? I have no idea how to tell. It's as confusing as the Bible.
"Then Dan stood up and prayed about[a] himself 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—liars, slanderers, Calvinists—or even like this blogger. I take care of the environment and give other peoples tax money to the poor.'"
Luke 18: 11-12
DIV
Dan International Version
:)
Not that it would matter to Dan, but one more voice that would disagree with him.
"Does God mandate violence? Properly contextualized, this narrative answers yes, but of a specific kind: tightly circumscribed, in the interest of a serious social experiment, in the interest of ending domination. The revelation is not really act, but warrant or permit. The narrative requires us to conclude that this community was utterly persuaded that the God of the tradition is passionately against domination and is passionately for an egalitarian community.[1]"
[1] Walter Brueggemann, Divine Presence Amid Violence, 39.
Craig cited Bruggeman...
The revelation is not really act, but warrant or permit.
I agree with Brueggemann, actually. It is possible that God permits violence.
Commands the death of innocents? No, I don't think that can be biblically supported. But permitted by God? I think this is a possibility (indeed, depending exactly on how Brueggemann is explaining it, I think it is obvious).
"Does God mandate violence? Properly contextualized, THIS NARRATIVE MANDATES YES, but of a specific kind: tightly circumscribed, in the interest of a serious social experiment, in the interest of ending domination."
So you ignore the entire first sentence to pick the one that you "agree" with.
This is pretty much exactly what Marshall, Bubba, and I have been saying. That God mandated certain behaviors of certain people at certain times under certain limits, to achieve certain goals.
So you agree that God gave His people the permit or warrant to use violence (at His specific command). When He knew that the violence would result in the deaths of "innocents".
Of course, you have to reserve the right to change your opinions and definitions as you see fit.
Personally I think you are mis defining how he is using permitted and warranted.
Oh, and since when is "it's obvious" a compelling argument?
I know, just for you.
Any chance you're going to answer any earlier unanswered questions, or is it now on me to re ask them in another forum?
I've re-answered the questions enough here and this thread is too much trouble to wade through. If you'd like to re-ask them again sometime, somewhere else, I may well re-answer them again, if you're still not understanding my first dozen answers.
As to Brueggemann, I'd have to read more of what he's saying to know exactly what he's saying. It sounds like to me that he's saying God allows violence to happen, if I'm misunderstanding him and he is saying God commands violence to happen, then I would disagree with him. It's possible I'm misunderstanding him.
I reckon it's even possible that you're misunderstanding him.
As to "obvious," as hermeneutic, you all were the ones to establish that as an acceptable measure of biblical interpretation. I merely have gone along with your criterion. If you wish to change your mind and say, "No, what is 'obvious' is NOT always a good manner of interpreting the Bible," I can go along with that. It certainly has its limitations and is especially subjective.
But, again, that was YOUR ALL's hermeneutic, I simply adopted it once you established it as legitimate.
Dan would seemingly claim this following passage to be myth or misunderstood or misinterpreted or wrong or not really in the Bible etc...:
“On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn-both men and animals-and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD”
— Exodus 12:12 (New International Version)
Dan would say this has to be wrong because it goes against the nature of God.
But God says, "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." ~ Job 38:2-4
Dan would have us believe he knows God's mind, and we don't, although we trust in the words of God Himself, and not in some so-called Bible scholar.
Dan:
1) You still have not explained how your take on Micah doesn't undermine the bodily Resurrection of Christ, since God doesn't "TYPICALLY" raise the dead, either.
I would think that this is a big enough problem that you would address it sooner rather than later, but that's a reasonable assumption only if you're serious about serious issues. It's clear that you're not, with your literal years of non-answers, evasions, and other efforts at punting the hard problems.
2) About what's obvious, you can equivocate between your position and ours, but the text speaks for itself.
That the Bible records, in a historical context, that God wiped out the firstborn of Egypt and commanded the annihilation of the Amalekites, IS absolutely obvious.
That God would never take innocent human life, through human agency or otherwise, ISN'T obvious.
That those that Israel wiped out were innocent (or included innocents) ALSO isn't obvious: you're inserting what the Bible never states, against what it DOES state, e.g., about how we're all born in sin. (That that passage isn't to be taken literally is likewise, not remotely obvious.)
Myself, I don't think the line between guilt and innocence is all that important in terms of God's actions, because even an innocent life still belongs to God. You STILL have not had the cajones to claim what your position requires: that God does not have the prerogative to take human life whenever and however He chooses.
3) About Brueggemann, you write:
"As to Brueggemann, I'd have to read more of what he's saying to know exactly what he's saying. It sounds like to me that he's saying God allows violence to happen, if I'm misunderstanding him and he is saying God commands violence to happen, then I would disagree with him. It's possible I'm misunderstanding him."
It's absolutely clear that's exactly what you're doing.
"Does God mandate violence? Properly contextualized, this narrative answers yes, but of a specific kind..."
What problem do you have with the meaning of the word "mandate"? The word implies compulsion, not merely permission.
Post a Comment