I got this in an email and thought I'd put it here for Barry O supporters to respond:
!If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position 32 or more Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved.
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent more than all the Presidents combined since George Washington, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have 3 years and 2 months to come up with an answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
648 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 648 Newer› Newest»I'll answer your questions.
Why would you imagine that God would command someone to rape a child. Please show us some instance where this is the case. Since you will not be able to, any answer to your question is meaningless.
As to your second question, I can only assume you have read the volumes posted about the difference between the new covenant and the old. Since I am living under the new, and I am unaware of any instance of God commanding such a thing outside of the Israeli theocracy. If I could somehow be transported back in time to that time I believe that I would obey God. If you read the OT you might notice that the penalties for disobeying God tended to be fairly stiff.
Dan, my time has caught up with me for the Thanksgiving holiday, but I will be more than happy to document the quotes that I believe justify the conclusions I've drawn about what you believe -- probably early next week, Monday or so, unfortunately.
On whether the bodily Resurrection is essential, you've been frankly incomprehensible, but on most of the other topics I mentioned, I believe my conclusions are consistent with what you've written.
I would be happy to find out that I'm completely wrong about so many aspects of what you believe, to find out that you really are further within the Christian fold than I otherwise fear. But if that's true, you'll have to clarify what you meant by quite a few other comments.
Dan, there's a huge difference between the taking of human life and rape, and by introducing the latter you don't add anything to the discussion, except a pointless argument from outrage.
I will remind you as I did at Craig's -- on October 5th, 11:06 am -- that you're being inconsistent.
You think bringing up bestiality in a discussion of homosexuality is "hurtful and ugly as hell."
Okay: you're not throwing any new light to THIS discussion by introducing child rape.
Anyway, I appreciate your answering my question, but it's very interesting that, after acknowledging you're not in a position to question, you STILL actually would question God if He revealed that, say, the Passover is historical.
If you would be so adamant, I'm not sure why you even raised a similar question to Marshall: you seem to think the issue is whether Marshall would defy God, but since YOU ACTUALLY WOULD DEFY GOD, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
You ask, "would you defer to what you know - by God's Law written upon your heart and seared in your conscience - that such actions are inherently contrary to the notion of a good and just God, even if it meant contradicting god?"
The problem is, you're presuming exactly what's being discussed: I don't believe that "God's law written upon my heart" includes the notion that even the Creator cannot end the life that He created -- by whatever means He chooses, including human agency.
This claim is by no means obvious: it certainly isn't asserted in Scripture, and quite a bit of Scripture -- including the crucial account of THE PASSOVER -- contradicts the claim.
Happy Thanksgiving, all. If a god appears to you and asks you to do naughty stuff, it ain't THE God. Don't do it.
Peace.
Bubba answered in a manner I had not yet conceived (whether I ever would have is besides the point), but I am more than willing to answer. First off, I agree with Bubba that the question is goofy. I will say that I know you're trying to make a point about God contradicting Himself. That is, would a loving God demand that which is "unloving"? The answer to that is that since we cannot know the mind of God, that since His ways are not our ways, that He is so far above us to make the space between father and child seem non-existent, I would say that anything is possible with the Lord, even if we cannot understand it.
But here's my answer: "Whatever you say, Lord!" No matter how distasteful the task, if He commands, I obey. It's pretty simple really. He's the Supreme Being. Who am I to deny Him? And despite the fact that I am far from perfect in my obedience now, I do not have the luxury of a face-to-face as your hypothetical would have it. In His presence, how could I refuse Him? In His presence, how could I deny that it is truly Him speaking (this to avoid the usual "How would you know it's God asking?" goofiness)? Abraham did not deny Him and He was called righteous (or some equally cool thing). I would trust that He has some good reason for asking me to do that which on my own would be absolutely out of the question. Apparently, YOU think it's just fine to tell HIM what's what. I'm confident that He would know that His request troubles me, but would not be so arrogant as to tell Him His business.
But as Bubba suggests, there's a big difference between taking a life and raping, and there's a big difference between commands to kill children and commands to totally destroy a town and all who live in it. Any babies killed during such an act would likely be part of the punishment leveled upon the sinful adults. Who's to say that God didn't take up the souls of the killed children while at the same time casting down the sinful? Again, no details were given on the subject, but you go ahead and assume the whole thing is a lie, a figurative representation that is meaningless without a logical explanation for it, a metaphor that means something you haven't explained.
I'm taking my leave from this conversation for the extended weekend, on these three notes.
First, indeed, God would not command an evil act, but that's begging the question, is the taking of human life an intrinsic evil -- even by God Himself, the Creator of human life?
That's like saying one was led to pacifism by the command to overcome evil with good. It begs the question, is war an intrinsic evil?
Second, something worth thinking about is this, that one phrase that's an inherent contradiction is, "No, Lord."
Finally, one should not try to make the Bible fit a theological or metaphysical assumption that isn't supported and is even contradicted by what the Bible itself teaches: it's a fool's errand that will lead to nothing but foolishness.
There are some obvious contradictory assumptions -- that God doesn't exist and that miracles are impossible. The Bible clearly teaches the contrary, so anyone who brings those assumptions to the text will not be able to reconcile its teachings with his assumptions.
If he still insists on affirm the truth and authority of Scripture, he'll end up drawing conclusions that are sheer gibberish.
The same is true for an assumption that is less obviously contradictory -- that even God is not morally justified in ending the human life that He Himself created.
The Bible is clear and even emphatic that God has the moral right to end human life, so anyone who brings to the text the assumption to the contrary will end up drawing conclusions that simply make no sense.
This is true even if that person elevates his anti-biblical assumptions to divine writ, by describing his fallible, human theory as "God's word written on his heart."
Dan, bizarrely, you seem to believe to the bottom of your heart that it is intrinsically immoral for even God to take the human life that He Himself created: you believe that this principle is itself the result of divine revelation.
Okay, fine, but the Bible clearly contradicts what you believe.
It would be more honest and more consistent for you to reject the Bible -- at least where it teaches that God has the moral right to take life -- than to try to make the text fit an assumption that it clearly contradicts.
On that note, I hope everyone has a safe and happy Thanksgiving.
Well Dan if God ever appears to you please believe it, even it contradicts your masters in the DNC
"would you defer to what you know - by God's Law written upon your heart and seared in your conscience"
No, I think I would defer to the actual God. Seems safer to me.
And what if you were delusional? What if you were "possessed," if you believe in such things?
I would suggest that if you hear a god commanding you to rape or kill, you are not hearing the One True God.
And for a lot of what we're talking about, that's what it comes down to: You all seem prepared to accept a god that literally commands the slaughter of children and I would suggest you'd be better off adding those sorts of passages to the OTHERS that you don't take literally (or at least some of the other passages that you don't take literally - I'd also suggest that some of the passages you have decided NOT to take literally, you'd do better to take more literally.)
In other words, and finally, we disagree on which passages to take literally and which ones to take figuratively - we ALL take some literally and some figuratively, we agree on some of these instances and we disagree on a few.
I don't think a reasonable person can possibly take a few of your literal passages literally without damaging the witness of the Bible and you think the same for me.
There you go.
As to your dismissing a god who would command rape but not killing babies because "it's different," I don't see how you can reasonably reach that conclusion if you hold your positions consistently.
You have often said that God is above our ability to reason and understand and that God's ends are beyond what we can understand. God, you say, MAY WELL have a good reason to slaughter babies and God is within God's realm to do so, since God created us and we are God's to do with as God pleases. But if it pleases your god to kill babies, then who's to say that your god might also want to rape babies for some unknown reason that is beyond our ability to fathom.
There would seem to be no limits on what your god might do and I think that is a HUGE hold in your biblical exegesis.
How many times do you want to argue whether or not the OT is true or not. This is tiring beyond belief, what it boils down to is God [apparently] does not live up to your high standards of peace and morality.
As for myself I will put my faith in God the same one that was described in the OT and the NT before I would Dan.
Pursuing your insane train of thought, whats the difference between your examples previously mentioned and your god telling you that homosexually is ok or abortion is not a sin.
By the way while I didn't read all 400+ comments, I did notice Dan didn't touch the points made in the post.
When you ask Liberals to weigh in on Obama the same way they did Bush, Obama looks like a special Olympics runner up.
Well Ed,
This thread left took a turn away from its destination long ago. But the digression was interesting enough to let it.
As I suspected and suggested, Dan has gone ahead and changed the scenario by saying,
"And what if you were delusional? What if you were "possessed," if you believe in such things?"
If you're going to pose a hypothetical such as, "What if God said...", you can't hear the answer and then change the rules. That's childish and dishonest. To my memory, I cannot recall any prophet, or for that matter any Biblical character that, once contacted by God or his angels, were in any doubt as to who was talking. Not a one. There were doubters of Christ, but that was part of the master plan. Only Muhammed, who was a fraud, ever doubted his own sanity when experiencing a revelation, which Muhammed never really experienced; he only said so and killed those who doubted him.
Some of the Biblical characters wonder as to God's selection of prophet, such as Moses, who felt God could do better than to call upon him. That wasn't a doubt about God as much as a doubt abut himself.
So, if Dan is posing his hypothetical honestly, the for God to present Himself to me in order to seek my service, I don't think there'd be any question about Who was doing the asking.
Yet if I was delusional or possessed, how would I know? If I was delusional or possessed I wouldn't question the request of whom I believe to be God. I wouldn't say, "Hey, I'm delusional/possessed. I'd better think this over." If I was delusional, I'd believe it was God and the same holds. I would do as God asks me to do because He's God (as far as I know in my delusional state) and I would trust that He knows what He's doing.
Bottom line here? Nice try, Dan.
Now let me flesh this out a bit more. If I was so requested by God to do whatever you think is the nastiest, most detestable and heinous act a human could ever invent to inflict upon another human being, I would likely ask Him to reconsider, or possibly make sure I knew what He was asking, and if His order remained the same, I would hope He'd stay my hand as He did Abraham's, but I would definitely do what I could to fulfill his request.
continued---
continuing---
So that was a bit of fun; speculating on something that would likely never happen. Hey Dan, if God asked you to smear yourself with maple syrup and roll in an ant hill, would you do it? Don't bother. Why would He? Yes, our ways are not God's ways and we can't know His mind and yeah, He might ask of us something we cannot understand. But what if's and and hypotheticals aren't what's being discussed here.
We're discussing what the Bible says. You judge whether to believe something by how many times it is mentioned or if a seemingly contrary aspect is mentioned more often. It doesn't work that way. Is He a loving God? I believe He is and I don't think you'll get an argument about that. But that doesn't mean that He hasn't unleashed His wrath and vengeance in a terrible manner. In addition, you continue to judge Him by what He expects of us, as if a parent has to abide by the rules set for his children. This is, frankly, childish and naive and you can't dismiss what you don't like.
If you think the OT authors were dealing in figurative language in relating events such as Passover, Jericho, and other events where God destroys entire peoples including infant inhabitants, prove it. Your reasoning is insufficient and should be for even yourself (as it mine is for me and I'm sure Bubba's is for him, Neil for his, etc, etc.). Your reasoning is tainted by your sensibilities and your conclusions don't work without dismissing or removing those parts of the text you find disturbing.
Just as you do with the parts that I think should be taken literally.
The question is not whether all of us take parts of the Bible figuratively - we all do. The question is, when we do so, do we do so logically and with good biblical reason.
I think I do and you don't. You disagree.
Dan,
In your hypothetical situation, you posit "What if God...". A reasonable person would conclude that you were referring to "The God". You know YHWH, I AM, the one who spoke and the universe came into existence. So, for you o change the terms of your hypothetical because you don't like the answer is even sillier than the original hypothetical. Keep trying, though.
I'm saying IF god appears to you and tells you to kill babies or rape them or whatever travesty your god is capable of commanding, it is a fairly reasonable and safe bet that it is not the god of the Bible.
The position you all hold is not tenable from a logical or biblical point of view. At least that's how it strikes me. None of your arguments on this point have held up to reasonable biblical exegesis, from where I stand.
It's why the question of HOW do you interpret the Bible is so very important.
You may find my question silly, but I find your position preposterous. Silly does not begin to describe it, from where I stand.
Feel free to disagree and argue that God MAY actual command baby killing or raping or whatever. I'll choose to disagree and will do so for solidly biblical and logical reasons.
"I'm saying IF god appears to you and tells you to kill babies or rape them or whatever travesty your god is capable of commanding, it is a fairly reasonable and safe bet that it is not the god of the Bible."
What do you think Abraham thought when he was asked by God to kill Issaac? He may indeed have questioned the command, but he didn't question Who was doing the commanding. He KNEW it was THE one true God. Yet, you ask the question as if there would be any doubt WHO is making the command. I contend that if there is doubt about WHO is making the command, then to assume it isn't God is logical. But you asked if GOD did the asking. I further contend that if the one true God was making the command, one would not be capable of mistaking Who is was doing the commanding. Thus, if the one true God made the most incredible command, one would be foolish to deny Him. One would be as foolish as anyone who has lived their life contrary to His Will because the outrageous command would be OF His Will.
The bottom line here is that your hypothetical is stupid because no one could mistake the actual God if He chose to make a direct command.
"The position you all hold is not tenable from a logical or biblical point of view."
Nonsense. Our view is based exactly on what the Bible teaches as regards the nature of God and the history of His commands to His people. YOU, however, judge those actions on how He expects us to treat each other. There is no Biblical justification for anyone, such as yourself, to dare judge God's actions at all or to equate what He expects of us with what He reserves for Himself.
"I'll choose to disagree and will do so for solidly biblical and logical reasons."
None of which you've so far provided for ANY of your positions. You've provided NOTHING but your personal preferences for why OT records of God's commands should not be taken as actual history or a solid recording of events displaying God's full nature. You've simply made conclusions based upon the flimsiest of arugments, most of which are nothing more than dismissing that which offends you personally. You do NOT consider the Bible in its entirety if you are dismissing parts of it as being inconsistent with those parts that support your personal positions.
Yet, you ask the question as if there would be any doubt WHO is making the command. I contend that if there is doubt about WHO is making the command, then to assume it isn't God is logical...
The bottom line here is that your hypothetical is stupid because no one could mistake the actual God if He chose to make a direct command.
I can point you to plenty of mentally ill people who have no doubt that they have heard from God. They are quite certain.
It's why we can't rely on our emotions or our best guesses or hunches. It's why we need to have some morals and boundaries that we stand behind for their own sake - because they are self-evident. It is wrong to kill children is one of these things.
But sure, call it stupid, that's a good defense for killing babies or raping children or whatever it is your unknowable god might command.
"I can point you to plenty of mentally ill people who have no doubt that they have heard from God. They are quite certain."
Me too. One of which lived down the road from me. Andrea Yates. I still see her husband in the grocery store and local restuarants every now and then. She drowned all her kids to keep the devil from getting them. Her pastor took quite a bit of heat for it too because of the kinds of sermons he preached. Some blamed him for her religious state of mind.
I knew this would happen. It wasn't a bold prediction since this very discussion took place before and Dan was a part of it. It starts with a simple and direct question: "What if God told you to...?" Assuming Dan was asking this in good faith, I responded that I would do what God told me to do placing full trust in Him, as Abraham did, that He knew what He was doing and had a good reason for the command He asked me to obey. The question as originally asked assumes we're talking about the one true God of the Bible. It makes no allowance for the possibility of delusion or mental illness on my part, or the possibility that the presence of God could in any way be misconstrued as being anyone BUT God.
So then I answer. My answer indicates only my willingness to do whatever God tells me to do and my trust in Him. This answer accuses Dan, for he cannot bear the thought that God might ask of him something he would normally find reprehensible and insists that God follow DAN'S idea of who God is. Dan's not concerned with who God is, of what He might be capable, that God might well unleash the full measure of His power in a violent manner. This doesn't fit the Hippy-god image Dan has created for himself.
If you were truly conversing in good faith, if you were truly attempting to show you could debate with honor and honesty, you have blown that out of the water again by your adding that which the original question alone did not suggest. I assumed you meant it when you asked "What would you do if God told you to...?" Apparently, you hoped that like you yourself have done, I would deny the true God His desire and rebel against Him. Well, I do that in many ways as it is, but I'm not stupid enough to do it to His Holy face.
"I'm saying IF god appears to you and tells you to...etc..."
You're only saying that after I answered honestly your question for which I assumed was asked honestly. You use the lower case "g" here but didn't in the original question, so now you backpeddle like a delusional or mentally ill man caught in his dishonesty.
Just a jab there, but as regards the delusional or mentally ill, they are acting on what they believe is reality. Thus, they are obedient to God as far as they know. They "know" it's God talking to them. They have no doubt of it, so they comply, like a good believer should.
So I would act as commanded. This has nothing to do with what follows, but only that I would comply with God's request.
Of course the hypothetical is incredibly stupid as there is nothing to suggest that God would ever do such a thing. There's not even a command to kill babies. Sure, perhaps babies were killed in every town He destroyed, either directly or through His chosen. Perhaps some of those first born of Egypt were babies. In both cases the killing of babies was secondary or collateral to the command given and the reasons for it.
So now I ask YOU, Danny-boy:
What if God told YOU to kill a child? I'll flesh it out for you better than you did for me. I'm talking about the one true God of Abraham Who sent to us His Son to die for our sins as the Bible teaches us. It happens at a time when you are in full command of your mental faculties, no delusions or mental malfunctions. He gives you no reason for the command and refuses to answer any questions from you about why you must kill the child. He makes it clearly and unmistakably known to you that He is indeed the one true God of the Bible. Whaddya gonna do?
No, I wouldn't. You know why? Because it is wrong, it is evil and God does not command us to do evil. Thus, I can safely assume that what I THINK is the God of the Bible isn't. I must be mistaken if I hear God commanding me to do evil.
The Bible tells us so.
Why do you reject the clear teaching of the Bible to embrace and obscure notion?
What if the "God of the Bible" told you to rape babies? You seem willing to allow that you can "know" that God wouldn't command you to rape babies but you're not willing to assume that God won't command us to kill them? Why the inconsistency?
Dan,
You keep moving the goal posts. You posit a hypothetical in which the God of the universe asked someone to kill children. We answered honestly. You then change the hypothetical.
Lets be clear. If we can accept the Biblical record, people who had a direct encounter with God knew who they were talking to. I will assume that if God felt it necessary to appear to me personally and give me a command, that He would have a good reason for doing so. Further, I am confident that He would never command me to do something that would violate His other commands. Further, (keeping in mind His response to Job "Where were you...) I would not be so presumptuous as to argue with him. So to sum up, if (as in your original hypothetical) God appeared to me and commanded me to do something I would comply. That is kind of what the whole Lord thing is about. Jesus did say something like "Those who love me keep my commandments".
However, you keep changing the hypothetical to suit your predilections.
That would change my answer somewhat. If I was "commanded" by God (or as you now say "god"), in a way that was ambiguous (a dream or a disembodied voice or something like that). I would humbly try to discern if if was in fact God or something/someone else. In that case I would humbly seek God in prayer, fasting and study to determine if what I had was truly from Him. I would also seek counsel form others in my faith community whom I respected. If I became convinced that this was in fact God, then I would obey. (don't forget "to obey is better than sacrifice") If one truly follows the God of the Bible, and He commands something what choice do we have but to obey.
The bottom line is God is King, God is Lord, and ultimately God is Judge. I trust that when the time comes He will judge me in the most just, fair, and merciful manner possible. I can live with that.
So Dan, you feel free to tell God he's wrong face to face. I'd like to see how that works for you.
Next time you want to set up a hypothetical don't change the terms after you've gotten your response.
Finally (Mr. "you must answer all my questions") please respond to this one.
"Why would you imagine that God would command someone to rape a child.(?) Please show us some instance where this is the case.(?) Since you will not be able to, any answer to your question is meaningless."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the lack of question marks fooled you.
"No, I wouldn't. You know why? Because it is wrong, it is evil and God does not command us to do evil. Thus, I can safely assume that what I THINK is the God of the Bible isn't. I must be mistaken if I hear God commanding me to do evil."
Great, Dan. Now you're changing the parameters of MY challenge. Can you possibly answer the question honestly? You again make the assumption that what God forbids us He forbids Himself, and worse, you imply that it would be evil if HE did it. Don't forget: he makes the rules. Those rules are for OUR benefit, not His. In my scenario, you have no idea of the why's and wherefor's surrounding His command. In addition, I explicitly said that you would NOT be able to be mistaken regarding Who was making the command. It IS God in my scenario. Therefor, you could NOT be mistaken about Who is doing the commanding.
"Why do you reject the clear teaching of the Bible to embrace and obscure notion?"
But I'm not. That's YOUR area of expertise. I do NOT reject the clear teaching of the Bible as regards His commands to the Hebrews to totally annihilate towns and village enroute to the Promised Land. I do NOT reject the teachings regarding His sending of the Angel of Death to kill all the firstborn of Egypt.
"What if the "God of the Bible" told you to rape babies?"
Asked and answered as well as rebuked as the stupid question it is.
"You seem willing to allow that you can "know" that God wouldn't command you to rape babies but you're not willing to assume that God won't command us to kill them?"
Never said anything of the kind. What I said was that there is no precedent for the stupid question regarding the rape of babies. I also said there's no precedent for the killing of babies as He has never made such a command. I also said that it is likely babies were killed when towns were destroyed by His command, and that likely babies were among the first born of Egypt killed by the Angel of Death. But that's not the same as a command to kill babies. That would be like saying that America targets civilians because civilians die in war. Oh wait. You make THAT stupid accusation as well.
There's no inconsistency in what I've said or in my understanding of the Bible. Yours is rife with inconsistency and I'm beginning to understand accusations against you of being dishonest in your blog discussions. Your positions do not bear up under even mild scrutiny. You then resort to these silly scenarios and then having done so, lack the backbone to stay on point when your ploy to trip us up fails. Your response to your own question, vollied back to you with no spin whatsoever, straight forward and clear, demonstrates your unwillingness to really consider the possibility that you have it all wrong. Indeed, I'm still here standing unscathed and sweat-free as you have offered no defense for your position that could not be easily battered, nor have you put forth any shred of liklihood that I'm in any way off base in my beliefs. Instead, you deny you're bested like the Black Knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail".
Dan:
First things first.
Before the break, I wrote, "Do I believe that you honestly believe, for instance, that the Bible's account of the Passover is ahistorical? That Jesus didn't die for our sins, and that a Christian can deny the bodily Resurrection and not abandon the faith? That the Bible records evidence of sexism and bigotry in Paul's commands to the early church? And that Christ's choosing of the Twelve was 'a nod' to the surrounding culture's sexism? Yes, I believe that you believe these things."
You objected to this characterization of your beliefs.
"Interesting, as I have not said most of those nor do I believe most of that. You believe that I believe things that I DON'T believe and yet you DON'T believe those things that I patently DO believe."
You say that you haven't said anything that justifies my summary of what you believe. I believe the record justifies my conclusions.
1) I wrote that you believe "that the Bible's account of the Passover is ahistorical."
This is in reference to a discussion that began with an April, 2008, thread where you listed some of the supposed atrocities that the Old Testament attributes to God by command and by direct action.
The logic of your list leads to rejecting even the Passover, a central event of Judaism which Jews have celebrated yearly for literal millenia. I asked about your beliefs regarding Passover, and you provided an answer -- finally -- about a year later.
"On all your questions about what God may or may not have done, about the historical veracity of a Death Angel literally going around a city and killing innocent babes, of a flood designed by God to wipe out the earth, etc, I will say that I don't know everything God does. I can't judge God.
"However, taken these stories as historically factual does not strike me as fitting with the descriptions of God throughout the Bible. Because of that, I tend to not think of them as historically accurate." [emphasis mine]
About the Passover you write that you "tend not to think of [it] as historically accurate."
(I've already cited this comment at least once in this discussion.)
I have since concluded that you believe that the Bible's account of the Passover is ahistorical. That seems to be an obvious conclusion, and it's one I've repeated frequently, and one you have never corrected: you have never clarified that you really believe that the OT's account of the Passover really is historically accurate.
Instead, the conversation here now focuses on your apparent belief that it is intrinsically immoral for God to do what that passage attributes to Him.
[continued]
[continued]
2) I wrote that you believe "That Jesus didn't die for our sins."
I have repeatedly asked -- in the two lengthy threads here over the summer and in the subsequent conversation at Craig's -- whether you believe that there is an actual causal connection between Christ's death and our forgiveness, and you have consistently skirted the issue, for instance by affirming that Christ's death is an expression of God's grace, and that we're saved by God's grace -- both of which are true, but neither of which actually answer the question.
You have come the closest to providing an actual answer in this very thread, Dan, on November 13th.
"Perhaps I would say we are not forgiven by Jesus' death, but his death is all part of the literal demonstration of God's grace by which we are saved."
That's a clear answer other than the adverb "perhaps," and you made yourself even more clear, on November 18th, in an answer to a question Craig raised, you wrote the following:
"We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. And if Jesus lived to be 70 and died of old age, we would STILL be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus."
So: you write that we are ("perhaps") not forgiven by Jesus death, and you write with confidence that we would still be saved if Jesus had never been crucified.
I have concluded that you believe that Jesus didn't die for our sins, and though I think you could still be a little more clear -- and you certainly could have been less evasive over the literal months I've been raising this question -- I believe it's the only reasonable conclusion to draw.
So far as I have seen, you certainly haven't affirmed the opposite, that Christ's death really did cause our forgiveness: you seem eager to mock the idea, by conflating the literal substitutionary atonement with the figurative language used to describe it, language about how His blood paid for our sins.
[continued]
[continued]
3) I wrote that you believe "that a Christian can deny the bodily Resurrection and not abandon the faith."
This conclusion also stems from our lengthy conversations over the past few months, beginning with a thread here at Marshall's.
On June 18th, you made the bizarre claim that the bodily Resurrection of Christ is somehow "inherent" but NOT "indispensible," and you never explained that claim.
In the same comment you wrote:
1. I believe in the historic, actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead;
2. I believe it is a core/essential teaching of Christianity;
3. AND YET, if it were some how proven NOT to be true, I would not abandon Christianity (whereas you and Marshall would); [emphasis mine]
I have since concluded that you believe that a Christian can deny the bodily Resurrection and not abandon the faith, because that's an accurate summary of what you wrote -- and, because it fits with what you wrote in the comment that started this particular line of thought.
"I and my company are not of the sort that insist upon a literal interpretation of the Creation or even the Resurrection story. I believe in faith the resurrection story, but it is not the sum total of my belief. IF someone could somehow prove that Jesus was never resurrected, it would not mean the end of my following the teachings of Jesus."
Never mind that His teachings included the promise of His being raised, and His telling Thomas to examine His wounds.
So far as I can tell, you have never included the bodily Resurrection as one of the "Truths" of the Bible -- compared with mere "facts," a dichotomy THE BIBLE ITSELF never suggests -- and you have never written that a man who denies the doctrine abandons the faith.
Heck, I don't believe you've even been able to answer my question, originally from August 29th, about whether a charitable atheist could be considered a Christian. You say, on September 17th, "I don't know," but you seemed to be answering the question of whether he's saved, not whether he's a Christian.
[continued]
[continued]
4) I wrote that you believe "That the Bible records evidence of sexism and bigotry in Paul's commands to the early church."
We've discussed the topic in this very thread, beginning with my citing a comment from last year.
"[I Timothy] is one of those letters (and they're not all this way) where Paul comes across quite negatively. A straightforward read makes it appear that Paul was a sexist, insensitive, homophobic, condescending, patriarchal pig.
"And, given the culture in which he sprung, doubtless some of that is true." [emphasis mine]
In this thread, just a few weeks ago, on November 12th, you claimed, "As to my claims that Paul was likely a sexist, I think the Bible does support this conclusion."
You pointed out the verses you find objectionable, but nowhere where THE BIBLE ITSELF dismisses the passages as objectionable, but you reiterate your position, writing, "I go on to make the claim that I, Dan Trabue, think that the Bible shows Paul making sexist statements."
You then repeatedly claimed that these commands of Paul were "by definition" sexist.
"Paul's passage about not allowing women (specifically because of their gender) to teach IS a sexist statement, by definition."
I think it's entirely fair and accurate to conclude that you believe that the Bible records evidence of sexism and bigotry in Paul's commands to the early church, and I have seen nothing from you that would raise any doubts that this is your position.
[continued]
[continued]
5) Finally, I wrote that you believe "that Christ's choosing of the Twelve was 'a nod' to the surrounding culture's sexism."
This is a pretty direct conclusion to be drawn from a comment you made on November 18th, also about the supposed sexism in the Bible.
"As to Jesus' 12 apostles being all male, does that mean that Jesus was sexist? I'd say that it is clearly a nod to the sexist society in which he lived. But Jesus DID have women followers who were highly important to his ministry and whom he treated in a manner that stood out as different from the sexist society's norms." [emphasis mine]
I very nearly quoted you verbatim in my conclusion that you believe that Christ's choosing of the Twelve was "a nod" to the surrounding culture's sexism, and you have not retracted or clarified that remark.
I can substantiate at length my reasons for drawing the conclusions I have about what you believe: statements you have made, not only in the three lengthy conversations over the last six months, but in THIS VERY THREAD.
Which of these conclusions do I have wrong? If you could clarify your beliefs on the Passover, on Christ's death, on Christ's resurrection, on Paul's teachings, and on Christ's choosing of the Twelve, I'd appreciate it.
Until then, I think I'm quite justified in my conclusions, and I have to wonder why, given the voluminous and recent evidence that points to these conclusions, you would claim without further explanation that I'm completely off-base.
You wrote, "I have not said most of those nor do I believe most of that."
That's crap, at least in terms of what you've written, so I can't imagine a good reason why you would make an issue of this.
"I have since concluded that you believe that a Christian can deny the bodily Resurrection and not abandon the faith"
THAT IS NOT WHAT DAN SAID BUBBA.
You are an incorrigible young man. Twisting words like you do.
I didn't say that's what Dan SAID, Marty. I said that it is my conclusion about what he believes, a conclusion I've drawn from what else he's written.
I've quoted what he wrote at length and even linked to the other discussions about the subject of the bodily Resurrection.
If you can offer a better explanation of what Dan believes -- an explanation that plausibly accounts for these statements about how he wouldn't abandon Christianity if the Resurrection were proven false -- I urge you to do so.
If you can't, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't level criticisms at me that you cannot justify, because I'm damn tired of your attacking me with so very little substance behind your invective.
Dan, Marshall, everyone:
Returning to the issue at hand, I think there are a few dead ends that we should avoid.
1. It's wholly unnecessary to discuss the issue of rape AT ALL. Dan's apparent position is that the taking of human life is intrinsically immoral even for God Almighty, that He cannot take human life through any means, which includes human agency.
About the divine command to take life, Dan asks whether one would obey:
"OR, would you defer to what you know - by God's Law written upon your heart and seared in your conscience - that such actions are inherently contrary to the notion of a good and just God, even if it meant contradicting god?"
If the command to take life is inherently contrary to God's Law written on one's heart and seared in his conscience, then bringing up other actions like rape IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.
It's a digression, a diversion, and an argument from outrage that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
So, let's not discuss it, and let's focus on the real issue.
2. I believe it's wholly unnecessary to discuss hypothetical scenarios where God's righteousness isn't easily grasped. I agree that God is wholly just, wholly righteous, and wholly good. I agree that God would never command us to commit evil (see James 1:13). And I agree that, if God issues a command that we do not understand, we should do as the hymn says and "trust and obey," because it's entirely possible (and sometimes likely) that our limited and fallible human understanding cannot grasp the morality of God's infinite and perfect will.
(After all, the point of life isn't conformity to a set of laws. It's intimacy in a relationship with the divine Lawgiver, a point that doesn't seem to be emphasized by Dan, with all the talk about "Jesus' Way" and so little about His Lordship.)
But I don't think that there's anything difficult about the question of whether God can take the human life that He created, through natural means, supernatural means, or even human agency.
It's His to take: He created it, He sustains it, He can end it at will, and He's given us no promises that He won't.
I think it's much more profitable to discuss whether God has the moral right to end the human life He created -- He does, and I think He clearly does -- than it is to discuss vague hypotheticals about situations where the morality may not be clear.
[continued]
[continued]
3. I believe it's wholly unnecessary to discuss whether one believes that God WILL COMMAND people in the present day to take human life. Dan raised this issue when he misconstrued my position on November 25th:
"You, for instance, think the Bible teaches that God LITERALLY might command us to sometimes kill innocent children (setting aside for the moment that you disagree with the notion that children are innocent!) and I think that taking such a line literally does a disservice to the Bible's teachings and undermines the Bible's authority."
I quickly pointed out that no one has argued this: "What we argue isn't that God might give us such commands, but that God DID give such commands to Abraham and the nation of ancient Israel: since God will almost certainly not make a covenant with any of us personally, and since God does not lead us through a literal theocracy -- and, instead, we are under a new covenant where, as His church, we're primarily an agent of God's grace and not His wrath -- these OT situations don't seem at all likely to apply to us now."
God established a unique covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and just as He is almost certainly not going to repeat that with anyone else, He's probably not going to repeat the same test He gave Abraham: He didn't even repeat it with Isaac and his son.
(Let's not forget, the sacrifice of Isaac was merely a shadow of what has already taken place at Calvary.)
The relationship with the theocratic state of ancient Israel was also unique, and so we're not likely to receive direct commands from God to wage wars of annihilation or any specific wars at all.
We're under a new covenant. Where the first was concerned with ritualistic purity, the second fulfills the imagery with the internal purity through Christ's blood and the indwelling Holy Spirit; and, likewise, where Israel under the old covenant was charged to be an agent of God's wrath, the new-covenant church is to be almost exclusively an agent of God's mercy.
It's not that God has changed or will change: it's that His methods change as history -- and His sovereign will -- is progressively revealed. He used to speak through prophets, and then He spoke through His Son. He used to punish wicked nations through Israel; but now He uses other means to which we're not entirely privvy.
(Remember what the Lord says: "Vengeance is mine," not "vengeance is wrong.")
What we claim ISN'T that God "might command us" to take life.
It's that God DID HISTORICALLY command Abraham and, later, the nation of ancient Israel.
The latter doesn't require the former, and since there's no need discussing the former, I recommend that we don't do so.
[continued]
[continued]
4. Finally, I believe it's wholly unnecessary to draw distinctions about whether a particular human life is innocent. I don't believe Dan takes seriously enough what the Bible clearly teaches about the extent and scope of human depravity and the human need for salvation., and I reiterate that the Bible doesn't actually attribute innocence to anyone among Israel's annihilated enemies, the firstborn of Egypt, or even those who were punished with the flood.
"The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually." - Gen 6:5, emphasis mine
But I don't think any of this matters, because it's not my position that God has the moral right ONLY to take the life of the wicked.
Even a human life that is completely innocent in every way -- in deed, action, thought, and even in his nature (an impossibility for any son of Adam), and in obedience to human laws and even to God's law -- was still created by God, is still sustained by God, and can be ended by God at will.
We don't need to focus on rape, just the taking of life.
We don't need to focus on hypotheticals where we cannot grasp the morality, just the situation where God takes the life that He created.
We don't need to focus on whether God would command us to take life, but on whether He already has given such commands -- historically and literally -- to old-covenant patriarchs and prophets.
And we don't need to focus on whether God can take innocent human life, but on whether God can take human life, full-stop.
So, is God Almighty morally justified in ending a human life that He's created, at will, at any time, and by any means?
I think so. What's the contrary position?
It seems like the opposite position must be that, if God gives a person the gift of life, God is morally obligated to make that gift a permanent endowment rather than a temporary stewardship.
That, if God creates human life, He is morally obligated to make it eternal life.
That, if God creates humanity, He is morally obligated to make it immortal.
Is that a remotely obvious position? Something that we can all easily find written as God's word on our hearts and seared on our conscience? I don't think so.
Well, is the position at least biblically based? I believe the answer is a clear no.
Dan clearly disagrees.
"The position you all hold is not tenable from a logical or biblical point of view. At least that's how it strikes me. None of your arguments on this point have held up to reasonable biblical exegesis, from where I stand."
I urge Dan to put up or shut up: exegesis of what particular passages?
He presumes that God is not morally justified in taking human life, and so he can find passages that fit with that presumption and (implausibly) reinterpret passages that don't fit, but those who deny the miraculous and even those who would deny the very existence of God could do the very same thing.
Where does the Bible teach that God cannot morally take human life?
It doesn't. I think Dan knows this; hence his appeals to God's word written, NOT ON THE PAGE, but on the human heart.
Instead, Genesis teaches that God really did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and Hebrews celebrates Abraham for his faithful obedience.
Instead, OT history repeatedly records that God commanded wars of annihilation, and the Psalms criticize ancient Israel, not only for pagan rituals in which innocent blood was shed, but for NOT OBEYING THOSE EARLIER COMMANDS which would have obliterated the influence of those wicked pagan neighbors.
And, instead, Christ Himself mentioned the destruction of Sodom as mere warm-up compared to what's waiting to those who deny Him, and the cursing of the fig tree shows that He has the power not only of life, but also of death.
And, in Matthew 10:28, Christ taught that we should "fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell," which implies that God has both the power and the right to destroy the body -- which is the only possible conclusion if, as the Bible clearly teaches, God has the right to condemn a person to eternal damnation, a fate much worse than mere physical death.
If Dan can point to a single passage that teaches that God does not have the moral right to take the human life that He gave us, he should do so.
If he can't, then we're not really discussing different interpretations that are all premised on the Bible's authority: Dan isn't deferring to what the Bible clearly teaches, he's overriding its clear teachings with his own notions that he ascribes (possibly blasphemously) to personal revelation from God.
Bubba,
My decision to respond to Dan's query was to eliminate any charge from him of evasiveness on my part. I had hoped by responding that I could show how silly the question is, but also show that I would not be so concerned with the nature of God's request to me as I would with obeying it. That is, it is not for me to decide the morality of God's request, since defining morality is entirely His job.
Also, I think I did point out that we must concern ourselves with what the Bible actually says God did rather than speculate over hypotheticals. In this I'm rather more concerned with how Dan justifies dismissing that which he finds offensive. It seems that to some extent, Dan counts the number of times a type of event or command occurs and somehow factors that in to what he believes or to what he abides.
Further, Dan's posing of the silly question regarding the rape of infants is a wacky attempt to determine how we read and interpret the Bible. He lists a number of factors that go into how he does it. I find that this list doesn't answer our questions in understanding his interpretations. Indeed, they seem to conflict, that is, how does he use "reason" to get from point A to point B when I see no reasonable way to make that connection. For my part, I insisted I prefer specific examples of specific understandings. It is much to cumbersome and outside the limitations of a blog to explain how I interpret the Bible, but I can easily debate a specific point of contention.
Regarding what's written on the human heart:
"Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
What one believes is written upon his own heart must not conflict with Scripture. This harkens back to my previously stated position that Scripture is THE source of God's revelation to man against which all other must be judged.
"If you can offer a better explanation of what Dan believes -- an explanation that plausibly accounts for these statements about how he wouldn't abandon Christianity if the Resurrection were proven false -- I urge you to do so."
What I am understanding Dan to say is that he believes in the literal resurrection of Jesus. He has NEVER denied that it happened.
He then goes on to say, hypothetcially, if the resurrection were to be proven false he would still be a christian. I understand that to mean that he would continue to follow the teachings of Jesus...caring for the least of these, turning the other cheek...etc. etc. The lack of a bodily resurrection would not negate the effect Jesus' teachings have on dealing with our fellowman.
But the bottom line is and reality is the resurrection has NOT been proven false and Dan believes it literally happened.
So what's your problem Bubba? Why do you keep writing a book on how Dan doesn't believe when he does?
Marty, it seems that we both have reached the same conclusion about what Dan believes, based on what Dan has written.
Less than a week ago, in this very thread, in a comment addressing you directly, I listed a few of Dan's apparent beliefs where I think he denies some very fundamental doctrines, BUT I ACKNOWLEDGE HIS CLAIM THAT HE PERSONALLY BELIEVES IN THE BODILY RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
"And though he claims to believe personally in the historical, bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, he seems to believe that that historical, bodily Resurrection isn't an issue about which all Christians must agree." [emphasis mine]
You write:
"What I am understanding Dan to say is that he believes in the literal resurrection of Jesus. He has NEVER denied that it happened.
"He then goes on to say, hypothetcially, if the resurrection were to be proven false he would still be a christian. I understand that to mean that he would continue to follow the teachings of Jesus...caring for the least of these, turning the other cheek...etc. etc. The lack of a bodily resurrection would not negate the effect Jesus' teachings have on dealing with our fellowman."
And I AGREE WITH YOU, that this is a fair summary of what Dan has written and what he believes, so I have no idea what justifies your calling me incorrigable and accusing me of twisting people's words.
Our disagreement isn't over what Dan believes, but whether his beliefs are biblical and orthodox.
I don't believe they are.
For one thing, Paul taught authoritatively that, if Christ is not raised, our faith is in vain and we are dead in our sins: I Corinthians 15 contains an unequivocal assertion that the bodily Resurrection is absolutely indispensible to Christianity. Without it, there is no Christianity.
You write, "The lack of a bodily resurrection would not negate the effect Jesus' teachings have on dealing with our fellowman."
The problem is, that's not all that Jesus taught, not by a long shot.
He claimed to be God: "Before Abraham was, I am."
He also predicted His own resurrection, so if it never actually happened, both that particular teaching AND Jesus' claim to be God are false, to say nothing of Jesus' claim to be the bread of life, Jesus' claim to be the resurrection and the life, and so forth.
If a person is concerned about whether Jesus is the Son of God, the question of whether Jesus rose is absolutely essential.
If a person is just concerned with Jesus' ethical teachings (or most of them; never mind what Jesus said about why we were created male and female) then the bodily resurrection isn't that important -- but that person is arguably not a Christian.
Bubba,
I wish to associate myself fully with Marshall and his reasoning for responding to Dan's silly hypothetical constructions. I thought I had made clear much of what you have said. So, I will join with you in this worthy goal.
Well Bubba you and I don't agree even though you think we do because you have clearly come to a conclusion regarding Dan's faith that I have NOT come to.
Dan NEVER said the bodily resurrection wasn't important. You are reading into his words, what to me, is clearly not there.
IF the claim of the resurrection proved to be a fraud, then it becomes a non-issue and you are left with only Jesus' teachings.
At that point you could either think his teachings are still of great value and continue following - still calling yourself a christian if you wanted. Why would it matter? You could even declare you still believe and trust in God in spite of everything you don't understand.
Or you could discount Jesus altogether as a fraud, curse God and be done with it.
Marshall, Craig:
Believe me when I say I understand the desire to answer Dan's every question so as not to appear evasive.
Answer away, and you're right to point out that his scenario is slippery even for a hypothetical. I wrote what I did, less to say that these digressions aren't worthwhile, and more to say that they are digressions.
Dan's supposedly figurative interpretation of those difficult passages that the Old Testament clearly presents as historical raises only one core question: does God have the moral right to end, at will, a human life He created, or not?
Now, Marty:
"Dan NEVER said the bodily resurrection wasn't important. You are reading into his words, what to me, is clearly not there.
"IF the claim of the resurrection proved to be a fraud, then it becomes a non-issue and you are left with only Jesus' teachings."
That sort of claim demonstrates just how important you and Dan think the Resurrection really is: it's very important, except that it could be a fraud and therefore a non-issue. That's gibberish.
And my point is, a denial of the Resurrection DOES NOT leave you with Jesus' teachings -- at least not all of them.
These teachings that the Gospels record would also be made null:
Matthew 12:40, 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, Luke 9:22, John 2:19
And since those teachings would be rendered false, so too would Jesus' own claim about who He is, found for instance in John 8:58.
And let's not forget that Jesus taught, in Matthew 5, that we are blessed when are persecuted, not for the Father's sake or for righteousness sake or even the sake of His own teachings, but for HIS SAKE. And, in Matthew 7 and elsewhere, Jesus promised to be judge the world, which seems unlikely if Jesus long ago become fodder for worms.
If Jesus is not raised, then He isn't who He says He is, and He will not do what He claimed to do.
Some of Jesus' ethical teachings might still be worthwhile -- even though they would have come from a madman whose megalomania makes Napolean look humble -- but that would only be a happy accident. Jesus' authority to teach would be fatally undermined.
If Jesus is not the risen Son of God, Jesus can hardly be considered a great teacher, because Jesus claimed to be so very much more.
You continue:
"At that point you could either think his teachings are still of great value and continue following - still calling yourself a christian if you wanted."
Well, you could have two men exchange vows, but it doesn't mean they're married in God's eyes; and you could call your dog a falcon, but it doesn't mean Fido's going to fly anytime soon.
A person who denied the Resurrection could certainly call himself a Christian in the sense that doing so is physically possible, but his doing so is also an objective falsehood. He would be a liar at worst or hopelessly confused at best.
"Why would it matter? You could even declare you still believe and trust in God in spite of everything you don't understand.
"Or you could discount Jesus altogether as a fraud, curse God and be done with it."
Well, curse God or not, Jesus claimed that He would be crucified and raised, and He claimed to be God, to be the Son of God, and to be the final judge of all mankind.
If He's nothing but the organic matter that used to be a corpse before literal millennia of decomposition, THEN JESUS WOULD BE A FRAUD. It's nothing to boast about that you think you're so committed to Jesus' teachings that you think you can still hold to them even if He isn't who He said He is: it just shows that you don't thoroughly know what He taught.
Okay, I'm trying to leave this be, since I don't believe you will ever comprehend correctly my position or at least be able to articulate it correctly. But since you're laying into Marty, I'll address at least this...
That sort of claim demonstrates just how important you and Dan think the Resurrection really is: it's very important, except that it could be a fraud and therefore a non-issue.
Unless I'm mistaken (and I don't think I am) Marty was defending my suggestion that if it were shown somehow that the physical bodily resurrection was not, in fact, literally a physically bodily resurrection - and my example was IF God appeared and said, "I never intended you to take that literally - my point was that Jesus left this bodily realm and entered the spiritual realm of my Kingdom..." IF God said something like that, and it turned out Jesus did not physically resurrect, I would still believe in Jesus' teachings, Jesus' Way, the Christian Truths found in the Bible.
Now Marty summed up my position by saying "IF the claim of the resurrection proved to be a fraud, then it becomes a non-issue and you are left with only Jesus' teachings," but I think she was referring to what I just said and NOT that it was literally a fraud (as in God tricked us into believing a fake resurrection).
I think Marty mistakenly used that word "fraud," in an effort to defend my position (which she has done quite well, thank you and has demonstrated an ability to understand a person based upon the words they have actually written).
And so Bubba has jumped on that word (rather than the actual point which I have offered) to say we don't really care about Jesus' Teachings. If you read what Marty and I have written, it is abundantly clear that we care about Jesus' teachings. What we don't care so much about is the extrabiblical, non-Christian teaching of inerrancy of the sort that some preen on and on about, beating others about the heads if they don't assent to their One True Understanding (TM).
I would suggest that Marty has probably misspoke and a more gracious Christian would have asked for clarification, since it seems to contradict her/our clear points in support of Jesus and His teachings.
What IS gibberish is NOT what Marty has said, which is consistent with the teachings of our Lord and Savior, Jesus. What IS gibberish is this extrabiblical notion of inerrancy in the gray, "When I SAY - based on my prejudices and cultural upbringing and traditions of MY culture it's inerrant, the Bible is inerrant... Other times, it's obviously metaphor..." sort of way that has nothing whatsoever to do with the teachings of Jesus.
I find it rather amazing that you would spit on God's face if you found that Jesus was not literally physically raised from the dead. Your whole notion of Christianity appears to be only as deep as a shallow grave, screw Jesus' actual teachings.
Is that what you really think? Because that's what it sounds like you think.
Dan, first of all, you're being a hypocrite. You presented, as a summary of our beliefs regarding inerrancy, a paraphrase that bears no discernible resemblance to anything we believe or anything we've actually said, and you did so IMMEDIATELY after criticizing me for not being "a more gracious Christian" toward Marty.
But, much more importantly, you really don't seem to grasp what Jesus Christ Himself taught.
"IF God said something like that, and it turned out Jesus did not physically resurrect, I would still believe in Jesus' teachings, Jesus' Way, the Christian Truths found in the Bible."
"I find it rather amazing that you would spit on God's face if you found that Jesus was not literally physically raised from the dead. Your whole notion of Christianity appears to be only as deep as a shallow grave, screw Jesus' actual teachings."
Dan, dude.
Jesus' "actual teachings" include the claim that He would be crucified and raised three days later. See, for instance, Matthew 12:40, 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, Luke 9:22, and John 2:19.
So that there can be no doubt about the nature of His Resurrection, Jesus not only ate with His disciples, His "actual teachings" include the command to Thomas to examine His body and its wounds... and a key teaching about belief.
[The twelve witnessed the Risen Christ,] "But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, 'We have seen the Lord.'
"But he said to them, 'Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.'
"A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you.'
"Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.'
"Thomas answered him, 'My Lord and my God!'
"Jesus said to him, 'Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe." - Jn 20:24-29, emphasis mine
Those who have not seen are blessed if they have come to believe... what, exactly? Anything at all? The purity of Christ's ethical teachings?
No, clearly Jesus Christ Himself taught that we are blessed for believing that CHRIST IS RISEN, and His Resurrection is clearly physical by the fact that He urged Thomas to examine His wounds.
Since Jesus' "actual teachings" include His promise to be raised bodily, then your claim is literal nonsense:
"[If] it turned out Jesus did not physically resurrect, I would still believe in Jesus' teachings, Jesus' Way, the Christian Truths found in the Bible."
No, you wouldn't, Dan. You would necessarily disbelieve Jesus' own teachings about His Resurrection -- to say nothing of the Bible's "Christian Truth" that we are dead in our sins and our faith is in vain if Christ was not raised.
Indeed. And Marty seems to think that we are picking nits, as does Dan, when we harp on these "details". It's a big difference to say that you believe in the bodily resurrection, but don't think it's essential enough to undertstand our concerns here. As I recall, this point sprung from a question of Bubba's regarding Christ's death and it's relation to our salvation. It matters a great deal, then, to be specific about how this particular teaching ranks in the overall scheme of things. I maintain that more than any other reason, the purpose of Jesus Christ's existence was to be the ultimate sacrifice in atonement for the sins of all who might believe in Him. His teachings about (according to Dan) hating wealth and giving everything to the poor (lip service if Dan's not working his ass off to earn more to give away) are secondary to that ultimate purpose. Indeed, what good are those good works if our salvation has not been assured through His sacrifice? Any Hindu or Budhist or Wiccan will preach good works. Only Christ provided salvation for all.
"Now Marty summed up my position by saying "IF the claim of the resurrection proved to be a fraud, then it becomes a non-issue and you are left with only Jesus' teachings," but I think she was referring to what I just said and NOT that it was literally a fraud (as in God tricked us into believing a fake resurrection).
I think Marty mistakenly used that word "fraud," in an effort to defend my position"
Exactly. Bubba do you understand what just happened here? Even though I used a very very poor choice of words, Dan still understood what I meant by it and why I said it.
Dan,
Did you even read what Bubba wrote that has you so worked up. It seems as though you didn't. To summarize, Bubba actually said that he had reached certain conclusions based on what you had written, if his conclusions are in error, then you have the perfect opportunity to correct the record. Or not, it's up to you.
Marty,
Please. Your "poor choice of words" is hardly representative of what is going on between Dan and the rest of us. In addition, that he finds you a compatriot in his defense is more a product of your less than probing nature into the meaning of his words. In other words, you take him at his superficial word, whereas we see blatant inconsistencies between what he says he believes and the source material to which he claims a deep devotion. In more other words, it's as if you would agree that Mormons are Christians because they say they believe in and follow the teachings of Christ. But there is a great disparity between what they believe about Jesus and what the Bible teaches about Him. I would say that at times it seems such a disparity exists between what Dan says and what the Bible teaches. It is this disparity where we concern ourselves and where Dan fails to clearly articulate his position.
For DAN, I would like to say just how bored I am to hear your accusations regarding our lack of graciousness and our alleged refusal to seek clarification of your confusing and ambiguous words. Consider from this point on that any restatement by us of your position IS a call for clarification by you. If we simply asked "What do you mean when you say XYZ?", it is not clear that we would get what we seek. It is far easier to restate your position, not with your words, to which you would simply agree leaving us no closer to an answer, but by presenting the only logical conclusion your words could possibly elicit. If you are offended by our conclusions, throw down a shot of John Daniels and carry on. You haven't seen us dodge anything or whine about "ungraciousness". You have only reaped what you have sown in these here discussions.
Marty, my problem with what you wrote has nothing to do with the specific word "fraud."
Do I understand what you and Dan believe? I believe I do: while you happen to believe in the bodily Resurrection of Christ, and while you pay lip service to its importance, you don't think a denial of it would place you outside of genuine Christian faith, nor do you think that a denial would hinder your ability to follow Christ's teachings.
But your position is contradictory, self-defeating, and absurd, since Christ taught about His own resurrection, and since Christ commanded Thomas to examine His wound, and since Christ taught that they are blessed who did not witness the Resurrection yet still believe.
The bodily, historical Resurrection of Christ was taught by Christ Himself, and the Bible is clear that it is essential to our faith -- that without it, we are dead in our sins, and our faith is in vain.
None of this is difficult to grasp, and all of it is from the Bible's clear teachings which have been affirmed from the beginning: if one deny the bodily Resurrection of Christ, he isn't a Christian.
And if one denies or downplays the importance of the bodily Resurrection of Christ -- as Dan does, and as you do -- he might still be a Christian, but he has no rely clue about the boundary between orthodoxy and heresy.
"None of this is difficult to grasp, and all of it is from the Bible's clear teachings which have been affirmed from the beginning: if one deny the bodily Resurrection of Christ, he isn't a Christian."
No one here has denied the bodily resurrection of Christ.
No "real" clue, rather.
"No one here has denied the bodily resurrection of Christ."
Very good, Marty. I never said you did.
What you seem to deny is that the doctrine cannot be denied by a Christian. What you seem to deny is what I highlighted in the very next paragraph.
"And if one denies or downplays the importance of the bodily Resurrection of Christ -- as Dan does, and as you do -- he might still be a Christian, but he has no [real] clue about the boundary between orthodoxy and heresy."
What you apparently deny isn't the bodily Resurrection, but its importance, and you do so ostensibly to focus on Jesus' teachings, but you ignore the rather obvious fact that JESUS TAUGHT ABOUT HIS OWN RESURRECTION.
I know, I know, you don't deny its importance, but the doctrine still isn't important enough to you to be an indispensible aspect of Christian faith, so your lip service to its importance doesn't mean a whole lot.
Dan, if you believe that my conclusions about what you believe are wrong, despite the large amount of evidence I produced to justify them, I welcome you to clarify your positions.
Either way, I urge you to tell us which passages of Scripture convinced you that God Almighty does not have the moral right to end human life that He created.
And, while I'm at it, I'd love to know if you concede that Jesus Christ Himself predicted His own Resurrection and taught (esp. to Thomas) that it was a physical resurrection. If you don't, just what in the world do you mean by Jesus' "actual teachings" if you don't affirm all that the New Testament attributes to Him?
I'm tempted to conclude that you think Jesus' "actual teachings" are the ones that line up with what you already believe about helping the poor, to hell with what Christ taught about the authority of Scripture, the reason for our being made male and female, what His death accomplished, and that He would be bodily raised.
In the spirit of being a "more gracious Christian," no doubt, you wrote the following:
"Your whole notion of Christianity appears to be only as deep as a shallow grave, screw Jesus' actual teachings."
You couldn't be more wrong, Dan. I just happen to believe that Jesus taught what the NT attributes to Him, including what CHRIST HIMSELF taught about the reality and the nature of His own Resurrection.
How about you?
Craig said...
if his conclusions are in error, then you have the perfect opportunity to correct the record. Or not, it's up to you.
Brother Craig, I have tried correcting the misunderstandings and bad conclusions of many here for years. Here's a suggestion: Don't draw inferences from what we have said. You (the generic "you," you all, Bubba specifically but not limited to him) infer poorly and fairly consistently. I would suggest that you simply draw conclusions on what I have actually written.
Don't say, "Dan reads the Bible differently than I do - for instance, he interprets some things figuratively that I take literally, therefore, Dan hates the Bible." That does not even make sense. Just say, "Dan takes this passage figuratively and I think he is wrong when he does so."
THEN, having said that, you will not have misunderstood me/us nor misrepresented my/our position. It's really not that difficult.
"In other words, you take him at his superficial word, whereas we see blatant inconsistencies between what he says he believes and the source material to which he claims a deep devotion."
No. I take him at his word. Period.
You see inconsistencies. I see a man who has, at times, struggled with his faith and inconsistencies in Scripture and has not been willing to set it all aside because of the Gospel of Christ.
"You see inconsistencies. I see a man who has, at times, struggled with his faith and inconsistencies in Scripture and has not been willing to set it all aside because of the Gospel of Christ."
Yet, at least as concerns the most recent points being discussed, Dan seems to be setting aside portions of those Gospels. As far as struggling, it seems to me he should be struggling now considering how he interprets the Bible now. He dismisses so much, yet, adds what cannot be supported by Scripture, that to label it the result of inconsistency (even by me) doesn't really go far enough.
You seem to get all choked up over the plight of poor Danny getting taken to task by people like me or Bubba or Craig or Neil without really considering the implications of what his belief system might mean. I consider the exteme possibility that people actually read these blogs and might be swayed by what they read. I don't think I can, in good faith, allow poor and/or twisted doctrine to be published without some kind of rebuttal. To use Dan's own ploy, if he was to say that after prayerful study and through his God-given reasoning, he came to the conclusion that God wants us to rape babies and puppies (he's used both), I feel compelled to demand some Scriptural support for such a belief. And while you can't seem to see any problem in what he HAS said he believes, it seems rather blatant and obvious to some of us that such support be presented for the things he says. As I said, Mormons call themselves Christians. It's not until you take what they say and compare it to Scripture that you find that the label "Christian" really doesn't apply. In a similar manner, we do the same with Dan, and though he may still "qualify", he is still walking the tightrope between truth and heresy and in some areas, definite heresy.
I believe his current frustration is evidence that he cannot support his beliefs in those areas we've been discussing. I dare say that it would be my side that would be whining about misunderstandings if he had solid arguments, evidence or Scriptural support for his positions.
And speaking of whining, Dan,
"Brother Craig, I have tried correcting the misunderstandings and bad conclusions of many here for years."
No, I think it would be more accurate to say that you've been trying for years to deflect the serious and thoughtful concerns others have had with your points of view. What has always happened is that you make a statement, it is countered, you try to clarify, it is found lacking, and then you begin to make charges of being misunderstood, of having had your words twisted, or you claim others are speaking for God, or you claim we know better what you think than you do. The fact is you're poor at justifying your positions. I don't even know if it's a problem with your ability to articulate. I think you are running up against the fact that the unjustifiable can't be justified.
"I would suggest that you simply draw conclusions on what I have actually written."
This is all that has been done in all of these discussions going back as far as I can remember. It is here where you say we're failing to seek clarifications, it is here where you think we've misinterpreted your meaning.
"Don't say, "Dan reads the Bible differently than I do - for instance, he interprets some things figuratively that I take literally, therefore, Dan hates the Bible.""
This is in no way representative of what happens in these discussions. Certainly seeks to put US in a bad light, though. Great ploy that!
"THEN, having said that, you will not have misunderstood me/us nor misrepresented my/our position. It's really not that difficult."
It never has been, Dan. What's been difficult is getting you to justify your position. I think we understand you pretty well, in fact.
Then why is it you can rarely correctly repeat back to me what I actually believe?
You hear me say, "I love the Bible and take it seriously." Some of you repeat back, "Which means he hates the Bible. We can tell this because he doesn't take some points as literal that I take literally."
As I have noted before: Disagreeing with Bubba or Marshall is not the same as disagreeing with God or the Bible.
Marshall said...
In a similar manner, we do the same with Dan, and though he may still "qualify", he is still walking the tightrope between truth and heresy and in some areas, definite heresy.
Here's an example. You accuse me of "definite heresy." And yet, I have never said anything heretical by orthodox Christian standards.
So, I am saying that this is a blatantly false statement.
Support the crazy charge or back off from it. Provide one way in which I believe something heretical.
heresy: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma...
Dogma: something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
What do I believe that is heretical? And please don't bother offering the notion that I disagree with you on the nature of whether or not we agree on a sin here or there. Disagreeing on a sin here or there that is not covered in the Bible is not the same as a definitive church tenet.
Disagreeing on sins/actions is not the same as heresy.
Dan, you continue to be a flagrant hypocrite.
You suggest that I should be a "more gracious Christian" in understanding Marty, but you show no such graciousness in understanding us.
You insist that we stick only to what you write...
"Don't draw inferences from what we have said. You (the generic "you," you all, Bubba specifically but not limited to him) infer poorly and fairly consistently. I would suggest that you simply draw conclusions on what I have actually written."
...but the inferences you draw from what we write are simply absurd.
"You hear me say, 'I love the Bible and take it seriously.' Some of you repeat back, 'Which means he hates the Bible. We can tell this because he doesn't take some points as literal that I take literally.'"
No one has EVER repeated back that comment, or anything that resembles it, and I defy you to produce evidence that we have.
Earlier you said that I misunderstood you, and I was able to justify my conclusions by quoting you at length. I do not believe you can do the same.
It simply isn't the case that any of us have ever said that your claim to love the Bible is ITSELF the reason we believe you don't love at least the entire Bible.
That claim is not the reason we reached that conclusion. It has never been the reason, and we have never said it's been the reason.
The reason we don't think you esteem the entire Bible -- the reason I personally don't think that -- is NOT that you claim to love the Bible, but that the details of your beliefs are in opposition to much of what the Bible clearly teaches.
The Bible clearly and emphatically teaches that Christ died for our sins, and you apparently don't believe that: you've written in this very thread that we would be saved even if Jesus had died of natural causes.
(Never mind whether Jesus could have died from natural causes: in Jn 10:17-18, He taught that no one can take His life, but that He lays it down.)
The Bible clearly and emphatically teaches the reality AND THE ABSOLUTE IMPORTANCE of the bodily resurrection -- the tomb was empty, Christ Himself urged Thomas to examine His wounds and believe, and Paul wrote that if Christ wasn't raised we're dead in our sins -- but you seem to think that one could disbelieve the bodily Resurrection and not abandon the faith.
(By the way, if you're looking for proof of your heresy, these two doctrines are a very good place to start.)
And, along the way, you dismiss as atrocity much of what the Old Testament clearly teaches as historical -- and frequently important history -- and you dismiss as bigotry much of what the New Testament (specifically Paul) teaches about men and women.
It's not that we interpret your claim to love the Bible to mean just the opposite: it's that THESE DETAILS of what you believe belie the claim.
You have a nasty and long-standing habit of insisting that people stick only to what you say, while SIMULTANEOUSLY butchering what they say -- as you did over two years ago. You presented a summary of our disagreements that was supposedly typical but was, in reality, utterly dishonest in many important respects; at the very same time, you insisted that others' problems "involve[] their interpretations of my words, rather than what I’ve actually said."
The hypocrisy on this one point is so thick that this comment at least must focus on nothing else: you insist that we stick to your words while you throw COMPLETELY FABRICATED DIALOGUE against us, dialogue which bears no resemblance to what we've written; you lament over bad inferences while you give a master course in drawing inferences that cannot possibly be justified; and you lecture us about Christian grace and civility while you do your damnedest to paint us in the worst possible light.
Bubba said...
The reason we don't think you esteem the entire Bible -- the reason I personally don't think that -- is NOT that you claim to love the Bible, but that the details of your beliefs are in opposition to much of what the Bible clearly teaches.
That's a rather tough claim to prove. "Much" of what the Bible "clearly teaches?" Don't you mean, "Much of what I, BUBBA, THINK the Bible teaches - what seems clear to ME, BUBBA..."?
Once again, there is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with Bubba and disagreeing with God.
You seem to miss that distinction.
Tell you what: Let's take just ONE instance of what you have said and I will break it down for you - once again - why you aren't understanding me or representing my position clearly.
And really, after this, WHY would I do the same thing again and again and again?
Bubba said...
The Bible clearly and emphatically teaches that Christ died for our sins, and you apparently don't believe that: you've written in this very thread that we would be saved even if Jesus had died of natural causes.
Which is not what I have said, but rather what YOU have concluded based on other things I have said.
I have not said that I don't think Jesus died for our sins. I have not said that anywhere.
What I HAVE said is the ultraconventional "We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus."
What I HAVE said is that Jesus DID come and live his life and lay it down in a sacrificial sort of way, pouring his life out here on earth for us.
What I HAVE said is that it IS our sins that caused Jesus to die.
What I HAVE said is that IF God appeared to me and said to me, "Dan, you have taken some passages and read them literally so that you think that Jesus raised physically from the dead. That was a metaphor which you misunderstood. I didn't mean that Jesus' earthly body rose from the dead. Just that his spirit did, and is now in heaven preparing a place for you and all who accept my grace. It is Jesus life poured out sacrificially, leading by example, loving in person, being gracious in person and showing you how to do so even amidst persecution and misunderstanding and lies and slander. THAT was the point of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. To point to my grace."
I have said that IF God appeared to me and said that, then I would revise my understanding of the resurrection. I would not spit in God's face and call God a liar because I misunderstood something in the Bible.
[And I will repeat the oft-asked question: Would you?]
Where you say that I said we would be saved even if Jesus died of natural causes, here is the clarification of that...
Craig asked...
If Christ had lived to 70 and died of old age, do you believe that would have been sufficient to provide the "ransom for many" that Christ said he was?
And I responded:
If that's the way it was, why not? It is NOT just the crucifixion or death or resurrection that saves us. It is God's grace. It is God's grace lived out in Jesus' life and teachings and community and death and resurrection.
I responded, IF THAT's THE WAY that God decided to save us, by having Jesus live out his life to the age of 70 and dying of natural causes, then God could have done so. The point is, I said and repeat, that we are saved by God's grace.
Do you disagree? Do you think that IF JESUS had lived out his life to age 70 and died of old age and that's the way God wanted to demonstrate God's grace, that God could not have done so?
I was asked a hypothetical question and answered hypothetically. I doubt that you disagree with me, but you tell me.
So now, I have thoroughly demonstrated that I DO NOT believe as you suggest, and probably that you agree with me on the hypothetical question posed to me. What of it? Do you wish to tell me something else I believe that I don't? To misrepresent my position again? I fully expect it and will pass on re-explaining what I have re-explained plenty of times.
Dan, you continue to harp on the idea that what divides is a mere difference of interpretation -- that you interpret some things figuratively what we interpret literally.
The problem is, your "figurative interpretation" is completely implausible. It's indefensible, and we can know this in part because you spend so little effort actually defending it with a close and careful analysis of the text.
For one thing, you have YET to answer the obvious question: if the OT's commands to wage wars of annihilation are mere allegory, does that mean that the entire historical narrative is allegory, from Abraham and Isaac, all the way to Samuel and David? Or do you think the text flips between history and allegory, imperceptibly, over and over again?
And what you DO discuss rarely involves the text itself.
Over at Stan's, you object to the conclusion that some passages of the Bible teach corporal punishment in child-rearing, but you didn't actually argue from the text of those passages: you argued from present-day studies about how spanking is wrong and/or unnecessary.
There, you object to Stan's conclusions about what the Bible teaches regarding free will and total depravity, but your objection never revolves around what the text itself says. Instead, you claim to know that, in the "real world," infants are truly innocent and the unregenerate routinely chooses to do good. (How you know these things with any epistemological certainty remains a mystery.)
With us, you object to the conclusion that the Bible universally condemns homosexual behavior, but your objection has never been supported by any close exegesis of the passages in question, and you never did respond at Craig's to my analysis -- that if God hands people over to some particular behavior because of their idolatry, that behavior logically cannot be morally permissible in any circumstances. Instead, you bolster your argument from (at best) complete silence with your encounter with supposedly godly gay couples.
And, you object to the conclusion that God commanded Abraham and Joshua to take human life, but do you appeal to a close study of God's word written on the page? No, you trump that with what you claim to be God's word written on your heart.
Because you argue your interpretations without appealling to a close study of the text itself, I wonder if even you know that you're talking out of your hindquarters.
You used to have a different approach to dismissing passages you didn't like: you suggested error or imperfection in the text rather than an implausible figurative interpretation on your part.
This quotes, which I cited before (with links) at Craig's on August 13th, bear repeating:
"One can love the Bible's teachings and yet not accept every teaching as representative of God's Will. It just is a reality that this can happen. I DO love the Bible, but I DON'T accept that every line is a perfect representation of God's Will."
"God will NOT sometimes ask us to commit atrocities. So, in those passages, I think we have a less than perfect representation of God."
These statements are gross understatements if you believe that the OT attributes to God commands to commit atrocities, but in comparison to what you currently right, they're more comprehensible, and I suspect they're more honest.
And there's one more serious problem with your appeal to mere disagreement over interpretation, worth a comment all its own...
Bubba...
The problem is, your "figurative interpretation" is completely implausible.
No, the problem is YOU THINK my understanding of some passages as figurative is completely implausible. AT THE SAME TIME, I think YOUR literal position on some passages is completely implausible.
For you to suggest that God sometimes commands the slaughter of children is ridiculous to the BIBLICAL notion and JESUS' CLEAR TEACHINGS that God is a God of love and justice, concerned for the least of these.
It is a ridiculous position to hold and implausible from a biblical and logical point of view. I HAVE defended this and you disagree. And I disagree with you. And you disagree with me.
The question is simply: Which is more plausible. You think one thing is more plausible (that God sometimes commands the slaughter of children) and I think another option is more plausible (that this passage does not represent a literal reflection of God's will.)
WOULD YOU NOT AGREE that this is our difference on this particular topic?
It's not a question of who loves the Bible more or whose position indicates that they don't "REALLY" believe the Bible or God. It's just a question of which explanation is more plausible. Period.
And on that point, we seem to be at a deadlock.
Dan, you say you love the Bible.
Well, then.
How about we just conclude to take that claim figuratively?
I imagine you would object to that, because you insist that your words have some concrete meaning.
You object to the "misunderstandings and bad conclusions" from what you write, implying that there IS a correct way to understand your writing.
You cry, "why is it you can rarely correctly repeat back to me what I actually believe?" Doing so, you imply that what you write should lead only to certain specific conclusions about what you believe.
It's almost as if you believe that words mean things -- that what you write has a single clear meaning.
Well, what you insist about your own writing, we insist about the Bible.
Indeed there is room for SOME different interpretations and SOME disagreements, but the wiggle room isn't infinite.
More to the point, there's no real question about what the Bible teaches concerning much of what we've been discussing.
Genesis clearly teaches that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and Hebrews clearly commends Abraham for his faithful obedience.
Exodus clearly teaches that God killed the firstborn in Egypt, and the rest of the Old Testament calls Israel to remember this plague and their redemption, most especially in the annual commemoration that Jews have practiced for literally millennia -- the Passover meal which Christ Himself transformed into the central practice of Christian faith.
The Old Testament is clear that God repeatedly commanded ancient Israel to wages wars of annihilation against her enemies (and His), and Psalms criticizes Israel for her disobeying this command.
The New Testament is clear that Jesus Christ died for our sins: Christ Himself taught that His blood was to be shed for the forgiveness of sins.
The New Testament is clear that Christ was raised bodily -- He Himself repeatedly taught the Resurrection and then, raised, He told Thomas to examine His wounds -- and that the Resurrection cannot be set aside: if Christ is not raised, we are dead in our sins and our faith is in vain.
We affirm for the Bible what you demand for your own writings, and the term is clarity: on the major teachings, the Bible actually is clear.
And I don't think it's horribly unfair to conclude that, barring serious mental problems, a man who denies so much of the Bible's clear teachings ultimately holds much of the Bible in contempt.
Do you deny the Sabbath rules as a good thing?
Do you deny the Jubilee laws are something worth emulating?
Do you deny that when Jesus said, literally, "blessed are you who are poor... woe to you who are rich," that he meant what he literally said?
Do you deny that the earth has four corners?
Do you deny the clear implications of teachings such as love your enemies, turn the other cheek, overcome evil with good, etc... ie, that Christians oughtn't take part in killing our enemies?
Do you deny that God is quite literally concerned especially for the least of these, as the bible clearly teaches?
Do you deny the clear and consistent biblical teaching that wealth is a trap to be wary of?
IF you deny "so much of the Bible's clear teachings," are we to conclude that you hold the Bible in contempt?
Dan, in reply to your most recent comments, I believe that there are quite clear teachings in the Bible, and that belief does not suggest megalomania on my part.
"Once again, there is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with Bubba and disagreeing with God.
"You seem to miss that distinction."
I do not, and you're a hypocrite for suggesting this in light of your bitching about my not being a "more gracious Christian" to Marty.
My response is that the belief that the Bible contains at least some very clear teachings doesn't entail confusing oneself with God.
In supposedly attempting to set things straight once again, you continue to obfuscate.
"I have not said that I don't think Jesus died for our sins. I have not said that anywhere."
Yet, you don't say here that Jesus did die for our sins: beyond saying that "our sins [] caused Jesus to die," you DO NOT affirm that His death caused the forgiveness of our sins.
"What I HAVE said is the ultraconventional 'We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.'"
It's conventional, but it's incomplete: what's also conventional is that we are saved by Christ's death, and you have never affirmed this. Instead, you affirm OTHER conventional doctrines -- as you do above -- to obscure your beliefs regarding this doctrine.
The Bible is clear that we are saved, not only by God's grace but by Christ's death. You seem to deny the latter, and harping about the former doesn't change that one bit.
I reiterate that your "figurative interpretation" of the OT's difficult commands from God is totally implausible.
You continue to disagree...
"For you to suggest that God sometimes commands the slaughter of children is ridiculous to the BIBLICAL notion and JESUS' CLEAR TEACHINGS that God is a God of love and justice, concerned for the least of these."
...but you're question-begging. Indeed God is loving and just, but that doesn't preclude the command to wage wars of annihilation UNLESS YOU CAN POINT TO PASSAGES THAT TEACH PRECISELY THAT, which you can't.
Instead, you appeal to what Jesus taught, but you ignore that He Himself taught that Sodom was a mere warm-up compared to what awaited those who reject Him.
Does God have the right to end, at will, a human life that He created?
I believe He does, and you apparently disagree, but you cannot point to a single passage that justifies your conclusion. Instead, you bring that conclusion to the Bible instead of drawing it FROM the Bible.
Dan, let's tackle your two questions to me, in reverse order.
You reviewed Craig's question and your answer -- which I don't think I misconstrued at all, frankly -- about whether we would be saved if Jesus had lived to old age.
You continued:
"If that's the way it was, why not? It is NOT just the crucifixion or death or resurrection that saves us. It is God's grace. It is God's grace lived out in Jesus' life and teachings and community and death and resurrection.
"I responded, IF THAT's THE WAY that God decided to save us, by having Jesus live out his life to the age of 70 and dying of natural causes, then God could have done so. The point is, I said and repeat, that we are saved by God's grace.
"Do you disagree? Do you think that IF JESUS had lived out his life to age 70 and died of old age and that's the way God wanted to demonstrate God's grace, that God could not have done so?"
I do disagree.
As a brief digression, you write, "It is NOT just the crucifixion or death or resurrection that saves us."
I think the word "just" has no place there given the rest of what you've written: you're not suggesting that we're saved by MORE than the crucifixion, but by something OTHER than the crucifixion, because you seem to believe the cross wasn't a necessary ingredient: it WAS there, but it didn't need to be, because you think God could have decided to save us "by having Jesus live out his life to the age of 70 and dying of natural causes."
But, again, I disagree.
"Do you think that IF JESUS had lived out his life to age 70 and died of old age and that's the way God wanted to demonstrate God's grace, that God could not have done so?"
I ABSOLUTELY believe that God could not have done so, because such a demonstration of God's grace would have been contrary to His holy righteousness -- to His justice which demands that the penalty for sin be borne. You have NEVER EVER addressed what happens to the penalty we've incurred for our sins if God forgives us ex nihilo, as it were.
And I say all this, not merely because of the traditional understanding of why Jesus died or even Paul's authoritative teaching about how we are saved.
(Rom 3:24-25: we are "justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.")
I say this because of Gethsemane -- specifically Christ's prayer and the Father's obvious response.
"Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done." - Lk 22:42
Christ was still crucified: apparently the Father wasn't willing to remove the cup.
"My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want." - Mt 26:39
Christ was still crucified: apparently it wasn't POSSIBLE for that cup to pass.
Jesus Christ prayed to avoid the cross if at all possible, and His request was clearly denied. I need no other argument to conclude that the cross was absolutely essential.
[continued]
Bubba...
I ABSOLUTELY believe that God could not have done so, because such a demonstration of God's grace would have been contrary to His holy righteousness
Wow. I suppose you know (or maybe you don't) that this SOUNDS like you're saying that we are NOT saved by God's grace, BUT INSTEAD, that we are saved by God's grace IF AND ONLY IF God also gets to punish somebody for sin. That is, we are saved by God's grace AND God's wrath.
Not exactly an orthodox view, there.
If that is your position, that it is NOT, "By grace you are saved through faith in Jesus," but instead, "It is by grace you are saved, through faith in Jesus AND God's need to punish your sin with a death penalty because God's grace CAN'T act without a blood sacrifice..." then I do disagree with you.
For myself, I cling to God's grace, as the Bible and Jesus teach.
[continued]
This is the other question you ask:
"What I HAVE said is that IF God appeared to me and said to me, 'Dan, you have taken some passages and read them literally so that you think that Jesus raised physically from the dead. That was a metaphor which you misunderstood. I didn't mean that Jesus' earthly body rose from the dead. Just that his spirit did, and is now in heaven preparing a place for you and all who accept my grace. It is Jesus life poured out sacrificially, leading by example, loving in person, being gracious in person and showing you how to do so even amidst persecution and misunderstanding and lies and slander. THAT was the point of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. To point to my grace.'
"I have said that IF God appeared to me and said that, then I would revise my understanding of the resurrection. I would not spit in God's face and call God a liar because I misunderstood something in the Bible.
"[And I will repeat the oft-asked question: Would you?]"
This is a loaded question because you wouldn't have "misunderstood something in the Bible."
The Bible is quite clear that Christ was bodily and physically raised.
The tomb was empty. See Mark 16:6, Luke 24:12, and John 20:4-9.
And if that weren't enough, Christ was with the disciples bodily, eating with them and urging them to examine His wounds.
"Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." - Lk 24:38-39
"Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe." - Jn 20:27
If Christ was not bodily raised, then the Bible wasn't misunderstood: IT WAS WRONG.
The Bible is completely clear about the bodily Resurrection: it's not the least bit plausible that it teaches a merely spiritual resurrection through metaphor: the writers go out of their way to make the physical nature of Christ's resurrection absolutely clear.
What you ask is a hypothetical question that mangles what the Bible teaches.
You ask whether I would "spit in God's face and call God a liar because I misunderstood something in the Bible."
On the question of the nature of Christ's Resurrection at least, there's no room for misunderstanding, Dan: none whatsoever.
A better way to put that is to ask, would I "call God a liar" because the Bible contains error?
[continued]
[continued]
I'll address your question, first by answering a different scenario.
Suppose God persuasively revealed Himself to me and told me that Jesus wasn't crucified at all; that Jesus isn't the Son of God but is an esteemed prophet of God; that Mohammed is God's last and greatest prophet; and that the Koran is God's final authoritative revelation, correcting the mistakes of Jewish and Christian Scripture.
If God really did reveal all this, I would be undone, because only the Bible proclaims salvation by faith rather than works, and I am without hope if I must depend on my own works to please God.
Nevertheless, I certainly would NOT "spit in God's face and call God a liar."
I would believe what God revealed.
But what that means is that I would cease to believe that the Bible is His authoritative written revelation, and I would cease to be a Christian: I would submit to the Koran and become a Muslim.
I would believe in God, but not the God of the Bible -- that is, the God who is revealed in the Bible.
Now, returning to your question, would I "spit in God's face and call God a liar" if God persuasively revealed Himself and relayed that Christ was not bodily risen?
No, I would not. Instead, I would believe God, but -- and here's the important point -- I would cease being a Christian and I would cease to believe in the Bible.
Christianity affirms as a doctrinal "deal-breaker" that Christ was bodily raised. The Bible teaches that Christ was bodily raised.
If a person abandons this doctrine, he hasn't necessarily abandoned God, but he HAS abandoned Christianity, he HAS abandoned the Bible, and the deity he worships cannot be accurately called the God of the Bible.
Bubba said...
...but you're question-begging. Indeed God is loving and just, but that doesn't preclude the command to wage wars of annihilation UNLESS YOU CAN POINT TO PASSAGES THAT TEACH PRECISELY THAT, which you can't.
Oh? One has to have a passage that specifically prohibits an action? Does that mean then, that you agree that the Bible does not condemn gay marriage, since clearly there is no such passage? Or do you have different standards for your pet "sins" so that you can claim "well, the Bible SEEMS TO ME to condemn all gay behavior, therefore the Bible MUST condemn gay marriage even though it never does so specifically... however, on killing babies, I need a passage that specifically tells me it's always wrong, even in the context of wars of annihilation..."?
Which is it? Do we need specific biblical condemnation of specific actions or can we infer?
For my part, I am fine with drawing conclusions from the Bible that aren't specifically stated, as long as...
1. We are clear that it is OUR OPINION that we have drawn this conclusion, that it's not specifically taught and,
2. It's a reasonable conclusion.
I think it entirely reasonable given the huge bulk of biblical condemnation of harming the least of these that we can safely conclude that it is wrong to specifically target a city - including its children - for annihilation. I think it patently ridiculous that one even needs to make such an argument because it is self-evident.
Dan, ultimately all of these hypothetical scenarios about what one would say if God came down and corrected us are beside the point.
None of us is presuming to tell God what's what.
We just believe that the Bible is quite clear on quite a few issues.
That doesn't imply some sort of megalomania, and you're not thinking straight if you think it does.
Now that I've answered your questions:
I reiterate my request that you clarify what you believe if we have misunderstood you so thoroughly: it seems that I DO understand your position that we're not saved by Christ's death, and your harping on the fact that you still believe we're saved by God's grace doesn't change that at all.
I reiterate my request that you tell us what passage clearly teaches that God does not have the right to end, at will, the human life He created.
And, I reiterate my question of whether you concede whether Christ Himself predicted His own Resurrection and taught that it was a physical resurrection.
If you don't, just what in the world do you mean by Jesus' "actual teachings" if you don't affirm all that the New Testament attributes to Him?
As much as you appeal to Jesus' "actual teachings," you don't seem to put much stock in what He taught in the Upper Room, in Gethsemane, and after the Resurrection.
Heck, you don't even put much trust in the supposedly beloved Sermon on the Mount, at least insofar as there Christ affirmed Scripture's authority to the smallest penstroke.
When you write about Jesus' teachings, Dan, do you mean ALL that the New Testament attributes to Him, or do you just refer to some subset of ethical instructions? It's amazing how little you refer to what Jesus taught when it's not some variation of "feed the poor."
Bubba, I've answered and reanswered your questions, which have been formed and re-formed and asked in other ways, which I have answered ad absurdum. Why would re-answering your questions some more help anything?
You ask...
I reiterate my request that you tell us what passage clearly teaches that God does not have the right to end, at will, the human life He created.
I have quite clearly stated and will re-state that God does not need my permission or understanding to do whatever God wishes to do, including killing people.
I have also said that I don't think it's how I think that God tends to operate and it would be MY GUESS (since I'm not God and God has not told me specifically one way or the other) that biblical passages that suggest God is actively and specifically killing people are poor understandings of storytelling and/or imagery on our part.
I could be wrong. But JUST AS we all have some biblical passages we assume to be imagery or otherwise not literal ("four corners," for instance), I think these such passages are not literally representations of how God works. That is my hunch on those passages.
You asked...
And, I reiterate my question of whether you concede whether Christ Himself predicted His own Resurrection and taught that it was a physical resurrection.
And, as I have stated, I BELIEVE that Jesus was physically resurrected, bodily resurrected. This has been my position all along and it still is. I don't know how to make it more clear. Here's a hint: In the past, when I have said, "I believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead," I was suggesting that I believe that Jesus rose from the dead physically and bodily.
Once again, I'd suggest you take what I say and draw your conclusions from what I said, not what you think I meant. You'll tend to come closer more often to understanding my position than your hunches as to what I "actually mean" when I say something.
When you write about Jesus' teachings, Dan, do you mean ALL that the New Testament attributes to Him, or do you just refer to some subset of ethical instructions?
All. And most specifically, all of what Jesus had to say about himself. Again, look at my actual words and you'll gain a better understanding of what I believe, moreso than when you start guessing at what I mean by my words.
You can tell that I value what Jesus has to tech about grace, about justice, warnings about wealth, about compassion for the poor and marginalized, about our sin problem(s), about consequences for our actions, about living simply, about living faithfully, about living peacefully, about religious hypocrisy... since ALL of these common themes of Jesus' teachings are common themes on which I write. That would be a clue.
Jesus, on the other hand, did not talk much about the Triune nature of God, nor did he talk much about the virgin birth, nor did he criticize gay folk or drug addicts or liberals or all those folk that some like to criticize and, just as Jesus did not talk much or any about these themes, neither do I.
Again, my actual words would be a clue.
Now, returning to your question, would I "spit in God's face and call God a liar" if God persuasively revealed Himself and relayed that Christ was not bodily risen?
No, I would not. Instead, I would believe God, but -- and here's the important point -- I would cease being a Christian and I would cease to believe in the Bible.
Then that's a difference between you and me. I find Jesus' teachings quite compelling and would remain a Christ-ian - a follower of Jesus - if I merely found out my understanding of the passages that suggest a physical resurrection were wrong.
It is for this reason that it seems to me that your faith seems to be only as deep as Jesus shallow grave. If you found out that YOUR (and my) understanding of passages about the HOW of resurrection were wrong, you'd abandon all other teachings of Jesus. That is amazing to me.
Dan, I disagree with your interpretation of Luke 6:20 and 6:24.
As Stan has pointed out, it seems that you're not actually serious in the claim that the literal poor are blessed with God's kingdom, because you're not working to make people (yourself included) as poor as possible so that they can inherit that they (and you) can inherit the kingdom.
Regardless, I reiterate that, indeed, there is room for SOME different interpretations and SOME disagreements about what the Bible says.
But that wiggle room only goes so far.
The Bible is absolutely clear about the sacrifice of Isaac, about the Passover, about why Jesus died, and about how He was bodily raised.
Particularly on Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection, the Bible is clear and the doctrine is crucial, so at some point an unwillingness to conform to what the Bible teaches must be attributable to contempt for what it teaches.
Bubba said...
Regardless, I reiterate that, indeed, there is room for SOME different interpretations and SOME disagreements about what the Bible says.
And I agree. Where we appear to disagree is how much wiggle room and on what topics and on what basis do we have more or less wiggle room.
For instance, we agree, I believe, that God's grace has brought us Atonement - we have been made At One with God through God's grace - and I am fine with people disagreeing on exactly what the nature of the Atonement is and with holding various theories of Atonement.
Augustine believed in, if I'm not mistaken, the Ransom theory of atonement.
Jonathan Edwards developed the Governmental theory, although it does not appear he held to it, at least some of his followers did.
Most anabaptists with which I am familiar are most comfortable with the Moral Example theory, but make room for Penal Substitution and Christus Victor theories.
Luther and Calvin both (and many evangelicals today) held to the Penal Substitution theory.
The point is, that I'm fine with us disagreeing about the various explanations of atonement, but the main thing is that we agree that Jesus/God has made a way for us to be at one with God. I'm fine with wiggle room on what atonement means, but we ought to be able to agree on atonement in general.
But it does not appear that you agree.
My question is: ON WHAT basis do you decide, "Well, for some Christians to think that Jesus meant LITERALLY poor/rich in Luke 6 is an acceptable area of disagreement, but for some Christians to think that God did not literally command people to kill babies, that is NOT acceptable!"?
Why is disagreement with one acceptable to you but not with the other? Why can we disagree about Luke 6 and you not conclude that I don't respect the Bible but we can't disagree about annihilation passages?
I see no consistent reasoning in the whys and whens of your biblical exegeses and allowances for disagreements.
Wow! The irony could not be more striking! We are constantly accused of idol worship for our adherence to Scriptural teaching. Yet here, Dan claims that if God Himself told Him the Bible was wrong (and if He doesn't support the clear Biblical teaching regarding the causal relationship between Christ's death and our salvation, then the Bible WOULD be wrong), Dan would still follow the Biblical teachings. Amazing! Both Bubba and I insist we would no longer follow the lie that would be the Bible, but Dan would "spit in God's face" and follow Jesus' teachings anyway.
And despite your footstomping insistance, Dan, you have still avoided the question of whether you admit to that causal connection to which I referred above. The question yet goes unanswered. Here's the funny part: I don't even think an affirmative response disrupts your stated position!
There's an obvious problem in one of your recent comments, Dan.
"Oh? One has to have a passage that specifically prohibits an action?"
The Bible states that God DID command wars of annihilation and that He DID send an Angel of Death to take out the first born of Egypt. So you'd need some sort of Scripture that says those passages are not to be taken literally.
BUT! All Biblical teaching regarding homosexual behavior describes it as sinful, nothing describes it as acceptable in any form, only heterosexual marriages are ever described or presented and we've countered you extra-biblical belief that only certain forms of the behavior are prohibited. You've taken a stand apart from what the Bible says without any support for your stand FROM the Bible.
It's been this way all along: we've supported our positions with Scripture and you defend your positions in spite of Scripture.
"Why is disagreement with one acceptable to you but not with the other?"
For this an easy answer exists: There are more than one version of the SOTM, with one saying "poor in spirit" and the other stopping at "poor". This allows for disagreement. There is no such situation with the OT records of God's actions. It is very specific about what it says God did or commanded. As so often happens, your argument helps THIS side better than it does yours.
Marshall said...
The Bible states that God DID command wars of annihilation and that He DID send an Angel of Death to take out the first born of Egypt. So you'd need some sort of Scripture that says those passages are not to be taken literally.
So then, since the Bible DOES tell us that the earth has four corners, you can't think otherwise unless you have a specific passage saying that it's NOT to be taken literally?
That's not what you've said before, I believe. You've said that some things are obviously imagery, isn't that your position?
I agree. It is OBVIOUSLY imagery or some storytelling device and not a literal suggestion that God sometimes commands killing babies.
Considering the OT is far larger than the NT, it doesn't make sense to disregard what it says, or worse, to assume that the NT renders it all of no value to our understanding of God, His Will and His nature as regards our sinfulness. It speaks constantly of sin, how God won't tolerate it, how He constantly offers of Himself if only the people would abide His commands and teachings, how the constantly rejected Him and how He consistently punished them for their rejection and rebellion. As the loving God He is, He still corrected and often in very harsh ways.
The NT never rejects this is any way. It never says that He has changed in nature, but only, if at all, in methods. The first method being Christ's sacrifice making all other sacrifices unnecessary. But Jesus speaks of hell. How much more wrath does there need to be to allow that God's wrathful side is still in effect.
God never ordered the killing of babies per se. He did order, as well as commit on his own, the deaths of many people among whom were certainly babies (though we can't know for sure as it doesn't say so). This does not diminish His loving side one iota as we have no idea as to the details of those actions, that is, what became of those that WE would consider innocent and undeserving of death.
What's more, this question still judges God's actions by standards invented for us but not for Him. There are too many instances in the OT of God unleashing His wrath to pretend that it is some kind of metaphor for something else not revealed. Being unable to reconcile one aspect of God's nature with another is a personal problem.
"So then, since the Bible DOES tell us that the earth has four corners, you can't think otherwise unless you have a specific passage saying that it's NOT to be taken literally?"
I reject this argument as willfully dishonest on your part, and wholly unChristian. But riddle me this, Batman: the "four corners" phrase could be said in a number of ways, such as "to the ends of the earth", or "all over the world", or "everywhere you go", etc, etc, etc.
How many different ways can you come up with for "God sent an Angel of Death to kill all the firstborn of Egypt..." and all the subsequent elements of the story that followed, or, the destruction of Sodom or any other town He destroyed on his own or through Hid people? There's really no other way to say it other than with other terms of violence and destruction without changing entirely the meaning of what is being told in these stories. You're in rebellion to dismiss these stories as the record of events they are. To try to compare them to phrases like "four corners of the earth" is weak and dishonest and calls your intelligence and character into question.
Marshall...
Considering the OT is far larger than the NT, it doesn't make sense to disregard what it says, or worse, to assume that the NT renders it all of no value to our understanding of God, His Will and His nature as regards our sinfulness.
Here we are agreed. I'm not sure why you wrote this, since I am the LAST one to suggest we disregard the OT. I love the OT and its teachings, which informs us greatly about God's nature and priorities. And so, let us agree that we will not disregard the OT.
No problem.
Marshall...
The NT never rejects this is any way.
Again, agreed. Never said otherwise.
Did you THINK I have said that we ought to disregard the OT? If so, that would be an example of how you have surmised something about my positions that I have not said.
Marshall...
What's more, this question still judges God's actions by standards invented for us but not for Him. There are too many instances in the OT of God unleashing His wrath to pretend that it is some kind of metaphor for something else not revealed.
No, it doesn't judge God's actions. I'm not talking about God's actions, I'm talking about ours. It is wrong for us to go into a city and wipe out everyone, including children. It is wrong for us to go into a city and kidnap the girls and make them our wives against their will (after slaughtering their parents). These things are moral wrongs. Evil, if you will.
What I've said is that God won't ask us to commit evil. The Bible tells us so. If someone hears "god" telling him to commit evil acts, we can know it isn't THE God because God does not do that.
And attacking a city to wipe out the people - including the babies there, or raping the babies or kicking the children's teeth out, these are all moral wrongs - evil of the worst sort. A "god" commanding you to commit an atrocity does not make it less an atrocity.
Marshall...
I reject this argument as willfully dishonest on your part, and wholly unChristian.
I do, too. I reject YOUR argument that we have to have a biblical passage to counteract another biblical passage. Sometimes, it's enough to say, "Clearly, this can't be literal."
So we agree. YOUR argument is dishonest and wrong (I wouldn't go so far as to call YOUR argument unchristian. "Wrong," is good enough.)
Dan, you suggest that I'm drawing conclusions from thin air re: "gay marriage", just as I believe you're drawing conclusions from thin air regarding the divine command to wage wars of annihilation.
"Oh? One has to have a passage that specifically prohibits an action? Does that mean then, that you agree that the Bible does not condemn gay marriage, since clearly there is no such passage? Or do you have different standards for your pet 'sins' so that you can claim 'well, the Bible SEEMS TO ME to condemn all gay behavior, therefore the Bible MUST condemn gay marriage even though it never does so specifically... however, on killing babies, I need a passage that specifically tells me it's always wrong, even in the context of wars of annihilation...'?
"Which is it? Do we need specific biblical condemnation of specific actions or can we infer?"
It seems I need to make explicit the reason I think you need to produce passages that specifically teach that God's love and justice preclude His taking human life: SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLES TO THE CONTRARY ALREADY ABOUND IN SCRIPTURE.
At least theoretically, we both agree that Scripture should interpret Scripture.
Well, in the Old Testament's HISTORICAL NARRATIVE, we have records of God destroying human life en masse through both supernatural disasters and human agency. Abraham is praised in the New Testament for obeying the divine command to sacrifice Isaac. God commanded Israel to commemorate Passover, which they have done for literal millennia, and Christ transformed the meal into the central practice of Christian faith, explaining the central event of Christian history -- namely, the Crucifixion. Psalms criticizes Israel for NOT obeying the command to wipe out God's enemies, and Jesus Himself points to Sodom as a mere warm-up compared to what awaits those who reject Him.
In order to conclude those historical passages are to be interpreted figuratively, you need much, much more than question-begging appeals to God's grace and justice, and to the command to overcome evil with good.
On the otherhand, my conclusion that "gay marriage" is morally impermissible is contradicted by nothing in the Bible, and it lines up with an awful lot that's there:
- Every time homosexual behavior is mentioned, it's condemned; it's never commended or permitted.
- Every time marriage is described, it's treated as the union of husband and wife.
- And, most crucially, Christ Himself taught that we were created male and female so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female), a plan that precludes same-sex coupling.
In both situations, your position does not seem to be derived -- or even derivable -- from Scripture.
To try to compare them to phrases like "four corners of the earth" is weak and dishonest and calls your intelligence and character into question.
Again, WHY? ON WHAT BASIS do you hold the one as "obviously" imagery and the other as "obviously" necessarily literal?
Again, your reasoning on biblical exegesis seems highly personal, whimsical and subjective. Feelings-based rather than critical and rational. Now, I believe that you consider yourself a rational - not emotional - sort of person, so maybe you have some system of study that is not subjective and whimsical and you just haven't shared it. But thus far, I'm not inclined to agree with you that a line that says God commands killing babies ought to be taken literally simply because that's your whimsical feeling about how it ought to be taken.
Bubba...
Well, in the Old Testament's HISTORICAL NARRATIVE, we have records of God destroying human life en masse through both supernatural disasters and human agency.
Yes, it does include such passages. And my question to Marshall goes for you, too.
ON WHAT BASIS ought we take such passages as representing God's literal will?
I believe we both agree that God COULD have inspired a Bible that uses metaphor and imagery if God was so inclined. In fact, I believe that we both agree that God DID do this in the Bible. That parts of it ARE metaphorical.
So, we have a passage that, taken literally, would suggest that the Supreme God of Love and Justice sometimes commands the slaughter of children. ON WHAT BASIS would we believe even for a second that this represents a literal rendering of God's will?
If you have no sound reason for taking it as such, I'm not inclined to agree that God sometimes literally commands the slaughter of children. We have ample biblical teachings that show how wrong it is to harm the innocent, the least of these, the children. THESE passages have, as support, humanity's OWN recognition that such actions are evil.
If even a fallen humanity recognizes that some actions (like killing babies) are self-evidently wrong, AND the Bible teaches us this, too - consistently so - then what possible reason would we have for taking such a passage literally?
ON. WHAT. BASIS?
Dan, about particular passages in the Bible, you write to Marshall, "It is OBVIOUSLY imagery or some storytelling device and not a literal suggestion that God sometimes commands killing babies."
(I wonder if I should thank you for dropping the loaded term "slaughter", if only for a moment, or remind you that the Bible never records a divine command to single out infants and kill them...)
The problem is, Marshall wasn't talking about ONLY the command to wage wars of annihilation; he was ALSO talking about the Passover.
You later write, "No, [my question] doesn't judge God's actions. I'm not talking about God's actions, I'm talking about ours."
But when you dismiss as ahistorical THE PASSOVER, you most certainly do judge God's actions, not ours.
But when you dismiss as ahistorical THE PASSOVER, you most certainly do judge God's actions, not ours.
Then I'll remind you of what I have ACTUALLY SAID, rather than what you are inferring.
I have said that I DON'T know if the Passover happened just as it is recorded, with a literal death angel being literally sent by God, literally killing the firstborn babies in Egypt. I was not there and don't know with certainty that this happened just as it is described.
What I have SAID is that I suspect that this comes closer to the "four corners" kind of passage - a passage that we can all recognize as probably not inspired by God with the intent of being taken literally. That is my hunch.
That is not dismissing it. It is questioning its literal accuracy as a matter of logical, critical biblical exegesis, JUST AS you and Marshall (and I) critique "four corners" and strive to discern if that ought to be taken literally. We have all discerned, the best we can, that this ought NOT be taken literally.
I tend to feel the same towards a literal God-sent "death angel." COULD God have done such a thing? God is God and can do anything.
BUT God, as described in the Bible, with the attributes described in the Bible, does not seem to fit in with this passover passage, if taken literally. So, given serious biblical reasoning, I tend to think it ought not be read literally.
This is not dismissing. It's rational Bible study.
On what basis would we take it otherwise?
Dan, I appreciate your ADRESSING my earlier questions, though I'm not sure your responses always qualify as answers.
I asked that you tell us "what passage clearly teaches that God does not have the right to end, at will, the human life He created."
Your response:
"I have quite clearly stated and will re-state that God does not need my permission or understanding to do whatever God wishes to do, including killing people.
"I have also said that I don't think it's how I think that God tends to operate and it would be MY GUESS (since I'm not God and God has not told me specifically one way or the other) that biblical passages that suggest God is actively and specifically killing people are poor understandings of storytelling and/or imagery on our part.
"I could be wrong. But JUST AS we all have some biblical passages we assume to be imagery or otherwise not literal ('four corners,' for instance), I think these such passages are not literally representations of how God works. That is my hunch on those passages."
It's a huge, huge leap to go from believing that some passages use figurative language like similes, to conclude that other passages that are presented as history are nothing but large allegories or parables.
Nothing justifies that leap except your own preconceptions. I don't see a reference to a single passage that would justify that conclusion.
"I have no biblical basis for my position" would have been much more concise, Dan, even if it would have more clearly undermined your claim to argue the more biblical position.
You say your guess is "that biblical passages that suggest God is actively and specifically killing people are poor understandings of storytelling and/or imagery on our part."
Does any other part of the Bible approach those passages in that way? Does Christ, or any of His Apostles? No, and no.
The more obvious conclusion is that what the Old Testament's historical narratives attribute to God, God actually did.
[continued]
[continued]
I asked whether you concede whether Christ Himself predicted His own Resurrection and taught that it was a physical resurrection.
Your response was a complete non sequitor.
"And, as I have stated, I BELIEVE that Jesus was physically resurrected, bodily resurrected. This has been my position all along and it still is. I don't know how to make it more clear. Here's a hint: In the past, when I have said, 'I believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead,' I was suggesting that I believe that Jesus rose from the dead physically and bodily."
I didn't ask whether you believe Christ bodily rose.
I asked whether you believe Christ TAUGHT ABOUT His own Resurrection, whether He predicted it and taught about its bodily nature.
Obviously two different things.
Finally, I asked, when you write about Jesus' teachings, do you mean ALL that the New Testament attributes to Him, or do you just refer to some subset of ethical instructions?
Your reply:
"All. And most specifically, all of what Jesus had to say about himself. Again, look at my actual words and you'll gain a better understanding of what I believe, moreso than when you start guessing at what I mean by my words.
"You can tell that I value what Jesus has to tech about grace, about justice, warnings about wealth, about compassion for the poor and marginalized, about our sin problem(s), about consequences for our actions, about living simply, about living faithfully, about living peacefully, about religious hypocrisy... since ALL of these common themes of Jesus' teachings are common themes on which I write. That would be a clue.
"Jesus, on the other hand, did not talk much about the Triune nature of God, nor did he talk much about the virgin birth, nor did he criticize gay folk or drug addicts or liberals or all those folk that some like to criticize and, just as Jesus did not talk much or any about these themes, neither do I.
"Again, my actual words would be a clue."
Yeah, they're a helluva a clue.
Jesus actually did teach that we were created male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife, but you seem to suggest that nothing He taught has any implications for homosexuality.
He taught repeatedly about the Father and the Comforter and about His own divinity, but you don't think the Trinity comes up.
He taught that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins, and you don't mention that.
He REPEATEDLY taught that He would be killed and then raised on the third day, and you don't mention that, either.
You say you affirm "all of what Jesus had to say about himself," but you don't mention one thing -- NOT ONE TINY THING -- about what Jesus had to say about Himself.
The entire picture you paint of what the Bible teaches is lopsided.
Christ taught about how we are to love others, but He also made clear what HE HAS ACCOMPLISHED through His promised death and resurrection. You emphasize the former and pay the barest lip service to the latter.
The New Testament teaches that we are saved through God's grace and Christ's death; you harp on the first to obscure the fact that you deny the second.
The Bible teaches both God's mercy and His wrath; in emphasizing the former, you all but outright deny the latter.
Much of what you proclaim can be found in the Bible, but you downplay, omit, contradict, and even deny so much more that your beliefs cannot be described as biblical.
You might as well say that a grandfather clock is a human being because, like a human, it has hands and a face.
The entire picture you paint of what the Bible teaches is lopsided.
Some of us may feel the same way about some of y'all, you know?
Christ taught about how we are to love others, but He also made clear what HE HAS ACCOMPLISHED through His promised death and resurrection. You emphasize the former and pay the barest lip service to the latter.
I'd suggest I probably talk about such matters in a manner that is probably about balanced with the amount of time Jesus spent on talking about such topics.
That's just a guess, but it sounds about right to me. It might be an interesting study, if you're into the Bible for study and not just to confirm what you already believe.
How much of Jesus' teaching time did he spend talking about grace, about tending to and siding with the poor, about being a peacemaker, about living simply, about religious hypocrisy, about matters of justice, about oppression, about wealth and poverty, etc, vs how much time he spent talking about his death and resurrection?
If it turned out that Jesus spent more time talking about the things I tend to talk about and less time talking about his death and resurrection (and which I DO believe in, but spend less time talking about), would you be willing to allow that perhaps I've got my priorities balanced?
OR, would you condemn Jesus for spending too much time talking about such trivial things as how to live aright, about grace, about religious hypocrisy, about poverty and wealth and justice and peace?
Bubba said...
I asked whether you believe Christ TAUGHT ABOUT His own Resurrection, whether He predicted it and taught about its bodily nature.
Sorry. My mistake. Yes. He did, at least a bit.
Dan, you ask:
"I believe we both agree that God COULD have inspired a Bible that uses metaphor and imagery if God was so inclined. In fact, I believe that we both agree that God DID do this in the Bible. That parts of it ARE metaphorical.
"So, we have a passage that, taken literally, would suggest that the Supreme God of Love and Justice sometimes commands the slaughter of children. ON WHAT BASIS would we believe even for a second that this represents a literal rendering of God's will?"
1) We do not have any such passages. You continue to use loaded language to misstate what the Bible contains.
Nowhere does the Bible order the specific killing of children only, much less does it describe the act as slaughter.
A more fair statement would be that we have passages that where God commands war of annihilation, the killing -- not murder or slaughter -- of entire enemy nations, not just children.
2) The basis that we have for accepting the passage as literal is that its genre is history. The contrary position isn't just that the passage contains similes here or there, but that the ENTIRE PASSAGE is one extended allegory or parable.
That conclusion is simply untenable from the text, because the conclusion is either that the entire history of ancient Israel is one giant allegory, or that the history oscillates between literal fact and allegory, over and over again, in a manner that is absolutely imperceptible.
I reiterate what I wrote at Craig's and what I've already mentioned here once before.
"We are under no obligation to re-interpret any writing to make its meaning fit what we think is right. On the contrary, I think the only way to take writing seriously is to limit ourselves to plausible interpretations of its meaning."
Dawkins wrote that the God of the Bible is a "malevolent bully." The right response isn't to reinterpret that false claim into some figurative gibberish that fits my worldview -- that Dawkins was just being ironic -- but to reject it as false.
It appears that the Koran teaches conversion by the sword. The right response isn't to reinterpret that into some figurative gibberish about being so enthusiastic at evangelism that it's described (figuratively, mind you) with violent imagery: the right response is to reject the Koran.
The Bible clearly teaches -- within the sweeping HISTORICAL NARRATIVE of Jewish Scripture -- that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, that God slew the firstborn of Egypt, and that God ordered the nation of ancient Israel to wipe out her (and His) enemies.
There's no good way around that, Dan.
It is what it is.
Dismissing its clear teachings with vague appeals to figurative language -- appeals that show you don't the difference between simile and allegory -- is not a credible option.
If the text of the Torah wasn't enough, the Psalms criticize ancient Israel for disobeying the command to wage wars of annihilation, the author of Hebrews praises Abraham for his obedient willingness to sacrifice his son; Paul drew significant theological conclusions from the chronology of Genesis' account of Abraham's life; and, in addition to affirming the authority of Jewish Scripture to the smallest Scripture, JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF repeatedly warned of much worse judgment than physical destruction (namely, eternal damnation) and He referred to the destruction of Sodom as a mere warm-up compared to what awaits those who reject Him.
The text is what it is.
So, you must either accept it or reject it. Your insistence on interpreting the passages figuratively is as wrong-headed as the attempt (by others) to treat Jesus as merely a good teacher.
What the Bible claims to be, demands a more definitive response: either it is the inspired record of God's historical dealings with Abraham and his descendents, or God had nothing to do with it in the first place.
Bubba..
The basis that we have for accepting the passage as literal is that its genre is history.
Oh? Where does the Bible say that? Where does God clarify that for us so that we can know that to be the case?
And, by saying its genre is history, are you presuming that it's history as we would write it today? If so, where does the Bible say that? That seems to be rather an incredible and wholly unsupportable claim, so I'd be interested in your answer.
Dan:
"How much of Jesus' teaching time did he spend talking about grace, about tending to and siding with the poor, about being a peacemaker, about living simply, about religious hypocrisy, about matters of justice, about oppression, about wealth and poverty, etc, vs how much time he spent talking about his death and resurrection?
"If it turned out that Jesus spent more time talking about the things I tend to talk about and less time talking about his death and resurrection (and which I DO believe in, but spend less time talking about), would you be willing to allow that perhaps I've got my priorities balanced?
"OR, would you condemn Jesus for spending too much time talking about such trivial things as how to live aright, about grace, about religious hypocrisy, about poverty and wealth and justice and peace?"
This is the sort of false dilemma that makes you so very loathsome.
"Living aright" is certainly not a trivial matter; it's just subordinated to Christ's death and resurrection. Our inability to live by "Jesus' Way" drives us to the cross and salvation; our forgiveness and regeneration -- along with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit -- motivates us and enables us to obey.
Your challenge of comparing passages is fundamentally flawed, for at least a couple reasons.
First, consider Luke 24:25-27, where the resurrected Lord confronts two followers on the road to Emmaus, on a seven-mile walk (Lk 24:13).
"Then he said to them, 'Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?'
"Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."
That last line is one single verse, but who knows how long Christ's explanation lasted? Since He didn't expound on one passage or even one book but on "Moses and all the prophets", explaining the things about himself in "all the scriptures," the conversation probably took quite a while.
How much weight should we give this short passage that alludes to a lengthy conversation? The fact that there's no easy answer -- but the answer would definitely skew your results -- is one problem with your idea.
Another problem is the simple fact that none of the Gospels pretend to be comprehensive summaries of Christ's life, teachings, or ministry. (See esp. Jn 21:25.)
You write, "If it turned out that Jesus spent more time talking about the things I tend to talk about..." but such a thing simply cannot be determined from the Gospels.
And, another major difficulty is the fact that -- for whatever reason -- Jesus was eager to be quite open about His ethical teachings but was often subtle and arguably even reluctant to say to much about who He is, why He came, and that He would die and be raised.
Instead of counting verses about what Jesus taught, we could at least determine what the Evangelists thought was important, by counting chapters and verses.
But let's not limit ourselves to what Jesus taught; let's look at all that the Gospels record.
How much do the Gospels focus on the last week -- from the triumphant entry to the empty tomb -- compared to the first thirty-three years of Christ's life?
MATTHEW
Easter week: 8 chapters (21-28)
The rest: 20 chapters
MARK
Easter week: 6 chapters (11-16)
The rest: 10 chapters
LUKE
Easter week: 5 1/2 chapters (19:28-24)
The rest: 18 1/2 chapters
JOHN
Easter week: 9 chapters (12-20)
The rest: 12 chapters (inc. 21)
So, between the four gospels, we have 89 chapters. Of those, 28.5 chapters focus on Easter week, 60.5 focus on everything else.
So, 68 percent of the Gospels focus on the first 12,000 days or so of Jesus' life. And 32 percent focus on THE FINAL SEVEN DAYS.
It's obvious what the Evangelists consider most important.
[continued]
[continued]
Anyway, there probably are a couple ways to determine Christ's priorities.
First, there's the question of His "hour" or His "time." He frequently alludes to His hour throughout His ministry, and -- to put it mildly -- it doesn't seem to refer to a really important sermon.
Second, and most crucially, Christ taught that He is building a church (Mt 16:18), and there is the question, what rites or ordinances did He Himself give to the church? How many of these focus on His teachings, and how many focus on His death?
There was only one ordinance, and it focuses on His death.
I quote John Stott from his book, The Cross of Christ.
"The Lord's Supper, which was instituted by Jesus, and which is the only regular commemorative act authorized by him, dramatizes neither his birth nor his life, neither his words nor his works but only his death. Nothing could indicate more clearly the central significance that Jesus attached to his death. It was by his death that he wished above all else to be remembered. There is then, it is safe to say, no Christianity without the cross. If the cross is not central to our religion, ours is not the religion of Jesus."
You suggest that your priorities emphasize Christ's teachings first, and His death second -- and that you got your priorities straight by doing so.
"If it turned out that Jesus spent more time talking about the things I tend to talk about and less time talking about his death and resurrection (and which I DO believe in, but spend less time talking about), would you be willing to allow that perhaps I've got my priorities balanced?"
To answer the question, absolutely not, and this brings us all the way back to what may be our first conversation online, from 2006.
You wrote that the "meat of the gospel" is the commands to love God and love others.
I stand by what I wrote back then.
"No, Dan, the two great commandments aren't the 'meat' of the Gospel: the core of the Gospel is that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again.
"The great commandments (and the Great Commission, a logical consequence of the Big Two) are our response to the Gospel; our failure to obey them underscores the need for the Gospel. They are crucially important things to teach and obey.
"But they are NOT the Gospel itself, and they do not supercede in importance the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
"The greatest thing of all -- the central truth of the Bible, of our lives, of the entire universe -- is what God has done for us, not what we are to do in obedience to Him or even in gratitude for that gift."
If you think that Christ's commands to us are a higher priority than His death for us, then you come perilously close to a works-based religion.
Paul is clear that law is not grace. The former is the commands God gave us, which includes the commands Christ Himself gave; the latter is what God has done for us, sending His Son to die for our sins.
WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, and the Gospel is what He has done for us, not what we are to do in obedience to Him.
You come very, very close to making the same mistake that the Judaizers did in the first century.
The only difference is, they preached the act of circumcision while you preach the act of alms-giving.
We Christians preach no works of ours. We preach Christ crucified.
Briefly, Dan, about whether Christ taught about His own Resurrection...
"Sorry. My mistake. Yes. He did, at least a bit."
No problem. Thanks for answering the question. As often as the teaching is repeated, I wouldn't describe it as "at least a bit."
Between the four Gospels, there are at least nine clear passages -- including three from Mark, whose gospel I omitted earlier.
Matthew 12:40, 16:21, 17:23, 20:19
Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34
Luke 9:22
John 2:19
About my claim that the OT history's genre is, well, history, you write:
"Oh? Where does the Bible say that? Where does God clarify that for us so that we can know that to be the case?
"And, by saying its genre is history, are you presuming that it's history as we would write it today? If so, where does the Bible say that? That seems to be rather an incredible and wholly unsupportable claim, so I'd be interested in your answer."
To answer the second paragraph first, I don't think the tropes of modern historical works apply to the Old Testament, but I will preempt the usual conclusions that you try to draw from that.
You typically try to argue, as you did at Craig's, that the details aren't relevant and that chronology isn't a big deal. Well, Christ Himself inferred the resurrection from a single verb tense in the Torah, and Paul drew significant theological conclusions from the fact that Abraham was reckoned righteous long before his circumcision.
But to answer your first question, the Bible doesn't explicitly claim that the Torah's genre is history.
It doesn't have to.
Or are you actually arguing that the genre is unclear? What is the genre of Exodus, Joshua, and II Samuel if NOT history?
I'm guessing that we both conclude these books are historical in their genre. If so, your question is completely moot, so on this point you should sit down and shut up: your digressions aren't useful.
Or, hell, Dan, if we're gonna go down this road, let's floor it.
Do you believe that the Torah was originally written in Hebrew?
You do?
Where does the Bible say that? Where does God clarify that for us so that we can know that to be the case?
Do you believe that Jewish Scripture contains nouns and verbs?
You do?
Where does the Bible say that? Where does God clarify that for us so that we can know that to be the case?
I guess if the Bible doesn't explicitly say, "Hey, this document was originally written in Hebrew, and it contains nouns and verbs," we can never know it for certain.
While I'm at it, I should probably note that nowhere do any of my comments specify the language in which I'm writing.
You should probably get your multilingual friends over to your house, Dan, so you can be sure to understand what I'm writing.
Who knows? It could be Klingon.
(What a petaQ and taHqeq...)
Or are you actually arguing that the genre is unclear? What is the genre of Exodus, Joshua, and II Samuel if NOT history?
Yes, it IS historical in nature. History as it was written in those days, because context matters. In those days, great sagas were often written. In those days, history to teach were often written. In those days, history using mythological terms and approaches were often written.
I think it IS history - AS history was written back in the day. NOT as history is written today.
Bubba...
I'm guessing that we both conclude these books are historical in their genre. If so, your question is completely moot, so on this point you should sit down and shut up: your digressions aren't useful.
From where I come, it's not called "digression." It's called Bible study.
If your methods of Bible study (ie, My Best Guess method) don't stand up to scrutiny, then perhaps it's time to start taking the Bible more seriously. Join us. It's more interesting when you take it seriously.
[and yes, that was a deliberate shot towards your sloppy exegesis in response to repeated and ongoing shots towards me personally. If you sow the wind...]
Yes, yes, I'll reap the whirlwind -- or in the case of your apparent mental faculties and understanding of scripture, I'll reap a light breeze.
Since you're not arguing that the Torah's genre is anything other than history, your question was a digression: it sure as hell wasn't Bible study, and it's asinine for you to suggest that it was.
I'll once again agree that OT history wasn't written with modern tropes, but your approach to the text is in frequent opposition to the examples provided by Christ and His Apostles.
It still comes down to the fact that we have no reason FROM THE TEXT to conclude anything but that Jewish Scripture really does attribute to God literal and historical acts and commands wiping out whole cities and nations.
If you can't deal with that, Dan, then you should do the honest thing: rather than pretend to reinterpret the passage figuratively, you should denounce the passage for blasphemously attributing to God what you "guess" He wouldn't do.
You should find some other holy book that justifies your "social justice" causes, a book that you can revere without these stupid little games.
Bubba...
If you think that Christ's commands to us are a higher priority than His death for us, then you come perilously close to a works-based religion.
No. I have not said that, but rather, you have wrongly inferred something that I have NOT said based on what I have said.
We are saved by God's grace, not by works. That has been the song I have been singing with you since day one.
YOU are the one adding to God's grace (ie, it's not JUST grace that saves us but also a bloody vengeance to appease an angry god).
And it's not believing in a certain prescribed set of dos and don'ts (ie, you can't believe gay marriage is okay, you must believe war is good and that God may command people to kill men, women and babies, you must hold the One True Belief about Atonement, etc, etc). No, it is God's beloved GRACE that saves us.
Funny how you could miss that no matter how many times I have said it.
That I take Jesus' wonderful and awe-some/terrible (in the old sense of the word) actual teachings quite seriously does not suggest anything other than the fact that I take Jesus' teachings seriously.
But now you can understand my position and need not have this misunderstanding again. I'm glad to clarify.
Since you're not arguing that the Torah's genre is anything other than history, your question was a digression: it sure as hell wasn't Bible study, and it's asinine for you to suggest that it was.
I'm finished talking with you, Bubba. You are a belligerent, arrogant, preening ass. May God's grace be with you. Somehow.
One more repetition, although I've no hope that it will sink in...
It still comes down to the fact that we have no reason FROM THE TEXT to conclude anything but that Jewish Scripture really does attribute to God literal and historical acts and commands wiping out whole cities and nations.
The BIBLICAL and LOGICAL reason FROM THE TEXT to not conclude that God commands killing innocent people, babies included, is that IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR IN THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE THAT DOING SO IS WRONG. THAT IS a reason from the text not to jump to that crazy conclusion.
The reason FROM THE TEXT to not conclude that God would send a literal death angel to literally kill innocent children is that God makes it abundantly clear that each person is accountable for their own sin. We WON'T be punished for the sins of others.
“The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”
Last time I'll repeat that for Bubba's sake. If Craig or Marshall wish to weigh in, I'll still deal with them, maybe.
I am none of those things, Dan. I'm just damn tired of putting up with your bullshit: the lying, the obfuscating, the digressions, and especially the hypocrisy.
Because I can no longer extend you any reasonable benefit of the doubt, I must call your crap as I see it.
It's not the case that I believe we are saved by "a certain prescribed set of dos and don'ts."
It's just that I know enough of the Bible to see that what you believe bears only the most superficial resemblance to what it teaches. What you believe isn't biblical, and if it's Christian, it's only because you take great pains to make sure your beliefs don't overtly contradict the church's ancient, extra-biblical creeds.
And it's not the case that the Bible clearly teaches that even God will not end the human life that He created.
"The BIBLICAL and LOGICAL reason FROM THE TEXT to not conclude that God commands killing innocent people, babies included, is that IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR IN THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE THAT DOING SO IS WRONG."
No, it isn't. It's not wrong for God to end the life He creates BECAUSE THAT LIFE BELONGS TO GOD.
"The reason FROM THE TEXT to not conclude that God would send a literal death angel to literally kill innocent children is that God makes it abundantly clear that each person is accountable for their own sin. We WON'T be punished for the sins of others."
You quote Ezekial 18:20, and yet the Bible is equally clear that all have sinned -- oh, but that's right, you dismiss that as figurative, too. Convenient, that.
We should interpret the unclear by what's clear, and you do just the opposite, dismissing clear historical accounts and clear theological principles by tendentious appeals to prophetic literature, possibly the most difficult genre to discern.
Of all the garbage you spew, the most vile is what you believe -- or, what little you reveal of what you believe -- concerning Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection.
You apparently think that, by spending more time talking about "living aright" and peace and justice issues, your priorities are straight. The dangers of that pose are obvious to anybody who actually understands orthodox Christianity.
"YOU are the one adding to God's grace (ie, it's not JUST grace that saves us but also a bloody vengeance to appease an angry god)."
It's not that God is "angry," it is that He is righteous, and so a penalty must be paid for our sin.
You have never dealt with God's holy righteousness: never.
And it's not me who suggests that we are saved by God's grace and Christ's death.
It's Paul, who taught, in Romans 3, that we are "justified by [God's] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith."
Paul combined God's grace and Christ's death, not me.
And more fundamentally, Paul wasn't the originator of that doctrine. It was the Lord who chose Paul; it was Jesus Christ Himself.
"Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." - Mt 26:27-28
You've made it a point to emphasize, "there is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with Bubba and disagreeing with God."
Absolutely.
The problem is, Dan, your disagreement isn't fundamentally with Bubba.
You have a problem with God Incarnate, Jesus Christ -- with what He taught, with who He chose to teach as His authoritative Apostles, and with the Scripture He affirmed to the smallest penstroke.
Maybe it's for the best that you stop arguing with me, because your issues are with the Central Office.
My response regarding Ezekiel 18:2 deserves a little more than what I initially provided.
"The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own."
First, I'm not sure Dan here is invoking the passage in good faith: it's not as if Dan has actually affirmed that God has the right -- and exercises the right -- to put to death the wicked.
Look at his approach, IN THIS VERY THREAD, to an instance of, well, precision justice: the death of Ananias and Sapphira.
There, does Dan readily agree that God was right to have killed the deceitful couple, because -- as Ezekiel puts it -- "The person who sins shall die"?
No, he doesn't. Instead, he makes hay about the fact that Acts doesn't directly attribute their deaths to God; he denigrates the reliability of the eyewitness by calling them "pre-scientific;" he denigrates the reliability of the account by saying that the story "evolves" because of assumptions being made and added.
At best, he concedes that the couple "probably" did exist and "may have even died."
And look, not only to his approach to the story of Ananias, but to his more general beliefs concerning death, outlined earlier this year:
"1. Death is a natural part of this world. There is no evil intent in death. It happens. It's part of life and can be a blessed, if sad, thing.
"2. One need not believe in an impotent God if one believes that God created a world that functions in a natural way and that death is a part of the natural world. It simply is the way it is.
"3. Your argument seems to be that God causes each death. I reject that as unbiblical and illogical."
Dan writes that death is a "natural" and even "blessed" thing, that is is "simply" part of the natural world, and he rejects the notion that God causes each death.
This hardly sounds like something you'd hear from a person who believes that God puts to death the wicked AND ONLY the wicked: it sounds like Dan believes God puts to death NO ONE AT ALL.
As I said earlier, the discussion about innocence and guilt is beside the point: since God created human life, He has the right to end, at will, even innocent life.
Here, the issue's beside the point in another way: I think Dan's objections to God's taking innocent human life is only the spear's tip through which he pushes through the broarder objection to His taking human life AT ALL.
[continued]
[continued]
If the objection were made in good faith, it would deserve an answer.
In their book, When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and T.A. Howe address the question raised by Ezekiel 18, and the apparent conflict with the Torah.
"Ezekiel is speaking of the guilt of the father’s sin never being held against the sons, but Moses [in Exodus 20:5] was referring to the consequences of the fathers’ sins being passed on to their children. Unfortunately, if a father is a drunk, the children can suffer abuse and even poverty. Likewise, if a mother has contracted AIDS from drug use, then her baby may be born with AIDS. But, this does not mean that the innocent children are guilty of the sins of their parents."
To provide an earthbound example, if a father kills a man, the civil court would indict and convict him alone, and the brunt of the consequences would be laid on him, but there's no way in the normal course of events to avoid at least some consequences being borne by his children -- the most obvious example being, their lack of direct paternal care while the man's rotting in prison.
An online article, about whether the annihilation of the Amalekites was genocide, provides a thorough explanation of the reasoning.
The author asks rhetorically, "aren’t individuals supposed to be punished for their OWN misdeeds ONLY, and not the misdeeds of others?"
"Absolutely, but we need to not make the assumption that the killing of the dependents was a punishment on them, as opposed to a consequence of the punishment on the fathers. Morally, there is a huge difference."
The dynamic is seen in reverse in the story of Rahab: those who had the chance to be spared by staying in her house would have enjoyed the consequences of Rahab's innocence, but not the moral standing of an acquittal.
[continued]
[continued]
The simpler point is that Ezekiel himself wrote things that don't sound a million miles from Exodus, Joshua, and II Samuel.
"Then he [God, cf. 8:5] cried in my hearing with a loud voice, saying, 'Draw near, you executioners of the city, each with his destroying weapon in his hand.'
"And six men came from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with his weapon for slaughter in his hand; among them was a man clothed in linen, with a writing case at his side. They went in and stood beside the bronze altar.
"Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub on which it rested to the threshold of the house. The Lord called to the man clothed in linen, who had the writing case at his side; and said to him, 'Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of those who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.
"To the others he said in my hearing, 'Pass through the city after him, and kill; your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity. Cut down old men, young men and young women, little children and women, but touch no one who has the mark. And begin at my sanctuary.'
"So they began with the elders who were in front of the house. Then he said to them, 'Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain. Go!'
"So they went out and killed in the city. While they were killing, and I was left alone, I fell prostrate on my face and cried out, 'Ah Lord God! will you destroy all who remain of Israel as you pour out your wrath upon Jerusalem?'
"He said to me, 'The guilt of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city full of perversity; for they say, "The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see." As for me, my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity, but I will bring down their deeds upon their heads.'
Then the man clothed in linen, with the writing case at his side, brought back word, saying, 'I have done as you commanded me.'" - Ezekiel 9
Oh, yes, Ezekiel paints such a kinder picture of God than what one can find in Exodus.
The fact is, if Ezekiel 18 contradicted the account of Passover, it ALSO contradicted Ezekiel 9. I think the safe assumption is that, at the very least, each individual book is internally consistent.
One might as well argue that, because Psalm 106 condemns the shedding of innocent blood, it condemns God's commands to wage wars of annihilation -- as if 106:37-38 are crucial AND THE TWO VERSES IMMEDIATELY PRIOR are irrelevant.
In comparing the conclusions Dan draws from Ezekiel 18 and what the same book teaches in chapter 9 -- to say nothing of the conclusion drawn from Psalm 119:36-38, in light of the IMMEDIATE context -- I find it very easy to believe that Dan isn't actually trying to discern what the Bible teaches in context.
He's proof-texting, finding passages that can be used to bolster his existing beliefs, to hell with whether the conclusions he draws run roughshod over the clear teachings of even the immediate context.
Note how Dan believes that, in Luke 4:18-19, Christ proclaimed good news to the literal poor and the release of literal captives, and ask yourself: from what the Gospels record, how many prisoners were released as a result of Christ's ministry?
(Y'know, other than Barrabas.)
What did Christ do to release people from physical prisons, compared to His dying to release us from the captivity of sin and death?
Exactly: He did nothing at all -- His kingdom is not of this world, after all -- and so Dan's conclusion almost certainly has more to do with what's convenient to his political agenda of "social justice" (so-called) than it does with what the Bible actually teaches.
How else can one repeatedly invoke "overcome evil with good" as a reason for pacifism, except that he doesn't care about the contents of the very next line?
Dan has a habit of yanking verses out of context, and maybe that fact is not entirely unrelated to his denouncing me as arrogant and belligerant: I know the Bible well enough to know better, and I'm not snowed over by his song-and-dance routine.
Well, I think Bubba's response to the "the sins of the father" scores well and I'm embarrassed I didn't think of it first. There IS a difference between guilt and consequences and as Bubba pointed out, we all are affected by the consequences of not only our fathers, but by just about everyone. Just check out all the victims of drunk drivers. They certainly suffered and died (some of them babies) for the sins of the drunkards.
Regarding the OT history, it really doesn't matter if the OT authors wrote in a unique style. What matters is providing proof that their record of God's wrathful manifestations are truly some kind of metaphor or allegory. Without such proof, or even a strong argument of support (which, Dan, you don't provide and aren't, by your own standards, schooled enough to make) how is it logical to make assumptions questioning its accuracy? You say that you weigh it against what you think the rest of the Bible says about God. But there is so much there regarding God's wrathful manifestations, that the OT story can't really be told without it, and you must remove them entirely to have the scale tilt the way you prefer to see it.
Further, how can you question the OT writers style and then say that only several hundred years later the writing is less metaphorical and more worthy of literal understanding? The description of God's commands are so clear and unambiguous, what makes you so certain of those of the NT that are as clear and sometimes less so? Is it your reasoning again? But YOU'VE set up the rules of interpretation to allow you to believe what you believe. Those rules require you to throw out common sense where the text conflicts with your hippie understanding.
WE, on the other hand, let the text tell us what it means to tell us. The stories of destruction are simply not written in a manner that suggests metaphor. Phrases like "four corners of the earth" do not require a "system" to understand as a rhetorical flourish. (You would first have to prove that everyone who thought the earth was flat thought of the earth as square shaped as opposed to some other shape. The idea of a flat earth was not as universal as you'd need it to be to make your argument.)
Finally, if you believe that the ancient writers wrote in a particular style that contains such massive use of metaphor, then surely you can offer other examples of ancient writers who did the very same and wrote of historical events in the same manner. I, for one, don't believe that THESE writers in the OT were doing anything like that. I also have never seen any study Bible that suggests such a thing.
WE, on the other hand, let the text tell us what it means to tell us. The stories of destruction are simply not written in a manner that suggests metaphor. Phrases like "four corners of the earth" do not require a "system" to understand as a rhetorical flourish.
No. You don't. You use entirely whimsical, subjective hunches to drive your exegesis. This passage is literal because WE THINK it is. THAT passage is figurative because WE THINK it is.
Again: ON. WHAT. BASIS?
It's based at this point SOLELY on the passing flights of fancy of Marshall, so far as I can see. What MARSHALL THINKS is "obviously" figurative, is. If Marshall doesn't think that God commanding the killing of babies or the rape of children is figurative, then BY MARSHALL'S HUNCH, it must be literal.
Says who?
Marshall, in his infinite wisdom.
Marshall, you'll have to come up with something better than, "because I say so" if you want to convince people of your position. Especially when you're speaking of infanticide. We ain't buying into your emotional clinging to the way you were taught just becuz it's what makes you feel most comfortable.
Bible study is too important for that.
Finally, if you believe that the ancient writers wrote in a particular style that contains such massive use of metaphor, then surely you can offer other examples of ancient writers
"The term epic, whether in the context of Ancient/Classical history or modern literature, usually refers to a long literary piece that involves the impossible and/or fantastic exploits of a hero in the face of what appear almost insurmountable odds."
source
* Homer and Virgil's epics
* Most creation stories from most (all?) cultures around the world
* Epic of Gilgamesh, I believe
* the story of Jason, I believe
I'll look into it some more. I've read this sort of stuff before but will have to refresh my memory.
But there's a few histories told as "stories" (ie, not entirely historically accurate) to begin with.
And remember, ladies and gentlemen, even though Dan compares the Holy Bible, God's written revelation, to Homer's epics and Aesop's fables -- instead of the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, and, y'know, OTHER RELIGIOUS TEXTS, because such comparisons would tend to undermine his point -- he loves the entire Bible and deeply respects all its teachings. Those who suggest otherwise -- just because they disagree with his bizarre interpretations that invariably undercut the text's authority in favor of his own pet theories, which are (arguably blasphemously) elevated as "God's written word on his heart" -- are mean, hurtful, arrogant bastards.
Right?
The truth is, the Bible repeatedly describes, not only God's eternal attributes, but His words and deeds in history. As much as Dan theorizes that God could have communicated through books that are wholly figurative, Judaism and Christianity are adamant that He did not: the Bible is clearly not such a revelation.
Instead, it describes God's progressive revelation, in literal history, of His plan of our actual salvation: without these key historical events, THERE IS NO SALVATION:
1) the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which was fulfilled by Christ who inaugurated a new covenant
2) the Exodus from Egypt, which foreshadows Christ's rescuing us from sin, as is perfectly clear in His ordination of the Lord's Supper
3) the giving of the law at Sinai, the law which Christ affirmed to the smallest penstroke
4) the conquest of the promised land, fulfilling the earthly aspect of the covenant with Abraham
5) the ancient Israelite monarchy, particularly the rule of David, to whom God promised the Messiah as his heir
6) the exile in Babylon and the subsequent restoration: both were clearly predicted by prophets like Isaiah, and if those prophecies were wrong, then the prophets were false, and -- despite their use by Christ and His Apostles (like in Luke 4, which Dan has frequently mentioned) -- their Messianic prophecies really have no value.
7) Jesus' birth by a virgin, without which He could not have fulfilled all prophecy concerning Christ, a miraculous and clearly supernatural event without which His claim to be God Incarnate is (to say the least) that much less credible.
8) Jesus' death and resurrection: He predicted both, His entire ministry pointed to both, and by HIS OWN TEACHINGS and the teachings of His disciples, we could not be provided forgiveness and eternal life without them.
According to the Bible, God acts decisively in history. Anyone who plays games with this fact doesn't understand it or ultimately Him.
And anyone who can't distinguish between brief figures of speech like similes and extended figurative language like allegory is out of his gourd.
If Dan really, truly thinks that the distinction that Marshall makes is arbitrary -- subjective and "entirely whimsical" -- he must think the same of the consensus of the Christian church across the centuries, because Marshall's view is not the least bit controversial.
For some reason, Dan Trabue has decided to affiliate with a religion that he must think -- if he's going to be consistent -- is populated and even led by idiots.
And, beyond the implications for the Christian church, Dan must not be able to navigate the treacherous waters of simple communication in the King's English.
Every person who mentions "going to the ends of the earth," Dan must conclude is a flat-earther.
Every person who mentions the sun's rising and setting, Dan must conclude that he believes in a geocentric universe.
Heck, when his wife comes home and tells him about her day, he must wonder whether she's the next Aesop or Bunyan, telling him some clever fable or intricate allegory.
Because it's so damn difficult to distinguish between what's literal and what's figurative, surely Dan Trabue never uses figurative language himself: no, it's far safer to stick to complete literalism.
He would never say, for instance, "we disagree on which passages to take literally and which ones to take figuratively," because we don't actually TAKE passages anywhere: we don't pick them up and carry them with us.
He would never say to another person, "I don't see how you can reasonably reach that conclusion," because no one actually REACHES conclusions, by travelling to a conclusion or stretching out his arms so as to (somehow) grasp an immaterial conclusion with his hands.
(For that matter, no one acutally "SEES" another person's thought process.)
He would never say, "The position you all hold is not tenable," because no one actually HOLDS a position: if you were to look at us sitting before our computers, you would no doubt see that, if we're holding in our hands anything at all, it's not positions in an argument, it's a bagel or a cup of coffee.
He would never say, "The position you all hold is not tenable from a logical or biblical point of view. At least that's how it strikes me." Because I sincerely doubt that anything actually STRIKES him in the course of this conversation (never mind that conversations don't actually have courses). He's probably not been physically assaulted by any thought, and he wouldn't use figurative language to suggest it, because he knows how very hard it is to see the line between what's literal and what's figurative (not that there's an actual line, and not that I'm discussing physical vision).
He would never say, "You may find my question silly, but I find your position preposterous. Silly does not begin to describe it, from where I stand." He doesn't actually FIND positions the way a person would find his car keys, it's doubtful he would actually STAND as he writes that, and he surely wouldn't think that his opinion would change just because he walked a few feet and stood somewhere else.
Language is overflowing with such figures of speech (language doesn't acutally "overflow"), and indeed it MUST contain such figurative language because the discussion of non-physical phenomena inevitably includes metaphors of physical events. Nevertheless, Dan Trabue would never use such common figures of speech, because -- BY HIS OWN MORONIC LOGIC -- we wouldn't be able to tell if his comments as a whole were describing his actual beliefs or some bizarre parable, fable, or allegory.
[rolls eyes...]
The point remains: ON WHAT BASIS should I accept what Marshall THINKS is obvious when I don't think what he concludes is obvious at all?
If all anyone has is, "You should take what I think is literal as literal because I think it ought to be taken literally...," they will not have won me over. Not when they're suggesting something as innately outrageous as taking literal the suggestion that God would command atrocities.
And saying, "I don't think babies are innocent, therefore, I don't think killing men, women, children and babies is an atrocity," is still ONLY someone's wild-ass hunch and, as such, I am unimpressed with their reasoning ability and not won over.
Hold that position if you feel you must, but don't expect me or most reasonable people to agree with you.
Your hunch is lacking logic and biblical authority.
As to recorded history and early story-telling conventions, if you are interested...
1. I believe most scholars consider "recorded history" as beginning sometime around the 7th century, BCE, not quite 3,000 years ago. Thus, the period prior to the 7th century, BCE, most scholars refer as "prehistory," or before recorded history.
2. The OT stories occur generally between 6,000 BCE to about 500-ish BCE [ source]. The stories of the Return from Exile as told in some of the latter [chronological] stories of the OT would be amongst the last stories told.
3. Thus, MOST of OT history falls into the "prehistory" category - these are stories told before recorded history.
4. The Epic of Gilgamesh would be an example of early "history," as told in the norms of the day...
"Gilgamesh is one of the oldest recorded stories in the world. It tells the story of an ancient King of Uruk, Gilgamesh, who may have actually existed, and whose name is on the Sumerian King List. The story of Gilgamesh, in various Sumerian versions, was originally widely known in the third millennium B.C. After a long history of retellings, this story was recorded, in a standardized Akkadian version, in the seventh century B.C., and stored in the famous library of King Assurbanipal. "
source
5. These stories were recorded faithfully and carefully.
"There were schools for scribes that taught a set curriculum of texts to copy precisely and in a fixed order. This resulted in lots of copies being made of many stories, with few variations, because accuracy of transcription was highly desired."
[same source]
6. Nonetheless, the stories do not always remain unchanged...
"Without a fixed written text, stories can be told for thousands of years, varying from teller to teller, adapted to this folk and that folk, with the names of kings, places, people added and subtracted to meet the needs and interests of a current audience. The story of Gilgamesh was originally part of such an oral tradition. "It is virtually impossible to determine when the material was first written down, let alone when it originated orally or how long it existed in an oral tradition. Rather it can be assumed, from the materials handed down from succeeding ancient peoples and languages, that it was not composed all of a piece and at one time but was added to gradually and varied by many tellers.""
[same source]
7. From that same source, we see that Gilgamesh was likely a real king and so in some sense, this was a "history." And yet, the story has Gilgamesh seeking immortality, was the son of a goddess and contains a description of a "netherworld" and other conventions of Epic Storytelling (which does not stick strictly to literal facts).
8. In other words, in Gilgamesh, real history and fictional embellishments occur side-by-side, back and forth with no warning as to what was literal and what was fiction. That was not the point of the storytelling. It was a different culture with different norms for passing on history. They weren't WRONG for telling historical tales that weren't wholly factual, it was just the way they did it. For us to suggest ancient cultures which mixed fact and fiction interchangeably were wrong or duplicitous for doing so is cultural elitism.
9. Gilgamesh is not alone in using Epic Storytelling norms for telling history. We have Homer's Iliad, describing the Trojan War, for instance, as well as the Odyssey and Virgil's Aeneid. Ancient histories often included gods and goddesses, real people and fantasy events. Do you have any examples of what we might call "actual" histories (ie, histories told without obvious fictional devices)? I can't think of any, especially anything from the time period 6000 BCE to 1000 BCE - the very period we are talking about.
So, if you can't provide any instances of history being told in wholly factual ways from that time period, if all our earliest examples are more of the Epic Storytelling vein, then that suggests to me that such a storytelling style was the norm of the day.
If you can provide no examples offering a different model, then on what possible basis would we presume that the OT histories are told in a wholly factual manner, contrary to the norms of that culture? It would seem to be cultural hubris to assume that THEY MUST tell history in the same manner that we do. Says who? ON. WHAT. BASIS?
If it's just your hunch, once again, why should someone believe you?
Dan, I notice you keep using what any reasonable human being would conclude is figurative language.
"Hold that position if you feel you must, but don't expect me or most reasonable people to agree with you."
One cannot literally "hold" a position the way one holds a baseball, an apple, or a cup of coffee. You're referring to a position in an argument, and one cannot even "hold" that position the way one would hold a physical position, such as sitting up straight or standing on one leg.
(The word "position" itself is figurative: taken literally -- though one cannot literally "take" a word -- the word implies spatial relationships, like the position of a knight on a chessboard.)
So, your comment contains figurative language.
Well, maybe we just can't discern how the rest of your comment should be interpreted. Maybe it's one giant allegory; maybe it's the next Animal Farm.
Well, Dude, we just don't know.
We don't know and cannot be certain about the meaning of what you write because figurative language is hard to understand. So few people grasp figurative language -- though people don't literally "grasp" language -- that it's hardly ever used at all.
Right?
I wonder, though, on what basis are we to discern whether you intend your writing to be interpreted literally or figuratively?
On what basis?
ON WHAT BASIS?
ON. WHAT. BASIS?
(MENDOZA!!!)
If you have trouble explaining in detail the process of sifting figurative language from literal language -- though you don't literally "sift" language -- I would ask you to consider something.
Maybe it's hard to explain, not because the process is so difficult, but because it's so natural -- almost as natural as breathing.
Have a person describe how he breathes, and, if he's a layman, he'll give you the less-than-helpful explanation of, breathe in, breathe out.
A doctor could explain the muscles that are contracted and relaxed in order to cause the billow effect in the lungs, but that process doesn't actually map to the individual's thoughts: no one thinks, "contract this muscle," "now relax that muscle." He just thinks, "breathe in, breathe out" -- that is, WHEN HE'S THINKING ABOUT IT AT ALL. Most of the time, people are constantly breathing without any conscious effort.
Likewise, most people can see when language is literal and apprehend when it's figurative without any conscious effort.
Here, no one literally "sees" that a particular phrase is literal, nor does anyone literally "apprehend" a concept, but I sincerely doubt that you've been struggling to understand me. Your ability to process common figurative language is probably so finely tuned that it's automatic.
(Not that human abilities are tuned like an engine or a piano.)
I hope you see my point.
(Not literally "see", and not a literal "point.")
Everything that you're doing, Dan, can be summed up very easily.
You're playing dumb, and you're not doing a very good job at it, because humans are so good at switching between literal and figurative speech that you CANNOT HELP DOING THAT VERY THING while pretending that the act is oh-so-very hard, when it's applied to the Bible.
Dan, you write, "Your hunch is lacking logic and biblical authority."
Funny thing: you don't spend a whole lot of time addressing the logic or the Bible.
Instead, you focus on arguments from outrage.
You imply that we suggest "something as innately outrageous as taking literal the suggestion that God would command atrocities." But the Bible doesn't use the word "atrocity," and neither do we: we consistently object to your use of it.
When the subject is whether God has the moral right to take human life, you introduce complete digressions about raping babies, raping puppies, raping sunshine and rainbows and happiness.
When it's not at all clear that you DO believe that God has and exercises the moral right to take the life of even wicked adults, you focus on innocent human life and especially children. (Think of the children!)
And you very frequently use loaded language about "slaughtering children" when "slaughter" is not an objective description of what the Bible records, and when the Bible records the targeting of nations or cities or all the firstborn but NOT children specifically.
If our position is so illogical and unbiblical, focus on the logic and focus on the Bible.
Drop the demagoguery.
About logic, I don't think you've ever addressed our claim -- a crucial claim in this discussion, a claim which I think is unassailable.
God has the moral right to end, at will, human life because that life belongs and has always belonged to Him: He created it in His own image, He sustains it, He is sovereign over it, and so He can end it at His discretion. Furthermore, he can do so using whatever means that are at His disposal -- including human agency.
If that claim is true -- and I believe it is -- then you might not find our position to your liking, but it's logically unassailable.
Our position might not be comprhensible given your ideas about God's love, but it doesn't follow that those ideas are right and the measure against which all theology must be measured. After all, you're as limited, fallible, and sinful as the rest of us.
And about the Bible, well, you routinely rip passages out of their immediate context to make them support your position.
You invoke Psalm 106 -- which I earlier misattributed as Ps 119 -- and its condemnation of shedding innocent blood, but you do so either not knowing or not caring that the very same psalm blasts Israel because "they did not destroy the peoples, as the Lord commanded them." (106:34)
You invoke Ezekiel 18 in opposition to God's widespread judgment on people, not knowing or nor caring that Ezekiel 9 would sound right at home alongside the Passover and the destruction of the Amalekites, as it warns of the death of "old men, young men and young women, little children and women" (9:6).
Basically, your harping about our position being illogical and unbiblical is hollow, because you so rarely address the logic of our arguments, and you so frequently abuse Scripture to make it say the opposite of what even sometimes its immediate context makes clear.
So if I'm understanding Dan correctly, and yes, this is a call for clarification, he equates Biblical history with all other "pre-history" manuscripts as equally valid and/or equal in the liklihood of they're being true. This then means that one need only flip a coin or roll dice to determine which history to follow as valid to follow.
For my part, however, I feel that the God of the Bible actually exists and that there is no reason to assume that He didn't have direct contact with His people as illustrated in the OT, and then in the NT with the existence of God in the form of Christ, and therefor to suggest that the failures of human story telling and reproduction would go on as if there was NO such interaction is illogical. This is particularly likely when considering the constant referrals to and honor shown to the OT Scripture by Christ Himself, who was there for the entire history and could have corrected any errors or inconsistencies. This alone seems important enough to include in any retelling of Christ's life on earth rather than to let subsequent generations continue to believe in the errors and misconceptions that only liberal Christians of the 20th & 21st centuries can understand.
What's more, the manuscript evidence for the life of Christ, being in far greater abundance than for any other ancient figure, itself lends credence to that which came before Christ since His life had so exactly fulfilled the prophesies of the OT, not to mention that dedication to and validation of the OT He Himself gave.
Dan's position shows less respect for the Holy Book that his words otherwise hope to demonstrate, if it is to been seen as no better than other ancient histories. His position can only leave us with two conclusions: Either the other histories are as accurate and speak of actual gods and goddesses that did/do exist, or the ancient history of our faith is equally mythical and unworthy of serious consideration. At which point, then, does it move from the mythical to the truthful, from the figurative and metaphorical to the true meaning of the words used?
It seems to me that Dan will only go so far in his belief of the one true God in order to avoid accusations of being a backward and superstitious rube and hayseed. Instead, he's created a god that he hopes is more palatable to the general public. The sad part is that I don't know that this is a conscious invention, but it is a conscious decision to further this fantasy rather than to accept what the Bible teaches.
So if I'm understanding Dan correctly, and yes, this is a call for clarification, he equates Biblical history with all other "pre-history" manuscripts as equally valid and/or equal in the liklihood of they're being true. This then means that one need only flip a coin or roll dice to determine which history to follow as valid to follow.
Sorry, you don't follow me correctly. To clarify:
I am making the reasonable suggestion that IF the storytelling norms of the day were to include fiction and history side by side, then ON WHAT BASIS would we presume that people of that day would do something differently?
For instance, if the storytelling norms were to pass stories on orally, AND YET, if we write our histories down today, would we demand that people back then had to write their stories down or otherwise be considered invalid? No, we don't do that. Nor do we expect them to be written in English - a language that did not exist.
We don't expect our holy stories to be written in English because that is an unreasonable expectation. COULD an infinite God have inspired a book written in language they didn't even know? Well, sure, God COULD. But what reason would we have for presuming such?
JUST AS we don't expect the Bible to have been written in a language that they would not have known and that did not exist, NEITHER SHOULD we expect that they would record history in a style that did not exist. Why would we?
It's cultural hubris to suggest that, is it not?
And now I see you're back to undermining the authority of the Bible you claim to love so very much.
If everybody loved their spouses the way you love Scripture, cops would be swamped by an epidemic of domestic disturbances.
Appealling contentiously to "most scholars", you now argue that most of the events that the Old Testament records are from prehistory.
There are a couple problems with the claim.
First, it's not necessary to accept that the Torah was from "before recorded history" if the text is trustworthy, because the Torah itself frequently mentions the act of making records.
Moses wrote down the words of the Lord, and he wrote down the law and gave it to the Levites, according to Exodus 24:4 and Deuteronomy 31:9.
Numbers 33:2 asserts that Moses wrote down what was essentially a log or itenary of Israel's exodus, listed in the rest of the chapter.
A poet, Moses also taught the Israelites a song which we have in Deuteronomy 32. Chapter 31:22 asserts that Moses wrote the song down.
Heck, if oral tradition was the only way to transmit information from one generation to the next, don't you find it very odd that the central relic in the Torah is A PAIR OF STONE TABLETS ON WHICH GOD RECORDED HIS COMMANDMENTS? How much more emphatic can the books of Moses be?
The other problem is the example of Jesus Christ. By the theory of what you say is "most scholars," the Torah was written long after Moses died, but Jesus doesn't distance the Torah from Moses. On the contrary, if His teachings indicate anything, it is that Moses authored the Torah.
"And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?" - Mk 12:26, cf. Mt 8:4, 19:8; Mk 1:44, 7:10, 10:3; Lk 5:14, 16:29, 20:37; Jn 3:14, 5:46, 7:19
John 7:22 is really interesting.
"Moses gave you circumcision (it is, of course, not from Moses, but from the patriarchs), and you circumcise a man on the sabbath."
Genesis is clear that circumcision came from the patriarchs, specifically Abraham. If Moses gave Israel circumcision in some other sense, it can only be in the sense that he's the one who wrote Genesis.
You say that your focus is on Christ's teachings, and you clarified that you mean ALL of what He taught.
Well, then, in understanding Scripture's authority, authorship, and meaning, it seems to me that your own declarations compel you to conform first and foremost to Christ's teachings and example and, by extension, the teachings of His hand-picked Apostles -- everything else would come a very distant second.
Instead, in arguing over the meaning of Scripture, you frequently appeal to modern studies, what you say is "most scholars," your personal encounters with friendly gay couples, and what you describe (arguably blasphemously) as God's word written on your heart.
I don't often see you say, Christ took such-and-such approach to the Bible, and so will I.
Marshall...
I feel that the God of the Bible actually exists...
Me, too.
...and that there is no reason to assume that He didn't have direct contact with His people...
Me, either.
...as illustrated in the OT, and then in the NT with the existence of God in the form of Christ, and therefor to suggest that the failures of human story telling and reproduction would go on as if there was NO such interaction is illogical.
...and here is where we part ways. When you say, "failures of human storytelling..." and again refer to "errors or inconsistencies"...
This is particularly likely when considering the constant referrals to and honor shown to the OT Scripture by Christ Himself, who was there for the entire history and could have corrected any errors or inconsistencies.
This is what I'm suggesting is cultural hubris. To consider ancient methods of storytelling to be "failures" and that they include "errors," is to judge ancient history recording styles by modern history standards.
Who SAYS that Epic Storytelling (in which facts and fiction mingle together) is a "failure" of storytelling? It's the way that people told stories, then.
If, 400 years from now, people ONLY tell stories with complete references on each point [per Methods of Modern History Recording, Vol. iixxx, record 75-a and again record 132-f] and they look back at the way you refer to historic events with NO such references, might they judge your writing to be barbaric and full of falsehoods and inaccuracies? Maybe, but they'd be wrong to judge your storytelling on 25th century standards. It's not reasonable nor does it reflect good critical thinking.
For us to judge epic storytelling devices as failures and error-prone is missing the point. The stories were written to pass on ideas, not facts. It's like judging a court ruling poorly because there were no rhymes and not a good meter or because it was hard to dance to. It's written in a different style.
One judges a piece of writing based on the style it was written, or at least one does if one wishes to be rational and employ good critical thinking.
Are you thinking otherwise? I would think that we could agree on at least this notion: that written pieces ought to be read and considered in the context they were written.
Again, this is why HOW we read the Bible and what criteria we employ matters. Context matters.
Marshall...
It seems to me that Dan will only go so far in his belief of the one true God in order to avoid accusations of being a backward and superstitious rube and hayseed. Instead, he's created a god that he hopes is more palatable to the general public.
This seems to me to be an irrational conclusion, drawn, again, based on Marshall's feelings rather than the evidence at hand.
Because of my faith, I believe in peace-making and even pacifism. I do so in a world which does not believe in either as a reasonable way to live.
Because of my faith, I believe in simple living and downward mobility. I do so in a culture that believes in extravagance and upward mobility.
Because of my faith, I believe in turning the other cheek. I do so in a culture and world in which this is a good way to get punched twice.
Because of my faith, I walk most places rather than drive. I do this in spite of the fact that I live in what most would consider a "rough, unsafe" neighborhood and in spite of the fact that it leaves me open to being hit by a car and more exposed to their pollution.
Because of my faith, I believe in reaching out to my enemies and those who would ridicule me and my beliefs. I do so, in spite of the fact that this is a reliable way to get even more ridicule.
I could go on, but you get the idea. I live in a way contrary to much of modern wisdom and cultural norms. I don't say this to praise myself, just pointing out the reality and demonstrate how what you're suggesting is not based in the reality of my life or my anabaptist and progressive brothers and sisters.
In many ways, we have tried to model our lives on Jesus' teachings and life - are you suggesting that Jesus was only seeking public favor and make God more palatable? No, I'm sure you're not.
And I do. It is not I who is suggesting that what is written is not what is meant. I read the Bible as if God meant to impart what He wants us to know about Him. You read it as if it's cryptic and allegorical yet don't provide any idea of what the allegory means. If the Bible says God sent His people to annihilate an entire town, what other meaning could it have? How do you support the idea that the writer inserted his own twist on the events and why do you suppose that was intended to clarify when it muddies the history it purports to report? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever except to bolster your liberal positions.
So I'm not judging the story telling style whatsoever. I'm saying that it doesn't use metaphor and allegory in the manner YOU NEED it to in order to promote your leftist ideals. It doesn't matter the language in which it was written unless you can prove that English translations are incorrect. As Bubba suggested (and I did as well, actually), you insist there need be some criteria for explaining the obvious as regardings the literal and the figurative. I agree that that's a ploy to "win" the debate and is dishonest.
For your position to make sense, we must conclude that the ancient people were idiots to believe as people like myself believe from what the text tells us, and that the writers were not concerned with making sure the Will of God and the history of His relationship with His chosen people was as clear and unambiguous as possible. More to the point, you need to demonstrate how the ancient people, those unscientific and simple people, could not have been as lead astray as you obviously feel I and others have been. Do you honestly expect me to believe that when they read that God commanded the destruction of a town that they knew it was metaphor? That they didn't take it literally? MAYBE those who were alive to be a part of it, but not subsequent generations. Not without being told so as well as being told what the metaphor meant. Whether or not a god of any kind exists, and one with the power and expectations for us that the God of Abraham has, is far too important a subject to play with poetic prose, don't you think? And indeed, if such were the case, there'd be those who would have protested the inaccurate telling of something so vastly important and accuracy would have been better maintained. We're not talking Helen of Troy here. We're talking about the one true God who holds our everlasting lives in His hands.
Anyway, Dan, in discussing Gilgamesh and Homer, you give the game away.
This ought to reiterated until you concede the point: YOU GIVE THE GAME AWAY, and you lay bare your fraud for all the world to see.
You write, "in Gilgamesh, real history and fictional embellishments occur side-by-side, back and forth with no warning as to what was literal and what was fiction."
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO. No, Dan, no.
"Literal" and "fiction" (or its adjective "fictional") do not go together as opposites.
"Literal" and "FIGURATIVE" are matching opposites.
"FACT" and "fiction" are matching opposites.
You're mixing up matching pairs and are making a muddle of things.
The context of this sentence -- in your two-part comment and your subsequent reply to Marshall -- shows which of the two words is out of place.
First:
"8. In other words, in Gilgamesh, real history and fictional embellishments occur side-by-side, back and forth with no warning as to what was literal and what was fiction. That was not the point of the storytelling. It was a different culture with different norms for passing on history. They weren't WRONG for telling historical tales that weren't wholly factual, it was just the way they did it. For us to suggest ancient cultures which mixed fact and fiction interchangeably were wrong or duplicitous for doing so is cultural elitism.
"9. Gilgamesh is not alone in using Epic Storytelling norms for telling history. We have Homer's Iliad, describing the Trojan War, for instance, as well as the Odyssey and Virgil's Aeneid. Ancient histories often included gods and goddesses, real people and fantasy events. Do you have any examples of what we might call "actual" histories (ie, histories told without obvious fictional devices)? I can't think of any, especially anything from the time period 6000 BCE to 1000 BCE - the very period we are talking about.
"So, if you can't provide any instances of history being told in wholly factual ways from that time period, if all our earliest examples are more of the Epic Storytelling vein, then that suggests to me that such a storytelling style was the norm of the day.
"If you can provide no examples offering a different model, then on what possible basis would we presume that the OT histories are told in a wholly factual manner, contrary to the norms of that culture? It would seem to be cultural hubris to assume that THEY MUST tell history in the same manner that we do. Says who? ON. WHAT. BASIS?"
And:
"I am making the reasonable suggestion that IF the storytelling norms of the day were to include fiction and history side by side, then ON WHAT BASIS would we presume that people of that day would do something differently?"
[continued]
"Heck, if oral tradition was the only way to transmit information from one generation to the next, don't you find it very odd that the central relic in the Torah is A PAIR OF STONE TABLETS ON WHICH GOD RECORDED HIS COMMANDMENTS? How much more emphatic can the books of Moses be?"
Well not so emphatic perhaps... Didn't Moses, after coming down from the mountain, break
'em into a million pieces in a fit of rage before the people even had a chance to read them .... Then later went back up the mountain and came back down with a completely different set of commandments, none of which were only 10 either way...?
So which are the real commandments? Did Moses make a copy of the original ones or recite them from memory?
Just asking.
Gee I hope his memory wasn't as bad as mine. Senior moments happen all to often these days.
[continued]
In discussing Gilgamesh and the Illiad, you don't suggest these epics switch from literal narrative to figurative narrative (i.e., allegory or parable).
You clearly focus on the other pair of opposites: FACT AND FICTION.
Earlier, you claimed that you believe that the entire Bible is true, only that some of it is literally true and some of it is only figuratively true.
But now you compare the Bible to epic works that contain fiction.
Fiction doesn't mean "true but figurative."
Fiction means FALSE.
If you apply your beliefs re: Gilgamesh to the Old Testament -- and, despite its conflict with what you claim earlier, I believe you do -- then YOU ARE NOT QUESTIONING OUR INTERPRETATIONS; instead, you're questioning the VERACITY OF THE TEXT ITSELF -- that is, your position isn't limited to the claim that the Bible contains figurative truths, it includes the belief that the Bible contains falsehoods and errors.
You didn't argue that the "embellishments" of Gilgamesh -- the deities, the underworld, etc. -- were intended by the author(s) to be metaphors, allegory, or some other figurative device.
You refered to them, accurately and (I suspect) honestly, as "fictional embellishments."
Once again:
"Fictional" doesn't equal "figurative."
"Fictional" equals "false."
And so now we have very strong evidence that, despite your earlier claims to the contrary, you don't really reach the bizarre and incomprehensible position that the OT's accounts of the Passover and God's difficult commands are figurative truths.
You think they're "fictional embellishments."
Please, Dan, don't tell us you love the entire Bible and all its teachings, and do not tell us that our issues are only matters of literal-versus-figurative disagreement.
We believe the Bible contains truth without any mixture of error. Though there hasn't been any real doubt for some time, you have now made clear that you don't.
Marshall...
It is not I who is suggesting that what is written is not what is meant. I read the Bible as if God meant to impart what He wants us to know about Him. You read it as if it's cryptic and allegorical yet don't provide any idea of what the allegory means.
No, I don't. I think it is quite EASY to read for the most part, and to understand what is being said. BUT, YOU HAVE TO READ IT in context of how it was written, you have to strive to understand the times and the language, you have to consider any one passage against the Bible as a whole, you have to weigh any one passage against the specific teachings of Jesus.
Once you do this, I don't find it especially confusing or hard to understand at all. But then, I'm not the one who thinks that babies AREN'T actually innocent and that they ARE guilty of sin and that God MIGHT command people to kill them.
All of that DOES sound pretty crazy/cryptic if one believes it literally.
You don't think all of THAT sounds cryptic and contrary to reason?
Marshall...
If the Bible says God sent His people to annihilate an entire town, what other meaning could it have?
The same meaning that is consistent with teachings throughout the Bible: That God is on the side of the oppressed and downtrodden.
NOT a meaning that CONTRADICTS the rest of the Bible: That God sometimes commands people to do evil (and killing innocent babies IS an evil - even if it's a god commanding you to do it).
Again, it's fairly obvious and self-evident as long as you are not trying to read the history as if it were written in a modern style.
Okay, because Bubba is majoring on ignorance today, I'll address one falsehood of his...
Fiction means FALSE.
No. It does not.
Fiction, from Merriam Webster:
1. something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
2. a useful illusion or pretense
Fiction does not mean false, not in the English language. Nor is it the opposite of true, not in the English language.
Aesops Fables are fiction, AND they are True. Jesus' parables are fiction AND they are True.
I'm sure it was a mistake on Bubba's part. No problem. I've corrected your mistake.
And so, just to be clear, where the muddled one says...
If you apply your beliefs re: Gilgamesh to the Old Testament -- and, despite its conflict with what you claim earlier, I believe you do -- then YOU ARE NOT QUESTIONING OUR INTERPRETATIONS; instead, you're questioning the VERACITY OF THE TEXT ITSELF
he is again, mistaken. I AM questioning your interpretations. They are whimsical and uncritical, appealing to bad reasoning, not good biblical exegesis for reasons that appear to be connected to emotional connections to your cultural traditions, not what the Bible does and does not teach.
It is exactly your interpretations I take exception to, not the Truths of God's Word.
Once again, I am glad to clarify your mistake.
Marty:
"Didn't Moses, after coming down from the mountain, break 'em into a million pieces in a fit of rage before the people even had a chance to read them .... Then later went back up the mountain and came back down with a completely different set of commandments, none of which were only 10 either way...?
"So which are the real commandments? Did Moses make a copy of the original ones or recite them from memory?
"Just asking.
"Gee I hope his memory wasn't as bad as mine. Senior moments happen all to often these days."
I do wish you wouldn't ask questions about the exodus that the Bible answers very, very clearly. Your doing so suggests that you don't know Scripture all that well, and that you're not all that willing to study it for yourself.
And when you ask questions like this so flippantly, it makes me wonder whether we're all on the same page in terms of our esteem of Scripture.
Moses did destroy the original tablets, as recorded in Exodus 32:19.
"As soon as he [Moses] came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses' anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets from his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain."
He recounted the event in his own words, in Deuteronomy 9:17.
"I [Moses] took hold of the two tablets and flung them from my two hands, smashing them before your eyes."
But Moses didn't write the second set of tablets; God did. He said that He would...
"The Lord said to Moses, 'Cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets, which you broke.'" - Ex 34:1
"At that time the Lord said to me [Moses], 'Carve out two tablets of stone like the former ones, and come up to me on the mountain, and make an ark of wood. I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets, which you smashed, and you shall put them in the ark.'" - Deut 10:1-2
...and though Exodus 34:28 isn't clear about who exactly wrote on the tablets, Moses or God, the second account in Deuteronomy 10:3-4 -- the first-person from Moses -- makes things absolutely clear.
"So I [Moses] made an ark of acacia wood, cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and went up the mountain with the two tablets in my hand. Then he wrote on the tablets the same words as before, the ten commandments that the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain out of the fire on the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them to me."
This ain't rocket science, Marty.
More on epic storytelling conventions can be found here.
Epic Conventions, or characteristics common to both types include:
1. The hero is a figure of great national or even cosmic importance, usually the ideal man of his culture. He often has superhuman or divine traits. He has an imposing physical stature and is greater in all ways than the common man.
2. The setting is vast in scope. It covers great geographical distances, perhaps even visiting the underworld, other worlds, other times.
3. The action consists of deeds of valor or superhuman courage (especially in battle).
4. Supernatural forces interest themselves in the action and intervene at times. The intervention of the gods is called "machinery."
Etc.
Do you have any examples - any at all - of ancient histories that are told using more typically modern historic storytelling devices?
Dan, in determining whether a claim is "fact or fiction", one works to determine whether the claim is actually true or false.
"Dan lives in Oklahoma."
"Dan loves the Bible."
"Dan is a pathological liar."
In establishing whether these claims are factual or fictional, one seeks to establish whether they are true or false.
"Aesops Fables are fiction, AND they are True. Jesus' parables are fiction AND they are True."
No they are not. The fables and the parables CONTAIN figurative truth, but unless some of Christ's parables are rooted in historical events (which is possible but not indicated, except for arugably the rich man and Lazarus), none of them are THEMSELVES true.
There's no such thing as a true fiction, just as there's no such thing as a false fact. Those are both contradictions in terms.
The point still stands, that it's not simply the case that you disagree with us about how readers should interpret the text: you disagree about what the writers put into the text.
You believe the Bible contains "fictional embellishments," a conclusion that simply isn't supported by Christ's teachings and examples which you claim to esteem so very highly.
(Maybe that claim is fictional, eh?)
And, again, while you continue to denigrate our position by calling it illogical and unbiblical, you don't actually argue the logic, and you don't argue Scripture except by ripping passages out of context.
Marshall...
More to the point, you need to demonstrate how the ancient people, those unscientific and simple people, could not have been as lead astray as you obviously feel I and others have been. Do you honestly expect me to believe that when they read that God commanded the destruction of a town that they knew it was metaphor?
I believe you're missing the point. (To answer your question, though, I think that most ancient peoples probably took it to mean literally God intervened just as it was said).
I've heard a story in which a native american woman was telling a creation myth (the earth rested on the back of a turtle or some such).
Someone pointed out to her that it was false. The native woman was confused. No, it is absolutely True, she said. She had no idea what he was talking about.
But you don't think the earth ACTUALLY rests on the back of the turtle, the man pushed her.
Oh, she replied, no I guess not. But how does that affect the truth of the story?
You're focusing on details and missing the Truth. Legendary stories were told for the purpose of passing on TRUTHS, not factual details. I've heard it said that indigenous peoples and probably ancient peoples would not understand what you would mean if you were to point out that their story was false. No. It isn't. It just isn't factual.
Once again: WHY would we assume that they would tell stories in a way different than people did at the time? Why would we judge an epic story poorly because it did not contain a scientifically accurate weather report?
It's ridiculous.
You seem to be walking through a beautiful forest and yet unable to see it because you choose only to look at one root of a tree. "What? That's a falsehood that there's a forest here. All I see is one root! That's not a forest!"
"But Moses didn't write the second set of tablets; God did. He said that He would...
"The Lord said to Moses, 'Cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets, which you broke.'" - Ex 34:1"
Yet in Ex 34:10-26 these are completely different commandments than on the ones that were broken.
It was an honest question Bubba. And no, I suppose I don't study the Scriptures enough. Not the Old Testament for sure.
Sorry for the unnecessary snark, then, Marty. There were two sets of tablets, but on both the commands were written by the hand of God.
With online search engines, it should be really easy to find all the Torah's references to, say, "tablets" and follow along.
As time-consuming as this discussion already is, I'd rather not spend time answering questions that could be addressed on one's own.
That's all.
Ok. That's fine.
But I only brought it up because you seem to think everything is so cut and dry. It just isn't that way for me. I see discrepencies and Dan's perspective makes so more sense to me.
Dan, you write to Marshall:
"You're focusing on details and missing the Truth. Legendary stories were told for the purpose of passing on TRUTHS, not factual details."
There's no indication that Christ or His Apostles took this approach to Scripture; on the contrary, Christ taught the reality of the Resurrection from a single verb tense, Paul emphasized the chronology of Abraham's justification and circumcision, and the New Testament makes clear that Christ fulfills God's covenant with Abraham -- a claim which makes no sense UNLESS THAT COVENANT WAS A HISTORICAL REALITY.
You focus on the tropes of the epic, as if the Torah at least was analogous to the Illiad, without taking into consideration the thing that MOST differentiates the Bible from everything else.
It claimed to be the word of God, to be God-breathed, a claim that is not made and is not true for Gilgamesh. Jesus Christ Himself, God Incarnate and our crucified and risen Lord and Savior, affirmed Jewish Scripture to the smallest penstroke, which He did not do for the famous Greek epics.
Jesus quoted Jewish Scripture as if it were authoritative, letting "it is written" settle many discussions. Considering how He upheld the word of God in opposition to man's traditions, the only reason for Jesus to uphold Scripture is that He thought it was divinely authored: if He thought it was the result of human embellishments through oral tradition, He wouldn't have affirmed it.
(Heck, consider the verb tense: it IS written, not it WAS written. A text that is eternally present-tense suggests an author is everlasting and never-changing.)
And, unless I missed it, you still do not answer whether you think the life of Christ is a "Truth" or mere factual detail.
Jesus' Incarnation, Crucifixion, and bodily Resurrection -- heck, His mere historical existence -- are these details that we shouldn't get hung up on, or are they THE TRUTHS about which everything else revolves?
The gist of your argument is that the central truths of the Bible are eternal propositions rather than ANY historical claims. If you exclude even Christ's death and resurrection, then what you believe doesn't line up with what the Bible teaches as absolutely essential: if Christ was not raised, we are dead in our sins.
"You seem to be walking through a beautiful forest and yet unable to see it because you choose only to look at one root of a tree. 'What? That's a falsehood that there's a forest here. All I see is one root! That's not a forest!'"
You're analogy's off. You're not suggesting we focus on the forest IN ADDITION to the individual trees, or the forest MORE THAN the individual trees.
You're saying, focus on the forst INSTEAD OF the individual trees, apparently not realizing that the forest isn't what it is, except that the trees are what they are.
Marty:
"But I only brought it up because you seem to think everything is so cut and dry. It just isn't that way for me. I see discrepencies and Dan's perspective makes so more sense to me."
I think you'd be surprised how clear Scripture can be, but I don't think it's cut and dried on literally every matter -- what to do about the last few verses of Mark, for instance, as they almost certainly weren't in the original manuscripts.
It's just that, even though the boundaries aren't always clear between what the Bible supports and what it excludes, I believe that most of where Dan and I butt heads are in areas where he's clearly off the reservation.
For instance, I think there's room to disagree about what Paul meant in his teachings about the differences between men and women, what the underlying principles are and how those principles should be applied to present-day circumstances.
But dismissing those teachings as sexism isn't an option: Christ hand-picked Paul as His Apostle, and Paul preached and wrote authoritatively as His Apostle, writing that his letters should be read in services -- implying that they stand alongside Jewish Scripture.
Any efforts to understand what the Bible teaches cannot dismiss ANY of its individual teachings as bigotry, atrocity, or any other sort of error.
You start doing that, and you're not clinging to the Bible: you're clinging to your "greatest-hits mixtape" of the Bible.
To close out the day, I'd like to go back to a comment I missed, one that gets to the heart of the matter.
Dan wrote a lengthy but repetitive comment, I'm editing for space because it's easy to get the drift.
"Because of my faith, I believe in peace-making and even pacifism... simple living and downward mobility... in turning the other cheek.... in reaching out to my enemies and those who would ridicule me and my beliefs.
"I could go on, but you get the idea. I live in a way contrary to much of modern wisdom and cultural norms. I don't say this to praise myself, just pointing out the reality and demonstrate how what you're suggesting is not based in the reality of my life or my anabaptist and progressive brothers and sisters.
"In many ways, we have tried to model our lives on Jesus' teachings and life - are you suggesting that Jesus was only seeking public favor and make God more palatable? No, I'm sure you're not."
What is omitted continues to be quite noticeable. Though you uphold Jesus' teachings, supposedly "most specifically, all of what Jesus had to say about himself" (see one of your comments from yesterday), none of those teachings show up in that list.
Do you get some resistance to your pacifism and simple living? Sure, but nothing compared to proclaiming what Jesus taught about Himself, who He is and what He accomplished.
He claimed to be the exclusive way to eternal life, and that's blasphemy in today's post-modern universalism.
He claimed that His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, and it doesn't seem like you believe that, and you almost certainly don't proclaim it. Instead, you join the world in ridiculing the claim as the belief that we are saved by "a bloody vengeance to appease an angry god."
As Paul did, "we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." (1 Cor 1:23)
You don't: you think a Prius with a peace sign is what's foolishness to the Greeks, the sort of thing that gets you in real trouble, all the while proving that, on what really matters, you're not preaching the stumbling block.
You're tripping over it.
A lot of what your beliefs have led to are compatible (or aren't incompatible) with Biblical Christianity, a term I find increasingly redundant. But it's not the core.
A clock has a face and hands, just like a human being, but that doesn't mean the clock is human. Likewise, you proclaim simple living and care for the poor, and so does Christianity, but it doesn't follow that your beliefs are particularly Christian.
(After all, the Stoics pretty much defined simple living, and Muslims cherish alms-giving at least as much as we do.)
"Because of [your] faith," you believe all these things? I believe that.
But it doesn't follow that your faith is an especially Christian faith, and your omission of what Christ taught about Himself and what He did for us is extremely worrying.
"Oh, she replied, no I guess not. But how does that affect the truth of the story?"
What truth? All you've given in your poor argument here is the earth on the back of a turtle. Considering the discussion regards creation, it seems that it would greatly affect the truth, since at least part of that truth suggests a giant turtle. So what other truth would be in question? It would have to be her version of a creator, which would also be as false as the turtle, because it is not the God of the Bible. Thus, her story is entirely false. MY understanding of creation at least contains the one true God of Abraham who later sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins so that we may all live eternally with the Father. What's more, the entire creation story doesn't bother me in the least as I believe God capable of anything, including creating everything in six days, no matter how the results of that creation appear to intellectuals today. But whether or not that story is metaphorical or not, the method of relating that story does not require the same method of digesting stories where God destroys entire towns. It is no different than stories of Jesus healing the lame or blind. Or are those allegorical as well?
It really doesn't matter what your scholars say about dieties involving themselves in the lives of other human characters in the mythological stories of other cultures. What matters is whether or not the Bible accurately relates the history of God and His creation. Those other stories are irrelevant. Some apologists even see those other stories as supportive of the Biblical narrative as opposed to evidence that it might equally be mythical. That all cultures have similar creation stories, or flood stories indicate the truth of the Bible with the exception that not all cultures were privvy to specific Biblical characters with whom we are familiar.
But YOUR comparison to these myths of other cultures is the same as calling our faith tradition mythical as well. I call it fact and your dismissing your problematic portions is not justified by anything you read in other parts of the Bible. God's methods for dealing with us have changed, but His position on behaviors haven't. Jesus ministry clarified what had been there all along. He didn't change anything, only the understanding of what had already been commanded but was not grasped properly. And that only had to do with what our relationshihp to each other was supposed to be, not our understanding of God and His nature. Indeed, as Jesus speaks of hell, he stresses how we don't want any part of it. That suggests far worse than being put to death by the sword of some Hebrew tribesman. Nor is there anything in the NT that suggests God DIDN'T annihilate towns or send Angels of Death. That's an assumption on your part, or, to use your words, a hunch. But it's not supportable.
"But dismissing those teachings as sexism isn't an option:"
I came to the conclusion that Paul was a male chauvinist years ago. So I can see where Dan is coming from regarding sexism. My 88 year old mother has come to the same conclusion.
Bruce Prescott and I had a discussion about it when he was my pastor. He disagreed with me regarding Paul's oppression of women. He was never able to change my thinking on the matter -neither has any one else - but none of them ever accused me of being a heretic because of it either.
"He was never able to change my thinking on the matter -neither has any one else..."
So, Marty. You don't believe in each sex having their own distinct roles in life? That's not only unBiblical, it's anti-science. You seem to believe that being different is to be unequal. This is not true at all, nor is it implied by anything Paul says.
"You don't believe in each sex having their own distinct roles in life?"
And what roles would those be Marshall?
Marshall...
What truth? All you've given in your poor argument here is the earth on the back of a turtle. Considering the discussion regards creation, it seems that it would greatly affect the truth
ONCE AGAIN, it seems you are missing the point. I didn't GIVE the story because I don't remember the story and it wasn't the point of the analogy, but okay, HERE'S the story:
The Great Creator created the earth with love and carefully set it down on the back of a great turtle, to slowly crawl across the heavens.
The end.
To which some dude said, "Your story is false."
To which she said, "What? What do you mean? Of course it is true!"
To which he said, "You mean you think the earth is actually sitting on a giant turtle??"
To which she replied, "Oh, no, not really. But how does that affect the Truth of the story?"
The point being that the story was about a Truth (in this case, the Truth that the Great Creator made the world and everything in it). But the idiot did not GET the Truth because he was too hung up on the details.
Does that help?
Marshall:
But whether or not that story is metaphorical or not, the method of relating that story does not require the same method of digesting stories where God destroys entire towns.
Why? On what basis do you jump to that conclusion?
And yet again: If you are merely asking me to agree with you because you have this whimsical hunch that the stories about baby slaughter ought to be taken literally based on nothing more than your hunch, I'll pass.
WHY would I possibly believe such a thing?
WHY would we not presume the history stories are told in the same manner as ALL history stories appear to have been told back then?
ON. WHAT. BASIS?
Your mere whimsy does not impress me.
Marshall said...
It is no different than stories of Jesus healing the lame or blind. Or are those allegorical as well?
Once again: CONTEXT MATTERS. What sort of story was being told matters. Parables are taken one way. Poetry another way. Prehistoric epic stories another way. More recent historical tales (and yet not modern history) might be taken yet another way.
I tend to take the stories of Jesus' miracles fairly literally, but I'm not hung up on their literality. AS JESUS SAID as he chastised the religious hypocrites of his day, "You ask for signs and wonders, but none will be given to you!"
The MIRACLES were not the point of Jesus' ministry. God's grace was. Is. It is all about God, God's grace. God's love. God's justice.
The miracles are merely a subplot in the story of God's amazing grace.
Don't get lost in the details and miss the main themes of God's story. Seems wise to me.
Marshall said...
"You don't believe in each sex having their own distinct roles in life?"
Marty replied...
And what roles would those be Marshall?
Yes, I'd be interested in knowing that, too.
And while we're still rambling all over the place...
Marshall said:
You seem to believe that being different is to be unequal. This is not true at all, nor is it implied by anything Paul says.
She "seems" to? But she has not said that. She has not implied that ANYWHERE that I can see.
What in the world causes you to think she or I or anyone else thinks that being different is being unequal? I've never heard anyone suggest anything of the sort.
Perhaps you are mistaken in thinking it seems that way?
It SEEMS to me that she thinks Paul at least sounds sexist because, well, he says sexist things in some of his letters sometimes. "Women can't teach men..." THAT is a sexist line, by definition.
[sexism: : prejudice or discrimination based on sex]
Why was Paul saying women shouldn't teach men? BECAUSE of their gender - specifically because they were female. That IS sexism by definition.
Now, if that is what Marty thinks, I think she comes by it honestly. Myself, I think Paul certainly lived in a sexist society (if you have trouble with the concept, re-read the definition) and some of the trappings of sexism probably entered his writings.
BUT, at the same time, Paul is the one who pointed out the very egalitarian, "In Christ, there is neither male nor female," among other things. So, for my part, I don't think Paul was especially sexist, just that he lived in a sexist society and that is reflected in his writings.
Myself, I dig Paul greatly.
But, Sister Marty, if you DO think Paul was sexist, well, we're still cool...
I really shouldn't have glanced at this thread again this evening...
Dan:
"WHY would we not presume the history stories are told in the same manner as ALL history stories appear to have been told back then?"
Why would treat Scripture breathed by God Himself as if it were just another merely human document?
The fact is, Jesus Christ affirmed Jewish Scripture to the smallest penstroke, which is an odd thing to do if we're not supposed to get hung up on the details.
He deduced the reality of the resurrection from a single verb tense, which is likewise odd if the text was the result of an evolving oral tradition where the "Big Truths" are important, to the exclusion of the details.
He criticized people for abandoning God's word for man's tradition, and yet He affirmed Scripture and quoted it authoritatively -- saying "it is written" as if that were enough to settle the issue. The implications for Scripture's authorship is unavoidable.
I've pointed all this out time and again -- including earlier today -- but, for all your literal blather about revering Jesus' "actual teachings," you never address these points.
I suspect you don't, because you can't.
What you idiotically denigrate as whimsy is nothing less than and nothing other than conformity to Jesus Christ's own approach to Scripture, as shown by His teachings and by His example.
You continue to rip passages of Scripture out of even their immediate context -- which is particularly despicable when you pay lip service to context, insisting that "CONTEXT MATTERS."
"I tend to take the stories of Jesus' miracles fairly literally, but I'm not hung up on their literality. AS JESUS SAID as he chastised the religious hypocrites of his day, 'You ask for signs and wonders, but none will be given to you!'"
That's not what He said, Dan, at least not completely.
"An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." - Mt 12:39
"An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." - Mt 16:4
"This generation is an evil generation; it asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." - Lk 11:29
Mark 8:12 doesn't include a reference to the sign of Jonah...
"Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation."
...but about twenty verses later, we have this:
"Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." - Mk 8:31
Jesus didn't say, "No signs." He preached, "No signs but the sign of Jonah." He taught that He MUST endure suffering and be killed and rise three days later.
The centrality of the cross and the resurrection cannot be overstated, Dan.
While you say, "I'm not hung up on [the] literality" of Christ's miracles, Paul preached that, if Christ was not raised, we are dead in our sins.
(In the same letter, Paul also taught that "Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.")
The point isn't just God's grace and justice, it's also Christ's death and resurrection.
It is through His death and resurrection that we are saved by God's grace, in accord with God's justice.
Dan, I think your "digging" Paul isn't reassuring, given how often you believe the exact opposite of what he preached.
Paul preached that we are justified, not only by God's grace, but also through the redemption in Christ, "whom God put forth as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood." (Rom 3:25)
You say it's grace, only grace, implicitly to the exclusion of Christ's death, but you don't have the sack to say so, except to say that we would have still been saved if Christ hadn't been crucified, to hell what Jesus prayed in Gethsemane.
("My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me." The cup wasn't passed.)
Paul preached that, if Christ wasn't raised, we are dead in our sins and our faith is in vain.
You say that you have no problem if God told you that you "misunderstood" Christ's resurrection as bodily, even though Christ's own words make no such misunderstanding possible.
("Put your finger her and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.")
Paul preached Christ crucified.
You seem to preach Christ's ethical teachings -- "Jesus' Way," stuff about living simply and social justice and peace-making, all of which are more clearly in line with your politicial progressivism than the priorities demonstrated by Christ's instituting the Lord's Supper in the Upper Room.
("This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.")
Indeed, Paul preached to overcome evil with good, but in the VERY NEXT PASSAGE, he taught that the government is an agent of God's wrath, an agent that does not bear the sword in vain.
You take the former teaching and ignore the latter, ripping a passage out of even its immediate context, to justify your pacifism, despite squawking about how context matters.
Paul preached -- let us not forget -- that God handed certain idolators over to depraved homosexual behavior, implying that such behavior is never morally permissible. (Or does God hand idolators over to square dancing and bass fishing?)
You insist, quite implausibly, that the passage in question prohibits homosexual behavior only in the context of idolatry, never mind what Christ Himself taught about why we were created male and female in the first place.
("Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?")
And Paul presumed to preach as Christ's hand-picked Apostle, and with His authority.
But you have no problem dismissing some of his teachings as definitional sexism -- just as you speculate that Christ's choosing of twelve men to be His closest followers was a "nod" to the surrounding cultural sexism.
Indeed, in Galatians 3:28, Paul taught, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
But our being one in Christ doesn't preclude the idea that Jews and Gentiles have different roles in history: read Romans 11, esp. verses 25-27.
And, likewise, our being one in Christ doesn't preclude the idea that men and women have different roles in the biological family or in the church family.
If it's intrinsically sexist for God to assign different social roles through Paul, I'm still unclear -- and I don't think I've gotten an answer, Dan -- on why it's NOT sexist for God to have assigned different biological roles through our genes.
Any deviation from androgyny is not inherently sexist, and if the assignment of particular roles to particular sexes comes from THE ONE WHO MADE US MALE AND FEMALE IN THE FIRST PLACE, well, just who are we, mere clay, to question the potter?
"BUT, at the same time, Paul is the one who pointed out the very egalitarian, "In Christ, there is neither male nor female," among other things. So, for my part, I don't think Paul was especially sexist, just that he lived in a sexist society and that is reflected in his writings."
Yeah. Yeah. I. Know.
Bruce and others have pointed that out to me as well. I knew someone was going to say that. You haven't changed my mind either. Paul was sexist, but I'm glad we're still cool Dan.
It's not that Paul is sexist, it's that you, Marty, are childish assuming that because you are not assigned the same role as a man, that somehow you are being treated unfairly. Boo-freakin'-hoo.
The differences that exist in all of us and which make each of us unique only means that we are each of varying capabilities, even within one sex. We are, none of us, the same. Each of us is superior in some ways and inferior in other ways. Not everyone can hit a major league fastball, even among those who really try to develop the skill. Those who can are not superior people, just superior hitters. It would be foolish to force owners to put YOU on their baseball team even as a backup player. You would never fit the role. Others are better suited for the sport.
In life, men are obviously better suited to lead. Not that they are always the better leader, only that the male species is better suited for leadership. Part of this is due to his larger size, which, in the most basic situation, where all else is equal, is what wins out.
In spiritual matters, Christ is referred to as the bridegroom and the church is the bride. The actual marital arrangement reflects this relationship, which is why women are taught to submit to their husbands. Such is symbolic of the church's (that is our) submission to God and His will. Husbands are the head of the household (for they were made in God's image and likeness and from man, woman was made) and are instructed to love their wives like Jesus loves His church. How did He love His church? He sacrificed Himself for it, suffering torture and death. (Submission of the wife to her husband is not the same as the submission each spouse is to offer each other or one's submission to his neighbor.) So the role of men and women from the spiritual point of view, both in marriage and in the church, is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and His church.
Frankly, whether the above is accurate or not, to reject Paul's teachings as sexism is a self-centered perspective.
"It SEEMS to me that she thinks Paul at least sounds sexist because, well, he says sexist things in some of his letters sometimes. "Women can't teach men..." THAT is a sexist line, by definition."
Only if Paul is saying they are incapable, which they clearly are not. But saying it isn't the woman's role is not sexist at all unless a woman is being a radical, left-wing feminist asshole demanding everything, practical or not.
You can't discount that apostles and prophets speak for God, or rather, that God speaks through them. It's not as if Christ says, "OK, you're an apostle. Spread my teachings and whatever you're not sure of, just make it up." I can't imagine that they'd even be capable of speaking in a manner contrary to the will of God even if they wanted to, so that if they say that women are to do or not do a particular thing, it would be in agreement with what Christ Himself would have said were He around to say it directly.
So...the woman's role is to submit to her husband, not play baseball, and be an underling so that she doesn't become a self-centered liberal bitch.
Does that about sum it up Marshall?
"You can't discount that apostles and prophets speak for God,"
And they were all men...right?
Hmm..I'm sure that's what you've been taught by other sexist men.
I bet the apostle Junia would "role" over in her grave to hear that.
You're even more sexist than Paul. Macho macho man Marshall.
Marshall...
In life, men are obviously better suited to lead. Not that they are always the better leader, only that the male species is better suited for leadership. Part of this is due to his larger size, which, in the most basic situation, where all else is equal, is what wins out.
Man, this is so asinine, it's hard to know how to respond.
I thought you had at least a little intelligence in your head, brother Marshall. I guess as long as you're BIG, brains don't really matter much for leadership, huh?
You know, this is has been a big ol' wacky fun free for all, but the stupidity and absurdity of your answers and "reasonings," Bubba, Marshall, Craig, has about run its course, at least for me.
The thing remains: UNLESS and UNTIL you all have some solid reason other than just your flight of fancy whims and "I said so and I'm a big man, so I must be right," I'll continue to pass on your emotion-based feelings on what the Bible does and doesn't say, what ought to be taken literally and what ought not.
God's Word and seeking God's Will is to important to leave to children and whims.
I'll gladly follow Miss Marty and my Pastor Cindy - who have more guts, leadership, brains AND balls than any of the fellas here and who have demonstrated to me plenty that they are walking in Jesus' steps - as described by the BIBLE and as is obviously evident.
I tend to think they have their heads on more right than you fellas. Nothing personal, but your flighty approach to Bible study and reasoning leaves a lot to be desired.
Since your pastor neither contributed nor appears in the Bible, Dan, her admirable qualities are hardly proof that the Bible doesn't teach different roles for the sexes.
You claim to love the Bible, but so many of your arguments have nothing to do with the text: you appeal to scholars and studies, your gay friends and your female pastor, but not the text.
You think some of Paul's writings -- y'know, in the Bible -- are sexist by definition. You choose to follow Cindy's leadership rather than Paul's.
Okay, fine. Go right ahead; you're welcome to it.
But let's stop pretending that you love the entire Bible and deeply respect its teachings.
It's simply not the case that we offer nothing but "flights of fancy" to justify our approach to Scripture. I went in detail yesterday -- AGAIN, as I have often covered this point:
While you suggest the details of the Old Testament aren't important, Jesus affirmed Jewish Scripture to the smallest penstroke and even deduced the resurrection from a single verb tense. (And while you suggest that chronology isn't important, Paul taught crucial theology from the fact that Abraham's justification long preceded his circumcision.)
In interpreting its contents, you want to treat the Bible as just another a prehistoric epic, as a merely human work. But Jesus treated Scripture as God's word, as the final word on any subject ("it is written"), all while He criticized people for clining to human tradition instead of God's word.
Even your claim that the Torah is a late written record of prehistoric stories that were previously transmitted orally is undermined by Christ's frequent attribution of its contents to Moses -- to say nothing of the fact that the Torah REPEATEDLY refers to Moses' writing down God's law, and the fact that the central relic of the Torah is a pair stone tablets EXPLICITLY CONTAINING WRITTEN COMMANDMENTS.
Our approach to Scripture -- its authorship, its authority, its inerrancy, and indeed its historicity -- is in accord with the reverence for the text shown by Jesus and His hand-picked Apostles, through both their explicit teachings and their own examples.
I've already said this, you haven't addressed this, much less refuted it: you ignore it. You just stick to your "flights of fancy" bullshit as if no one's responded to it at length.
But, then, why would we expect you to do anything else but ignore our clear statements when it's convenient to act as if they don't exist?
You are just as selective in dealing with God's written word -- and even just Christ's "actual teachings" -- and the servants aren't greater than the Master.
Finally...
Our approach to Scripture -- its authorship, its authority, its inerrancy, and indeed its historicity -- is in accord with the reverence for the text
No, your approach to Scripture is subjective, cultural, "because I think so," voodoo magic and makes light of serious Bible study.
Perhaps you can wrap your mind around this: JUST BECAUSE you throw out many verses (verses of which I am well aware, having actually studied them my whole life) does not mean that you have rightly understood any of them.
It is EXACTLY the "right understanding" of scripture that we're talking about. I am aware that Jesus said, "not a jot or a tittle," but WHAT DOES IT MEAN? THAT is what is in question.
Your answers have been, "Well, it obviously means what I THINK it means - I quoted it, didn't I??" and that is not critical thinking, it is not wise and discerning Bible study. It's childhood playground bully "cuz I said so, cuz I thought so," puff the magic bible interpretation.
Again, go with that if you want, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously if that's the best you can offer.
Try to understand: You are asking people to accept that a PERFECTLY GOOD and PERFECTLY JUST God would command the killing of babies - even though the shedding of innocent blood is repeatedly condemned - and would kill children for the sins of their parents - even though that is patently contrary to the notion of Justice or Goodness and contrary to what the Bible teaches elsewhere.
You are asking people to accept some pretty arcane and NOT obvious conclusions and you're asking us to do so simply because YOU THINK SO, because it is the way you have always been taught and without much apparent critical thinking.
Don't you think people would be WRONG to accept such a crazy notion just because you say so? Or even just because many churches have said so for many years? Churches made of fallible people?
On what basis would a reasonable person accept such literal evil and craziness (and if you don't think that babies are sinless and innocent, and that killing them IS evil and crazy, you're not in touch with reality)?
Can you answer that? ON WHAT BASIS?
If your answer is simply throwing more scriptures that YOU SAY mean "this" or "that," that still leaves us at, OK, but on what basis should we accept YOUR HUNCHES about what those verses mean?
If you can't answer that question effectively, don't expect much response or agreement from most people.
Perfect response Marty. That is, if you're trying to make MY point. How perfectly childish that you see the role God established as being "an underling". I explicitly indicated that I did not hold such a view. A role is a role and does not in and of itself indicate inferiority. Obviously, you see women as inferior to take such a defensive posture. Again, how childish.
I wonder: How did you and your husband settle differences of opinion where the superiority of either opinion was not apparent or possible to discern? Did you take turns? That would be "fair". That would satisfy a "boo-hoo, poor me, I have to submit because the big bad man said so" whine. So the text might indicate man is the head of the household, but Marty and Dan "Phil Donahue" Trabue won't abide that decree because it offends their sensibilities.
I also indicated that my take might be off, but was only one explanation, and the mere mention gives you the vapors. THAT'S putting God first allright! NOT! That's being selfish and putting your own desires above God's.
Once again, and hear this both of you: Roles do NOT indicate superiority or inequality. Particularly not roles defined by God or taught by His prophets or apostles.
What small minds you both have!
Dan:
"Perhaps you can wrap your mind around this: JUST BECAUSE you throw out many verses (verses of which I am well aware, having actually studied them my whole life) does not mean that you have rightly understood any of them."
Perhaps you should practice what you preach:
"Try to understand: You are asking people to accept that a PERFECTLY GOOD and PERFECTLY JUST God would command the killing of babies - even though the shedding of innocent blood is repeatedly condemned - and would kill children for the sins of their parents - even though that is patently contrary to the notion of Justice or Goodness and contrary to what the Bible teaches elsewhere."
(Again, God didn't command the killing of babies: He commanded the destruction of cities and nations which probably included babies.)
You presume for yourself precisely what you question about us: while you question whether we "rightly understand" Scripture, you presume that you do.
The Bible does record, as a general rule, that God prohibits man from shedding innocent blood.
But it doesn't follow that such an act is therefore intrinsically wrong: such an act COULD BE God's prerogative because -- as I've repeatedly argued -- the life He created belongs to Him. He created it (in His own image, no less), He sustains it, and so He has the moral right to end it at will.
You don't deal with that possibility at all.
And for all your insistence that Scripture be rightly understood -- a good idea which you apply hypocritically -- we're not the ones who REPEATEDLY RIP SCRIPTURE OUT OF EVEN ITS IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, as you have with Psalm 106 and Romans 12-13.
Anyway, the Bible records that, just before the exodus, God slew the firstborn of Egypt.
We believe that God literally and historically slew the firstborn of Egypt.
You dismiss this interpretation as "arcane and not obvious," but nothing could be more obvious: in the narrative history that spans from Abraham to David, God repeatedly slays or commands the slaying of significant groups of people. We believe He did just that: ours is the plain and MOST OBVIOUS interpretation.
As for being arcane, we're hardly the first people to suggest that God actually did slay the firstborn of Egypt. We not only have two millennia of Christian thought behind us, we have another few centuries of Jewish thought backing us up.
You seem to concede that the entire church is on our side: hence the idea that the church isn't infallible. It isn't, and their consensus is not proof that our position is right, but it blasts to oblivion your crap about its being arcane.
Your position depends on ours being obscure and arcane, but it just isn't so.
Marshall...
So the text might indicate man is the head of the household, but Marty and Dan "Phil Donahue" Trabue won't abide that decree because it offends their sensibilities.
Oh? I did not say that. Marty did not say that. We oppose such a view because it is not logical nor biblical.
Why would you think we concluded otherwise?
Perhaps you are so emotionally tied to your position that you aren't able to reason your way to any conclusion other than the one you feel most comfortable with and the one your culture has taught you?
Be free from your emotion-based reasoning, brother, be free from your unthinking ties to "the way it has always been." IF "the way it has always been" is wrong, then it does you no logical good to continue to hold to them. Be free.
Dan,
You have yet to offer any substantial alternative to our interpretations. You offer your HUNCHES about what is or isn't evil for God to do, as if you have some authority to judge Him. Your supposed criteria for reading Scripture does NOT justify your interpetations and your conscious decisions to jettison those areas that trouble you. Show us how we're wrong in interpreting as we do and then show why your interpretation makes more sense in light of THE ENTIRE BOOK and not th Book minus the parts you've dismissed. And yes, you dismiss them because you give no possible alternative meaning for those areas of which you dislike (imagine--a mere man arrogantly disaproving God's decisions!) We've offered very little, IF ANY, "because I think so" to defend and explain our positions you liar, yet you yourself speak of interpretation in general as just such a situation. What's more, nothing we've ever said fits this method of interpretation any better than your pulled from thin air belief that God would bless a union defined by behavior He describes as an abomination. Laughable does not begin to describe the hubris of your last comments in light of this one piece of outright stupidity.
"Man, this is so asinine, it's hard to know how to respond."
So you don't. What happened to your faux-Christian attitude? If I'm wrong, enlighten me. Did I not allow that it was only a general rule? That it dosesn't hold perfectly, that size was only part of the equation? Both you and Marty pretend that there doesn't exist any women who turn batshit crazy once every month, or that there are some who psychos throughout the duration of the menopause. Does this not suggest that IN GENERAL women in leadership might be problematic? Yet, at the same time, individual women might still be good leaders? Can you stuff your pompous attitude that arises when your false piety fails you? That you only draw from my comment that I think size is the only determining factor of leadership indicates just how poorly you read anything. But then, you don't give God the benefit of your incredible doubt, why should I fare better?
Please be so kind as to describe just how Miss Marty and dear Pastor Cindy have more guts, brains, leadership AND balls than I do. Tell me also how you know they have testicles, much less more than the two I have. Oh wait, was that spoken figuratively? I can never tell. Frankly, judging by your take on Scripture (and most other things), I can't see where you get off thinking you have the brains to know the difference. There. Is this working for you better, attacking you personally rather than debating positions? How very Christian, "Brother" Dan! It seems you take a contrary position out of emotion here!
And "flighty"? What could be more flighty about Biblical interpretation that the removal of those areas where God's wrath is manifested because you can't reconcile it with His loving side? What could be more flighty than assuming God must follow mandates He lays down for us, as if the father must act as his child must? Flighty? I can't think of a more flighty understanding of God and His Word than what YOU'VE expressed in the past several years. And you dare condescend by suggesting that yours is the result of "serious study"? What incredible arrogance! As if the "serious" study of which you speak equals a more accurate conclusion.
"JUST BECAUSE you throw out many verses...does not mean that you have rightly understood any of them."
Thanks. We'll remember that if it ever applies to what we do. Instead, we've been using verses, and generally more completely contexturally, to more fully explain our conclusions, unlike yourself who uses only partial verses out of context. We also use them based on the meaning of the words within them. You should try it once in awhile.
damned right there's more---
"I am aware that Jesus said, "not a jot or a tittle," but WHAT DOES IT MEAN? THAT is what is in question."
You mean it all depends on what the definition of "is" is? Got it, Slick Willie. You don't like our take on that verse, why not try offering an alternative. Make sure you back it up with something other than YOUR hunch.
"Try to understand: You are asking people to accept that a PERFECTLY GOOD and PERFECTLY JUST God would command the killing of babies..."
Try to understand: You're a freakin' liar everytime you reframe a statement in this manner. As if that's not enough, you expose yourself as a hypocrite by daring to continually do so without the clarifying questions you demand of us. What's more, you have never offered an explanation that was not subjective, a hunch of yours, based on emotion, that justifies another explanation or interpretation of those tracts that illustrate God pouring out His wrath. You dare judge His actions as unjust, unholy or unloving when it is only certainly so when WE do those things. Nothing is unjust, unholy or an atrocity if God does it, because it's His creation to do with as He pleases. Because it doesn't make sense to you, because you can't explain or reconcile it, you reject it. Flighty. A hunch. Emotion based.
"You are asking people to accept some pretty arcane and NOT obvious conclusions and you're asking us to do so simply because YOU THINK SO, because it is the way you have always been taught and without much apparent critical thinking."
NO. We are hoping people read the Bible and accept it as it is written, not as some 21st century liberal schmuck thinks it should be read. We don't assume that people recording the acts of God, usually when having direct or near direct contact with Him, would be capable of recording it in a manner that confounds rather than enlightens.
"On what basis would a reasonable person accept such literal evil and craziness (and if you don't think that babies are sinless and innocent, and that killing them IS evil and crazy, you're not in touch with reality)?"
Another dishonest and loaded question on par with "When did you stop beating your wife?" I don't suppose that reasonable people engaged in truly serious study (not what YOU call "serious study") would conclude that God taking life that is His to take is evil and crazy. I suppose they'd assume God's way is not our way and not all His moves can be fully explained to our satisfaction. I suppose they'd not judge God on human terms and insist that laws for men apply to Him.
I'd also suppose that if Dan Trabue can't undertand their explanations or positions, it doesn't mean they haven't been related effectively, that it's more likely that Dan is too thick to understand the obvious.
"Oh? I did not say that. Marty did not say that. We oppose such a view because it is not logical nor biblical.
Why would you think we concluded otherwise?"
Because it IS Biblical and you both DO reject it as being otherwise. Are you playing games now? If wives are to submit to their husbands as Paul teaches, then husbands being the head of the household IS biblical. Do kings submit to their subjects? Do employers submit to their employees? Do teachers submit to the students?
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which He is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, soalso wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Ephesians 5:22-24.
Perhaps you are so emotionally tied to liberal, progressive, feminist thought that Biblical teaching must play second fiddle. Oh wait! But, what does it MEAN?!! It means what it says. So sorry that one must conform one's 21st century sensibilities to Scriptural teaching. I know it gets emotional putting aside what one wants to be true with what actually is true, Phil. But that's just how one dies and becomes born again. If you think "the way it has always been" is wrong, you have yet to come close in explaining why.
"Once again, and hear this both of you: Roles do NOT indicate superiority or inequality. Particularly not roles defined by God or taught by His prophets or apostles."
Hear this Marshall. The ONLY "role" that has to do with the sexes is the sperm and the egg.
And it certainly does indicate superiority and inequality the way YOU define "role".
Even Scripture teaches that women had positions of leadership in the church, in battle, in business, in government, etc.
It is YOU who would place women in subservient "roles".
You're the one with the small mind Marshall.
And furthermore your rendering of the wives submitting to their husbands text is incomplete. Sexist men always leave out that verse that says we should submit to each other. But I think it has more to do with respecting each other than anything else.
Marshall...
You have yet to offer any substantial alternative to our interpretations. You offer your HUNCHES about what is or isn't evil for God to do, as if you have some authority to judge Him. Your supposed criteria for reading Scripture does NOT justify your interpetations
I have offered substantial and easy to comprehend biblical exegesis, but you must have missed it. Let me break it down for you step by step...
1. The Bible says,
"yet [God] will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations." Exodus 34
2. This passage says God will punish even the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for a man's sin.
3. This would be an example of an unclear or obscure passage. God punishes children for the sins of their parents?? That doesn't make sense, can it possibly mean that literally??
So what do we do? We weigh it against all of scripture and against Jesus' teachings. We strive to understand context. We interpret the unclear through the clear.
4. So, we look further and see that the Bible also says,
"Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity? [as per Exodus 34 -dan]' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live.
"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity..." Ezekiel 18
5. THIS passage quite clearly says God WILL NOT punish the children for the sins of the father.
6. Now pay close attention: IF we take BOTH of these passages literally, then they contradict one another. That would send a mixed message about God. SOMETIMES God punishes children for their parent's sin. Sometimes God is quite clear that this will NOT happen.
7. Do you think God is of two minds on this notion? More importantly, do we have any reason to believe God does things one way sometimes and the opposite way other times? I don't.
8. What does Jesus have to say about this notion of punishing children for parent's sin?
When Jesus is presented with a blind man, the disciples ask if he was blind for his own sins or for his parent's sins? This seems to be a clear reference to the popular notion then that the sick and disabled were ill because of - as a punishment for - someone's sin. Jesus rejects this notion, saying,
"Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him." John 9
Jesus is very much about personal responsibility. What YOU DO for the least of these, what YOU DID NOT DO for the least of these. There is nothing in Jesus' teachings (that I can think of) that support the notion that innocent children are punished for their parent's sins.
9. AND SO, we have referenced the obscure passage with other passages throughout the Bible, and through Jesus' specific teaching. Additionally, we can take the obscure/hard to understand passage (the notion of God punishing the innocent for someone else's sin just seems quite contrary to our innate sense of Justice and Righteousness) and look at it through the clear (Ezekiel's "the soul that sinneth shall die..." - which makes logical sense, whereas the Exodus 34 passages don't) and all of that adds up to my conclusion that God does NOT punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty. Ezekiel is quite clear and supported by the rest of the Bible.
10. CONCLUSION: God does NOT punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty. This would be an example of a Big Truth - one of the important conclusions we ought to draw from the Bible and from our own reasoning.
More...
11. So, now what do we do with the passages like Exodus 34 (and there are others) that seem to conflict with Ezekiel and the Big Truth? MUST we reject it as "obviously" wrong and thus suggest that the Bible is unreliable?
I don't think so. We can do many things with such a passage. We can try to reinterpret it, in light of the CLEAR teaching. For instance, the notion of punishing others for the sins of the father COULD just be a figurative way of explaining the ripple effect of sin, the natural consequences of sin. A father who is sinful in that he is abusive towards his children MIGHT have the result of causing emotional problems with his children, which in turn, might cause emotional problems with THEIR children.
This is an EXTREMELY rational explanation of a passage that, taken literally, does not make sense AND conflicts with clear biblical teaching. Now, by taking it in this OTHER way, that does not mean that we are rejecting the Bible, just that we are seeking truth.
12. In fact, we might even say, "well, I don't know WHAT Exodus 34 means, but CLEARLY, it can't mean that God punishes the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. That doesn't make sense, biblically or logically. It must mean something else."
We CAN leave it at that. We don't have to be able to explain everything - including the odd and obscure - in the Bible to understand the clear. The Big Truths in the Bible are abundantly clear, it seems to me.
13. And so, we have established the Biblical "Big Truth" that God does not punish the innocent for the guilty's crimes. And then, we come across a story which does appears to have an example of just that. A story where God commands Israel to destroy a city - and specifically including the children therein - and this story SEEMS to conflict with the Big Truth that we have already established.
Now what? What do we do with such a story?
14. Well, we don't HAVE to do anything with it. We can say, "Well, I don't know what it means, but clearly it can't mean that God punishes the innocent for the crimes of the guilty - that contradicts clear Biblical teaching and obvious logical notions of Goodness and Justice.
More...
15. But we don't have to do that. We can also try to explain it. We can, for instance, recognize THE CONTEXT of the writing - what STYLE it was written in. These stories occur in sections of the Bible that tell historical sorts of stories, BUT it was written in a day when such histories were not written like they are today. Back then - in prehistoric times - stories were often passed on in Legendary, Mythical or Epic storytelling conventions. In these conventions, the details aren't always factual, as they are not the point of the story. OFTEN (always in ancient writings??) histories were told to impress a point(s) upon the listeners.
IF that is what happened here (and it seems a reasonable conclusion since:
A. That's the storytelling style of that time period, and
B. Taking it literally would conflict with clear biblical truth)
Then perhaps the point of the story is NOT to say, "This is what actually factually happened, detail for detail," but rather to refinforce Truths such as "God is with the oppressed," or "God is with God's people when they are faithful to God," or other such truths.
This seems the most logical, likely explanation for biblical stories such as these and a literal interpretation would conflict with clear biblical teaching, so on what basis would we do anything OTHER than assume that they are SOMEHOW figurative (ie, I'm not saying that's the one and only True Way of interpreting that passage, just that it's a logical biblical conclusion - whereas assuming it's literal is neither logical nor biblical)?
There, I have repeated what I have stated in a fairly exacting manner, Marshall.
So, given how extremely logical and biblical this process seems to me, on what basis would I reject what seems to be the most Godly biblical explanations and assume YOU are right?
====
By the way, I've posted some of my thoughts on this discussion over at my blog. fyi.
Now, now, Marty. You're interpreting out of emotion. What would Danny say?
Your comment is idiotic at best. I place no one in a subservient position. But you're making a great case that you ability to understand plain English is as inferior as Dan's.
Studies show that children do best in an environment with both a mother and a father. This is because of the distinct roles each play and their affect on the child's perception and understanding of life. These roles are not a matter of one being superior to the other, but merely different and distinctive. No man can be as good a mother as a good woman, nor can any woman be a good father as can a good man. That this concept of roles is so foreign to you explains much. What other examples of common knowledge and sense could have eluded you in all your years I wonder?
That Scripture illustrates women in leadership position does NOT diminish the truth of what I've said regarding roles. You are simply being a good radical feminist by taking offense to this very simple and inoffensive understanding of roles.
It's important to remember that in my original comment on the issue, I acknowledged that my explanation might not be entirely accurate. But what's telling is the tone of your comments which suggest that you are more concerned with perceived slights against "womanhood" than you are submitting yourself to the will of God. I also notice that you haven't answered my question regarding disagreements between you and your husband where the superiority of either opinion wasn't apparent. You're either afraid to admit that he asserted his God-given authority, or you're afraid to admit that you nagged his ass into submission.
Marshall, in the real world, I suspect most adults in a marriage work out their agreements jointly. I do. It's not brain science. You just work things out.
No need for me to force my "leadership" upon my beloved.
As I have things to do, even as an unemployed guy (are you blogging when you should be working, Dan and Marty?), I've no time to respond to Dan's lengthy and seemingly missing the point comments. But I will respond to Marty's quickly.
"And furthermore your rendering of the wives submitting to their husbands text is incomplete. Sexist men always leave out that verse that says we should submit to each other. But I think it has more to do with respecting each other than anything else."
My rendering would be incomplete if I hadn't already addressed the issue of marriage and submission. Go back and re-read my comments, only this time, read them completely and without your emotionally defensive feminism.
Submission and respect are two different things. One can submit without respecting. Submitting to one's spouse can be an agape type of manifestation, which both parties should practice, or in the case of the woman, the recognition that the husband is the head as stated in the verse offered. To different and distinctive forms of the word "submission" and both are true within a marriage. Except for maybe Dan if he has abdicated his husbandly responsibilities in a man-guilt Phil Donahue manner, or perhaps for you, if you insisted your husband bend to your will.
"I also notice that you haven't answered my question regarding disagreements between you and your husband where the superiority of either opinion wasn't apparent"
My husband I don't think in terms of "superiority" of opinions. I allow him his. And he allows me mine. If we disagree, then we agree to disagree and leave it at that. Plus we've never really had an argument our entire married life. Neither one of us are headstrong about getting our own way.
Plus it's pretty hard to have an argument with a deaf person. If they don't want to "listen" they just close their eyes.
Marshall...
You dare judge His actions as unjust, unholy or unloving when it is only certainly so when WE do those things. Nothing is unjust, unholy or an atrocity if God does it
Yet again, you fail to comprehend words written in plain English from a fellow from your same culture. HOW can you ever hope to read and understand the Bible when you can't even read MY few words and get them right?
I have quite clearly stated that God is God and can do as God wishes. I am not judging God.
I am judging the utterly ridiculous and blasphemous interpretation that YOU AND YOUR PALS have about God. Do you understand the difference between you and God?
Let me help:
God is God, immortal invincible God only wise
Marshall is a man, mortal, fallible, and less wise than one would hope for.
You see? My criticizing MARSHALL's interpretation does not equal my criticizing or judging God because... YES! Because Marshall is not God. I can disagree with and criticize Marshall without criticizing God because they are NOT one in the same.
I'm sure you were just confused, fella. No problems, I understand that you're fallible.
As to your earlier fallible comment about women being poor leaders because of their menstrual cycle (which occurs a few days a month): What about men who are often confused emotionally because of their innate lust? That's a 24 hour a day, 365 days a year confusion on most men's part. Are you saying that people can't lead if they are affected by their bodily functions? Then that seems to be a point in favor of women leadership, if you ask me.
You see, most women are able to have normal bodily functions occur and reason at the same time. It does not appear to be that way for many men.
Golly, I'm sure glad I wasn't sipping on my hot chocolate while reading that Dan.
Too funny.
Hey it's snowing here in Houston! I mean REALLY snowing. I'm lovin' it!
"An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." - Mt 12:39
"An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." - Mt 16:4
"This generation is an evil generation; it asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." - Lk 11:29
It sure seems like Jesus took the Jonah story literally.
?
The text does not say that.
Don't miss the Truth of the story for the details.
You're missing the truth.
To clarify...
"Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights."
The point of the story here, the Truth being taught, is that death can't conquer God, that death won't overcome Jesus, for life is stronger than death, and love is stronger than hate, and good is stronger than evil.
THAT is the point that Jesus is making. AND IT IS TRUE, Hallelujah! It is absolutely true!
But to get hung up on whether or not Jonah was literally in the belly of a fish for three days is to miss the point of the story. If someone were to spend time arguing about that, they would be missing the point. The point is NOT, NOT, NOT that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish. Rather, it is that Jesus would overcome death.
We need to read the bible in such a way as to not miss the Big Truths. If you want to believe that Jonah was literally swallowed by a fish, believe it. I have no problem with you believing it. But we ought not make the mistake of thinking the little details of a story are the point of the story.
That's all I'm saying.
Dan, it seems to me that the point isn't merely some vague platitude about how death cannot overcome God, but that -- specifically -- Jesus Christ was physically raised from the dead.
And I don't think you're being entirely honest.
You write that "all" you're saying is, "we ought not make the mistake of thinking the little details of a story are the point of a story," but everything else you write belies that claim.
You cannot simply mean that the major teachings are more important than the details, a claim about which none of us would disagree. If you were saying THAT, you would say that we must believe that Jonah really did survive in the belly of the beast -- and we must believe it because the Bible clearly teaches it -- but that there are greater truths on which we must focus.
But you don't write that. You don't concede that you accept the details in order to then argue that they're less important than the major truths. You question the details altogether, implying that they're not only less important, they're not important at all.
You don't "have a problem" with the belief that what Jonah records, actually happened. But it seems you don't believe it yourself.
For you, the details are always negotiable.
I don't think His teaching is unclear, but whatever Christ meant by affirming Scripture to the smallest penstroke, it cannot mean that.
Jesus Christ and His hand-picked Apostles put greater emphasis on the details than you do, because they (and we, in following their lead) actually think the details matter -- that the details are authoritative and cannot be dismissed -- and you clearly don't.
We're not "missing the truth", Dan. We understand and believe both the details AND the larger teachings.
For instance, we believe that the fact of Jesus' bodily resurrection is more important than the who was the first witnesses of the risen Christ: on Easter Sunday, we proclaim, "Christ is Risen!" not "Mary Magdalene saw Him first!"
It's not clear that you grasp all the greater teachings -- God's judgment, for instance, and the absolute necessity of Christ's death (since He died for our sins) and bodily resurrection (since without that, we're still dead in our sins).
But it's not that we emphasize the details to the exclusion of the major truths. We affirm both.
And it's not REALLY that you affirm both. You dismiss the details whenever you don't like them.
Here and at your own blog, you simply cannot be honest about what's being discussed and what positions are being taken.
On the question of Big Truths, Dan does have one thing going for him: the central religious observances of Judaism and Christianity.
For literally thousands of years, Jews have celebrated the "God Is With Us" festival, and Christians have commemorated the mere fact of God's grace.
Jews don't observe the Passover, and Christians don't commemorate Christ's death in the Lord's Supper.
If we did, Dan would be in trouble, just as much as if his insistence to let Scripture interpret Scripture would be undermined by a habit of ripping passages out of context.
But since we don't celebrate God's specific actions in history, and since Dan always accounts for a passage's immediate context before invoking it, he stands on pretty solid ground.
"Aesops Fables are fiction, AND they are True.
Jesus' parables are fiction AND they are True."
Dan's statements are not true. Aesop's fables are fiction and the express truths" They cannot be "True" because they did not happen.
Likewise Jesus parables are fiction and they point to/contain truths.
Jesus is The Truth, his parables contain truths.
Okay, they CONTAIN Truths. I don't believe that changes the point I am making.
Dan,
You seriously don't see a difference between Truth and truths.
It's really simple fiction cannot (by definition) be True. It can only point to Truth.
I'm not really sure I buy into the distinction wholly, but, Okay. So?
How does that affect my point?
Look, this fella tells the creation story. God created the world in six days. God created man and woman and told us to tend God's Garden.
A child asks, "Is that story true?"
The man replies, "Absolutely! God DID create the world. God DOES want us to tend the creation."
"No, the part about six days," the child pushes.
"Well, I don't know," the man replies. "I wasn't there. But that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that God created the world and wants us to tend the creation. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE."
Is this man lying? Is he telling fiction? OR, is he telling a parable for the purpose of getting across a true point?
If you focus on/argue about the six day part of the story, you are missing the Truth of the story. I'm not sure at all that it can accurately be said that parables or myths or other allegories are not in themselves true. But it may just be semantics.
Whether the story IS true or POINTS to truth, it has nothing to do with the point I'm making that I can see. My point being that these stories were told/passed down to teach us truths - just like Jesus' parables. Whether or not it is six literal days or an actual great fish that swallows Jonah is irrelevant to the truth.
THAT is my point.
I simply have to agree with Craig and Bubba regarding this notion of "getting hung up on details". Fables and fairey tales are totally made up stories to illustrate a truth. Biblical stories, such as OT stories of God's wrath made manifest in the destruction of a town are NOT made up and the details are just as important as any moral YOU think is being expressed. As YOU explain it, there really is no need for a god at all or prayers to him because it's the "truths" being taught in Biblical stories that matter, not whether miraculous and fantastic events actually took place. But without the miraculous, be it God's wrath destroying Sodom, or Jonah in a great fish, or Christ walking on water, it IS no better than Aesop's Fables. All prayer and ritual is rendered totally ridiculous and there no worries about judgement for sins, because after all, a loving God would not consign anyone to an eternity of suffering, no matter what that means.
You think the "truths" stand alone as the primary purpose of it all. But this misses the greatest truth of all, which is that God exists, that being the God the Bible describes from page 1 onward to the end, loving, jealous, forgiving, wrathful, doing to us and for us that which is not always within our understanding. The "truths" you put above all are secondary to the TRUTH which is God Himself. Period. Your "truths" are woefully incompete because you have diminished the details that surround them that are they're source. You've subordinated the details to your "truths", indeed your selected "truths".
I find it inconsistent, to say it in the kindest possible manner, to say the a just and loving God would not take innocent lives in His destruction of entire populations or of the first born of Egypt, yet you think He would call for millions of animals to be slaughtered in sacrifice until the Ultimate and Perfect Sacrifice is given up for mere symbolism. Incredible. And unlike your insistence that it was the Pharisees who killed Christ for political reasons, Bubba has shown all the Scripture an honest student and follower would need to know that Christ laid down His life as an actual blood and death sacrifice for our sins. That's a Truth far greater than even Love They Neighbor, or feed the poor or any other hippie progressive liberal theology you have. None of it matters without Christ's sacrifice for us.
"My criticizing MARSHALL's interpretation does not equal my criticizing or judging God because..."
I'm not "interpreting" anything in the sense that I'm divining some great mystery, some puzzle or cryptic language that only scholars can comprehend. No. I'm simply relating what the Bible says. YOU'RE the one making with the outrageous claims about what Scripture means and what's important within it. You dismiss teachings about God's nature in the OT, by dismissing verses describing His actions, because of teachings of the NT, as if those make the OT worthless. There's no difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT. He is the same. His law, or more precisely, His Will for us and our behavior toward Him and each other did not changes. Indeed, Christ makes this abundantly clear and even sharpened the focus for us so that there is no longer any doubt about what was supposed to have been understood about God's Will for us.
But YOU prefer to believe that the OT wasn't clear about what to believe, what the OT meant to impart to future readers and believers. This is a must for those like yourself who wish to believe as you like, rather than as you should. You can try to pretend that there's some problem on this end, but no one on this side of the issue has been inconsistent in their positions and only you have been so unable to show logic in presenting a case that you threaten to walk off in a huff. We read you loudly and clearly and understand you perfectly. I, for one, don't believe you lack understanding. I believe you lack courage to believe what the Bible truly teaches about God and His Will for us.
Marshall...
Biblical stories, such as OT stories of God's wrath made manifest in the destruction of a town are NOT made up and the details are just as important as any moral YOU think is being expressed.
I fully understand that this is YOUR OPINION, as it was once mine. But, if you lack ANY evidence and I don't find your position to be morally, logically or biblically tenable, then I'm sure you'll agree that I must set aside your hunch for what I believe the Bible is "obviously" teaching.
You have not provided the first bit of evidence or anything other than your hunch that the stories are to be taken literal. I don't buy it. Sorry.
If I told you something and provided no - ZERO - evidence for it but assured you I was correct, because I "obviously" was correct and besides, lots of people agree with me, I would hope it would not convince you to change your position. Making one's case requires offering SOMETHING for someone to consider other than "I said so."
Marshall...
But without the miraculous, be it God's wrath destroying Sodom, or Jonah in a great fish, or Christ walking on water, it IS no better than Aesop's Fables.
I'm sorry that's your opinion. I disagree with your opinion.
I find MUCH greater value in the teachings of the prophets, in the stories of the Israelis, in the teachings of Jesus than I do in Aesop's fables.
Marshall...
I'm simply relating what the Bible says. YOU'RE the one making with the outrageous claims about what Scripture means and what's important within it.
You may not think it an outrageous claim that a good, perfectly just and loving God would command the killing of children and babies, but I think it is patently obvious and patently contrary to clear biblical teaching.
I've noticed you have not responded to my explanation of my prayerful Bible study as briefly described earlier. Do you have any thoughts? At what point do you disagree with me, as I think it is clearly logical, biblical and moral reading of the Bible on this point.
Marshall...
But YOU prefer to believe that the OT wasn't clear about what to believe, what the OT meant to impart to future readers and believers.
You all keep on saying this despite my repeated clarification that I don't think the Bible is unclear AT ALL on this point. It is patently obvious that a good, loving and just God would not command the literal killing of children, as it would conflict with clear biblical teachings. There is nothing AT ALL unclear about it.
So, now, I have cleared up that misunderstanding of that point, you need not repeat that again, as it is a false statement.
Marshall...
You can try to pretend that there's some problem on this end, but no one on this side of the issue has been inconsistent in their positions and only you have been so unable to show logic in presenting a case that you threaten to walk off in a huff.
Not so much. I just don't care to speak to brother Bubba, anymore. He has demonstrated an inordinant amount of rudeness and hypocrisy and he just keep on repeating falsehoods about my positions and it takes too much time to keep going back and saying, "um... No. I did not say that, nor did I imply that..." over and over and over again for the tenth, fifteenth, twentieth time.
He is either refusing to understand my position and chooses to repeat false representations of my position or perhaps has an learning challenge and has a hard time understanding words or something, but I'm tired of correcting his rudely stated false statements. So, I am choosing to try to ignore him for the most part.
I had thought you more reasonable than him, so I continue to try to get you to understand my position, although you seem to have the same trouble of continually saying "you believe...." and then putting down stuff that I have never said I believe because I DON'T believe it.
My point has been that I see no reason and you all have offered no reason why I should accept your collective hunch that these stories are supposed to be taken literally. I have given you an explanation of the logical process I go through in striving to understand the Bible. You may disagree with my logic, but it IS a logical presentation of my biblical position. And it IS biblical, whether or not you agree with my exegesis, I have reached it using a consistent hermeneutic - one more comprehensive than just guessing meaning by whim, as you have posited as your preferred approach.
Feel free to respond and point out where you feel I have made a logical or biblical error.
And just to give a quick rundown of your bad understandings of my positions, here's a whole bunch in just a few sentences...
I'm simply relating what the Bible says.
You're relating your opinion about what the Bible says, as am I.
YOU'RE the one making with the outrageous claims about what Scripture means and what's important within it.
I'm disagreeing with your position on solid biblical and logical grounds. I think it outrageous to say God commands killing babies.
Is it okay if I disagree with your opinion? Is that outrageous, if I do so?
You dismiss teachings about God's nature in the OT
Clearly, I do not do this.
...by dismissing verses describing His actions...
False. I dismiss no verses. I just don't take them literal. There is a difference. Are you dismissing "four corners" because you don't take it literally?
...because of teachings of the NT, as if those make the OT worthless.
False. I have not "dismissed" parts of the OT and I have not suggested that the NT makes the OT worthless.
There's no difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT.
Never said otherwise. Of course, God is the same.
His law, or more precisely, His Will for us and our behavior toward Him and each other did not change...
Of course not. I never said it did. God is the same.
Indeed, Christ makes this abundantly clear and even sharpened the focus for us so that there is no longer any doubt about what was supposed to have been understood about God's Will for us.
I think this is abundantly clear, too. We are first of all sinners in need of God's grace. God's will for us is to repent and accept that grace. Beyond that, God's will for us is to walk in the steps of Jesus, to heed Jesus' teachings, and the teachings of the prophets before him, and the intent of the law before that.
Never suggested otherwise.
But YOU prefer to believe that the OT wasn't clear about what to believe
False. No, I don't think the OT was unclear. I think it is abundantly clear. I just think YOUR interpretation is wrong.
Disagreeing with your interpretation is not the same as disagreeing with the Bible or God.
I could go on, but perhaps you get the idea. In just a few paragraphs, you uttered nearly ten false understandings of my positions. Now that I have corrected your misunderstandings, do you have any questions for me to help you better understand my ACTUAL positions? Because you don't seem to be getting them.
And here's where you go wrong:
"You're relating your opinion about what the Bible says, as am I."
If I say, "Such & such a chapter says that God sent an Angel of Death to...", I am telling you what the Bible says, I'm not giving an opinion. It is for you to show why that isn't an accurate assessment of God's actual behavior/action/command(whatever). You don't do this. You appeal to your belief that it is contrary to what the Bible teaches us and I'm saying that it is a true and important part of what the Bible teaches us about God, what He did, what He's capable of. It's the very thing from which we need saving and for which Christ was sent. What could be, in this story of Passover, the great truth that I'd be missing if I'm not to take the sending of the AoD literally?
"I'm disagreeing with your position on solid biblical and logical grounds. I think it outrageous to say God commands killing babies."
It's NOT my "position" if I'm restating what is in the Bible. And your "grounds" are not biblical or logical if you dismiss the literal truth of the historical events such as Passover because of any other part of Scripture that says what WE'RE not to do unto each other. You haven't made the case that what is forbidden for us is also forbidden for God; using rules for us to judge His actions. You haven't shown where His decisions to take life of anyone is evil or atrocious for HIM as He has ultimate authority over our lives. What's more, you haven't shown where any of us have said that God has ever commanded the killing of babies. This type of word twisting and games is what provokes the very frustration you use to accuse others of rudeness forcing an end to a line of questioning to which your poor Biblical understand cannot withstand. Piss the other guy off and then say you'll no longer engage because of HIS rudeness. Nice ploy.
"False. I dismiss no verses. I just don't take them literal. There is a difference. Are you dismissing "four corners" because you don't take it literally?"
Not taking them literally is to dismiss them. The difference is that "four corners" is not a description of actions God has taken, but only a rhetorical flourish by the speaker of those words. Neither is is comparable to a command by God to anyone, even if the words were along the lines of "Take my message to the four corners of the earth." The command is to take the message which is to be taken literally, but the "to the four corners" part is clearly not since few would mistake that as a true description of the earth's physical nature. (The belief that most people thought the earth was flat is a myth.) Likewise, descriptions of God's destroying towns, or commands such as "Go forth and destroy the town living no living creature alive." contains no rhetorical flourish and is very direct. If you believe such commands to be some sort of vengeance fantasy by the writer, you need to back up that assertion or accept it as the historical fact that it is meant to be.
continued-
continuing--
"I have not "dismissed" parts of the OT and I have not suggested that the NT makes the OT worthless."
Yes you have when you suggest that God wouldn't command the destruction of towns or peoples because of Christ's teachings of how WE'RE to behave.
"Never said otherwise. Of course, God is the same."
You very much imply this when you suggest that God would never command the destruction of towns or peoples, including everyone in the town, or that He would never send the Angel of Death to kill the first born of Egypt. You support this by pointing to Christ, who's own anger at sinners and hypocrites was not hidden and who spoke of the price that will be paid by such people.
"False. No, I don't think the OT was unclear. I think it is abundantly clear. I just think YOUR interpretation is wrong."
Not false. I've only restated what the Bible says and shown why YOUR interpretation is not supported therein. YOU are the one who draws from the text that which it doesn't say, such as your position on homosexuality.
"Disagreeing with your interpretation is not the same as disagreeing with the Bible or God."
Once again. I give no interpretations. I give a restatement of what the Bible says and then I give reasons why YOUR interpretations are goofy.
continued---
Now for your interpretations of Dec 4 @ 10:22AM:
For 1-7, you make an assumption that the Exodus and Ezekiel tracts are identical. According to my Bible, the Ex tracts are repeated in two places, Ex 20 & 34. They speak of punishment for sins of the father to the 3rd generation, but doesn't speak to they type of punishment. I think Bubba's take that subsequent generations will bear the consequences of the father's sin is more likely. I say this because the Ez tracts speak of death specifically for the sins of the father. The Exodus tracts don't speak of the descendants behavior, the Ezekiel tracts specifically mention the behaviors of the son. These distinctions are important and thus do not indicate any contradiction. Your comparison can only be made with a superficial look at the two.
On point 8, you look to Christ and the blind dude, but Christ wasn't speaking of the blind guy's behavior or that his condition was in any way connected to his father's behavior in any way. In fact, He seems to indicate that blindness wasn't a punishment at all. I don't see how this story can in any way be linked to the the above tracts in any way. Just because the guy asked the question about the blind dude's father? You related yourself that Jesus in fact stated the blind guy's parents didn't sin. A very supeficial connection, indeed.
9. And so, you have taken disparate, unrelated passages and wrongly interpreted them as somehow being connected or related enough to make a point they don't make. You consider the first to be difficult to understand, but you likely should have sought help in doing so because your conclusion ( point 10 ) is tainted by your poor understanding of all three passages.
10. Yet one isn't protected from the consequences of the sins of others, as in my example of the victims of drunk drivers, and particularly the sins of one's father.
Jumping to 13 because you suggest the possibility of what I mentioned above about consequences (which is the proper explanation for what else makes sense?), we can see that you have missed the truth altogether. Ezekiel plainly says that the son will not die for the sin of the father, not that he won't suffer as a result of the father's sin. Thus, there is NO conflict in the stories of God commanding the destruction of cities, including any children therein. These children were not punished for their fathers' sins, but were suffering consequences brought on by those sins.
Now, before you go on about Ezekiel again, I would caution you to lean towards the obvious fact that in Ezekiel, I don't think it's speaking about physical death for the sins of the father. Rather, it's speaking of death of the soul; being cut off from God. As you know, one can die physically but not be cut off from God. Thus, physical death here cannot be what is meant. In fact, my study Bible indicates that Ezekiel is speaking to the false notions regarding inherited guilt derived from a poor understanding of Ex 20 & 34. (Fancy that!)
I think it's clear that I haven't misinterpreted what you type out in these comments sections, but it's even more clear that your understanding of Scripture leaves a little to be desired. A definite flaw in your "process" exists for you to draw conclusions such as 1-15 illustrates. If that were isolated, we might be remiss. Unfortunately, it's a typical example of your missteps.
continued---
I could ask plenty of questions that still exist on a variety of issues none of us feel you've really clarified. But there is one that stands out for me personally.
You like to claim that you once thought like we did, though that's disputable in and of itself. Be that as it may, to concede that point for now and take the claim at face value, I am most curious as to what lead you to your first deciding to change. Or perhaps a better way of asking might be, what alerted you to the possibility that your "conservative" POV was not quite correct? The more I read the Bible, the more confirmed and convicted I am that I am far closer to the truth than any liberal Christian could ever hope to be. I don't mean that as a contest, but that we can't be both right. Can there be differences of opinion without either of us risking salvation? Sure. But that only goes so far. As I said, Mormons believe themselves to be Christians but I think it's plain that their conception of Christ is not really Christianity by Biblical standards. They're at risk as far as I can see.
So what about it? What made you think you were wrong before (that is if your Biblical study was ongoing, regular and routine) that turned you to the dark side? :)
Marshall asked...
I am most curious as to what lead you to your first deciding to change.
Prayer and Bible study.
Marshall asked...
Or perhaps a better way of asking might be, what alerted you to the possibility that your "conservative" POV was not quite correct?
Prayer and Bible study.
Keeping in mind that it was prayer and a LITERAL Bible study, in a manner not unlike yours, I would suspect.
Naught else.
Through prayer and Bible study alone (conservative, literal, "inerrant" Bible study), I began to see that the bible does not teach inerrancy and, since I take the Bible seriously, I had to set aside my belief in inerrancy (of the sort that you all believe, anyway) because it was not supported by the Bible.
Not that it was a one time, overnight thing. Actually, inerrancy was one of the latter things to start sliding away.
Nonetheless, it was prayer and Bible study alone that led me to these conclusions eventually. My only external reading sources were conservative writers (Leonard Ravenhill, CS Lewis, Wright, Chambers, Swindoll, etc, etc) and I would not have dreamed of reading a so-called "liberal" writer, so there was no influence from "the dark side" that you could point to.
No, prayer and Bible study alone is what did it.
Also, I had no liberal friends leading the way or to influence me. I was surrounded by traditionalists and conservatives. Just to answer the question before it was asked.
As I recall, it was pacifism and simple living themes in the Bible that first started me down this path.
From there, as I read and re-read the Bible, I kept noticing the constant and consistent themes of God being concerned for the poor and the constant and consistent warnings against wealth and power and constant support for the poor.
At first, and for a long time, I was simply a conservative who sided towards the peace-making side of things, towards simple living and towards concern for the poor. I did all of that and did not feel I was anything but more traditional/conservative in all things otherwise. I soon became a conservative who was disgusted with the Reagan sort of approach to conservatism (which included what I considered war crimes in Latin America and support for thugs around the world).
In fact, I think I would say that perhaps nothing drove me further away from political conservatism than the Reagan years. I went in to the 1980s as a Reagan conservative and left the 1980s with little use for political conservatives, who did not fit in with biblical Christianity, as far as I was concerned.
So, besides prayer and Bible study, the other things that turned me away from Conservatism was conservatives. Especially Reaganites.
It's far less important than the core beliefs of Christian faith, but to address the political stuff first, I think a person who left conservatism because of Reagan and his supporters probably never understood what it is that he left in the first place.
Dan, your grasp on conservative economic and political philosophy has always struck me as tenuous.
You write that you became disgusted with Reagan's supposed war crimes in Latin America and support for "thugs" around the world.
And yet you have no problem supporting a politician whose political career began in the home of an unrepetant domestic terrorist: a politician who, as president, warmly embraced Chavez while giving the cold shoulder to his British and Israeli counterparts -- all while staffing his administration with enthusaistic Maoists.
You write that you "left the 1980s with little use for political conservatives, who did not fit in with biblical Christianity, as far as [you were] concerned."
And yet, you have had no problem defending a politician whose mentor and spiritual advisor is a race-baiting hate-monger, a race essentialist whose theology is far more explicitly Marxist than it is Christian, and a man who understands so little of Christian discipleship that he spews gross slander from the pulpit, going even so far as to accuse the United States government of inventing AIDS as an act of attempted genocide -- all while his congregation applauded enthusiastically, demonstrating just how frequent his hate speech is.
You not only supported and presumably continue to support Barack Obama (who ran "so that all our children could fly"), you defended Jeremiah Wright as a "man of God."
Given who you support now, the story of your political conversion doesn't seem wholly consistent, and so it doesn't seem wholly credible.
And, for that matter, if you have no problem accusing political conservatives of not fitting in with biblical Christianity, you have no room to complain about our drawing the same conclusion about you.
Now, about your religious beliefs, I still don't believe that the story you've provided could be complete: if all it was was prayer and Bible study, you could point out which specific passages convinced you that God blesses "gay marriage".
More importantly, you could point out which passages convinced you that Christ didn't actually die for our sins -- and do so without ripping them out of even their immediate context.
You harp on peace-making, simple living, and caring for the poor, but NONE OF THESE THINGS explain or even touch on your radical positions on the historicity of the Old Testament; the Virgin Birth; the results of Christ's death; the necessity of His bodily Resurrection; and the legitimacy of Paul's teachings regarding the sexes and even Christ's own choosing of the Twelve.
You write that you abandoned the doctrine of inerrancy because you "take the Bible seriously," and that's an odd and arguably incoherent thing to say: you love the Bible's teachings so much, that you open the door to dismissing individual teachings as errors?
As with your political conversion, your theological transformation doesn't seem convincing.
Perhaps your personal testimony is another story where we should focus on the Big Truths and not get hung up on the details.
Dan, you write that you "kept noticing the constant and consistent themes of God being concerned for the poor and the constant and consistent warnings against wealth and power and constant support for the poor."
Constant?
I'm reminded of your earlier challenge that we compare how frequently the Gospels record that Christ taught about poverty, compared to how frequently the Gospels record that He discussed His own crucifixion and resurrection.
I noted my objections to that sort of approach, but I'm wondering if you're serious about that challenge, particularly if worthwhile stakes were involved.
Myself, I think we should focus on one Gospel: if the emphasis is as heavy as you think it is, and if it's so consistent, it shouldn't matter if we just look at one Gospel -- say, the brief Gospel of Mark.
If there is a clear emphasis on poverty in what is probably the earliest Gospel, and the Gospel that focuses LEAST on Christ's public sermons and private conversations, then you would have made your case.
At which point, I think I could agree to disagree with your conclusions -- to concede that your belief system clearly falls within biblical Christianity and therefore deserves a modicum of respect; and to concede that, even when I find your behavior inconsistent, I should no longer attribute it to a deliberate effort of subversion.
On the other hand, if Mark's gospel clearly focuses on Christ's death far more than our duty to meet the needs of the poor, then "agreeing to disagree" would not be an option.
I believe it would be fair to conclude that our belief systems are fundamentally incompatible. The question of which one is the more orthodox, the more biblical, and the more Christian could remain an unanswered question, even if the answer is clear.
Whaddya say? Are you game, Dan?
Post a Comment