Okay, seriously, I'd like some very honest, hard-hitting answers to some direct and reasonable questions on this point. I've been having an email conversation with the fella mentioned in the previous post who said I'd misunderstood and misrepresented his position. Fair enough, it happens. I'm not perfect. I certainly have not done so intentionally, but he says I've got his position wrong.
No problem, I said to him. Just tell me what I've got wrong and I can correct it.
First off, as you'll recall or can go back and read, I said that the fella stated (his exact words),
"Most people have no idea that the concept of having a say in marriage is remarkably new ... and not necessarily a good thing.
Arranged marriages were the norm for most of the history of marriage and still are the norm in some cultures today. They were even occurring in American culture as late as the 19th century. I'm sorry, but calling that "rape" is a function of ignorance, not value judgment."
Those are his words, no error there.
Where I erred, he says, was in saying that this quote above was in reference to the passages that I referenced in the previous post: Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21. He clarified that was NOT speaking of women captured during war time and taken home to be made into wives. He was speaking specifically of the idea of "arranged marriages" that were common back in the day and still are common in some more fundamentalist (my word, not his) circles, like with some Muslims and some extreme Mormons, as well as with some Asian cultures. These are not typically FORCED marriages - the bride can say No. It's just an arranged marriage in which the bride and groom are consenting.
Okay, no problem, I get now that he was speaking of arranged marriages when he made that quote. BUT, that was not the question I had for him, nor the point of the last post: What of the biblical passages that were being raised? Deut 21 and Num 31, for instance?
Those aren't arranged marriages. They are what I think we can all agree might be called forced marriages. In my opinion (and, seriously, I can't imagine I'm in the minority here), a forced marriage (one in which the "bride" is not willing but, as in this case, a kidnapped or captured woman from another nation) is much closer to rape than to marriage.
FIRST QUESTION: Am I right? Can we ALL agree that when you have a situation in which a woman is FORCED to marry, against her will; is forced to have sex in that forced marriage, that this can legitimately be called rape? Unwanted, forcible sex IS the definition of rape, am I right?
Well, I just couldn't get him to answer these questions. He dodged and ignored the questions asked of him, rather than answering straightforwardly. And so, while I can acknowledge that he was speaking specifically of a certain type of consensual arranged marriage, I can't say what his position is on the topic of my post because he won't answer what his position is.
The reason I was asking him was so I COULD accurately correct my supposed misrepresentation and reflect his actual position. From what he has said, he SOUNDS LIKE he doesn't think that capturing a woman and forcing her into marriage is equivalent to rape in any way, but he just wouldn't answer directly.
And so, I am asking anyone here who'd like to address the question (especially the conservatives) to look at the actual words of this "command from God," (Deut 21 is a passage that is part of God giving directives to Israel) and address this serious problem with a literal hermeneutic.
What serious problem?
If anyone looks at this text and hears that someone saying this is a historically accurate text, then you are making a CRAZY-sounding representation of the God of perfect Love and perfect Justice: You are saying that God approves of killing an enemy's family, "capturing" the women that they "are attracted to," take her home and SHAVING her head, cutting her fingernails (traditionally used to subdue rape victims to take away their spirit and their fingernails which can be used to defend themselves), giving her a month to mourn the family you've just killed, and then "taking her" as your wife.
SECOND QUESTION: Do you see how astoundingly crazy that sounds to regular people out here? I don't mean that as an insult, just a statement of fact: For many, many people, suggesting that there is a God of perfect love and perfect justice and that God is ALSO okay with this arrangement sounds insane.
Now, here's Deuteronomy 21, again:
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Bring her into your home and have her shave her head,
trim her nails and
put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured.
After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
Okay, first off, I recognize this is not a "command" from God, but God saying, "This behavior is okay." Nonetheless, for the folk who say this passage represents a literal retelling of factual history and God DOES allow people sometimes to behave like this: You are making a rather astounding claim about God. How do you defend it?
THIRD QUESTION: Can we agree that this is describing a forced marriage or, if not, what do you think is happening here? Do you think that these women, after having their families slaughtered, are going to say, "well, you know, he's sorta cute. I think I WILL consent to marrying my parents' assassin..."?
FOURTH QUESTION: If you think that God is okay with people - at least in the past - killing off whole families and sparing the "beautiful daughters" to take home and make them their wives, how do you rectify this with the self-evident Truism that it's wrong to force people into marriage against their will and after having killed their parents? Do you reject that as a moral truth?
FIFTH QUESTION: Are you of the tribe that thinks it doesn't matter how heinous the behavior, if God commands it (or allows it), it's okay? If so, do you recognize that this is not an instance of God commanding people to forcibly marry the orphaned girl/woman of the family they've just killed, but rather, God saying "it's okay if you want to do this..."? How do you explain this rather hard-to-believe position?
SIXTH QUESTION: Are you of the tribe that says, "God USED to allow this, but it was ONLY for Israel at that time, and now it's not okay anymore for anybody?" If so, are you saying that God changes God's position based upon the people and time and culture?
I can't get across how HARD this is to reconcile this sort of passage - taken as literal history - with the Christian understanding of God from the teachings of the Bible and our own God-given reasoning. If you're holding to the position that this behavior described here as acceptable truly IS acceptable, you really need to be able to provide something like rational and biblical support for that position. I'd love to see direct answers to these direct questions.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
You Think WHAT??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
354 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 354 of 354I haven't read every word in this thread, but it's been interesting.
Dan, you're expressing astonishment -- "You Think WHAT??" -- at the belief that, e.g., Numbers 31 accurately records God's words to Moses and ancient Israel. You're astonished that people ACTUALLY believe that the Bible is a trustworthy record of God's words and deeds.
I think what's really astonishing is your position, or rather, it's astonishing to the degree that one finds credible your profession to be a Bible-loving Christian.
What's also fascinating is the contrast between this position and your recent posts on the Bible and homosexuality.
You have no trouble accepting those who approve what the Bible consistently condemns, but you balk at those who actually believe what the Bible attributes to God.
"I'm comfortable with disagreement and while, ideally, it would be cool if all Christians agreed on every point and were thus unified, I recognize that in this fallen world, we won't all agree. Even on important matters." [link]
You don't actually seem very comfortable with Christians who believe the Bible is a trustworthy record of God's words and deeds.
You seem to think that a lot of the Bible's claims about God are in conflict with a "God of perfect love."
I'd suggest making your conception of love conform to the Bible, rather than using that conception to judge the Bible: the Bible's writers certainly didn't seem to see a contradiction between God's wrath and His love, and you're no Moses, Isaiah, Peter, James, or John.
I'm not sure the two CAN be separated, as the same John who wrote that God is love ALSO wrote about the judgment in Revelation. John 3:16 promises eternal life only for those who believe, and the following verses condemn those who don't believe.
Even if one can tease apart the two concepts, how do you know that you're keeping what's valuable and discarding what's not? What if God is wrathful but not loving? It's a NICE idea that God is love, but just what confidence do you have that it's true?
I don't see how you can believe that God is loving on the basis of the Bible alone, considering how much the Bible supposedly distorts. Why do you love the Bible so much if it *DOES* hide truth about God in a fog of distortion and inaccuarcies?
I'm sure the Koran isn't 100 percent wrong about God, but you'd never see me proclaim any sort of love for the book just because of the few things it got right.
Dan, your position puts a lot of weight on the notion that much of the Bible predates trustworthy historical literature.
Generally, I think modern man can be arrogant in disregarding the work of the past. One reason Ptolemy's model survived from the second century was because its fundamentally inaccurate model COULD predict the motion of the planets, at least reliably enough for a civilization that depended on the stars for navigation. And it's absurd for people to think that a young Jewish woman could be confused about how babies are born, despite her living in the first-century Roman empire, in an agricultural society that domesticated sheep, cattle, and horses.
Specifically, I think it's presumptuous to draw a hard line at Herodotus and Thucydides -- presumptuous against miracles, divine revelation, and supernaturalism in general.
Dan, you cite Wikipedia's article on Herodotus, and you assert that he was "amongst the FIRST known to write with an eye to literal factuality and avoiding fanciful, undocumented stories."
"Fanciful" stories. Stories with supposedly mythic or epic elements? Such as the divine revelation and miraculous intervention of Yahweh/Jehovah?
Wikipedia's article on Thucydides is even more blunt: "Thucydides has been dubbed the father of 'scientific history', because of his strict standards of evidence-gathering and analysis in terms of cause and effect without reference to intervention by the gods, as outlined in his introduction to his work."
Again: "without reference to intervention by the gods."
By that standard, no work that attributes any action to God is scientific history. It's arguable whether there's anything scientific about a bias against supernaturalism, but there's hardly anything CHRISTIAN about such a bias.
To Criag, you write:
"What seems to me to be at question here is NOT the actual, factual existence of these people and places, but of some of the conversations/commands/teachings that happened between God and these people, are we agreeing on that?"
Why only "SOME" of God's revealed messages, and not all?
You find it hard to swallow that God told Moses that disrespecting one's parents should be a capital offense within ancient Israel. Is it that much less implausible that God told Moses "Honor your parents" in the first place?
Can't we wonder about "hearing voices" for ANY of the Bible's recorded declarations from God, without any respect to the specific contents of any declaration?
Just how do you know which accounts of miracles and revelation are historical and which are mythical? By what possible criterion could you CONFIDENTLY distinguish between the two?
Dan, consider the Gospel of Luke.
It was written 500 years after Herodotus', and almost 400 years after Thucydides' death, and it claims the sort of thorough investigative research that marked their work.
So, does that mean that Luke is wholly reliable, insofar as we have access to the oldest possible manuscripts?
On the other hand, the gospel records the appearances of angels and Satan, numerous healings, the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, the raising of the dead man from Nain, and the Transfiguration.
There's the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and a geneology of Jesus that traces His lineage back through David and Abraham all the way back to Adam.
There's prophecy about Jerusalem's fall, where Jesus asserts that it's judgment for rejecting Him, and He repeatedly invoked Sodom to proclaim that towns who reject Him face a worse fate -- the sort of comments that one might reject as incompatible with God's perfect love.
If all this is NOT trustworthy, just how can we trust that Luke got the other details right, like the stuff you emphasize, such as Jesus' sermon in chapter 4 and the beatitudes in chapter 6?
Or, if Luke is trustworthy, why isn't the Old Testament? Is the story of Jonah really less credible than the resurrection of the dead? Are the plagues in Egypt really less credible than the numerous, direct healings?
I'll remind you of the road to Emmaus.
"And he said to them, 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." - Luke 24:25-27
Jesus never seemed to treat Scripture "as a reflection of the people's ideas of God in that particular time and culture. An imperfect peoples' understanding of a perfect God."
He didn't treat it as human speculation or human understanding.
He treated it as divine revelation.
People who claim to follow Him and love the Bible should emulate Him in His approach to Scripture: Jesus' Way involves more than just being nice to poor people.
Bubba...
. You're astonished that people ACTUALLY believe that the Bible is a trustworthy record of God's words and deeds....
I don't see how you can believe that God is loving on the basis of the Bible alone, considering how much the Bible supposedly distorts. Why do you love the Bible so much if it *DOES* hide truth about God in a fog of distortion and inaccuarcies?
No, Bubba, that is NOT what I said. None of that reflects my position, nor is it the point of this post.
It is just more misleading fallacies.
As is pretty much everything else you said.
If any of you'd like to comment on my actual points or answer any of the actual questions I actually asked, feel free.
Actually, Bubba's questions are natural considering the ramifications of your position, Dan. If I'm reading him correctly, it would seem to me that any "loving" command of God's in the OT must be met with equal scrutiny. Or are you suggesting that those types of renderings are accurate records of His words, rather than just a way an ancient people expresses their understanding or whatever?
"No, Bubba, that is NOT what I said."
No in so many words. But again, Bubba's words, as do the questions and comments of Craig and myself, reflect the ramifications of what you are saying. If the OT stories in question are NOT literally true and factual, ACTUAL records of what was said and done by God, how can assume the "nice" things it says about God are any more or less accurate? And certainly, if the OT stories in question are NOT accurate, factual records of the events depicted, then they do indeed "hide truth about God in a fog of distortion and inaccuarcies". Any embellishment, due even to mere "style of recording history" replaces what was with something else and therefor diminishes and distorts the truth.
As always, because that is the teaching of the WHOLE Bible. It's the teaching of Christ our Lord.
We don't cherry pick verses from the OT to define our theology, we read the WHOLE Bible. The wonderful, powerful OT informs our NT understanding, NOT defines it.
Dan, I wasn't quoting you directly in those paragraphs (note the lack of quotation marks), I was drawing conclusions. I believe those conclusions are reasonable even if they're not convenient to you.
If you're going to object, you should explain precisely what I misunderstand, and you should correct the record by presenting what alternative conclusions we should draw.
Merely asserting that you're misunderstood is a cheap way to avoid the logical consequences of your positions.
Bubba...
I wasn't quoting you directly in those paragraphs (note the lack of quotation marks), I was drawing conclusions. I believe those conclusions are reasonable even if they're not convenient to you.
Bubba, it has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is "convenient." I don't care so much about "convenience," in that sense. I AM concerned about truth and communication. And, in TRUTH, your conclusion is not MY conclusion. As a matter of fact in the real world, your conclusion that you seem to think is "reasonable," is not the ONLY reasonable conclusion (if, indeed, your conclusion is reasonable at all), as is demonstrated in the real world by the real world fact that people (like me) DON'T reach that conclusion, as is evidenced by our ACTUAL positions reflected by our ACTUAL words.
You are free to conclude anything you want, brother Bubba. Want you aren't free to do is suggest that what YOU think is reasonable is MY reasonable conclusion.
Bubba...
If you're going to object, you should explain precisely what I misunderstand, and you should correct the record by presenting what alternative conclusions we should draw.
I have already done this for hundreds of comments with your comrades. You're drawing the same bad conclusions that they have and that I've corrected. Just re-read the clarifications I've already offered.
Bubba...
Merely asserting that you're misunderstood is a cheap way to avoid the logical consequences of your positions.
OR, merely asserting I'm misunderstood could ALSO be a direct way of saying "You have misunderstood my actual position."
You know, like has happened here in the real world.
Or look at Brother Craig's comments: He has belabored on for hundreds of comments and clarifications, apparently NEVER UNDERSTANDING my actual position did not include the suggestion that folk mentioned in the OT are fictional. His failure to understand that does not mean that his conclusion about my position was right (it wasn't) or that I had not attempted repeatedly to make my position clear.
Bubba, since you are new to this conversation, Bubba, I'll give you a couple of freebies: I'll explain why what you said is my position is NOT my position and why it's a preposterous conclusion.
You said...
You're astonished that people ACTUALLY believe that the Bible is a trustworthy record of God's words and deeds.
When, in fact, I'm NOT "astonished that people actually believe that the Bible is a trustworthy record of God's words and deeds." Read closely and try to wrap your mind around my actual position:
I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS A TRUSTWORTHY RECORD OF GOD'S WORDS AND DEEDS.
Can you understand that?
What I DON'T believe - and what I don't believe we have any logical or biblical reason TO believe - is that the parts of the Bible in question, its oldest stories that come from thousands of years before Christ and the birth of modern history telling, reflect a literally factual record on every point of God's way. You all don't believe that the parables or other figurative language needs to be (ought to be) taken literally to get to their truths. This is like that.
Craig had pointed out that we can "know" what style of literature is being used by contextual clues. I agree. And contextually, textually, logically and biblically, it seems to me that the stories in questions come from a time when mythic and epic storytelling was used to GREAT EFFECT to teach GREAT TRUTHS and we can tell this not only from the time it was written but based upon the text and context.
So YES, I think these stories are trustworthy, but not every INTERPRETATION of them is trustworthy.
Consider this: Jesus said, "if your eye offends you, pluck it out." We, most of us, can understand the style being written in and recognize it is hyperbole to make/emphasize a point. And EVEN THOUGH that is not written in a literally factual manner - even though we would be WRONG and STUPID to take that in a literally factual manner - we ALL AGREE that that piece of figurative writing is ENTIRELY trustworthy.
But, that doesn't mean all interpretations of that passage are trustworthy. If someone were to take that literally, they would have done a wrong and stupid thing and MISSED THE POINT of that trustworthy passage.
The OT stories in question are like that. They ARE trustworthy, given a good interpretation of them (ie, one that is logically, morally and biblically consistent). But not every interpretation is trustworthy.
So, no, Bubba. IN FACT, NO, I am NOT astonished that people actually believe the Bible is trustworthy. I think it is trustworthy.
That does NOT reflect my position and the sooner you can acknowledge that, the more rational you will appear to be (as opposed to telling me incorrectly what I believe, which is just a bit nutty.)
Here's another...
I don't see how you can believe that God is loving on the basis of the Bible alone, considering how much the Bible supposedly distorts. Why do you love the Bible so much if it *DOES* hide truth about God in a fog of distortion and inaccuarcies?
Understand this:
I DON'T THINK THE BIBLE DISTORTS. I DON'T THINK THE BIBLE HIDES TRUTH ABOUT GOD IN A FOG OF ANY SORT.
Just re-read what I wrote before. Just because SOME might take Jesus' hyperbolic command to pluck out your eye literally does not mean that they have a good or rational interpretation of that passage. And just because I point that out does not mean that I think it is the BIBLE that is distorted, just the INTERPRETATION.
To answer Marshall's question in more detail (again)...
If the OT stories in question are NOT literally true and factual, ACTUAL records of what was said and done by God, how can assume the "nice" things it says about God are any more or less accurate?
1. First off, you keep representing a poor understanding of my position with your many references to a bunny and hugs, kumbayah, lovey-dovey God that you think I am speaking of. In order to answer your question above, I first feel compelled to dispel THOSE misunderstandings.
A. God IS Love. That is the defining quality of God, according to the Bible.
B. And, as a natural offshoot of that defining quality of Love, we can know that God is all about JUSTICE and MERCY and GRACE and FORGIVENESS.
C. These qualities, however, have little to do with bunnies and hugs and singing kum ba yah around the campfire and sentimental, lightweight, one-dimensional notions of fairy tale love, or however one might otherwise choose to cheapen the notion of Real Love.
D. Rather, this sort of God Love is a powerful, majestic, terrifying, HARD sort of love. It is the sort of love that compels us to work for justice for the least of these, even when that work for justice might mean deprivation, might mean arrest and punishment, might mean personal harm and death. It is the sort of love that might compel us to confront a tank with only our open hands and trust in God, rather than weaponry; the sort of love that might compel us to spend the night with a drug addict, cleaning up his vomit and shit, nursing him patiently through his illness; the sort of love that might compel us to go live in a Muslim nation or a nation of "enemies" and embrace them as friends.
It is a hard, scary, intense sort of love and we ought not treat it as a lightweight, flighty thing. It is the sort of love that will lead to the sort of life that makes us reasonably want to "count the cost" of our commitment to see if we're up to it. It is not for the faint-hearted.
So yes, there are some "nice" things about God that I think the Bible teaches and references, but let's not make a mockery of those "nice" teachings by representing them as anything but the tough and gritty real world sort of love, justice and grace that we are called to live as we walk in the steps of Jesus, who lived in EXACTLY this sort of way and was tortured and murdered. Those are the "nice" steps in which we're called to walk.
Just for clarity's sake.
Continuing...
2. We can EASILY know (I think) that the "nice" things the Bible says about God are accurate. Or, at least as well as we fallible humans can "know" anything for sure.
A. We can know BIBLICALLY, based upon the WHOLE teachings of the WHOLE Bible. Certainly, one could cherry pick a verse here and there (Esau I have hated, for instance) and make the case that our God - the God of the Bible - is all about hate. But, if one reads the WHOLE of the Bible and, as Christians, interpret the WHOLE of the Bible through the specific teachings of Jesus'; if we interpret the unclear and obscure teachings through the lens of the clear and abundant; if we interpret any individual passage through the whole of the Bible, etc, etc, then we can easily dismiss the teaching "God is a God of hate," by the more clear and abundant and self-evident and consistent teaching that "God is a God of Love."
B. Beyond that, I think, for the most part, we can know the "nice" teachings based upon God's own revelation in our own hearts, minds and lives to all of humanity. We can SEE in the real world that a life of love shown in demonstrable ways to our loved ones, our neighbors, strangers and even our enemies is a good and desirable way to live. We can see in the real world that a life of hate and self-absorption is a life that is meaningless, bitter and undesired.
That's how we can KNOW that it is WRONG to kill infants merely because they are the infants of the "enemy," because the Bible OVERALL tells us so and because of God's witness in our own lives in the real world. These "nice" teachings - while hard - are biblical, logical and ethical.
Do you disagree?
"Consider this: Jesus said, 'if your eye offends you, pluck it out.'"
No, he didn't.
?
Are you being picky about a loose translation or do you have some other point?
JESUS: "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away." Matthew, NIV
JESUS: "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out" Matthew, NASB
JESUS: "And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." Mark, NIV
JESUS: "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" Mark, KJV
My apologies if my memory pulled up the KJV and you find that too dated, or whatever.
Yes, I most definitely do disagree that your explanation in any way addresses the point I was making and the questions your position naturally compels. Nothing you've said, first of all, requires Biblical teaching in order for a person to live with that level of compassion for his fellow man. Thus, what you've said cannot be an answer to my concerns about your position regarding how the Bible was written in the OT.
What's more, you continue to conflate what God expects and hopes of us, regarding how we live with each other without His constant hands-on direction, and what He had commanded of His Chosen People in the OT stories in question. You also ignored my comments regarding words like "wrath" and how often they appear in the Bible directly connected to God (either here or at Craig's blog--don't feel like searching it out), and the reference to Stan's blog post about Jesus, not to mention Bubba's references to God's judgement in Revelation. To do so makes a mockery of your insistence that you take the Bible in its entirety to come to your conclusions about the troublesome passages. There is simply too much that you must dismiss in order to view the passages as you do.
What's more, if you insist on viewing the passages in that manner, and for the reasons you've indicated, such as that history was not recorded in the same manner as nowadays or since Herodotus' time, how can you trust those passages that you most certainly (I would wager) you use to support your position? How can any OT passage that might include a command from God to be "nice" not also be merely "a reflection of the people's ideas of God in that particular time and culture. An imperfect peoples' understanding of a perfect God."
Indeed, you trouble accepting the passages that give you pause seem no more than a rejection of this concept:
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa 55:8-9).
Because the passages in question indicate a God that is not in line with the "perfect love" as defined by YOU, because you cannot wrap YOUR mind around the plain fact that God is sovereign and is not bound by the Laws He set for us, you have created for yourself a god that is only partially like the God described in the Bible.
I suggest you peruse the last half-dozen or so posts at Stan's for a far more plausible, rational, reasonable and Bible focused understanding and explanation for the troubling passages for which you have no alternative explanation.
Frankly, it would far more serious and honest for you to simply admit that you have no way to resolve these passages in your mind, and set them aside. But to suggest that they were less than truthful records (and no matter how you try to spin it, that's IS the ramification of your position) does not align with your claim to revere Scripture.
No nitpicks, Dan: Jesus didn't actually say the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic equivalent of "gouge out your eyes."
I would think that would be obvious to everyone, but I'll try to explain later today.
???
So, you're rejecting the literal words of the Bible, Bubba??
Marshall, you've offered more question begging, strawman and poor presumptions. Keep trying...
Marshall, I will answer at least one of your questions...
What's more, if you insist on viewing the passages in that manner, and for the reasons you've indicated, such as that history was not recorded in the same manner as nowadays or since Herodotus' time, how can you trust those passages that you most certainly (I would wager) you use to support your position?
The Holy Spirit.
It's all we humbly need, right Craig?
Thanks for playing, friends...
How 'bout another? Marshall...
Indeed, you trouble accepting the passages that give you pause seem no more than a rejection of this concept:
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa 55:8-9).
I have no trouble accepting those passages. I have trouble with YOUR INTERPRETATION of these passages, which IS troubling, from a biblical point of view. Besides which, I've prayed and relied upon the Holy Spirit, so, like, too bad for you, I guess.
Perhaps if you, too, would seek the Holy Spirit's guidance, you wouldn't have these problems that you are having with these passages.
Peace out!
Since we now agree that the stories in question ARE "factually accurate" on many/most points,what remains is, is there any hard evidence compelling us to believe that the WHOLE stories are not true on every point?
FYI, because I've seen no evidence etc does not constitute "hard evidence"
So, now that you have understood what I've been saying all along, do you acknowledge that there is ZERO hard evidence for the suggestion that people wrote history in what is called the "modern style" with an eye towards complete factual accuracy on every point during this time period?
That, indeed, the only existing stories we have from that time are of the mythic and epic variety?
Dan:
"So, you're rejecting the literal words of the Bible, Bubba??"
Absolutely not. I'm rejecting YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible, that Jesus said such-and-such JUST BECAUSE the Bible says, Jesus said such-and-such -- what a naive, primitive and frankly gauche interpretation.
Regarding Matthew 5:29, there are two reasons I reject the interpretation that Jesus actually spoke what this verse attributes to him: the immoral nature of the verse's contents, and the mythical nature of its context.
1. The verse's contents are immoral. It's atrocious to tell a person to mutilate himself, period, end of paragraph. God's law written on our hearts tells us this much.
Even a figurative interpretation of this passage is hateful. If you tell someone to go to hell or drop dead, it's a hateful comment EVEN if you don't literally mean that you wish he's condemned to eternal punishment or that he actually dies. Likewise, you don't tell someone to mutilate himself from a spirit of love EVEN if you don't mean it literally.
One interpretation I hear is that Jesus means you should deny yourself from enjoying otherwise good things if such things cause you to sin, but that's not consistent with the perfect love of God. It's not as if God hates sin, because hating anything would be contrary to His loving nature.
Really, sin's no big deal. It's not like God punishes us for our sin -- that wouldn't be loving! -- and it wouldn't be loving for the Creator to allow the universe He created to cause bad consequences to result from something minor like sin.
If God allows sin to lead to bad consequences, there's no end to the actions God could take that would challenge what we know to be true about God's love, mercy, and forgiveness.
[continued]
[continued]
2. The verse's context is mythical. The Gospels were using mythic, epic, fantastical elements to convey great truths that don't necessarily have anything to do with literal, factual history.
To be sure, the Gospels mention figures of history -- Herod and Pontius Pilate -- and I believe these people really existed, but that doesn't mean that Jesus actually spoke with Pilate, much less does it mean that the Gospels accurately recorded their conversation.
We're talking about Matthew 5, and what just happened in the chapters leading up to the Sermon on the Mount?
Chapter 1: the Virgin Birth, because our Epic Hero has to be born in some miraculous fashion, as if he's the son of Zeus or something.
Chapter 2: the visit of the wise men, because our Epic Hero's birth is proclaimed in the stars -- ooh, magic! -- and Herod's murder of the children, echoing the mythical birth story of Moses.
Chapter 3: the baptism, where our Epic Hero is declared to be the Epic Hero by the magical signs of the descending Spirit of God and a voice from Heaven. What, did the Lady of the Lake run out of swords that week?
Chapter 4: the trials, which Joseph Campbell will tell you is an important part of every Epic Hero's quest. In this case, our Epic Hero confronted Satan himself, in a globetrotting battle including an impossible mountaintop where one could see all the kingdoms of the world.
After ALL OF THIS, you think the Sermon on the Mount is a record of any actual speech of the historical Jesus of Nazareth?
Look, everyone knows that the books of Moses are, by genre, mythical. The Gospels are NO LESS mythical, and there's a miraculous claim in the Gospels for pretty much every miraculous claim in Exodus.
The plague of water becoming blood? Water became wine.
The plagues of boils and disease? Jesus supposedly healed diseases.
The plague of hail and bad weather? Jesus calmed the storm.
Moses parted the sea and walked on the dry sea bed. Jesus walked on water.
God's passed by Moses, revealing His glory, and we have the Transfiguration.
And in the Passover, we have the death of Egypt's firstborn children; in the Gospels, we have the death AND RESURRECTION of God's only begotten Son.
Look, if we Christians were to begin considering the Resurrection to be a historical event, we wouldn't have any logical reason to deny lesser miracles, like the story of Jonah or of Daniel's three friends in the fiery furnace, and that's just crazy talk.
[continued]
"He has belabored on for hundreds of comments and clarifications, apparently NEVER UNDERSTANDING my actual position did not include the suggestion that folk mentioned in the OT are fictional."
Heaven forbid, this could have been anything but my misunderstanding of your clearly worded and specific claims.
"...it seems to me..."
Really do we need anything else to understand Dan's position?
Bubba...
Even a figurative interpretation of this passage is hateful. If you tell someone to go to hell or drop dead, it's a hateful comment EVEN if you don't literally mean that you wish he's condemned to eternal punishment or that he actually dies. Likewise, you don't tell someone to mutilate himself from a spirit of love EVEN if you don't mean it literally.
I know you're trying to make a point, but you're failing pretty poorly at it. THIS interpretation would indicate that the speaker has a very poor understanding of the use of hyperbole. Which is rather beside any point that I've actually made here.
Bubba, for all our disagreements, I never really thought you would drop down to the mere strawman and question-begging sort of outrageous logical fallacies you're engaging in here.
Let me know if any of you have some serious comments to make on any of my actual points...
[continued]
Let be absolutely clear about two things.
FIRST, I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS A TRUSTWORTHY RECORD OF GOD'S WORDS AND DEEDS.
Just because the Bible says that Jesus said such-and-such, and I don't believe that Jesus said such-and-such, it doesn't mean that I think the Bible is anything less than absolutely trustworthy, and I reject in the strongest possible terms any suggestion to the contrary.
What isn't trustworthy is your interpretation of the Bible, your absurd and simplisitic belief that the Gospels' record of Jesus' words and deeds have anything to do with his actual words and deeds.
SECOND, I don't think there's anything you can say to convince anyone that Jesus actually said what Matthew 5 records.
I mean, where's the archaelogical evidence? The videotaped sermon or Jesus' written outline of what he was going to cover?
Look, Dan, I have reason on my side: my position is wholly rational, and it's completely consistent with the Bible's OVERARCHING teachings, none of which have anything to do with any actual events in history.
I have the Holy Spirit on my side, and, knowing that it's blasphemy to attribute to the Holy Spirit things that the Spirit didn't reveal, I don't say that lightly.
You seem to balk at my position, but maybe that's because you don't seek the Holy Spirit's guidance like you should.
Sorry, but there's just nothing you can say to rebut my position, and if you don't agree that the Gospels are ahistorical myths, well, I'd be tempted to say that you can go stick your thumb in your eye -- but we both know that such comments cannot come from a spirit of perfect love.
"They ARE trustworthy, given a good interpretation of them..."
Which of course means one that "...makes sense to me..."
Bubba continued down the road of silliness...
The Gospels were using mythic, epic, fantastical elements to convey great truths that don't necessarily have anything to do with literal, factual history.
Strawman. I haven't said that the gospels represent mythic or epic storytelling. I have no reason to believe that they are. These stories come from a time when people WERE striving for a more accurate history.
Again, anything serious to say?
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa 55:8-9).
Yes, I can see where a couple of simple declarative sentences would be difficult to interpret correctly.
Or do you have a problem with someone who might actually suggest that God's thoughts and ways might actually be higher than our Reason.
Dan:
"I know you're trying to make a point, but you're failing pretty poorly at it. THIS interpretation would indicate that the speaker has a very poor understanding of the use of hyperbole. Which is rather beside any point that I've actually made here."
When's the last time you loving told your wife or children to mutilate themselves, even as hyperbole?
I did note the point many people think is being made in that verse -- that one should forgo earthly pleasures if they cause you to sin -- and I addressed that point, noting that a loving God wouldn't actually allow negative consequences to result from something as minor as sin, because God doesn't hate sin.
God doesn't hate anything. He's a God of love, so we can easily dismiss the teaching that God is a God of hate.
I'm not putting up strawmen. And I'm CERTAINLY not engaging in "outrageous logical fallacies."
It's odd that you would suggest such a thing. My logic is sound, my reasoning is airtight, and the Holy Spirit is my homeboy.
"So, now that you have understood what I've been saying all along, do you acknowledge that there is ZERO hard evidence for the suggestion that people wrote history in what is called the "modern style" with an eye towards complete factual accuracy on every point during this time period?
That, indeed, the only existing stories we have from that time are of the mythic and epic variety?"
I understand that you have repeated this gem ad nauseum ad infinitum.
I also understand that you have provided none of what you demand of anyone else "hard evidence".
I also understand that just because you continue to repeat something does not make it any of the following. True, Truth, truth, truths, or a truism.
So I completely understand that Reason has led you to a hunch, I don't understand why you have trouble with providing "hard evidence"
Dan, come on.
"Strawman. I haven't said that the gospels represent mythic or epic storytelling. I have no reason to believe that they are. These stories come from a time when people WERE striving for a more accurate history."
A God-man is supposedly born of a virgin, and his birth is predicted by centuries of prophecies and announced by dreams, stars, angels, and a guy who think he's Elijah reincarnated. He heals the sick, exorcises demons, and even raises the dead. He predicts the future, controls the weather, and even walks on water. After ALL OF THIS, he dies, is raised from the dead, and then ascends to Heaven.
And you "have no reason to believe" that the Gospels are mythical?
Unbelievable.
You give the Evangelists a pass because they "come from a time when people WERE striving for a more accurate history"? They should have strived harder, if that fever-dream fairy tale was the best they could come up with.
And, really, if all that matters is the time in which a document is written, you should accept completely the claims of L. Ron Hubbard and the Weekly World News, because the last century is ALSO a time when people strive for accuarcy.
And, really, you need to read my comment more closely.
"I haven't said that the gospels represent mythic or epic storytelling."
I didn't say that you did. I said that it's MY position that the Gospels are myth.
Though, now that I think about it, the arguments behind my position bear a vague similarity to your arguments about the Old Testament.
What a coincidence.
I'll let you all know that, after over 225 comments of strawman upon question begging upon false presumption upon fallacy, I grow weary of clearing up the fallacies, but for at least a few more...
really, if all that matters is the time in which a document is written, you should accept completely the claims of L. Ron Hubbard and the Weekly World News, because the last century is ALSO a time when people strive for accuarcy.
When considering what writing style one is reading, one would consider the context and the text. The context would include the time period. Was it written in a time BEFORE there is ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of a fact-by-fact literal history or was it written in a time and culture that was writing history more in the modern style?
That is a reasonable question and a reasonable measure, and any reasonable people could agree to that much. It's not the end all and be all, but it's a very critical bit of context.
Was it written using mythic storytelling conventions? Epic conventions? More literal conventions? Is there evidence to support point by point literalism? Is there NO evidence to support point by point literalism?
Using these bits of text and context, it is NOT an unreasonable assumption that, for instance, the Creation story was written exactly in the mythic style that it appears to be written in and which was the common style to the time.
I know you all are pretty much past answering my actual questions, but just answer that much: Whether or not you agree that it's ultimately the "right" conclusion, can't you at least see that it's a reasonable one that an unbiased person could reach?
Are you asking if we think it is reasonable to conclude that the Creation story is written in some "epic" or "mythic" style? Are you asking if we think the God of all creation, who became flesh, died and rose from the dead, could have actually created the universe in six literal days? Personally, I think He could have done it in the blink of an eye. I also think that it is quite possible that the manner in which He created the universe can appear to our best scientists to have taken a gazillion years. Are you asking us to put our faith in science and human ability or God and HIS abilities?
Or more to the point, are you again trying to dismiss stories of God commanding the destruction of entire people by pointing to the Creation story as absolutely equal in the degree to which the author sought to present the facts of the events being recorded? You know, as if they are apples to apples?
Frankly, I don't care what science says about the time it took for the universe to form. It doesn't matter and there is no way they can prove ANY theory, theirs or the writer of Genesis. It's a moot issue for me, personally.
But here's what I think:
On the morning of February 10, 503BC, Herodotus had a brainstorm and from that moment forward, no living person wrote history in none but the manner in which we do now. It was an amazing thing, but the record of it was not put down in the style of modern historians. Ironic, huh?
Dan:
1) As I've already pointed out about Herodotus and Thucydides, your drawing the line at them is based on circular logic and a bias against supernaturalism: you conclude that earlier Scripture isn't historically accurate, but those two Greeks are praised as the originators of scientific history because of a presumption against miracles -- what you call "fanciful" elements, and what Wikipedia bluntly describes as "intervention by the gods."
You ask about an "unbiased person," but you're biased against miracles -- or at least, you're invoking a standard that is biased against miracles.
2) I continue to wonder why you don't conclude that the Gospels are mythic, too, what with the God-man who was born of a virgin and tempted by the devil, who healed the sick and raised the dead and walked on water, and who died and was raised and ascended to heaven.
Talking about the time period in which the works were written doesn't really help, not when you wrote this to Craig earlier in this thread:
"Modern history writing began appearing between 500 BC and 500 AD."
It "BEGAN" appearing in that time frame, and that time frame allows to exclude the Gospels as modern history. So why don't you?
3) You ask, about whether the Creation account was written in a mythic style:
"Whether or not you agree that it's ultimately the 'right' onclusion, can't you at least see that it's a reasonable one that an unbiased person could reach?"
I'm not sure how many people actually are unbiased about the existence of God or the possibility of miracles: a self-described agnostic either prays or doesn't pray, and so he either lives like a theist or an atheist.
I believe that the most a truly unbiased person could conclude is that the text MIGHT be mythic: after all, he doesn't know whether God exists or miracles occur, and he's not biased against either possibility.
But, PURELY for the sake of argument, I'll say that it's reasonable for an unbiased person to conclude that Genesis is myth.
That seems to be your position: are you saying that you're an unbiased person when it comes to the Bible?
That's new.
I thought you claimed to be a Christian who loved the Bible as a trustworthy record of God's words and deeds, a text that doesn't distort or hide any truth about God. I thought you claimed to follow Jesus, and Jesus affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke and treated the text, NOT as a record of man's impressions of God, but of God's revelation to man.
The important question isn't whether an "unbiased person" can conclude that parts of the Bible are mythical, but whether a Bible-believing Christian can come to the same conclusion.
The subject ultimately brings us back to the Gospels. Are the Gospels history without any mythical components? Is Luke?
I ask about Luke specificially because its introduction suggests PRECISELY that it's historical literature, the result of one man's careful investigation.
And yet, in the book there is a direct lineage from Adam to Jesus (Lk 3:23-38), Jesus pointed to "Moses and the prophets" as sufficient for salvation (Lk 16:19-31), and He claimed that ALL the Scriptures pointed to Him, "beginning with Moses and the prophets" (Lk 24:25-27).
It appears to be a package deal: if you accept Luke as history, you must also accept the books of Moses as history as well.
Or, if the books of Moses are mythical, you need to provide a PLAUSIBLE explanation for why the numerous, dramatic supernatural events in the Gospels do not disqualify these texts as historically accurate.
Bubba...
I continue to wonder why you don't conclude that the Gospels are mythic, too, what with the God-man who was born of a virgin and tempted by the devil, who healed the sick and raised the dead and walked on water, and who died and was raised and ascended to heaven.
For two obvious reasons, Bubba:
1. They were not written in the time of myth-telling
2. They are not written in a mythic style.
As I've stated. The written text and its context offer no reason why I should take these gospel stories as myth, so I don't.
I don't take the Psalms to be written in a parabolic style because they were not written in a style that reflects parable-telling.
Finally, the Holy Spirit (which Craig assures us is the right measure for seeking Truth, a point on which I certainly agree) does not tell me to take it in a mythic style.
As to your suggestion that I am biased against miracles, well, you'll note in my words that I have never suggested such. I believe in the possibility of miracles. God can do anything.
I just see no hard evidence to accept that these earlier stories were written in anything other than the style that they appear to be written in.
Do you acknowledge that there is not a single shred of hard evidence to support such a claim, Bubba?
As to this question...
And yet, in the book there is a direct lineage from Adam to Jesus (Lk 3:23-38), Jesus pointed to "Moses and the prophets" as sufficient for salvation
It's been addressed many, many times. Just because someone references a story is not "proof" that that person is insisting on every fact in the story to be literally true. I and my tribe reference these stories all the time and rarely if ever do we point out, "and, by the way, we don't necessarily believe every line in the story represents literally factual history."
As I've pointed out this strawman many times: The mere mention of a story is not proof that the citer believes/demands it be taken the way you're suggesting.
As I've said, Bubba, I've already dealt with all your fallacious arguments already.
Bubba...
But, PURELY for the sake of argument, I'll say that it's reasonable for an unbiased person to conclude that Genesis is myth.
Thanks for that acknowledgement. Again, that's not saying that you think it's a good conclusion to finally reach, but that at least you can see how someone could think so.
Bubba...
That seems to be your position: are you saying that you're an unbiased person when it comes to the Bible?
No one is entirely unbiased, of course. We all bring our culture and background and influences with us to some degree. But yes, I think I'm a relatively unbiased person, able to objectively look at evidence and not be unduly influenced by my own ideas.
After all, it was an unbiased look at these topics that led me AWAY from my existing cultural/personal biases to what I think is a more solidly biblical and rational position in an attempt to more closely align myself with God's ways (as revealed by God's Spirit, Craig, if you want to keep insisting that I point that out).
So you see, I can objectively look at my own life and see evidence of my own objectivity in that I WAS able to go where the evidence lay, even if it WAS against my existing biases.
You should have kept reading, Dan. My point is that a person can be unbiased about the Bible, OR he can be a Bible-loving Christian, but not both.
Dan, is there "hard evidence" that the Gospels aren't myth?
If not, there's no reason to fixate on a similar lack of hard evidence for the history books in the Old Testament. You seem to have a gross tendency toward inconsistency when it comes to evidence. You condemn the United States for consuming too much by looking at its consumption but NOT its production. You condemn the automobile by looking at its costs but never its benefits -- or the costs of alternative means of transportation. On the issue of inerrancy, it matters to you that the Bible doesn't assert that all 66 books are inerrant, but you don't seem to notice that the Bible ALSO doesn't attribute a single error to any of its books, not one single time. It matters greatly whether the Bible condemns every possible configuration of homosexual behavior, but not whether it EVER condones a single configuration (it doesn't), nor does it matter what the Bible says about why we were created male and female in the first place.
I think you routinely exhibit the selective emphasis of a trial lawyer who's trying to win a case, not the even-handed analysis of an investigator who's trying to discern the truth.
You can prove me wrong ONLY by producing hard evidence that the Gospels aren't myth. If you can't, the issue of hard evidence doesn't matter.
The NT doesn't just include the "mere mention" of OT stories: Jesus and the NT writers treat Old Testament history as history, as if God actually did and said what the books attribute to Him -- even the Creation story, or "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
In Matthew 19, Jesus seemed pretty clear in His belief that God 1) made man male and female and 2) declared that, as a result, a man shall become married to a woman. He treats Genesis 2 as an accurate record of what God did and said, even going so far as attributing to God words (from Gen 2:24) that weren't explicitly preceded with "And God said."
It makes no sense for Jesus to answer a question regarding God's will for divorce by citing a mythical story about God -- that is, a story where His attributed words and deeds are not to be trusted.
This "time of myth-making" stuff is pure circular reasoning. Historians draw the line at Thucydides because his analysis was "without reference to intervention by the gods." The ASSUMPTION is that the mention of divine intervention makes a historical claim mythical, but that assumption isn't one that a Christian can make.
And this "mythic style" stuff tells us nothing unless you can go into detail.
Earlier you gave a list of people whose "factual (or likely factual) existence" you accept, including Moses and David. What you question is "some [WHY NOT ALL? -B] of the conversations/commands/teachings that happened between God and these people."
Okay, let's tackle the OT accounts of the lives of Moses and David.
What SPECIFIC features of Exodus, Numbers, I Chronicles, and I Samuel indicate that these books were "written in a mythic style"?
You must have a clear idea what points to these books being myth, attributes that differentiate them from the Gospels.
Dan, I urge you to list the features of mythological literature -- features which an unbiased person would reasonably conclude are unique to myth and not found in actual historical accounts -- and tell us which features apply to Exodus and I Samuel but NOT Matthew and John.
As confident as you are about this subject, this should be a trivial task for you, requiring no ex post facto research. You're a whiz at this stuff, so you should have no difficulty showing your work.
So, are you saying that if someone is a God-loving, God-following AND Bible-loving Christian, one can not be objective and rational in their thought processses?
If that is your position, I would disagree. I don't think we lose our ability to reason when we follow Christ. In fact, I think it enhances our rationality and ability to be less-biased, not impairs it.
But I would say, given the evidence, that for the more fundamentalist/"inerrant" types, their ability to hold to THAT view and cultural tradition and be unbiased is hampered extremely.
Just look at this whole post of comments for hard evidence to that point.
One last thing: if someone says they agree with you "for the sake of argument," it doesn't mean he actually agrees with you. It means he's conceding the point TEMPORARILY in order to make some other point of his own -- in my case, that an actual Bible-loving Christian isn't unbiased when it comes to the Bible.
Don't thank me for an acknowledgment I made "PURELY" for the sake of argument. Doing so makes it seem that you were so eager to claim victory on this point that you didn't carefully read what I actually wrote.
Bubba...
You condemn the United States for consuming too much by looking at its consumption but NOT its production. You condemn the automobile by looking at its costs but never its benefits
Bubba, IF any of that were true and an accurate representation of my actual positions, you might have a very good point.
If any of it were true and an accurate representation of my actual positions.
Bubba...
is there "hard evidence" that the Gospels aren't myth?
I've just answered this question. There is reasonable evidence that they are not myth, given that they are not written in a mythic style or a time period when stories were told in mythic form.
If you ask the same question again, you'll get the same answer, so save everyone the time of not answering the question again.
Do I believe that a Bible-loving Christian is incapable of objective and rational thought? Of course not.
But I didn't say anything about irrationality: we were talking about bias, and bias isn't always irrational.
Bias is a bent or tendency, "an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment."
It's SOMETIMES unreasoned, but not always. Many scientific experiments are biased AGAINST a causal connection between X and Y, and that's not irrational. Courts are biased FOR the accused with their presumption of innocence, and that's not irrational.
Bias is a question of neutrality, not objectivity. An observer can conclude that Sports Team X decisively won because they were the better team, and he can do so objectively regardless of a for or against the team: he may loathe the team and still admit that they were the better team that day.
(In matters of war, objectivity may REQUIRE a person to abandon neutrality and oppose one side or the other.)
Perhaps we were using the term differently, but it seems to me that a Christian CANNOT be unbiased about the book he claims to love -- or are there men who love their wives but are not biased for them?
Sorry, Dan, I didn't realize that your claims about the books' time of writing and mythic style is the "hard evidence" on which your position relies.
Seems pretty soft to me, especially since "Modern history writing began appearing between 500 BC and 500 AD." That means that the Gospels were written almost in the center of that thousand-year span where modern history writing "began" to appear but didn't presumably crowd out ALL mythic writing.
And, on the subject of style, could you actually list the features of the mythic style and explain which ones apply to Exodus and I Samuel but not to Matthew and John? Otherwise, that claim doesn't seem all that "hard" either.
Thanks!
I was using this definition, from Merriam Webster...
"an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment"
as it seems to me to get more to the gist of what I think most people mean by bias: A lack of objectivity, a "personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment."
In THAT sense, I believe I have demonstrated myself to be a reasonably unbiased person, one who is able to look at things objectively, if imperfectly, without allowing my personal prejudices and preconceptions unduly color my judgment. This, I believe, is a good thing and something that Christians can/should be.
As to your intended definition - do I have a bent towards... what? A tendency towards... what? A "bent towards... the Bible?" I'm not sure what that means. What would you mean in that definition?
Do I lean towards striving to understand what God would want us to understand? Yes, of course.
Does that mean I am unobjective in striving to understand the Bible? No, of course not.
You?
By tendency or bent, I mean the presumption you bring to the text about its authorship and authority. Is the Bible God's revelation to man or merely man's impression of God? Should the text correct our understanding of the world around us (i.e.,our conception of God's love) or are its teachings subject to our preconceptions? (The latter is based on the assumption that what we say is God's word on our hearts trumps God's word on the page.)
The New Testament is clear about Christ's approach to Scripture, and I believe your approach deviates significantly from His. I even think your approach is internally inconsistent: if you were consistent in your reasoning, you'd probably have to dismiss much of the Gospels as mythic rather than historic.
Dan, a quick question I meant to ask yesterday.
Earlier, you wrote the following to Criag:
"What seems to me to be at question here is NOT the actual, factual existence of these people and places, but of some of the conversations/commands/teachings that happened between God and these people, are we agreeing on that?"
What do you question about these conversations/commands/teachings? Just their meaning, as in, you know God factually communicated what the Bible records, but you're not sure what He meant by it?
Or do you question the fact of their very fact, as in, you doubt whether God communicated those things at all, as actual, factual history?
Rather, "the fact of their very historicity."
Bubba, I actually think this is a good set of questions...
What do you question about these conversations/commands/teachings? Just their meaning, as in, you know God factually communicated what the Bible records, but you're not sure what He meant by it?
Or do you question the fact of their very fact, as in, you doubt whether God communicated those things at all, as actual, factual history?
As I've noted repeatedly, we have no good reason that I can see - no logical, no biblical, no hard evidence sort of reason - why we need to presume these stories are written in what might be called the "modern history" style - one with an emphasis on facts on each point along the story. We might take them more or less factually, but we have no compelling reason that I can see why we must consider every point literally factual.
And so, in a story like Jonah's, I am simply uninterested in the detailed facts of the story. Whether or not Jonah was actually from Joppa, whether or not he was swallowed by a great fish or a whale or a huge otter, whether or not he literally sat under a plant and moped in its shade, whether or not God actually caused a worm to eat the plant and kill it, etc, etc, any of these "facts" are wholly irrelevant to me (or really, to anyone) to the points of the story.
If the whole story is fictional - a parable, for instance - the points of the story (you can't run from God, God holds us accountable for our sin, God reaches out to all of us, God is a God of forgiveness, etc, etc) are solidly true regardless of the facts.
Craig seems to balk at that, but can you and I agree to that much?
That is, EVEN IF you think that one of the points of the story is that God literally goes around threatening nations with destruction, this point is supported in the story, whether or not its a fictional story (that is, one CAN get the "truth" that God goes around threatening nations with destruction from this story, even if it's fictional). The Truths of this story are in the story, whether or not it's a fictional story. They just are, I don't see how you can get around that.
cont'd...
Anyway, in that sort of story, I'm really uninterested in the facts of the story, its truths remain whether or not it's a factual story.
But that is not always the case in every story in the OT, especially the older sections (ie, the ones more likely to have been passed on from an era when mythic and epic storytelling styles were more the norm, by all evidence).
In SOME stories in the OT, one of the literal truths teaches us that God sometimes commands people to kill children and babies. THAT teaching is problematic because it conflicts with known biblical, moral truths (specifically, "don't shed innocent blood.") IF you were to try to take THAT teaching literally, you have a conflict with other clear moral teachings found in the Bible and in our own hearts and minds.
That IS a problem. Or rather, that WOULD be a problem IF we were required to take it literally.
Now, the way that you all try to resolve this problem (and I think we CAN agree that, at least on the surface of it, two teachings - "don't shed innocent blood" and "kill the infants" that contradict each other ARE a problem for a book of Truths) by various methods such as...
1. saying, "God USED to allow that in that culture, but God does not command that any more..." The problem with this is that you have a changing God and changing morals (the latter of which we more liberal types may be conditionally okay with, but you more conservative types tend to have a problem with it)
2. saying, "there ARE no innocents, thus, God wasn't commanding them to sin by commanding them to shed innocent blood..." The problem with this is the linguistic and logical gymnastics required to twist your way to an excuse. Clearly, the bible teaches that we CAN shed innocent blood by this very teaching that it is WRONG to shed innocent blood. If there were no innocent blood to shed, then this repeated command/theme would be just a goofy moot point ("Ummm, Y'all don't shed any innocent blood... if you ever find any... like, Jesus, you know... if you find Jesus again, don't shed his innocent blood...") Of course it's possible AND WRONG to shed innocent blood. God's very word written upon our mutual hearts calls out in confirmation of this universal moral truth.
3. saying, "Well, normally it IS wrong to shed innocent blood, BUT, if GOD COMMANDS it, then EVEN IF normally it would be a great evil, then it's okay in that case. God is giving you a pass to commit evil actions for free! How cool is that!!?" The problem here is the same as the last one: It IS universally wrong to shed innocent blood and God does not command/tempt/tell us to do wrong.
And maybe some other rationales, but those are the three main ones that I can think of off the top of my head.
So, IF we were required (biblically, logically, by God somehow) to take these passages literally on every point, we have a problem. BUT, we're NOT required to do so. The Bible does not tell us to do so (I'd say the Bible insists on the opposite!). Logic does not tell us to do so (again, I'd suggest logic insists on the opposite.) And the hard evidence does not demand that we do so.
So, in most of these stories, to me, the facts of the story are generally irrelevant to the POINTS of the story. It is those few stories such as "kill the baby" type of stories where I say, "whoah, why are you insisting on a literal interpretation of that passage? It simply isn't required... and I'd suggest the Bible, logic and evidence - along with the Holy Spirit moving in our lives - requires the opposite..."
Bubba...
By tendency or bent, I mean the presumption you bring to the text about its authorship and authority. Is the Bible God's revelation to man or merely man's impression of God? Should the text correct our understanding of the world around us... or are its teachings subject to our preconceptions?
I would prefer to stick to what we know, rather than engage in too much speculation.
We, the evangelical church, have decided that the 66 books of our Bible are as Scripture to us. God has NOT told us that, but WE HUMANS have agreed that it is as Scripture and I'm okay with that.
The Bible says, "All Scripture is God-breathed (or God-inspired) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" and I'm okay with that, I believe that.
One cultural, human way we have put that is that the Bible is God's revelation to humanity, and I'm okay with that human understanding, depending on what specific humans MEAN by that. It is important to note that this term is not GOD's term for the 66 books of the Bible, but rather, a human teaching, a human understanding. It is what it is.
I don't think that one can't rule out that the Bible is "merely" humanity's impression of God. Clearly, in some texts, that is exactly what it is. King David praying that God should wipe out his enemy's and dash their babies' heads against rocks is not God speaking for God's Self, but David painfully praying HIS gut feelings.
Should the text correct our understanding of the world around us (i.e.,our conception of God's love) or are its teachings subject to our preconceptions?
Should "the text" correct our understanding? No, of course not. WE MUST PRAY FOR WISDOM AND LEADERSHIP FROM GOD, not adhere to a stone-cold and brainless literal reading of the text.
God has made US (!!) competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
No, the bible is not a magic book whereby reading it makes us instant bearers and hearers and understander-ers of God's Ways (not saying you're saying that, just pointing out the patently obvious). So, no, the TEXT does not correct our understanding, but rather GOD DOES and we learn of God's ways by seeking that, however imperfectly, through prayer, through Bible study, through community, through fellowship, through contemplation, through the Holy Spirit's leading.
Thus, GOD'S WAYS are not subject to our preconceptions, but a flat, wooden, literal, brainless reading of the text of the Bible IS subject to our preconceptions, because if we read it flatly, woodenly, wholly literally and brainlessly, then we are NOT reading for God's Word, but rather, only confirming what WE already think, or at least, that's what tends to happen.
Dan, I appreciate the lengthy response, but I'm not sure there's a clear answer to my question.
QUESTION. Whether we "need to" or not, and whether you find these uninteresting or not -- or irrelevant or not -- do you believe that the Bible's accounts of God's words and deeds are historically factual or not? The Bible says that God commanded X: do you believe He actually did so in EVERY case?
You don't answer that question clearly, at least not clearly enough for my preferences.
I also wonder, since you've previously written that the Bible is a book of "Truths and not facts," are there ANY historical fact claims in the Bible that are important enough to rise to the level of great and important Truth?
I could think of several candidates:
1) God's promise to Abraham, to bless the entire world through his seed.
2) God's delivering Israel from Egypt through a series of miraculous and devestating plagues.
3) God's promise to David, to give him an heir who would rule forever.
4) The existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
5) The bodily resurrection of Jesus following the crucifixion.
If 1 and 3 aren't historical, then it's absurd to believe that Jesus fulfills these promises, since they weren't actually made.
Number 2 is crucial to Judaism, the Bible commands its eternal remembrance and repeatedly points to it as a reason to trust God: if it didn't happen, it would be odd for the Bible to tell the Jews to trust God on the basis of the exodus.
Number 4 is important because Number 5 is impossible without it: Jesus had to live as a figure of actual history in order to die and be raised.
And Number 5 is crucial because the Bible is clear that, if Number 5 is false, our faith is in vain and we're dead in our sins.
QUESTION. Do you affirm that ANY of these claims are Great Truths of the Bible? Must one believe in the historicity of Jesus to be a Christian?
You mention the difficult passages where God commands ancient Israel to wage wars of annihilation.
First, the BIBLE'S WRITERS apparently didn't think that the commands conflict with the prohibition against shedding innocent blood. See Psalm 106:34-38, where the writer accuses Israel of shedding innocent blood AS A RESULT of failing to obey the command to obliterate their wicked neighbors.
Second, it's possible to believe that God doesn't change (see Lamentations 3:19-24), but that His dealing with people DOES change: the relationship changes even though He stays the same.
We see this with earthly fathers who don't allow their six-year-old to drive the car, who DO allow their 16-year-old to drive but with a curfew, only to lift the curfew by the time they're 26. Dad didn't change, the kid did.
And the idea that God's dealing with us changes IS AN OBVIOUS "GREAT TRUTH" FROM SCRIPTURE. Jeremiah (possibly the same guy who wrote Lamentations) promised a new covenant, the author of Hebrews elaborates on the new covenant, and the Bible is divided into sections based on those covenants.
Testament: a covenant between God and the human race.
Third, you assert, "It IS universally wrong to shed innocent blood and God does not command/tempt/tell us to do wrong." It may seem like a digression, but let me ask you a question about what I believe is a clear, repeated teaching of the Bible -- from Deuteronomy 10:14, I Chronicles 29:11, Psalm 50:10-12, and implicitly Matthew 5:34-35.
QUESTION. Does God own everything?
[continued]
[continued]
You write, "I don't think that one can't rule out that the Bible is "merely" humanity's impression of God."
Sure one can, if he's a faithful follower of Jesus.
Why would Jesus have affirmed the authority AND permanence of Scripture to the smallest penstroke if it was a merely human document? Why would Jesus repeatedly state, "It is written," to answer questions if what's written was merely a human invention? Why would Jesus walk His followers through Jewish scripture to point out "in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" (Lk 24:27) if the book was a merely human work?
We even see that, in Mark 7:9-12, Jesus contrasted the tradition of men with the commandment of God and then EXPLICITLY quoted Moses as if he was communicating divine revelation.
You mention one of the imprecatory psalms, but Jesus cites even the Psalms of David as authoritative, such Psalm 110:1.
"I don't think that one can't rule out that the Bible is 'merely' humanity's impression of God. Clearly, in some texts, that is exactly what it is."
What part of "not one jot, not one tittle" do you not understand? Why would all of Scripture persist unless it was all divinely authored?
It's funny that you criticize flat, brainless readings of Scripture, and you mangle II Corinthians 3:6 in the most atrocious fashion to make a point wholly unmoored from the text. Paul was the one who wrote that all scripture is God-breathed, that Christ died and was raised according to scripture, and he repeatedly cites scripture to prove whatever point he's making.
II Corinthians 3 isn't about written revelation, but about the law: see Romans 7:5 and 8:2.
You write:
"So, no, the TEXT does not correct our understanding, but rather GOD DOES and we learn of God's ways by seeking that, however imperfectly, through prayer, through Bible study, through community, through fellowship, through contemplation, through the Holy Spirit's leading."
You have an irritating habit of pitting the Bible against God: we don't follow the Bible, we follow God, etc. It's especially obnoxious because you don't say stuff like, we don't follow Jesus' teachings, we follow Jesus.
You seem to think that inerrantists submit to the Bible as if it's God -- you've even explicitly accused us of idolatry -- but we don't follow the Bible because we think it *IS* God. We follow it because we think it's FROM God.
You have no problem with the idea that Jesus communicates His will to us through His oral teachings, documented in the New Testament. IN THE SAME WAY, God has communicated His will through His written revelation.
I agree, God leads us and corrects us, but He MUST do so through some "transmission medium." So I wonder:
QUESTION. Of all the ways God communicates to us in the twenty-first century, which do you trust most?
[continued]
[continued]
Ideally, one would follow Jesus personally, but He's no longer on earth, nor are His prophets (John the Baptist being the last prophet) or His hand-picked Apostles.
If your natural senses tell you one thing and the Bible tells you something else, do you trust your senses more? If the Bible and your own reason and sense of morality disagree, do you set aside the difficult teaching from the Bible, or do you trust that your reasoning must be faulty or incomplete?
It seems clear that you don't default to the Bible. You think some passages aren't divine revelation, they're just human speculation: "Clearly, in some texts, that is exactly what it is."
Again, I do not think your approach is consistent with Christ's teachings and example. And, to whatever degree you dismiss passages as merely human and therefore erroneous, it cannot be said that you endeavor to worship the God of the Bible, either in the sense that you believe He authored the entire book OR in the sense that you believe the entire book accurately describes Him.
Instead, it seems you worship a deity that conforms to your sense of reason and morality, accepting ONLY those teachings of the Bible that don't trouble your conception of God.
Maybe your conception of God actually is closer to the truth. Maybe it's more loving or more just, and -- most importantly -- maybe it's a more accurate picture of the Being who actually created the universe and to whom we owe our loyalty. But it's still less BIBLICAL (i.e., conforming to the Bible) than a conception of God that doesn't discard passages as merely human products.
Let me add one quick thing about the word "biblical."
I'm using the term to refer to EVERYTHING that the Bible teaches.
A position isn't biblical if it conforms to SOME of the Bible, just like an act isn't legal if it conforms to SOME of the law. All legal acts conform to the entire law, and all biblical positions conform to the entire Bible.
If, in order to reach your position, you're discarding passages as merely human speculation -- human, and therefore erroneous -- then your position isn't biblical.
And if you think that the Bible is internally incoherent, that one CANNOT conform to the entire Bible because sections are in irreconcilable conflict, then NO position is biblical: at most, a position is derived from SOME of the Bible, not all of it.
Note that the Bible itself makes no distinction between Great Truths and claims about mere facts.
And we have good reason to think that that distinction is artificial and dangerous, as the principle in John 3:12 applies just as much to God's written word as it does to the Living Word.
"If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"
The Bible tells us what God said to Moses, David and other people whose "factual (or likely factual) existence" you accept. The Bible also tells us what God did to Egypt and Sodom.
If you don't believe the Bible's accounts of God's words and deeds in history, how in the world can you trust the Bible's claims about God's eternal will and character?
You believe that God is loving, and the Bible teaches that God is loving, but that can hardly be the reason you believe it, NOT when you so frequently discount as myth and mere human invention so many things the Bible claims about God.
Bubba...
You believe that God is loving, and the Bible teaches that God is loving, but that can hardly be the reason you believe it, NOT when you so frequently discount as myth and mere human invention so many things the Bible claims about God.
Bubba, man, as always, you are free to believe what you want. But in the real world, I DO believe that God is loving and I believe that for many reasons, including and especially the Bible.
You can have hunches about what I "can" and "can't" believe all you want. I'm telling you what I, in fact, do believe and why. If you don't like it, well, you'll just have to get over it, my friend.
Bubba...
If your natural senses tell you one thing and the Bible tells you something else, do you trust your senses more? If the Bible and your own reason and sense of morality disagree, do you set aside the difficult teaching from the Bible, or do you trust that your reasoning must be faulty or incomplete?
If my "natural senses" told me that it was wrong to kill babies all the time and I THOUGHT the Bible taught otherwise, I'd have to re-evaluate MY UNDERSTANDING of the Bible.
I strive to follow God, whether that leads to difficult teachings or not. But I am firm in my belief that God does not command us to do evil things, such as kill babies.
Bubba...
I do not think your approach is consistent with Christ's teachings and example.
You are, as always, free to have whatever crazy ass hunches you want, big man. I certainly do not think your approach is consistent with Christ's teachings or example on some of these points, so I reckon we're even on that front.
Fortunately, my salvation or walk with Christ does not depend upon your approval and, of course, vice versa.
Go with God.
Bubba...
Maybe your conception of God actually is closer to the truth. Maybe it's more loving or more just, and -- most importantly -- maybe it's a more accurate picture of the Being who actually created the universe and to whom we owe our loyalty. But it's still less BIBLICAL
Well, let me be absolutely clear: Of the two (following God or following some human's interpretation of the Bible), I MOST CERTAINLY want to follow God, not your hunches about the Bible. If YOU find my positions to be LESS God-centric, then don't follow them, you are obliged to follow GOD the best you can, by God's grace, as am I.
But I wouldn't place all my eggs in the basket of YOUR UNDERSTANDING of what the Bible has to say. You are, after all, quite fallible.
And that's about all I have time for today...
Dan,
You keep saying crap like this:
"Marshall, you've offered more question begging, strawman and poor presumptions."
It would be nice if you'd offer some explanation. What about anything I've said qualifies as any of those rhetorical negatives? As I understand the term, question begging is much like a logical fallacy. Here's a basic example of a logical fallacy:
-Many ancient cultures did not record their histories in a "modern" style.
-The Israel of the OT was an ancient culture.
-Therefor, the Israel of the OT did not record their history in a "modern" style.
Here's another:
-You claim there is no "hard evidence" to suppose that the OT authors wrote in a "modern"-like style of recording their history.
-You offer absolutely no "hard evidence" that they didn't.
-Therefor, the OT authors did not record their history in a "modern" style.
The works of Homer and other such writers of PROVEN myth are irrelevant in any discussion regarding the style in which the OT writers recorded their history. Unlike Homer, the OT writers are not dealing with a mythical god, but the ACTUAL One True God who created all things. Big difference and it distinguishes it from all other ancient writings UNLESS you are trying to equate them all.
As to "my interpretation", I only read and accept what is written UNTIL solid evidence, HARD evidence can show that such acceptance is uncalled for. No such evidence has been brought forth in this or any other discussion. And the following might not technically be a logical fallacy, but it is illogical:
That God commanded His Chosen People to annihilate a town or two and everyone within it, including women, children and babies does not provide a basis for believing, assuming or suggesting that He might command us to do likewise, or that such stories constitute a standing precedent for us to follow. It also does not provide you with the legitimate argument that it conflicts with His nature, as such stories are plentiful in the OT, and worse is in store for non-believers. His reputation as a God of perfect love does not suffer from the fact that these commands were given, and that He also acted to destroy those you might regard as "innocent", UNLESS you are setting yourself up as His judge, demanding that He act in a manner that satisfies YOUR notion of a perfectly loving and just god, which you are in fact doing.
If there is any strawman, question begging, or poor presumptions ANYWHERE in this comment, please show me where.
"I just see no hard evidence to accept that these earlier stories were written in anything other than the style that they appear to be written in."
nd you provide no hard evidence that would compel anyone to take your huncg for anything else but a hunch.
"There is reasonable evidence that they are not myth, given that they are not written in a mythic style or a time period when stories were told in mythic form"
So to support your hunch you are satisfied with "reasonable evidence" (at vague term which really probably just means "enough to convince Dan")yet from those who doubt your hunch you demand "hard evidence" why not provide the same level of evidence you ask of others? That seems somehow unreasonable.
I find THIS to be a form of question begging as I understand the term:
""There is reasonable evidence that they are not myth, given that they are not written in a mythic style..."
Despite different authors, I see very little in the texts themselves to suggest one is more or less "mythical" in style than the other. And by your own span of 1000 years (500BC-500AD), the Gospels would very definitely have to be regarded as possibly mythical. Yet you assume them more literal without much more than saying so.
Perhaps if Dan could define what he identifies as self evident characteristics of "mythic" and "epic" writing styles and give some specifics as to how various books of the OT fit with those definitions it might bring some additional clarity to the conversation.
Note to self: You can't presume people will know the meanings or conventions of words (like myth, or epic) or will look them up. Define terms ahead of time.
Myth: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
Merriam Webster
Myths generally are simple stories to explain larger phenomena and are generally told in a relatively simplistic format...
"A long time ago..." "Long, Long ago, before people walked..." "In the beginning..."
Myths often summarize the point of the story for you...
"And that is why the tiger has stripes...," "This is why the dog howls at the moon...," "And that is why the rainbow is in the sky...," "That is why it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the languages of all peoples..."
Myths may be based on actual events or people, but generally speaking, the facts are besides the point/not the point of the story.
Myths are NOT "bad," nor are they "false" or "fake," or "foggy," or intentionally misleading. They are just a story style, not unlike parable.
The gospel stories are not told in this manner. The text and the context do not suggest a mythic piece of literature.
So, now that you know the definition and conventions of myths (surely you all were aware of this information - why would you make me spell it out for you? That is puzzling to me... Although, given that at least some of you didn't understand "epic," maybe you just honestly didn't know this or understand that this is how I was using the term "myth...") - now that it's been clarified for you, do you see how these early stories in Genesis fit the myth prototype?
Bubba...
YOU CONSIDER THE TEXT (of the Bible) ITSELF TO BE FALLIBLE.
I just wish you would be more honest about that.
No, I don't. You say that, but it's simply not the case.
I consider the text to BE "the Text," and it is only as valid as one's interpretation of it is.
If one takes Jesus' hyperbolic "command" to pluck out an eye to be a literal command, THEN that INTERPRETATION was fallible. The text was just the text.
No matter how often you misunderstand and misstate this point, you'll still be wrong. And the reason for that appears to be because you are presuming either that you know better than I do what I actually think or that you are conflating your understanding of what I have said with a perfect understanding, which you don't have.
And this point is a perfect example.
Dan:
The snark about defining words ahead of times isn't called for, and it ought to be beneath you. Asking you for the characteristics of myth that apply to the OT but not the NT is perfectly legitimate, because it's not self-evident why you would embrace the astounding claims of the New Testament as historical while dismissing the astounding claims of the Old Testament as mythical: walking on water is just as implausible as parting the sea.
Your inadequate answer is evidence that the question was worth asking.
1. You assert that, in myth, facts are beside the point, but that has NOTHING to do with the actual text as-written, but only with your conclusions about that text. Nowhere does the Old Testament (or the New) treat the factual claims in the OT as beside the point.
You completely whiffed on this part of your answer.
2. You mention how the Old Testament begins: "In the beginning..."
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God."
Yep, Genesis 1 sure is simplistic. Oh, wait, that's not Genesis 1, that's John 1.
3. You mention what are essentially "Just So" stories, but there are a few problems with using this as a characteristic for biblical myth.
Most fundamentally, while you say you don't deny God's omnipotence, your approach would dismiss as myth ANY account of creation that wasn't completely naturalistic. If God wanted to reveal His overarching plan from creation to the end of history, you would HAVE to dismiss the beginning chapters of that written revelation as mythical.
But, beyond that, it's a terrible qualification for what's mythical in Scripture because it DOES NOT include all the relevant Old Testament books as myth, and it DOES NOT exclude the New Testament from consideration.
In the Old Testament, these stories are limited to early Genesis -- you admit as much -- BEFORE Abraham, Moses, and David. But your objection tends to be about God's interaction with Abraham, Moses, and David: Sodom, the command to sacrifice Isaac, the plagues of Egypt, the claim that all Israel was punished for David's sin, et cetera.
There's a reason I mentioned I Samuel: these sort of origin stories aren't present in that book, yet you question God's activities and declarations in that time period.
[continued]
[continued]
These origin stories are absent from the books that chronicle David's life, but these origin stories *ARE* affirmed in the New Testament, sometimes explicitly.
One of the earliest origin stories is the origin of death. Why do we die? One man sinned and fell, and death resulted. Genesis teaches this, BUT THE NEW TESTAMENT EXPLICITLY CONFIRMS THIS TEACHING: "sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin." (Rom 5:12)
Another early origin story is the origin of the sexes. Why are we male and female? Genesis teaches that God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife, and you're well aware that JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF affirmed this teaching, in Matthew 19.
If the story of Babel is mythical, surely so too is Pentacost, a temporary and local reversal of the curse of Babel: in Babel, language was confounded to prevent man's arrogant plans from being communicated, and in Pentacost that language barrier was miraculously removed to facilitate the communication of God's plan of salvation.
Above all this (which is enough on its own) the New Testament has its own origin story that fits "the myth prototype."
Why is Jesus called Jesus?
Well, an angel told Jesus' adoptive father that his fiancee would give birth to a son -- while still a virgin! -- and that he should call Him Jesus "for he will save his people from their sins." (Mt 1:21)
Jesus is called Jesus because an angel told Joseph to call Him Jesus.
So again I ask, why aren't the Gospels considered mythical? Why do you trust that Jesus said what's attributed to Him in Matthew 5, if that sermon's preceded by stuff like this, the confirmation where a voice from Heaven declares His approval, and the temptation where the devil (of all things!) showed Jesus all the world's kingdoms from an impossible mountaintop?
About this:
"I consider the text to BE 'the Text,' and it is only as valid as one's interpretation of it is."
I must apologize, because I did misunderstand you; I thought you were more logical than you apparently are. I knew you imbibed in nonsense, but I didn't think you were this much of a binge drinker.
A statement's validity is completely independent of and prior to any interpretation of that statement.
A statement is valid if its meaning corresponds to reality.
An interpretation of a statement is valid if it corresponds to that pre-existing meaning.
I didn't realize that you didn't understand this.
Anyway, I doubt you truly and consistently believe what you just wrote.
After all, why write so many thousands of words if the validity of what you write depends entirely on the validity of the interpretation? You claim to be misunderstood so very frequently that you MUST conclude (by your own logic) that your writing is almost completely invalid -- our misinterpretations have MADE your writing invalid.
Or, if you are consistent, it's not clear how you're a faithful and obedient Christian. What kind of servant insists that his Master's words aren't valid until that servant has properly interpreted them?
Really, Dan, you're embarassing yourself invoking this sort of defense to avoid admitting that you think parts of the Bible are erroneous.
OK Dan,
You've demonstrated you can copy paste. Thank you for the definition, I know what myth is I just wanted to make sure I knew what you thought myth is.
Now, how about dealing with the completely unanswered questions.
How do you apply, specifically, your definition of myth and epic to the OT.
Also could you expand on your contention that while myths are not (necessarily) factual, they are also not "false" or "fake". This seems to be a contradiction.
"is there "hard evidence" that the Gospels aren't myth?
I've just answered this question. There is reasonable evidence that they are not myth, given that they are not written in a mythic style or a time period when stories were told in mythic form."
Yet you continue to suggest that a circular argument is not good.
Again, why the double standard on "evidence".
I will say that if you could produce any evidence (Hard would be better, since that's what you ask for, but I'd settle for reasonable since that's the standard you set for yourself), that would be great.
Any chance we'll actually see evidence or that you'll answer Bubba's questions?
Craig...
how about dealing with the completely unanswered questions.
How about YOU answer some unanswered questions, first?
Such as:
1. You DO recognize that saying, "I rely upon the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible" AND "I rely upon the Bible to know what the Holy Spirit wants" AND "and I rely upon the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible" ad infinitum, IS the definition of circular reasoning?
2. Do you recognize that what is ACTUALLY happening there is that you are using YOUR REASONING (we ALL are, it's how we decide things/understand things... unless you're saying that the Holy Spirit FORCES an understanding in your head apart from your willingness and reason?? Which, of course, would not be a biblical or logical conclusion) to sort out what The Bible/The Holy Spirit are saying and to conflate your reasoning to the Holy Spirit is a bit presumptuous?
3. Do you acknowledge (even if you don't ultimately agree) that, IF the definition of myth is the normal one and IF myths typically are small stories told to explain large phenomena (That is how the tiger got its stripes, that is how humanity developed different languages, that is why the rainbow is in the sky...), that indeed, some of the OT Genesis stories COULD rationally be seen as having mythic traits?
4. Do you acknowledge that there is ZERO hard evidence for the suggestion that people wrote history in what is called the "modern style" with an eye towards complete factual accuracy on every point during this time period?
5. Isn't it the case that your entire bit of reasoning on why we ought to take these stories literally is...
a. It SEEMS TO ME that this is the way God would do it. Why WOULDN'T God tell these stories in this way??? I can't imagine God not doing so... (ie, question begging and presumptions)
b. This is the way the church has traditionally understood it (ie, appeals to tradition).
For the record: My point is that, of the evidence which we have, we have NO record of anyone writing in a modern history style prior to ~500 BC. That is not a complete argument, it's just noting for the record that we have NO RECORD of ANY ONE writing in that style. That IS one bit of hard evidence.
6. Agreed?
Beyond that, we are BOTH relying upon Reasoning (oh, sorry, "the Holy Spirit...") to think through, "Did God inspire these stories to be told in a mythic way or in a more literal historic way? Well, it seems that..." and we've reasoned through from there.
7. The Bible HAS NOT told us we must take these stories literally. AGREED?
You appear to be saying, "Well, logically, IT SEEMS TO ME that God WOULD communicate these stories in a literally factual historic manner," whereas I'm saying "Logically, it seems to me that if God were inspiring people in a certain time and culture, that the people would still write in the language and style common to the time..."
But we're BOTH relying upon "it seems to me..." and are not operating out of any logical or biblical mandate, AGREED?
You all are here posting dozens of comments and questions and the fact is, I have limited time in a day. I've dealt with your questions as I've had time. I think I have dealt with most of them, many of them repeatedly.
I dealt with YOUR misunderstanding of the term "epic" for over 200 comments before you finally understood what I was saying. I have, indeed, answered most questions asked and dealt with most misunderstandings/misrepresentations presented.
No, how about a little reciprocity and a little less arrogance (ie, these repeated suggestions that I'm not answering your questions or not answering them quickly enough)?
Bubbba...
why write so many thousands of words if the validity of what you write depends entirely on the validity of the interpretation?
I'm sorry you fail to understand the meaning of my comment, Bubba.
If I say, "Up is up," and that is what I mean, it is a valid statement and it means what it means.
If YOU think, "He said, 'up is up...' he must mean 'up is down...'" and your understanding is off and any philosophy built off that BAD INTERPRETATION is likely to be off.
IF one rightly understands the text, then one's understanding is valid. If one does not understand the text aright, then one's understanding of the text is not valid.
I'm sorry if that was unclear to you. Perhaps I could have stated my point in a clearer way. My apologies.
I have no problem answering questions even when mine remain unanswered, or answered in a manner not allowed by me.
1. I don't believe I've noticed anyone doing this. Who are you accusing?
2. I don't know that anyone on THIS side of the issue pretends that the use of reason is anything more than understanding the words written, the use of explanations for original languages where it is necessary for understanding the text, and simply concluding that "up" means "up". Thus, to say both sides are using reasoning to come to conflicting conclusions means that one side or other is wrong. As we are going strictly by the words in the Book from cover to cover, that must be YOU.
3. That Genesis, or any other book, might contain elements that seem to you to indicate a mythic style of recording history, does not mean anything more than similar words and phrases are used by both the OT writers and the writers of myth. Indeed, "In the beginning..." can be used to lend credence to a mythic story since it was used to begin the explanation of creation. As we're defending the story of the One True God, and not a mythical god, we don't compare them as equal and thus, what you feel are "mythical elements" are no more than what was required to tell the tale of history, and those words were then adopted by others to lend credence to their tales. There is no "Hard Evidence" for this opinion, but "reason" dictates that I give more latitude to the OT writers than to writers of myth. We KNOW Zeus was fictional. What do YOU know about God?
4. There is ZERO hard evidence that they DIDN'T. As the OT writers are talking about the REAL One True God, and not gods like Zeus, we give them more latitude and thus feel justified in taking them at their word.
5a. No. This is your lame argument against us.
5b. Church tradition goes back a long way, even before Christ, as Christianity is Judaism made complete.
The only "Hard Evidence" you have is not evidence that OT writers DIDN'T write accurately. It is only that no "hard evidence" is available that proves it one way or the other. That seems good enough for you seeing as how you don't put the OT on a higher level than tales of Zeus.
6. No.
7. It is assumed to some extent and this is a more than reasonable conclusion as there is nothing to suggest that it would have it any other way. Fictional stories suggest themselves to be real, but the authors don't. "Fargo" began with words on the screen proclaiming the story is based on actual events. But that was part of the fiction as well. All other histories exist with the assumption that the reader will take them at face value.
"1. You DO recognize that saying, "I rely upon the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible" AND "I rely upon the Bible to know what the Holy Spirit wants" AND "and I rely upon the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible" ad infinitum, IS the definition of circular reasoning?"
I realize that that is how you choose to re state my position. I further realize that I have answered this question multiple times and no matter how often you re ask it, you are still not going to like my answer. I also realize that you said you were going to drop this many comments ago. If you'd rather chase your tail on this instead of answering the questions put to you, then I apologize to those who asked the questions for providing you with a diversion so you could avoid actually answering the questions.
"2."
I realize that I have the spiritual gift of discernment, which I try to use wisely and humbly as I try to interpret scripture. Frankly your obsession with wanting me to agree that I rely on my (flawed, sin distorted, human {I know you have ignored this from earlier but as a human I realize that God's ways and thoughts ARE much higher than my ways and thoughts so to rely on myself instead of God just sounds silly to me}) Reason is quite beyond me. I would think that as one who holds such a high regard for tolerance that you would be a little more open minded when it comes to things that are this personal. I guess I'm wrong about that too.
"3."
I agree that it is within the realm of possibility that someone COULD decide to believe that some of the Genesis stories are myths. However, in the absence of "hard evidence" I see no reason to do so. I also agree that there are any number of conclusions someone could draw from the OT. However the existence of multiple conclusions really means nothing. So now we've gone from "essentially the entire OT is written in a epic style" to "...that indeed, some of the OT Genesis stories COULD rationally be seen as having mythic traits?". Thanks for clarifying, had you expressed your position this way 275 comments ago this would have been a really short thread.
"4."
I acknowledge that there is zero evidence that you would accept. Further I acknowledge that I have never suggested that the OT was written in what you have chosen to describe as a "modern" historical style. You have provided zero "hard evidence" that the OT was not written in such a way that the factual events were communicated accurately. (For that matter, you've never explained why the pre 500BC crowd was so good at accurately recording math, science, and navigational information, while choosing to treat history differently. Not that I'm holding my breath of anything)
"5"
It's as good a starting place as any, and by ignoring the remainder of my previously stated position it allows you to (mis) state my position in a way that allows you to minimize it. Although, I'd suggest that to marginalize thousands of years of Jewish and Christian scholarship as merely tradition kind of mis-states my position. But that's nothing new so I'll let it slide.
"That IS one bit of hard evidence."
First, if that's your "hard evidence", I've wasted a bunch of time here.
Second to quote something I posted earlier. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Essentially this is an argument from silence, which I know you find compelling. Fortunately most of the rest of the world doesn't seem to have as much faith in silence as you.
"6. Agreed?"
Do you think that if you just say agreed enough, that it magically happens.
I'm not comfortable equation the Holy Spirit with anyone's "Reason", and certainly not yours. You, of course, are free to do as you please.
"7."
I will agree that the Bible does not have a set of notes that specifically spell out what kind of literary style is being used in a given passage. Beyond that this has always struck me as being an incredibly silly argument (Well the word trinity isn't actually in the Bible or whatever). Again if silence and this are your "hard evidence" this has been quite the waste of time.
OK enough of the diversion. Bubba asked you several direct questions that you have not answered. I believe he identified them by prefacing the question with the word question in bold. If expecting you to adhere to the same standard of behavior you expect from others is over some kind of line, I apologize. But there were only a few questions and it seems reasonable that you could find a few minutes to answer them.
Dan, it seems as though your conception of the OT is a kind of James Michener historical novel. While Michener's novels are extensively researched and well documented he inserts fictional characters and events into a historical framework. While this makes for interesting and enjoyable reading, and even a worthwhile historical overview, Michener's books still always end up in the fiction section. So for all the talk about style and myth and epic and whatever, it comes down to this. The Bible is either fiction or nonfiction.
Does anything else really matter?
While trying to be mindful of Dan's time constraints I did have a couple of thoughts/questions.
If we grant for the purpose of this discussion that some (maybe even) many ancient (pre 500BC) cultures did use a mythic or epic style to recount their cultural stories, the following questions are raised.
1. Does the general principal regarding some/many cultures necessarily apply to the specific culture (Hebrew) whose writings are under discussion?
2. Other than the OT, are there specific examples of Hebrew stories told as myth or epic?
3. Is the OT intended to be singular in terms of what it purports to communicate?
Which leads to the question, what is history.
Dictionary.com says this:
his·to·ry
/ˈhɪstəri, ˈhɪstri/ Show Spelled[his-tuh-ree, his-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural -ries.
1.
the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.
2.
a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle: a history of France; a medical history of the patient.
3.
the aggregate of past events.
4.
the record of past events and times, especially in connection with the human race.
5.
a past notable for its important, unusual, or interesting events: a ship with a history.
1. Note the lack of distinction between "pre modern" style and "modern" style of history.
2. Given this definition can anything told as an epic or myth actually be considered history?
3. Does that mean that referring to the post law/pre prophet books of the OT (usually referred to as the historical books) as historical is wrong?
Sorry to chum the water, but had to get this down while I was thinking about it.
Dan, thanks for the clarification, but when you write stuff like this...
"I don't think that one can't rule out that the Bible is 'merely' humanity's impression of God. Clearly, in some texts, that is exactly what it is."
...you're not commenting on a reader's interpretation of the Bible. You're commenting on THE TEXT ITSELF, explicitly denying its divine authorship and implicitly denying its inerrancy and authority.
(You do the same thing when you write, elsewhere, that not every line is a "perfect representation of God's Will.")
You insist, emphatically and in no uncertain terms, "I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS A TRUSTWORTHY RECORD OF GOD'S WORDS AND DEEDS."
But that claim is incompatible with your belief that some texts are mere human speculation rather than divine revelation. HERE is precisely where I think you should be a lot more straight-forward with your beliefs.
You continue to write about the importance of a text being written in a "modern history style," but when one unpacks how that style is defined, it's clear that it's a VERY problematic standard.
What made writers like Herodotus "modern"? They didn't reference "fanciful" stories (your word) or "intervention by the gods" (Wikipedia).
In other words, works like the Old Testament books of history are dismissed as pre-modern because they reference the miraculous and attribute events to divine intervention.
There's NO reason for a Christian to agree to that reasoning -- or if a work isn't modern because of miracles and acts of God, then one should dismiss the New Testament as a throwback to the pre-modern approach.
Here's the chain of events:
1) Historians assume that God doesn't act and miracles don't occur.
2) They thus dismiss ancient works that assert otherwise, concluding that the work's writers were unconcerned with accuracy, assuming what ought to be proved.
3) They uphold Herodotus and Thucydides as the first modern works because their works are the first known works that (largely) DON'T assert that God acts and miracles occur.
4) You seem to be aware of all this, yet you follow suit, drawing the same line they do to dismiss the Old Testament's historical claims: pre-Herodotus is pre-modern and therefore not trustworthy in the details.
5) But you accept the New Testament because it's post-Herodotus, even though it makes THE EXACT SAME CLAIMS that caused historians to discount its predecessor works: namely, that GOD ACTS AND MIRACLES OCCUR.
You don't see any problem with any of this. This logic strikes you as airtight, "hard" evidence.
I'll ask again why you accept the astounding claims of the Gospels but not the Old Testament: is Moses' parting the sea really that much MORE astounding than Jesus walking on water?
I well realize that everyone's time is limited, but you should be able to see the importance of this question.
And, really, if your conclusions were based on a careful, reasonable set of criteria for mythic literature that just HAPPENED to apply to ALL the questionable OT passages and NONE of the Gospels -- rather than the criteria being fabricated as an ex post facto justification for the conclusion you already hold -- then it should be trivial to restate that criteria.
My question IS crucial, and an answer OUGHT to be easy. That you only have enough time to answer other questions doesn't do your position any favors.
So much to address, so little time...
Bubba...
You're commenting on THE TEXT ITSELF, explicitly denying its divine authorship and implicitly denying its inerrancy and authority.
No, I'm not.
Or at least, by saying that, for instance, when David prayed that God would demolish his enemies and bash their children's heads against rocks, that David was praying HIS heart's desire, not that he was reflecting GOD'S desires... when I say that the text sometimes very much reflects human desires and feelings and opinions, that saying that does not take away from Scripture's inspired nature (and whatever other hunches you may have, the Bible factually does not claim that it or "scripture" is God-AUTHORED, but God-INSPIRED, or God-BREATHED.
The Bible makes no claim to be "inerrant," either, although, as I have repeatedly pointed out, it's rather a meaningless term, since our INTERPRETATIONS are not inerrant.
Do I deny that God "authored" the Bible? Yes. The Bible makes no such claims and you twist its words if you suggest that.
Neither does pointing out that the Bible, at least at times, has human opinions and feelings reflected in it, does not mean in any way that I find it untrustworthy.
That is a meaningless and empty charge and observably false.
Out of time...
Bubba "You're commenting on THE TEXT ITSELF, explicitly denying its divine authorship and implicitly denying its inerrancy and authority."
Dan "No, I'm not."
Dan "Do I deny that God "authored" the Bible? Yes."
On a more serious note, your example doesn't really make your point for several reasons.
First, as long as it was recorded accurately and transmitted accurately then the quote would seem to be factual.
Second, By taking this snippet out of context you make it appear as if David's prayer exists in a vacuum.
Third, no one is arguing that Davids prayer reflects God's desires (straw man?). What is being argued is that the OT paints an accurate picture of events. To use your example, as long as David prayed this prayer and it was recorded accurately then the text is factually accurate.
Bubba,
I think you're on to something with your anti supernatural bias argument.
Thanks, Craig: if the criteria for modern history is based on a bias against miracles, Dan should explain why a Christian should A) trust that criteria and B) still treat the Gospels as history.
Craig, that first point is a serious point: Dan doesn't seem to be able to present a single position with any consistency -- in the case you point out, he contradicts himself in a single comment.
In that same comment, Dan, you seem to oscillate on at least one other subject. After previously correcting the record that you DO believe the Bible's validity is independent of the validity of a reader's interpretation, you're back to saying things that point in the exact opposite direction, writing that inerrancy is "rather a meaningless term, since our INTERPRETATIONS are not inerrant."
I wish you would be more clear and consistent on what it is you believe.
About the point you now make, it IS meaningful to consider the question of a text's inerrancy, accuracy, and reliability apart from any reader's ability to interpret the text. It's like this: suppose you're driving and your wife's found the roadmap in the glove compartment. If you think the map's accurate but your wife's terrible at navigation, you'll probably read the map yourself. But if you think the map's inaccurate, you'll stop and buy another map, one that you think/hope IS accurate.
INDEED, whether you reach your destination DOES depend on your ability to read the map, but it ALSO depends on the inherent accuarcy of the map itself. No rational human being would EVER think that the concept of the map's accuracy is "rather a meaningless term" just because one's map-reading abilities aren't perfect.
Dan, going back to the question of the Bible's authorship, you claim, "the Bible factually does not claim that it or 'scripture' is God-AUTHORED, but God-INSPIRED, or God-BREATHED." As you do quite frequently, you focus on the one or two claims that support your position while ignoring the inconvenient bigger picture.
I point out (again) that, in Mark 7:9-12, Jesus contrasted the tradition of men against the commandment of God, and then He brought up what Moses said, as if Moses' words were functionally equivalent to God's commandment. He even said that the Pharisees were making void the "word of God" by ignoring the words of Moses.
Jesus, who affirmed that we must live on every word that comes from God, REPEATEDLY appealled to Scripture -- "It is written" -- as if that settles the subject. And, in Luke 24:27, Jesus walked His followers through "all the Scriptures" to point out the passages that pointed to Him, His death, and His resurrection.
NONE OF THIS makes sense if the written word contains passages that are merely human works. ALL OF THIS makes sense ONLY if the text is ultimately authored by God Himself.
You don't care about the inexorable logic of what Jesus taught, though. You look for quibbles and loopholes. You demand explicit teachings, proving yourself to be unwilling to draw even the most obvious conclusions, and you have this unreasonably high standard for positions you dispute while having absolutely no standards for positions you like -- or where again does the Bible explicitly condone any form of homosexual relationships?
Your approach is legalistic and frankly Pharasaical: I say that, not to be insulting, but because it's true. The overarching point of all the "you have heard/but I say" teachings of Matthew 5 is that the Pharisees' traditions were lowering God's standards by nit-picking: divorce is just fine, so long as you submit the right paperwork, and it's fine to break your oath, so long as you swore by heaven, earth, or Jerusalem and not God Himself.
And you have the gall to lecture others about the spirit versus the letter.
And, about David, I think it would be helpful if we focused less on the Bible's record of David's words to God, and more on the Bible's record of GOD'S words to David -- and to Moses, and to Abraham, and to GOD'S actions in the same time period. You don't just object to David's imprecatory psalm to God, you object to God's declarations to David.
You say, emphatically (but implausibly), "I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS A TRUSTWORTHY RECORD OF GOD'S WORDS AND DEEDS." Well, then, let's focus on that record of God's words and deeds.
And, again, you should make the time to address my contention that you have no good reason to dismiss the OT as myth while embracing the Gospels as history. My questions on that subject get to the heart of Christianity's central historical claims, and so the subject is vitally important. And if your criteria for sifting through myth and history is reasonable, it should be trivial to present that criteria.
Bubba, how many times would you like me to answer this question???
And, again, you should make the time to address my contention that you have no good reason to dismiss the OT as myth while embracing the Gospels as history.
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style.
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style.
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style.
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style.
There is no, "...and THAT is how the Tiger got his stripes," there is no explanation of a large natural phenomena via a small personal story. These stories do NOT fit the mythic style.
Because there is NO REASON to presume these stories are written in a mythic style, I do not make that presumption. Because there IS reason to think the OT stories in question appear to be written in a mythical style, I find that explanation plausible.
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style.
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style.
I have thus dismissed this trivial question. You can ask again and I will just pre-emptively refer you back to this answer.
Dan,
To clarify, are you suggestig that the primary way to distinguish between myth and fact is when it was written?
In other words everything before 500 BC is myth/epic and everything after 500BC is not. Am I correct.
I asked this earlier, but maybe you missed it.
How do you explain that in matters of astronomy, mathematics, science, navigation, cartography, and dating (calender) folks prior to 500 BC seemed to prize accuracy.
This was originally (with a couple of links) in the comment I pasted because you couldn't find it.
To clarify, are you suggestig that the primary way to distinguish between myth and fact is when it was written?
??
I refer you to my prior comment...
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style.
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style.
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style.
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style.
There is no, "...and THAT is how the Tiger got his stripes," there is no explanation of a large natural phenomena via a small personal story. These stories do NOT fit the mythic style.
Because there is NO REASON to presume these stories are written in a mythic style, I do not make that presumption. Because there IS reason to think the OT stories in question appear to be written in a mythical style, I find that explanation plausible.
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style.
The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style...
And I emphasize...
THE NT STORIES ARE NOT WRITTEN IN A MYTHIC PATTERN STYLE.
Dan, I've already explained in detail the problems with the substance you regurgitate.
That "time of myth-telling" was labeled such because the stories contain miracles and acts of divine intervention, and that decision is not one that a Christian should accept uncritically. And, since the Gospels contain numerous instances of the same things, they can easily be dismissed as a throwback to that time.
Dismissing as myth any "explanation of a large natural phenomena via a small personal story" is needlessly biased against miracles in the act of creation: you claim not to limit God's power in theory, but you demand a completely naturalistic creation story, and you'll dismiss anything else as myth. Further, these OT explanations are affirmed in the New Testament, in both Matthew and Romans, and they're ENTIRELY absent in books such as I Samuel. You're fixating on a feature of early Genesis to dismiss as mythical passages in Numbers and I Chronicles, and that's not reasonable.
As for the rest of your comment...
Really, you must know that repeating a glib assertion (over and over and over and over) is no substitute for an actual argument.
You must know, but you must not care. You'd apparently rather leave your bad assumptions and poor reasoning buried in reasonable-sounding language that your arguments have simply never earned.
You're not apparently interested in a legitimate discussion. I for one have no interest in the pseudo-discussion you insist on having.
Craig has made a couple of references to ancient science accuracies, saying...
you've never explained why the pre 500BC crowd was so good at accurately recording math, science, and navigational information
I'd have to know what exactly you are speaking of in order to know what you're speaking of.
Are you speaking of using leeches to cure maladies or the notion of a flat world or of a geocentric universe or what exactly are you speaking of?
What I'm saying is that there is no evidence of which I'm aware that supports the notion that people were writing history in an entirely literally factual style (as we do today) back prior to ~500 BC.
Do you have any evidence to support the notion that they DID do so?
Craig...
This was originally (with a couple of links) in the comment I pasted because you couldn't find it.
The anabaptist link? I find ONE link in that post to this website...
http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/536
Which says nothing about science or navigation, so I truly have no idea what you're referring to here.
Here is why I think (being guided by the Holy Spirit and being blessed with the gift of discernment) you all are stuck on the words that kill rather than the Spirit that gives life (and why I think that passage is directly applicable to this conversation): You all nitpick about words, telling other people that if you use this or that word or phrase then you MUST mean that or this and this means that you are separated from God...
Bubba...
In other words, works like the Old Testament books of history are dismissed as pre-modern because they reference the miraculous and attribute events to divine intervention.
I have dismissed nothing. I have strived to understand the text in its proper context.
A few questions for you:
1. Do you agree that the almighty God of the Universe CAN communicate truth by inspiring stories written in a mythic or an epic format, if God so chooses?
2. Do you agree that striving to understand if Text A (which was written in a time when stories were told in a mythic format and using mythic conventions) sounds like it might be passed on using myth-storytelling, that pointing out that apparent contextual clue is not, in and of itself, a sin, a crime or bad exegesis?
3. That IF a story were inspired to be written in a mythic format, that this does NOT mean that the authors (or God, as the Inspirer) "dismissed" anything and that folk who read it in that manner have NOT dismissed anything?
4. Do you agree that IF a story were, in fact, told in a pre-modern style, that this is no different than pointing out that a story was told in a poetic style or a parabolic style? That pointing out that pre-modern style (IF, indeed, that is what it was) is only good exegesis and scholarly bible study?
No, I have not dismissed anything.
Bubba...
There's NO reason for a Christian to agree to that reasoning -- or if a work isn't modern because of miracles and acts of God, then one should dismiss the New Testament as a throwback to the pre-modern approach.
I can think of some reasons:
1. Because it appears to be written in that style
2. Because there is no evidence that anyone was writing history in the style you're suggesting at this time period
3. Because if you take it as literal history, then you have a god who sometimes commands people to shed innocent blood while at the same time commands people to NOT shed innocent blood - thus you have a god and a holy book that contradicts itself
4. Because if you take it as literal history, then you have a god that says "god won't tempt you to sin" who at the same time, commands people to sin...
Some people say this is NOT a contradiction ("shed innocent blood," "DON'T shed innocent blood") for various reasons already mentioned several times in this post. They are welcome to their hunches on that point, but MY hunch (and the Spirit of God speaking to me and my own God-given gift of discernment) says that their argument is too weak to accept, thus I don't accept it because I must obey God, not humans.
Now, YOU MAY DISAGREE with my take on this. YOU MAY THINK there are no reasons that YOU FIND COMPELLING, but that does not mean there are no reasons (obviously, I just listed some) or that other folk might find these reasons more compelling than your hunches.
Beyond that, you are off on your "chain of events..."
Here's the chain of events:
1) Historians assume that God doesn't act and miracles don't occur.
Some historians, maybe. Certainly not all historians. Rather, I suspect that most historians just see no evidence for these supposed miracles and, BEING MODERN HISTORIANS who take history based on evidence, not faith, aren't compelled to assume that just because a story mentions miracles that this is evidence that miracles occurred.
Why would they?
Continuing...
2) They thus dismiss ancient works that assert otherwise, concluding that the work's writers were unconcerned with accuracy, assuming what ought to be proved.
Actually, thus they dismiss ancient claims to miracles or dragons or monsters FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE as lacking in evidence.
Why wouldn't they?
Continuing...
3) They uphold Herodotus and Thucydides as the first modern works because their works are the first known works that (largely) DON'T assert that God acts and miracles occur.
Again, because this is the time/people who began documenting their work with supportive evidence, which is part of what makes it modern history telling or scientific history telling. Folk before this did not do this, so far as anyone has demonstrated thus far. That is, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that anyone was telling history in this more literally factual way before this time period.
That is just a statement of fact, not a judgment call on how they told history before or the integrity of people before ~500 BC. It's just a writing style, not a moral position.
Continuing...
4) You seem to be aware of all this, yet you follow suit, drawing the same line they do to dismiss the Old Testament's historical claims: pre-Herodotus is pre-modern and therefore not trustworthy in the details.
As clearly pointed out, I do NOT "dismiss" OT historical claims, but rather, I state that these stories appear to be written in a style different than we do history now and thus, we have no compelling logical or biblical evidence that demands we take these stories as entirely literally factual on each point.
I do NOT say they are "not trustworthy" in the details any more than I claim that the parables are not trustworthy in the details. The details are not the point of the story, IT SEEMS TO ME (and I AM relying upon God's Holy Spirit and I DO have the gift of discernment going for me. Which is nice.).
Out of time...
"Are you speaking of using leeches to cure maladies or the notion of a flat world or of a geocentric universe or what exactly are you speaking of?"
This is outrageous. Craig's position does not imply that what they recorded about science was actual fact, but actual fact as they were able to ascertain. Obviously they were limited in their ability to study the universe, but what they thought they were seeing is what they recorded with as much accuracy as any person could today or then. THAT, I believe, is the point Craig was clearly making.
In addition, if I'm not mistaken (for I don't have the time at present to peruse the entire body of comments here to find it), you said that "modern" history style appeared between 500BC and 500AD. Is this not true? If it is, that would indeed comprise all of the Bible as we know it, including the NT. Yet, you insist that there's no way it could be labeled mythic. Why is that? Because there is no story of how a tiger got its stripes? Well, that's been dealt with. Why would such things need to be told in the NT? There's still the issue of the miraculous, which, as Bubba reminds, was part of the criteria for determining mythic history recording. The repeating of your bumper sticker does not address these issues.
MYTH: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
Merriam Webster
Are you all REALLY arguing that the NT is written in a mythic style?
Bubba...
if the criteria for modern history is based on a bias against miracles, Dan should explain why a Christian should A) trust that criteria and B) still treat the Gospels as history.
1. One can trust the Gospels and the NT based upon the soundness of their Truths. If one finds NT truths to be not sound, then one probably shouldn't trust it.
2. I find NT truths to be sound.
3. I DON'T treat the Gospels (or NT in general) as history. I treat the whole of the Bible as a book of truths. Not a rule book. Not a science book. Not a history book.
A book of truths whose truths are sound because the real world bears them out.
4. I don't think modern history has a bias against miracles. Rather part of what makes modern history "modern history" as a way of telling history is that there is an emphasis on verifiable facts. We can't verify many of the facts in the Bible. That doesn't make it un-sound (that is, UNLESS one is treating it as modern history or as science text book), it just means it's not written in a modern historic style.
5. Nonetheless, there is sufficient evidence to treat many if not most of the NT stories to be fairly reliable factually. There is sufficient real world evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed - do you disagree?
There is sufficient evidence in support of Jesus as an influential teacher in this time period teaching pretty much what the Gospels attest - do you disagree?
There is even sufficient evidence (although this certainly takes a bit of faith, too) that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead - do you disagree that there is sufficient real world evidence to support this claim?
If you disagree, then perhaps you shouldn't believe in Jesus of Nazareth. Myself, I find plenty of rational reason to think this all true.
Is there much or any evidence to support that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine? No, not that I know of. Many of the miracles I take on faith, much in the same way as I take the story of Jonah on faith. But that does not take away from the solid truths of Jesus' teachings. The miracle stories, like Jonah's factual existence, are irrelevant to Jesus' truths.
Dan,
A few links copied from an earlier comment. As I said it appears thatfolks from a number of cultures were accurately recording facts about various scientific disciplines. For example I just used the Pythagorean Theorum today at work. Said theorum hits right in that 500BC range, yet it was accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cartography
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml
Apparently Math was accurate before 500 BC http://ualr.edu/lasmoller/pythag.html
It seems the Chinese were recording accurate history prior to 500 BC also http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/china/ch01.html
As was astronomy. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec02.html
Maybe it's your modern eurocentric bias that makes you think that science was bleeding people with leeches.
My question remains, given the accurate science, math, astronomy, and navigation that were being done prior to 500 BC, what reason would you put forth that histroy was treated differently.
Or you can do more snark, your call.
Taken very broadly, yes: the Gospels explain the belief in Christ's deity, the practice of the eucharist, etc. The problem is, if you take it narrowly enough to exclude the Gospels, you must also exclude Exodus, Numbers, 1 Chronicles -- EVERYTHING past Genesis 9, including the divine commands you find so problematic.
You write, "I suspect that most historians just see no evidence for these supposed miracles and, BEING MODERN HISTORIANS who take history based on evidence, not faith, aren't compelled to assume that just because a story mentions miracles that this is evidence that miracles occurred."
How very reasonable of them, but is there really more evidence that Jesus walked on water, than there is that Moses parted the sea?
About the divine commands to wage wars of annihilation: if you balk at the claim that God authored Scripture, consistency demands that you cannot say that the Bible claims that God commanded Israel to shed innocent blood. "Innocent" is your word, not the Bible's.
And, on the subject, I ask again whether you believe God owns everything.
"3. I DON'T treat the Gospels (or NT in general) as history."
" 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Luke 1:1-4
So right off the bat it seems like you hve a problem. The author of Luke obviously intended for his letter to be used in a way that you say it shouldn't be.
Mmmmmmmm, who to trust?
Tough call, I'll go with the author.
There we go, Dan.
"I DON'T treat the Gospels (or NT in general) as history."
"The miracle stories, like Jonah's factual existence, are irrelevant to Jesus' truths."
You do treat both parts of the Bible somewhat consistently -- untenably for a Christian -- but it's not as if you suddenly treat the NT as historical. You'll quote Jesus as if the Gospels can be relied upon, but otherwise you emphasize truth but not facts.
(Where again does the Bible itself make such a distinction?)
You should have been clear about this days ago.
Craig...
My question remains, given the accurate science, math, astronomy, and navigation that were being done prior to 500 BC, what reason would you put forth that histroy was treated differently.
My answer remains: There is no evidence that history was told in this accurate style which you are suggesting prior to ~500 BC. My question remains:
Do you acknowledge that your case is based largely on
1. It seems reasonable to me that it was done this way... (begging the question, presumption)
2. It's how we traditionally have understood it... (appeal to tradition)
You DO acknowledge you have NO hard evidence on which to base the presumption that these older stories were told in a modern style?
You can answer the questions actually asked of you or you can fall back on snark, your call.
Or how about this question that you recently dodged again...
You DO recognize that saying, "I rely upon the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible" AND "I rely upon the Bible to know what the Holy Spirit wants" AND "and I rely upon the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible" ad infinitum, IS the definition of circular reasoning?"
You dodged it by non-answer, saying...
I further realize that I have answered this question multiple times and no matter how often you re ask it, you are still not going to like my answer.
I'm going to start only answering questions on a one-to-one basis. I'll answer your one question when you answer my one question.
Let me rephrase my question to see if it helps.
Craig stated...
"There is nothing else to rely on but the Holy Spirit. You may choose to rely on other things I try not too."
And then...
"I know that it is the HS when His leading aligns with what God has revealed in scripture."
So, my question is, IF you know the meaning of a given passage because you "rely on the Holy Spirit" and IF you "know" it's the HS leading you BECAUSE that leading (what is it, anyway, a feeling? A tightness in your heart? A tender moment? An audible voice? What does "His leading" look/feel/sound like??) aligns with "what God reveals in Scripture..." and you know what the meaning of Scripture is because you "rely upon the Holy Spirit...," how do you sort out what is the HS leading you and correctly understanding scripture if the question at hand is the MEANING of a particular passage?
Craig, ball's in your court.
"My answer remains: There is no evidence that history was told in this accurate style which you are suggesting prior to ~500 BC. My question remains:"
Perhaps you didn't understand my question.
To rephrase.
My question is why, given accuracy in other areas, did these people not show the same regard for history.
"You DO acknowledge you have NO hard evidence on which to base the presumption that these older stories were told in a modern style?"
I acknowledge that you ask for something (hard evidence) that you are unwilling to provide to support your hunch.
Further I acknowledge that the definition of history does not make this arbitrary distinction in terms of "modern style".
History, by definition, is either accurate or not history. Modernity does not enter into the equation.
"Do you acknowledge that your case is based largely on... 1 &2"
I understand (because I have said so innumerable times) that these two items are a good place to start. I have further corrected your misrepresentation of my position vis-a-vis what you like to refer to as "tradition".
If by tradition you mean the thousands of years of Jewish and Christian scholarship that has historically held this position, then yes. If by tradition you mean something else then no.
Perhaps you'll stop asking the same diversionary questions since I've answered them plenty.
"You can answer the questions actually asked of you or you can fall back on snark, your call."
Since I have answered the question multiple times I may switch from repeatedly answering the same questions to snark, at least it would be more fun.
"You DO recognize that saying, "I rely upon the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible" AND "I rely upon the Bible to know what the Holy Spirit wants" AND "and I rely upon the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible" ad infinitum, IS the definition of circular reasoning?"
Had I actually said that you may have a point. But since I didn't you don't.
"I'm going to start only answering questions on a one-to-one basis. I'll answer your one question when you answer my one question."
If that's the case then I'll wait until you answer the questions I've posed prior to this new ultimatum, then I'll answer yours.
Ball's in your court.
Dan,
There are four things that prevent me from going into more detail in response to your question.
1. Your nasty and ungracious attack from the first time I answered you.
2. The fact that it seems as though all you are looking for is out of context quotes to use for your own purposes.
3. Your continued snide comments.
4. The fact that you flat out lied to me. I politely asked you to respect my personal answer and drop this question, you said you would, yet this is the second time you've brought it back up since then.
I hope that you can see why I might be reluctant to invest any time in a further answer.
Here's a down payment.
"Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything" (2 Tim 2:7).
Craig...
My question is why, given accuracy in other areas, did these people not show the same regard for history?
You're presuming that telling a story in an epic or mythic form is the same as not showing regard for history. It appears to be the style they used, by all evidences in that time period.
It is no more a "disregard for history" than is using a parable to teach a lesson.
Now, my question to you (the one you still have not answered, but I'll ask in a different way to try to get to your actual answer to my actual question):
When asked "on what do you rely other than your reason and prayerfully seeking God's will/Holy Spirit to discern the meaning of a passage, you said, and I quote:
"The Holy Spirit"
When asked, "how do you know it's the HS leading you in your understanding?, you said, AND I QUOTE:
"I know that it is the HS when His leading aligns with what God has revealed in scripture."
My question to you:
When you are striving to interpret a passage SEEKING the HS leading, what else do you rely upon besides your reason to sort it out?
And, related, and still unanswered...
What does that look/feel like to you, being "guided by the HS?" How is that different than striving by God's grace to use your reason to sort things out/discern meaning?
While waiting for your answer to my question, I will deal with this, assuming there has been a legitimate misunderstanding...
There are four things that prevent me from going into more detail in response to your question.
1. Your nasty and ungracious attack from the first time I answered you.
The answer you gave seemed to be a rejection of Godly grace and Christian kindness. I was rebuking you in the name of Christ our Lord because of how wrong that answer appeared to be.
Given your response since my rebuke of your behavior, I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you truly don't see how ungracious your comments were. My sincere apologies for my misunderstanding.
I hope you can understand that, with two Christians having a conversation about biblical interpretation, it should be safely assumed that it is a given that both Christians are primarily interested in seeking God's Will, seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit, praying for God's will to be revealed.
That is a given. That is part of what it MEANS to be a Christian: That one is making Jesus Lord of their lives by God's grace, seeking God's will is primary Christian behavior.
It is a given.
Thus, when I kept asking what you do other than use your reason, it was with THE GIVEN that of course, Christians seeking God's Will/the Holy Spirit's leading - this is what Christians do, and thus, when you kept responding "The Holy Spirit," it was as if you were suggesting that those who disagree with you DON'T do this.
It sounded as if you were deliberately being an ungracious jerk in your response, wholly lacking in Christian kindness and grace. I responded by rebuking that.
I believe now that you were simply not seeing this as a lack of grace or, perhaps, not intentionally suggesting that others weren't seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance, even though that is what it repeatedly sounded like, EVEN AFTER I repeatedly tried to get you to see how it was sounding and to back down, which you still haven't done.
Nonetheless, I am beginning to think, due to your response to a justified rebuke, that you truly just don't see it. So, I apologize and will write it off as a lack of discernment on your part to recognize what seems obvious and a lack of discernment on my part for not seeing that you're truly not seeing it.
Sorry.
Craig...
2. The fact that it seems as though all you are looking for is out of context quotes to use for your own purposes.
I'm looking for answers to actual questions that I ask. I ask the questions for a couple of reasons: Clarification of what you actually mean, clarification of what we all mean and, hopefully, to bring some light to a dark place of misunderstanding.
That is why I ask questions. IF it seems I take something out of context, it will surely be because I misunderstood or had too hard a time getting a straight answer from you all. You can point it out if something is out of context and misunderstood.
3. Your continued snide comments.
Nothing I say is any more snide than the things that you all say. Shall I give you examples?
4. The fact that you flat out lied to me. I politely asked you to respect my personal answer and drop this question, you said you would, yet this is the second time you've brought it back up since then.
I am sorry if I said that. I truly don't remember and can't find the place where I said so.
I DO think it is an important question/point to make, although I've begun to doubt that you have the discerning powers to see why.
"You're presuming that telling a story in an epic or mythic form is the same as not showing regard for history. It appears to be the style they used, by all evidences in that time period.
It is no more a "disregard for history" than is using a parable to teach a lesson."
You're not reading the question. I am not presuming anything beyond your contentions on the lack of factual accuracy in history pre 500BC.
Since I didn't say "disregard for history", I have no idea who you were responding to.
The question remains unanswered.
Why did pre 500Bc folks value accuracy in everything but history?
"When you are striving to interpret a passage SEEKING the HS leading, what else do you rely upon besides your reason to sort it out?"
Asked and answered.
"The answer you gave seemed to be a rejection of Godly grace and Christian kindness. I was rebuking you in the name of Christ our Lord because of how wrong that answer appeared to be."
Since it only SEEMED to be something, perhaps a better response would have been to ask clarifying questions to determine what it actually was before your rant.
"Given your response since my rebuke of your behavior, I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you truly don't see how ungracious your comments were."
Thank you oh so much for the benefit of the doubt in tolerating my "ungracious" answer.
"My sincere apologies for my misunderstanding."
I note that your apologies are not for your nasty and ungracious words, just for your misunderstanding. I'm not sure why you think what you wrote was anywhere close to "speak the truth in love", gracious, or reasonably appropriate. But that's probably all I'm going to get.
"it should be safely assumed that it is a given that both Christians are primarily interested in seeking God's Will, seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit, praying for God's will to be revealed.
That is a given. That is part of what it MEANS to be a Christian:"
I'm going to say this and want to assure you that it is not necessarily directed at you personally.
First, in my original answer and subsequent clarifications I NEVER wrote, said or implied ANYTHING bout you and how you do things. I was ONLY answering for MYSELF. The fact that you inferred something not said, and continue to believe it even though I have corrected your misunderstanding concerns me.
Second, I have interacted with plenty of "christians" who deny that the HS is active in the the current age or ignore the HS entirely. So I do not assume anything about anyone.
Third, I have interacted with plenty of folks who claim to be "christian" but who's lives, words, and deeds would suggest otherwise. So again, I assume nothing about anyone.
Fourth, I don't know you (nor you me) in any real meaningful sense. I have no way to determine anything about you (nor you me) based on these interchanges. So again I assume nothing about anyone. I know myself and how I do things.
I apologize that you inferred something that I did not say, nor did I intend to say what you inferred. I intended to speak ONLY to myself and how I approach things. NOT to you or how you or anyone else approach things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
“I've let it go, Craig.” 9/16/11 9:15 AM
“My question to you: When you are striving to interpret a passage SEEKING the HS leading, what else do you rely upon besides your reason to sort it out?
And, related, and still unanswered...
What does that look/feel like to you, being "guided by the HS?" How is that different than striving by God's grace to use your reason to sort things out/discern meaning?
9/23/11 7:55 PM
Maybe this will help jog your memory.
Dan,
Earlier in this thread I went back to your original statement and parsed it in the light of your later clarifications. It might be helpful to look at the original comment/question.
DAN "We pray,..."
OK fine, but no mention of the Holy Spirit
DAN "...we seek God's will,..."
OK, but again no mention of the Holy Spirit.
DAN "... we meditate and ponder,.."
OK, but still no mention of the Holy Spirit.
DAN "...but in the end, it IS our reason that we use to make sense of the text.:"
So, now we bring in Reason, but still no Holy Spirit.
Now so far this is a statement,not a question. With no reference to the Holy Spirit.
So we get to the question.
DAN "Again, what else is there?"
To which I answered with something that WAS NOT INCLUDED in your statement.”
I am willing to grant that you assumed that you were including the Holy Spirit somewhere in there, but you will have to grant that nowhere do you mention the Holy Spirit.
Given that, I don't see how you have worked yourself up so much over this.
Your statement clearly did not mention or reference the Holy Spirit (granting that you might have been assuming it to be understood, yet it is clearly not written),
So I fail to see how I did not answer your question as asked.
Surely, you can't assume that I can read what is not written? Or read your mind?
Dan,
You stated the following earlier in this thread.
“I would hope that you would take a bit of time to relax and more carefully respond rationally to my comments, rather than with knee-jerk antagonism.”
You also stated this.
“I was rebuking you in the name of Christ our Lord because of how wrong that answer appeared to be.”
I want to post what your "rebuke in the name of Christ our Lord" actually consisted of.
I'll be blunt with you here: it's this sort of verbal vomit that makes folk sickened by your sort of Christian. This repeated arrogant and sanctimonious excrement that you spew from your mouth sometimes is not becoming an adult Christian or adult human.
"Well, I'm relying upon God while YOU are relying on your own pitiful reason," is just bullshit of the most rotten and diabolical sort.
“…, but that sort of arrogance will turn the conversation right off. It is not worthy of those called by God. It isn't even worthy of just a normal adult.”
“Trying to suggest otherwise is a sign of mental diarrhea and you are better than that,…”
“This is more of the arrogant mouth shit that some less mature (or just vainly arrogant) Christians spew instead of actual responses. Just to reiterate: I'm not at all interested in dealing this sort of spiritual and mental diarrhea-of-the-mouth-and-mind,…”
“Would you like to answer the real question or do you prefer your vomitous crud approach?”
” As it is, I'm beginning to wonder if it's just beyond your skill set.“
“Each time that someone suggests "well, I (hoity toity, wonderful ME) rely upon the Holy Spirit, NOT my reason, while YOU merely rely upon your flawed reason..." each time someone suggests that sort of verbal vomit, they are exposing their arrogance and hypocrisy and all-around plain goofiness, not to mention a bit of diabolical divisiveness. Stop it.”
“…you give a bullshit answer that implies YOU begin with the Spirit of God, but I/we only rely upon our reason. That is NOT of grace, it is NOT respectful. It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled. It is not the sort of behavior that becomes Christians.”
“I'll continue in Christian conversation respectfully IF that is the level on which you wish to correspond. But I must insist no more of this brain rot.”
“"Or is the case that each time you have a yearning, you assume that it's the Holy Spirit leading you and you really rely upon emotions and whims to help make those decisions?"
“As well as the notion that you have the ability to explain to me what you mean.”
“I DO think it is an important question/point to make, although I've begun to doubt that you have the discerning powers to see why.”
Could you please point out where in there you actually rebuked me "in the name of Christ our Lord"
"What does that look/feel like to you, being "guided by the HS?"
It looks and feels like a confident peace. It looks like humbly submitting to the Spirit's leadings. It is a sense of knowing (in a away that may not be easily explainable) what is the correct path. It is/can be having things confirmed (or not) by other believers. It can be reading or hearing something that confirms something else. It looks like something that is easy to poke fun at, yet in my experience is very real. It's difficult to explain in this context, but nonetheless I've tried.
"How is that different than striving by God's grace to use your reason to sort things out/discern meaning?"
Since I don't know what that question means to you, I really can't give you an answer. It may not appear to you to be much different. Honestly, I don't know and it really wouldn't make much difference to me.
There you go.
Surely, you can't assume that I can read what is not written? Or read your mind?
I assume that when we're speaking of Christians, we are speaking of people who wish to follow in God's ways.
Are you of a tribe that believes in magic words (ie, do you believe that because someone doesn't say JUST RIGHT, "I DEPEND UPON THE HOLY SPIRIT" that they are not truly seeking God's will?)
If so, that would be another of those signs of the religious type who depend upon the letter of the law which kills rather than the spirit of God/Grace that brings life.
Grace, grace, grace....
"Are you of a tribe that believes in magic words (ie, do you believe that because someone doesn't say JUST RIGHT, "I DEPEND UPON THE HOLY SPIRIT" that they are not truly seeking God's will?)"
No, but I am of a tribe that actually read the statement before the question and noticed that you didn't mention the Holy Spirit.
I'm also of the tribe that tries not to assume things.
I'm also of the tribe that, if I want to communicate something specific, make sure I try to communicate what I want to say.
I do admire your naivete. AT one point I also would have assumed that someone who claims to be a christian would regularly seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
However, I now see folks who are ordained pastors who deny the authority of scripture, the deity of Christ, the existence of God, and the existence of spiritual gifts. So, I don't assume that anyone claiming to be christian actually holds any of what were once considered foundational doctrines of the faith. (AGAIN TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, I am not suggesting anything about you personally. Just my general approach to anyone who I don't really know.)
"If so, that would be another of those signs of the religious type who depend upon the letter of the law which kills rather than the spirit of God/Grace that brings life."
Since you have no actual reason (especially since I've never expressed anything near to this) to believe this of me, I fail to see the relevance.
"Grace, grace, grace...."
You mean grace like this?I'll be blunt with you here: it's this sort of verbal vomit that makes folk sickened by your sort of Christian. This repeated arrogant and sanctimonious excrement that you spew from your mouth sometimes is not becoming an adult Christian or adult human.
"Well, I'm relying upon God while YOU are relying on your own pitiful reason," is just bullshit of the most rotten and diabolical sort.
“…, but that sort of arrogance will turn the conversation right off. It is not worthy of those called by God. It isn't even worthy of just a normal adult.”
“Trying to suggest otherwise is a sign of mental diarrhea and you are better than that,…”
“This is more of the arrogant mouth shit that some less mature (or just vainly arrogant) Christians spew instead of actual responses. Just to reiterate: I'm not at all interested in dealing this sort of spiritual and mental diarrhea-of-the-mouth-and-mind,…”
“Would you like to answer the real question or do you prefer your vomitous crud approach?”
” As it is, I'm beginning to wonder if it's just beyond your skill set.“
“Each time that someone suggests "well, I (hoity toity, wonderful ME) rely upon the Holy Spirit, NOT my reason, while YOU merely rely upon your flawed reason..." each time someone suggests that sort of verbal vomit, they are exposing their arrogance and hypocrisy and all-around plain goofiness, not to mention a bit of diabolical divisiveness. Stop it.”
“…you give a bullshit answer that implies YOU begin with the Spirit of God, but I/we only rely upon our reason. That is NOT of grace, it is NOT respectful. It is slimy and diabolical and excrement-filled. It is not the sort of behavior that becomes Christians.”
“I'll continue in Christian conversation respectfully IF that is the level on which you wish to correspond. But I must insist no more of this brain rot.”
“"Or is the case that each time you have a yearning, you assume that it's the Holy Spirit leading you and you really rely upon emotions and whims to help make those decisions?"
“As well as the notion that you have the ability to explain to me what you mean.”
“I DO think it is an important question/point to make, although I've begun to doubt that you have the discerning powers to see why.”
Grace, grace, grace... indeed.
Craig...
You mean grace like this?I'll be blunt with you here: it's this sort of verbal vomit that makes folk sickened by your sort of Christian.
Religious hypocrisy was the ONE sin where Jesus really used harsh words in rebuke. You may recall...
"Blind guides! Brood of snakes! WHITE WASHED TOMBS! Full of dead men's bones!"
You seemed to be going down that same road that they pharisees were, I responded what I thought was appropriately.
It appears you did so in ignorance, not in deliberate hypocrisy. I have apologized. I am sorry for the "over-rebuke."
Do you disagree with the notion of strongly rebuking religious hypocrites as our Lord did? I doubt that you do.
I'm just sorry that you don't see how it at least appears to be that same sort of religious hypocrisy when one person states, "SEEKING GOD'S WILL, we use our Reason, what else is there?" and the other replies, "Holy Spirit" and appears to imply that the other person isn't, when IT IS A GIVEN. I've never said anything to suggest that I don't believe in the HS, I've given my testimony as to my salvation, I've talked about sincerely following in Jesus' steps and seeking God's will by God's grace, but because I didn't use the literal words "Seeking the HS guidance" or something close to it, you were AND KEPT implying that I wasn't, EVEN AFTER I POINTED IT OUT TO YOU.
Nonetheless, you appear to have sincerely MISSED all of that and so you were simply not being observant, not deliberately hypocritical, so I over-reacted and I apologize.
Move on?
As to this...
I'm also of the tribe that tries not to assume things.
Actually, Craig, you appear to assume a lot, and yet NOT assume a lot that you ought to assume. I've pointed out that I AM a Christian, saved by God's grace, SEEKING GOD'S WILL, striving by God's grace to walk in Jesus' steps, who is my Lord and Savior.
I've testified that I believe in the Trinity, INCLUDING THE HS.
I have never said anything to suggest that I DON'T believe in the HS.
Given all that (especially that I have specifically SAID that I believe in the Triune God, including the HS), I think one can reasonably ASSUME that I DO believe in the HS.
Now, if we could put that behind us, how about an answer to MY still-unanswered ACTUAL question:
When you are striving to interpret a passage SEEKING the HS leading, what else do you rely upon besides your reason to sort it out?
"...when IT IS A GIVEN."
Sorry, but when the existence of God is an optional doctrine for some progressives, I'll not assume anything is a given.
As much as you want to argue about this, the bottom line remains. What you ACTUALLY WROTE DOES NOT MENTION THE HOLY SPIRIT. I can only deal with what you write, not what you are thinking while you write or what you assume is a given.
I did the same thing earlier in the thread, I thought I wrote one thing when I actually wrote something else. I jumped on you about it and you pointed out what I actually wrote. Guess what I apologized and explained my mistake. It's not hard, you should try it.
""Seeking the HS guidance" or something close to it, you were AND KEPT implying that I wasn't, EVEN AFTER I POINTED IT OUT TO YOU."
First, this is blatantly wrong. Is it a mistake or intentional lie I don't know, but it's wrong.
I SPECIFICALLY SAID, I have no knowledge of what you do or don't so and WAS NOT suggesting or implying anything about you or what you do. I have said OVER AND OVER that I can only speak for myself, and that I make no assumptions about what you do. Either accept what I have actually said, stop inferring something THAT IS NOT THERE, or just come out and call me a liar.
"Move on?"
Whenever you do what you said and drop this, I'll be happy to.
"I think one can reasonably ASSUME that I DO believe in the HS."
Since I never said you didn't I have to wonder who you are responding to here.
"When you are striving to interpret a passage SEEKING the HS leading, what else do you rely upon besides your reason to sort it out?"
The Holy Spirit, The Scriptures, and the wisdom and knowledge of the Church.
As a courtesy, I've answered this once more. Your choice, "Drop it", "Move on? or "Grace, grace, grace..." any one works. I'm not answering this again.
"Do you disagree with the notion of strongly rebuking religious hypocrites as our Lord did? I doubt that you do."
Yet, when we rebuke YOUR hypocrisy, which seems apparent to those who understand what Scripture clearly says about homosexual behavior, you give us crap about grace. Now it seems you are hypocritical in your application of grace. More to the point, you assume some superior knowledge of when it is appropriate to rebuke harshly the opinions, positions and beliefs of others. Well, I've got news for you. You don't. You're clearly a man of double standards.
Marshall...
Yet, when we rebuke YOUR hypocrisy, which seems apparent to those who understand what Scripture clearly says about homosexual behavior, you give us crap about grace.
This is because, while we HAVE a biblical model (in Jesus Christ our Lord's very own example) of rebuking religious hypocrisy and doing so strongly, we HAVE NO such model for rebuking people because you disagree with them over the sin-nature of a behavior.
Understand the difference?
Craig, maybe since you still haven't answered my actual question, let me look at where you DID answer ONE of my actual questions (which I very much appreciate, my brother) and take a look at it from that angle. In answer to the question, "What does the Spirit's leadership look/feel like to you?" you said...
It looks and feels like a confident peace. It looks like humbly submitting to the Spirit's leadings. It is a sense of knowing (in a away that may not be easily explainable) what is the correct path. It is/can be having things confirmed (or not) by other believers.
It can be reading or hearing something that confirms something else. It looks like something that is easy to poke fun at, yet in my experience is very real.
1. I am NOT going to be mocking/making fun of this. This sense of peace is a very affirming thing we humans have.
2. Nonetheless, I hope we can all agree that it is a SUBJECTIVE feeling or emotion or series of thoughts that WE EXPERIENCE, rather than some objective bit of hard evidence.
3. Thus, I hope we can agree that to "FEEL" like the Spirit is leading us in a particular way is something IN US - either our reasoning (this seems to me to be of God...) or our emotions (this feels to me to be right).
4. IF we can agree upon that much, then that gets me back to my original point: We are relying upon our REASONING to sort these things out. Or, if you prefer: We are relying upon our REASONING and FEELINGS/EMOTIONS to sort these things out.
5. Which is not to say that we aren't praying for the Spirit of God's guidance, seeking God's Will or striving by God's grace to walk in Jesus' steps (or whatever other language you want to put it in), but that ultimately, what we think and feel within us IS within us and, while it may indeed be God's still soft voice leading, it may be our own "voices" leading as well and WE are the ones sorting it out the best we can, prayerfully seeking the Holy Spirit's leadership.
That was all my intent was - just trying to state the obvious - and hopefully we're agreed upon that.
Now, it may be that you come back and say, "No, when I 'feel [the] a confident peace' in my heart, it most definitely NEVER IS my OWN feelings and reasoning, but God's leadership and I know I can't ever be wrong on that..." and, if so, I think this conversation truly is ended, at least on that front. I hope that is not the case - I hope that you're not conflating your "feelings of confident peace" with "God's Definitive and unmistakeable Will" but you can tell me that is so if that is what you think.
Thanks for that much of the answer.
Peace.
Dan,
This again is the point where I say that it is much harder to give you an answer in this format that will satisfy you. This is the reason why I suggested that we drop this some time ago. I would suggest that the grace filled way to respond is for you to acknowledge that to a great degree this is a personal experience and that my personal response is just that mine. I agree that in one sense it is subjective (certainly from someone else's point of view), yet at the same time there is a sense of objectivity also (at least to me). I am not saying that it is normative or that anyone else should want or expect something similar. So for may part, I'm done with distraction from other stuff. If you want to label of define my experience it's not going to help, so again. Why not show some "Grace, grace, grace..." and "drop it".
There are plenty of unanswered questions and other stuff for you to respond to, why not spend your limited time on that instead?
"Actually, Craig, you appear to assume a lot,..."
Actually Dan, maybe this phrase is part of the communication problems here.
You keep using words like "seems like" and "appear". Maybe if you would respond to "seems like" by seeking clarification rather than rebuke or mistaking "seems like" for is, the communication would be more productive.
Why not drop it? Because this appears to be (and I put "appears" and "seems" for a reason - to make clear that I don't know for sure and allow you to explain yourself) the problem for many in your camp:
You all often appear to conflate your feelings and opinions with GOD'S and thus, when people disagree with you, they are disagreeing with God (in this type of person's mind) and thus, communication becomes virtually impossible (see the evidence here) because it isn't two Christians seeking God's Truth, speaking to each other on level ground, it's one person who thinks they are speaking for God telling another person what's wrong with them. Their mind is shut and the responses increasingly arrogant.
And to me, this SEEMS to be a large part of the problem in communication between my camp and that camp. It's a cultural problem that I'm curious about and striving (by God's grace, seeking the HS guidance) to find ways of dealing with on a reasonable Christian level.
"You all often appear to conflate your feelings and opinions with GOD'S and thus, when people disagree with you, they are disagreeing with God..."
The problem is that no matter how this might "appear" or "seem" to you, it is simply not the case. The fact that you think it is, and that you respond as if it actually is, is problematic.
"it's one person who thinks they are speaking for God telling another person what's wrong with them."
You mean like when someone "rebukes" someone else in the "name of Christ our Lord" without actually referring to Christ or anything He said?
"It's a cultural problem that I'm curious about and striving (by God's grace, seeking the HS guidance) to find ways of dealing with on a reasonable Christian level."
So you consider the way you've behaved in this thread to be "reasonable" and "Christian" and others to be unreasonable and non-Christian, would that be the case? Seems a little closed minded and arrogant to me.
Right now it seems to ma that there are some relevant questions that have been asked by Bubba and others, and that by focusing on this sideshow you allow yourself to both avoid answering the questions and later plead that you don't remember/can't find them.
So I think the best course for me would be to discontinue any further conversation on this "topic" as it seems to be pretty exhausted anyway. This will allow you (and others) to use the limited time that we have to respond to what has so far been unresponded to. That sounds reasonable to me.
You see, Craig, the problem is this...
I agree that in one sense it is subjective (certainly from someone else's point of view), yet at the same time there is a sense of objectivity also (at least to me). I am not saying that it is normative or that anyone else should want or expect something similar.
The point is, NO, there is not "sense of objectivity," not in the normal English usage of the word. IF it is YOUR "feeling of certainty" or "feeling of peace," or assurance or whatever else, it remains YOUR FEELING. Belonging to you. NOT objective, not measurable, not definitive.
And yet, people strive to conflate their feelings and their opinions with GOD's and soon, they can begin speaking as if they are speaking for God, and if one is speaking for God, there is no real need to pay too much attention to what the other person is saying or what their point is because, "after all, I've got the feeling that I'm certainly right, certainly speaking for God objectively and with no doubt."
That is a dangerous place to be in, it seems to THIS fallible human being, and not one conducive to communication. With that sort of mindset, you have people suddenly "certain" that one can't hold an interpretation (such as I do) of the Bible and STILL honestly love the Bible, or one can't hold positions on non-essential ideas (such as I do) and STILL be a Christian.
It places way too much trust upon one's own ability to be "certainly" right, objectively right, unquestioningly right.
You see this in charismatics and fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, Mormon, whatever) much of the time and it's not a good thing, seems to me.
One man's opinion.
Well I guess it's a good thing I'm not one of "those people". When I said objective I probably meant morein the sense of real, than objective. Ny point was to differentiate what I am trying, poorly, to describe from sinply basing things on emotions. Again it's hard to express in this format so a little grace would be helpful.
"It places way too much trust upon one's own ability to be "certainly" right, objectively right, unquestioningly right."
I guess the only difference I'd possible have with you is I believe that there is an objective right and wrong about much of this and I believe that we have the ability to find it.
The opposite problem is what we see from a lot of progressives, where there is no right and wrong and anything goes.
How seriously can you take someone who claims to be a christian (a pastor) yet who denies the existence of God (YHWH, Jesus, Holy Spirit the whole ball of wax)? Let me be clear I'm not saying that folks have to believe exactly everything but there are some nonnegotiables.
I know it frosts the buns of many of my opponents, but I have no problem with stating that I know the truth until someone can provide a convincing case that compels me to change my mind. An argument that states that ancient people NEVER recorded their histories with the same eye and heart for accuracy that we expect of historians today is weak, if based on cultures that put forth mythological histories like Zeus, or on historians that refused to acknowledge the miraculous in their historical renderings.
Again, to say "this is how the tiger got its stripes" suggests a mythical style of writing only works if one assumes such a thing began with mythological writers, rather than preferring to believe that the mythological writers adopted such from those like the OT writers to give their myths more credibility. I'm not saying this is the case. I'm saying that assumptions are made on the opposite side of the argument in order to support the contention that we cannot trust the OT stories as being an accurate record of the events depicted. It seems the very question begging Dan believes I'm engaging in.
Dan, I've said pretty much all I wanted to say, raising the question how you could consider the OT to be myth while apparently treating the Gospels as historical.
Well, while asserting, repeatedly, that the NT isn't myth...
"The NT stories are NOT written in the time of myth-telling.
"The NT stories are NOT written in a mythic pattern/style."
...you make the odd claim that, " I DON'T treat the Gospels (or NT in general) as history."
Just as you make a distinction between the Bible's factual claims and "Great Truths," you distinguish between Jesus' teachings and His miracles.
"Many of the miracles I take on faith, much in the same way as I take the story of Jonah on faith. But that does not take away from the solid truths of Jesus' teachings. The miracle stories, like Jonah's factual existence, are irrelevant to Jesus' truths."
The Bible makes no such distinction, and Jesus' teachings affirm the importance of His miracles (Mt 11:4-6, Jn 10:25, 37-38). I don't know how you can trust the historicity of Jesus' teachings if you don't trust the historicity of the miracles that dominate the context of His teaching. For that matter, I thought you insisted on a literal reading of Lk 4:18-19 -- where Jesus proclaims sight to the blind.
What you do insist is this:
"I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS A TRUSTWORTHY RECORD OF GOD'S WORDS AND DEEDS."
You believe some of the Bible's historical claims -- when there is "sufficient real world evidence," the Bible's own authority being evidently insufficient, despite passages like Luke 1 -- but you don't believe any of its books qualify as history. You believe the OT is myth and the NT contains some unspecified genre other than history.
For that reason, I have NO idea what you could POSSIBLY mean when you affirm that the Bible is a trustworthy record of God's words and deeds, and I doubt you'll ever be completely clear on the subject.
On another subject, Dan, you write:
"You all often appear to conflate your feelings and opinions with GOD'S and thus, when people disagree with you, they are disagreeing with God (in this type of person's mind) and thus, communication becomes virtually impossible (see the evidence here) because it isn't two Christians seeking God's Truth, speaking to each other on level ground, it's one person who thinks they are speaking for God telling another person what's wrong with them. Their mind is shut and the responses increasingly arrogant."
I believe you do precisely what you accuse others of doing, as when you argue against a literal interpretation of passages where God commands total war. You repeatedly presume to know God's word, written on your heart AND others'.
"IF you were to try to take THAT teaching literally, you have a conflict with other clear moral teachings found in the Bible and in our own hearts and minds."
"God's very word written upon our mutual hearts calls out in confirmation of this universal moral truth."
Maybe you make some fine-grained distinction between speaking for God and declaring what He has written on all our hearts, but that distinction may not be obvious to all, and some may see it but disagree on its significance.
As it is, in presuming to tell us what God's word is even on our own hearts -- and in presuming to declare which of your "feelings and opinions" qualify as God's word -- you exhibit the sort of arrogance you now hypocritically condemn in others.
And, in trying to insinuate that theological conservatives are uniquely arrogant, you come across as particularly partisan and oblivious to your own presumptuous behavior.
For all your warnings about undue certainty, you seem completely certain that there are no exceptions, EVER, to the prohibition against taking even innocent human life.
Here, I think it's worth noting that there are exceptions to most moral commands: Schindler was probably right to lie to the Nazis, and a surgeon may be right to amputate a gangrous limb over the person's objections, even without anesthesia. And, I think you overlook the Bible's reason for the prohibition: taking life isn't prohibited even for God, it's prohibited for us because it's His prerogative. Gen 9:6 explains that the reason murder is prohibited is because we belong to God -- "for God made man in his own image." I Sam 2:6 affirms God's sovereignty over life AND death.
Against all this you are certain about God's will, concluding that God couldn't possibly have literally meant what the Bible attributes to Him. In your certainty you are as rigid and even as ungracious as the worst stereotype of a fundamentalist, and so you simply should not attribute that intransigence exclusively to those who disagree with you.
Bubba,
I'd love to see some answers to your questions as I found them to be very appropriate. Maybe you could so a summary of them so as to be respectful of Dan's time constraints.
Dan,
What I see as the biggest difference between those who are (for lack of a better term) absolutist, and those who are more flexible is the following.
If you are in an argument with someone who says "God says this and I know I'm right", all you have to do is to provide evidence (hard evidence would be preferable, but any evidence would be a good start) that demonstrates that "God did not say that, He said this". While I'm sure there are some deluded folks who would not respond to evidence, most are willing to examine the evidence and follow it where ever it leads. I know I've done this and have changed my beliefs as a result of seeing evidence.
As folks lean toward the other side it becomes harder and harder to separate personal opinion from fact. If there are no absolutes, or if the absolutes can be defined so broadly as to be essentially meaningless, then it doesn't matter what contrary evidence someone provides.
Thanks, Craig, but I am wrapping up what I've had to say. I have absolutely no confidence that Dan will be respectful of our time by providing clear answers to the actual questions we've raised, and he's long since lost the benefit of the doubt that would motivate me to summarize my earlier questions. A week ago I emphasized a few questions quite clearly, and that ought to have been enough.
Bubba,
I hear you. I thought your questions were definately worth being answered and hope to see that. I am afraid I've provided enough of a distraction to prevent that from happening. Sorry about that.
I just posted a comment and confirmed its publication, and now it's gone.
Dan, can you confirm that was a glitch?
I reposted the comment, confirmed its publication, and it's gone again. Bizarre.
That is very weird.
I received the notice that those comments were posted. I didn't do anything with them. Your posts NOTING that you posted them are here...
?
Let me try. Bubba said...
Don't dare apologize, Craig. People who want to avoid a subject will find a way to do so, so it wouldn't have mattered if you hadn't provided an occasion to change gears.
On that subject, I notice that Dan hasn't written one word in this thread since I pointed out the hypocrisy of his accusing us of arrogantly speaking for God while routinely presuming to tell us about God's word written on our hearts.
Correlation isn't causation, but his writing elsewhere on this blog is proof positive that Dan hasn't suddenly run out of time to converse online.
And it's funny, but he had just written about how he wasn't going to "drop it," referring to your impression of the objective nature of the Holy Spirit's leadings: it was supposedly proof of the dangerous, close-minded arrogance that distinguishes the theological conservatives from his "camp."
There's no evidence from his own writing that he was wrapping up, but a big reason our earlier arguments fequently spanned multiple threads is that he does have a strange tendency of dropping conversations at the oddest times -- the way a kid gets bored at Monopoly about the time he starts mortgaging properties.
Is there nothing he can say in his own defense? I don't think there is, but that doesn't mean that saying nothing is the right thing.
The explicitly partisan charge of near-blasphemous arrogance is serious, as is my response that the accusation is deeply and transparently hypocritical. If Dan cannot defend his comment -- I've certainly substantiated mine, and I could have cited many more comments -- then Christian decency requires that he retract the comment and apologize for it.
I see it. It's comment number 337. It's there. This SHOULD be comment 338.
Let's see what happens...
I don't know.
?
Odd. Thanks, Dan.
Wow. Your post didn't go through (or stay) AGAIN??
Try posting just half of it, just out of curiosity's sake... then the second half.
...If you want - it's up there now, I'm just wondering what's making it not stay. There are no links, it isn't that long, I'm getting no errors.
Strange.
I have no idea. It's probably a good sign for me to bow out. If you could explain that seeming discrepancy I mentioned or retract the criticism, that would be great.
Take care, regardless.
-B
I'll revisit as soon as I get a chance...
Bubba...
I believe you do precisely what you accuse others of doing, as when you argue against a literal interpretation of passages where God commands total war. You repeatedly presume to know God's word, written on your heart AND others'...
As it is, in presuming to tell us what God's word is even on our own hearts -- and in presuming to declare which of your "feelings and opinions" qualify as God's word -- you exhibit the sort of arrogance you now hypocritically condemn in others.
And, in trying to insinuate that theological conservatives are uniquely arrogant, you come across as particularly partisan and oblivious to your own presumptuous behavior.
The difference is, Bubba, that I strive to be quite clear that I am speaking for myself, not for God. These are MY hunches. These are WHAT I THINK (having prayerfully sought God's will) are the most logical conclusions. If you disagree with me, you are not disagreeing with God.
I don't get that same sense from you all, as a rule. I've been told quite clearly by at least some, "No, I CAN'T BE MISTAKEN on this point..." (in that case, he was speaking of marriage as it relates to gays). And so, when I said...
"You all often APPEAR TO conflate your feelings and opinions with GOD'S and thus, when people disagree with you, they are disagreeing with God
I was stating how you all appear (and at least sometimes confirm) to think that you are conflating your hunches with God's Will. I do not do this.
That would be the difference and why there is no hypocrisy. Do I feel confident in my position? Yes, of course, or I wouldn't hold it. Am I saying that I can't be mistaken? Absolutely not.
Are you confirming now, Bubba, that when you offer your opinion about marriage equity or whatever, that it is clearly YOUR opinion and you are not conflating your hunches with God's will? If so, good for you. You and I can agree upon that much.
Would you agree that stating that there is a "sense of objectivity" to one's feelings about God's Holy Spirit speaking to them, that they sound like they are conflating God's will with their own interpretations? That they're stating it isn't subjective, but at least a little objective..."?
Bubba, as in answer to the difference between me and y'all, Marshall just noted in my latest post...
It IS my position because it IS the Biblical position.
Conflating his hunch with God's Word.
I strive to be quite clear that I'm speaking about what is most reasonable (as far as I can see) where Marshall truly seems to think his position is God's position.
That's the difference.
"It IS my position because it IS the Biblical position."
So it is a problem for you when someone identifies the Biblical position and conforms their position to the Bible.
OK
Craig...
So it is a problem for you when someone identifies the Biblical position and conforms their position to the Bible.
Craig, again, I rebuke this verbal vomit in the Name of Jesus Christ the Lord. Get over yourself and quit uttering this bullshit out of your mouth. It only makes your breath stink.
So it is a problem for you when someone identifies the Biblical position and conforms their position to the Bible.
The problem is NOT in identifying a position "I think this is what the Bible says..." It's when they say, "WHAT I THINK the Bible says IS GOD'S WORD."
THAT is conflating one's own self to God's position and that comes too close to blasphemy for my tastes.
Dan,
At some point you became angry because you assume that calling yourself a christian means that certain things are taken for granted. I suggested that my experience with folks on the progressive side of things who identify as christian gives me pause to assume anything.
I submit the following. This is written by a self identified christian and posted on the blog of a pastor of a christian denomination (the pastor endorses the following).
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
I hope this clarifies my reluctance to assume anything.
To clarify. Are you suggesting that simply saying the Biblical position on XYZ is this, and I will accommodate my personal opinions to the Biblical position is a problem.
Or to put it more simply, are you saying that agreeing with the Bible is blasphemy?
Personally I find it hard to believe that this is you position, yet it seems to be the case.
Dan,
If the lack of a question mark caused you to misinterpret my question as something else I apologize. I was asking a question that your response raised.
Yes, Craig, I'm saying agreeing with the Bible is blasphemy.
I'm saying it's really stupid to try to align yourself with the Bible.
I'm saying up is down and black is white.
I don't have no sense and don't know nothing 'bout no God.
Get serious and don't be a jerk.
Please forgive me if asking a question is being a jerk. You appear to be saying something that sounds out of character for you. I'm seeking clarification. What a jerk I am.
I notice no response to my other comment about assuming.
Craig, asking questions isn't being a jerk. Answering stupid-ass questions with obvious answers (thereby coming across as if you're implying that maybe I DO think the Bible is blasphemous and other idiotic ideas), THAT is what is being a jerk.
I'm sorry if you truly are so unaware as to not realize what an ass you're sounding like.
Embrace grace. Don't ask stupid questions.
Or, shall I play your game, Craig?
Are you saying that you truly don't know you're being a graceless ass?
Dan,
Perhaps you didn't understand the question I was actually asking based on your condemnation of MA's comment. It seems as though you misinterpreted MA's comment and had drawn a strange conclusion. Pardon me for asking the question.
"I rebuke this verbal vomit in the Name of Jesus Christ the Lord. Get over yourself and quit uttering this bullshit out of your mouth. It only makes your breath stink."
It's stuff like this that makes me want to take lessons in grace from you.
Graceless ass indeed.
Dan:
I didn't plan on commenting again, because I didn't expect a response to my criticism, much less one that is clear and on-point.
"The difference is, Bubba, that I strive to be quite clear that I am speaking for myself, not for God."
Unfortunately, I don't find this response all that credible.
For one thing, you don't ACTUALLY make that clear (much less "quite clear") when you routinely invoke God's word written on our hearts. Your argument loses much of its meaning if one were to infer that, and it's not as if you subject your understanding of God's moral law to any sort of scrutiny.
It's not as if you present your understanding of morality as something provisional and subject to correction. I've tried, on more than one occasion, to get you to unpack WHY you think taking human life is wrong, but you don't seem interested in treating your belief as anything other than a self-evident and inviolable maxim.
Instead, you invoke God's word written on our hearts, not to further discussion, but to end it: God tells us not to kill, and that's that.
(I agree that God forbids the taking of innocent life, but it's NOT because it's inherently wrong, but because it's HIS prerogative as Creator and Sustainer. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord, not "vengeance is wrong." And the original prohibition of murder in Genesis 9:6 is clear about the reason: we're made in God's image -- that is, we belong to Him.)
It seems to me that your nod to our fallibility is a penny's worth of humility with which you purchase a dollar's worth of what you denounce in others as arrogance.
Your original criticism is that "it's one person who thinks they are speaking for God telling another person what's wrong with them."
You do this very thing, not only when you invoke God's word written on our hearts, but also when you now twice rebuke others in Christ's name.
You're not only standing behind your criticism, you've now doubled down on the hypocrisy.
Your behavior strikes me as quite literally shameless.
Post a Comment