In the previous post, the point was raised that Jesus often cited Scripture in support of his points. And, of course, he did. I found one source that suggested that Jesus cited Scripture up to 78 times. Another source says 180 times.
No doubt, Jesus often did so. Now, does his frequency of citing Scripture suggest that this means that Jesus, therefore, called Scripture the Primary Source (or, the SOLE source) for knowledge about God? No, of course not. That suggestion doesn't follow. It COULD be the case, but the text does not demand or really even suggest it. It just doesn't.
But that got me to thinking: How often did Jesus cite other sources of knowledge?
For instance, in the story of Jesus healing the paralytic man lowered through the roof of a house, we find this exchange...
When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.”
In that story, Jesus does not respond to the Pharisees charge with Scripture, but with real world reasoning. "Which is easier, to say 'your sins are forgiven' or to say 'walk...'?"
It's a simple rational argument in response to accusations of violating their interpretations of Scripture.
Or consider another response to Pharisees complaining (and note: they were complaining because Jesus was violating THEIR UNDERSTANDING of Scripture)...
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Again, no scriptures offered in response, just simple real world reasoning.
Same point in this story (again, with the Pharisees raising objections to Jesus' behavior...)
They said to him, “John’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking.”
Jesus answered, “Can you make the friends of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast.”
Simple real world reasoning.
Jesus goes on to tell a parable...
He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’”
In fact, as we all know, Jesus told many parables - simple stories usually featuring real world, natural circumstances to illustrate a point, to make a case.
Parable upon parable, offering natural world observation and learning about God given real world situations and observations...
He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?
The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Three real world observations and analogies in a row. Pow, pow, pow.
"Consider the lilies of the field..."
"Consider the birds of the air..."
“Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
And not just the parables, his teachings are jammed with these sorts of observations, illustrations and analogies...
Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”
He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”
Simple real world reasoning. Using our/his God-given reasoning. Appealing to God's Word, written upon our hearts.
I'll close with one more, another instance of a Pharisee being self-righteously indignant that Jesus was not abiding by their interpretation of the Law...
When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.
Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.
Simple real world reasoning. Natural world observations and illustrations. Over and over and over.
Does that mean that I think God is telling us that Reason is the Sole Source - or even just The Primary Source - for knowledge about God? No, God hasn't said that to me and I'm not going to claim God has. But clearly, folk who value what the Bible says can acknowledge how important real world reasoning and observations were to Jesus.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Jesus and Reason
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Listen
I'd like to raise a question I've asked before in various ways and have never received an answer. I bring it up because, most recently, I've seen it argued at Stan's blog (the aptly named?), Winging It. The point of the post is his rather dubious and hole-y notions of Christian "essentials," but as part of getting to his essentials, Stan says, and I quote...
The Bible we have today is a translation of original texts that are, of a necessity, God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). They were not merely "inspired" as we might use the term today, but actually breathed by the Holy Spirit to His authorized messengers who, in their own words and under the supervision of the Spirit, wrote down what God wanted His people to know. As such, these texts were infallible -- could not be wrong -- and inerrant -- had no mistakes.
The Bible is the only source of authority in matters of faith and practice for Christianity.
As I have asked repeatedly: Would SOMEONE please answer the question:
WHERE does the Bible claim that "the Bible" is the sole authority?
IF the Bible is the sole authority for matters of faith and practice in Christianity, then SURELY the Bible makes this claim about itself, right?
Otherwise, you have an utterly self-defeating argument:
"The 66 books of the Bible - which is the SOLE source for knowing what is "right and wrong" for Christians and their practice, never makes that claim about itself, so IF it is the SOLE source, then it CAN'T be the sole source because it does not tell us it is the sole source. Indeed, someone REASONED that idea extrabiblically and, thus, they used an EXTERNAL source (their own reasoning) and thus, that opinion can't be trusted or at least, validated. IF the Bible is the sole source."
Do you see the problem with this argument? Can SOMEONE please address this huge gaping hole in the reasoning here?
Perhaps the problem is in what advocates mean by "the sole source of authority in matters of faith and practice for Christianity." I'd entertain definitions of that notion, if anyone wants to tackle it.
But allow me to spell out the problems that I see with this notion, as I understand folk like Stan are making it...
1. If "The Bible is the sole source of authority in matters of faith and practice of Christianity" [SS], WHERE in the Bible does it specifically say this?
2. If it's not in the Bible specifically and literally (and clearly, factually, it simply isn't), then where does the Bible objectively and demonstrably even HINT at it?
3. Knowing that advocates will say that, while the Bible doesn't speak of the 66 books of the Bible (ever, not one time, never), it does speak of "Scripture," and that the Bible is "as Scripture" to us, the reasoning person would say, "Okay, if 'the Bible' is SS, then where does 'the Bible' say that the 66 books are 'as Scripture' to us?" The answer? The Bible does not say the 66 books are "as Scripture" to us. That is, in itself, an extrabiblical conclusion made by fallible humans (the Catholic Church, if I'm not mistaken) to call these 66 books "as scripture."
4. Since that was an extrabiblical decision, how can we authoritatively know the 66 are "as Scripture," since it comes NOT from SS but from an extrabiblical, human decision? [Mind you, I accept the Bible "as Scripture," I'm just noting that this is not compliant with SS, as far as I can see.] Clearly, saying "We can know with authority that SS is true, why? Because of this EXTRABIBLICAL authority..." is not consistently logical. Indeed, it's a self-defeating argument.
5. Beyond that, the Bible (which is our SS, comes the claim), itself makes the claim of MULTIPLE ways of knowing about God. The Bible claims we can know about God...
a. Through the world itself (all of Creation tells of the glory of God)
b. Through God's Word/God's Law "written on our heart" (which could be interpreted as our conscience, our inate sense of God, and/or our reasoning)
c. Through the Holy Spirit of God revealing God to us ("these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.")
d. Through our God given reasoning (come, let us reason together")
...For instance.
6. So, if the SS TELLS us that there are other sources of knowledge, then how could "the Bible" or "Scripture" be SS, since Scripture itself contradicts that claim?
7. As an aside, IF the Bible is the SS, then claims that "the Bible" is inerrant and infallible can not be justified because the Bible does not make that claim, either about "the Bible" or about Scriptural text. As always, this falls apart - even if you thought the text was somehow inerrant or infallible (which, again, is not a biblical claim) - as SOON as you have human eyes reading and human brains INTERPRETING the text. If "Love your enemies" is a teaching ENTIRELY without error, but someone reads it and finds justification for killing their enemies, then you have human interpretations of texts and human interpretations are, of necessity, fallible.
I'm open to polite, respectful discussion about this topic. I'm not open to comments about people. IF you think people who advocate such things are hypocrites or goofballs or inconsistent or irrational, I don't want to hear that. That may well be the case and that can be obvious if no rational answers are forthcoming, but I don't want to hear that. (Indeed, the one individual I recently tried talking to about this made extremely weird strawman arguments one after another rather than dealing with the questions I was asking - but maybe he was just on the immature side, that happens.) But I am open to direct answers to my direct questions.
WHERE does the Bible make the claim of SS?
WHAT of the passages within the Bible that claim other sources of knowledge/authority?
How about it?
Monday, August 5, 2013
Friend of Dexter
You have to be some kind of industrial grade creep to pick on a two year old kid and his momma at the Walmarts. But, of course, there are people out there ready to step up and prove just how very large a creep they can be...
source
I gladly stand with young Dexter, his mother and anyone else who chooses to dress however they wish. Mind your own business, people.
Monday, July 22, 2013
What Have You Dismantled Today?
In Adult Sunday School last week, we discussed Ched Myers’ book, Sabbath Economics. He talks about the disparity between the wealthy and the poor, and he says that the Biblical witness refuses to stipulate the injustice is a permanent condition, and, this is the line that caught some of our attention, “Instead, God’s people are instructed to dismantle, on a regular basis, the fundamental patterns and structures of stratified wealth and power, so that there is enough for everyone.”
[and here, he is speaking specifically in reference to the Sabbath and Jubilee laws - as well as touching on the Manna story, but he would argue that it extends beyond that... ~dt]
One thing that we liked about that sentence is, “God’s people are instructed to dismantle, on a regular basis…” We talked about how we have to continually remind ourselves that what we think we own is not really ours, but rather, God’s. About how hard it is when you grow up in this culture to really get that into your head and heart, how hard it is not just to dismantle an unjust system, but to dismantle predominant beliefs and values.
What have you dismantled lately? What are you in the process of dismantling?
When you look around, what is it that you see that needs to be dismantled?
This morning’s scripture reading is the first of a series of five stories in less than two chapters where Jesus, whose ministry and sudden rise to popularity has been briefly introduced by Mark, clashes head on with the authorities. There are many more confrontations to come, but it begins with this series of clashes.
In Jesus’ day, a physical illness or disability was seen as a consequence or punishment for a sin. If someone was healed from an illness, then in order to be pronounced clean, or forgiven, they would have to follow a certain procedure, in a lepers’ case, for instance, go before a priest, sacrifice an animal, pay some money.
But in this story, Jesus, upon seeing the paralyzed man, pronounces him forgiven, clean, before he’s even healed, before he’s seen the priest, before he’s sacrificed the animal, before he’s paid the money, before the scribes have had a chance to reclassify him.
“Your sins are forgiven,” Jesus says, and in those words, Jesus restores him to social wholeness. He’s welcomed back into the fold: You are no longer an outcast, you are no longer unclean. You are brother, you are father, you are son, you are restored to your position as a child of Israel.
Jesus restores him before he’s even been healed. The scribes go ballistic, and "for good reason,” says Ched Myers. “Their complaint that none but God can remit debt is not a defense against the sovereignty of Yahweh, but of their own social power.”
They accuse Jesus in the strongest language possible: “He blasphemes,” they say, which as you’ll remember, is the charge that will eventually be used to execute Jesus.
Jesus restores the man before he’s even been healed. “You can’t do that,” they say. At which point, Jesus heals the man, this time actually restoring his body as well. And so the scribes have been “out-dueled,” and Myers points out that the next time they appear, it will be in the person of government investigators from Jerusalem...
What have you dismantled lately? What are you in the process of dismantling...?
Friday, July 19, 2013
Tombstone Poetry
The fell destroyer early marked
her for his victim
and she sunk
in the midst of life
and usefulness...
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Church Flag Flying
The fella doing the "agin it" position noted the problems of associating your church with one particular nation, the problems of being unnecessarily divisive rather than inclusive, the problem of overtly or passively suggesting you are beholden to the state, of tying your religion to your state. Serious concerns, all.
I would add to that just the question of "Why?" Why would/should we fly a flag in our church service? Is this true of all nations or just the US? Should Chinese Christians meeting in secret for fear of prison fly a Chinese flag in their service? Did the early Christians fly a flag of Rome after Rome killed off Jesus??
What is the rationale for even considering doing this?
The two people in favor of flying the flag in churches suggest it as a way of honoring country and to encourage a good sort of patriotism. They also suggested a flag (again, any flag? just the US flag??) is a way of remembering that "greater love hath no one than to lay his life down for another..."
One of the commenters on the Juicy blog said that he would not go to a church that didn't fly a flag in their sanctuary. I just wonder, "Why?"
I also would point out that this sort of dogmatic belief is a very good reason to be wary of this sort of tradition.
To my understanding, having a flag in sanctuaries is a very new phenomena, beginning perhaps during the Civil War (when I believe BOTH sides flew their own flags and when an area was subdued by the North, I've read, they would sometimes replace the Confederate flag in a church building with a Union flag.) It certainly is not biblical nor an ancient tradition, not that I'm aware of (again, can you imagine the early church flying the flag of Rome?? How ludicrous!)
Perhaps not surprising, given my anabaptist background (anabaptists, by and large, do not have flags in their church services, nor do they pledge allegiance to a flag elsewhere), I understand the NOT flying a flag in church position. It seems to me to be the rational and moral position to hold to.
Given the, I think, serious reasons not to fly a flag, on what basis would we choose to do so? It's not biblical, it's not rational that I can see (ie, "Christians should rationally have their state's flag in their church because..." what? I can think of no rational defense for it) and it's questionably moral.
Having said that, I don't condemn my brothers and sisters in churches that have a flag. I grew up with it and know how culturally tied we are to the idea and it's really not like it's evil or anything to do it. I just can't think of any positive reason to do it.
Does anyone care to give it a try?
Another related question:
I would point back to the fella who said he wouldn't attend a church that didn't fly a flag in its sanctuary. I can understand that, perhaps for some reason - cultural, modern traditional, whatever - that people like the idea of it. But to say you wouldn't attend a church that doesn't fly one, that seems to me to suggest that you think it's wrong NOT to fly a flag. If there are people out there like that, I would ask, "On what basis would you think that?"
It's one thing to have it as a preference, but to actively think it's wrong NOT to fly a flag in your church sanctuary? That just defies reason, to me.
Thoughts?
Monday, July 1, 2013
Get out your tin foil hats, people!
So, visiting over at John's blog and reading about how we should reject the notion of anthropogenic climate change because he cites sources (like globalwarmingskeptic.com) as "proof" that it's not happening.
I ask the fellas there, "But NASA, the AMA, the AMS and other very legitimate sources say that 97% of climatologists say climate change is real and likely due to human factors. Do you believe that NASA, the AMA and AMS are all lying or do you think they're all fooled, because they haven't gone to globalwarmingskeptic.com to learn the Truth?"
No answer beyond "I see you can't refute my sources!"
I ask, "I'm not a scientist, but I am a reasonable person. On what basis would I suspect that NASA, the AMA and AMS are lying/wrong and globalwarmingskeptic.com is right?"
The answer is to denigrate these scientists as also believing that gay people marrying is a good thing and...
and these same “scientists” go on record as believing in evolution!
And Trabue claims he is rational.
Dang them "scientists" and their lying ways.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Rejoice, and be glad!
Let my name stand among those who are wiling to bear ridicule and reproach for Truth's sake,
and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won.
~Louise May Alcott
In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer.
~Albert Camus
watch me rise like smoke from fire.
Watch me fly above your hate.
Watch me dance upon your meanness
like a ballerina with posture; grace.
Watch me laugh over your hatred;
watch me soar above your sea of grief.
And know that I am out there somewhere...
~Coco J Ginger
The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it...
~Voltaire
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
More Scandal!
From CNN...
(CNN) -- Skeptics who have long theorized that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by sinister forces will get a fresh surge of energy when a new documentary attempts to disprove that the 1996 crash was accidental...
Suspicions that criminals or terrorists were behind the TWA 800 explosion are not new. The FBI conducted a parallel investigation, but concluded that the incident was not a crime or terrorist attack...
The evidence proves that "one or more ordnance explosions outside the aircraft caused the crash," the producers said. But it does not identify or speculate on the source of the ordnance explosions...
How long before Obama gets the blame for this?
Monday, June 17, 2013
A blessed silence...
I am opposed
as a matter of principle
to noise
I am willing to make an occasional allowance
for an ambulance, for instance,
or a fire engine
But only grudgingly
and with no small discomfort.
Rather, give me a rabbit
silently listening at a
field's edge
Or a cautious deer
gracefully whispering away
from sight
Give me the trickle of
a rain-swollen stream glazing
smooth pebbles
Or a deep gray fog rampaging
innocently through an
early morning woods
I can rest and be entirely at ease
with the rustle of fall leaves
skittering easterly
and I find that a blessed silence
is what is needed more often
than not.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
More Jokers...
(CNN) – For Southern Baptist pastor Tim Reed, it was Scripture versus the Scouts.
“God’s word explicitly says homosexuality is a choice, a sin,” said Reed, pastor of First Baptist Church of Gravel Ridge in Jacksonville, Arkansas.
So when the Boy Scouts of America voted to lift its ban on openly gay youths on May 24, Reed said the church had no choice but to cut its charter with Troop 542.
“It’s not a hate thing here,” Reed told CNN affiliate Fox 16. “It’s a moral stance we must take as a Southern Baptist church.”
Southern Baptist leaders say Reed is not alone.
Baptist churches sponsor nearly 4,000 Scout units representing more than 100,000 youths, according to the Boy Scouts of America.
That number could drop precipitously.
The Southern Baptist Convention, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, will soon urge its 45,000 congregations and 16 million members to cut ties with the Scouts, according to church leaders.
=====
What I'm wondering is how this makes any sense at all? Are the BSA endorsing gay sex? Are they going to be actively recruiting boys into "the gay lifestyle" and endorsing "the gay agenda..."?
By accepting boys who happen to have a homosexual orientation, is that an endorsement of sex of any sort? I mean, they accept boys with a heterosexual orientation, does that mean that they endorse boys having straight sex?
Even if the Southern Baptists tend to think that gay sex is wrong, this is not an endorsement of that. It's just accepting kids into their group, just like they accept boys who might have premarital sex with girls or just like they might accept kids who have (or will tell) lies or cheat on a test.
Acceptance of people into your company is not an endorsement of all their behaviors and the Southern Baptists (and others) can't start excluding folk WITHOUT appearing hateful and intolerant. This is blind and irrational discrimination and it's wrong. Shame on them.
Even so, Southern Baptists will still be tolerated in my company. Disagreement does not have to lead to empty-headed and grace-less exclusion.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Wise Men Comedy Show
Tonight's Topic: The Plague of Working Women!
Lou Dobbs: I want to do something I don't usually do. I'm going to turn to a study...
[rim shot!]
...Pew Research, showing that women have become the breadwinners in this country and a lot of other concerning and troubling statistics.
[crazy shriek! Laugh track laughing]
Our society is being torn in so many directions right now, this stuff is really at the margin as you watch the Republicans, the Democrats, this president his scandals and the appropriate investigation by the Republicans. When we're watching society dissolve around us.
[foghorn]
Juan, what do you think?
Juan Williams: Lou I just think this should be in large letters in every newspaper in America because what we're seeing with four out of ten families with the woman is the primary the breadwinner, you're seeing the disintegration of marriage, you're seeing men who were hard-hit in the recession in a way that women weren't...
[cats and dogs, living together! MASS hysteria!]
...You're seeing, I think, systemically larger than the political stories we follow every day – something going terribly wrong in American society and it's hurting our children and it's going to have impact for generations to come... Left, right. I don't see how you can argue this!
[laugh track]
Lou Dobbs: You mention children. And those are the children who survive. 54 million abortions since Roe V Wade. 54 million in this country!
[cue Darth Vader theme]
...What has been the impact of that, what does it say about our society, our education.. our high school drop outs! Erick, your thoughts on this study and what it portends?
[Doom! Destruction!]
Erick Erickson: Lou, I 'm so used to Liberals telling Conservatives that they're anti-science but this is, liberals who defend this and say it's not a bad thing are very anti-science...
[You keep using that word... I don't think you know what it means...]
...when you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in a society and other animals, the male is typically the dominant role, but the female is not antithesis, it's not competing, it's a complementary role.
We, as people in a smart society have lost our ability to have complementary relationships in nuclear family, it's tearing us apart. What I find interesting in the survey is that 3/4 of the people surveyed recognized having mom as primary breadwinner is bad for kids and bad for marriages and reality shows us that that is the truth...
[aaOOOOgah! Laugh track...]
That's all the time we have tonight folks, see you next week!
[cue Benny Hill theme song]