1. The Bible never in any of its pages tells us to take its words literally - that is a human tradition. Inerrancy, infallibility, the Bible is perfect, these are all human takes on the Bible and not biblical teachings themselves.
2. The Bible never in any of its pages tells us that we MUST consider the 66 books of the Bible as "Scripture." This, too, is a human tradition.
3. "God's Word," is what God says. As such, it is larger and more comprehensive than just the Bible. The Bible contains God's Word, but God's Word is not wholly contained within the Bible. The Bible itself tells us that God is too large and wild to be contained by a building, that all the stories of Jesus could not be contained within its pages.
4. That being the case, we know that God reveals God's self in many ways, not just the Bible. The Bible itself tells us that God's Word is written on our hearts and in nature.
5. Of course, the Bible is not God, nor something to worship. It's not a magic book. I'm not sure that it even makes any sense to refer to a written work as "inerrant," since a book is a book - full of words that must be rightly interpreted. If we elevate it to the place of Perfection, we need to be careful not to begin worshiping the thing describing God rather than God's Self.
6. So why this human tradition surrounding the Bible? It's certainly not without reason.
With much prayer and research and debate, Christian protestants have agreed that the 66 books of the Bible ARE scripture for us, God's Word for us. This is a point with which I agree.
The 66 books of the Bible are a special and unique revelation of God. I agree with that much of that extrabiblical teaching. That notwithstanding, I still understand that it is a human tradition to consider it as such and not something handed down to us from God's hand - nor did God audibly speak to the Council and say, "These 66 books shall ye consider to be my Word."
7. Just because many consider the 66 books of the Bible a unique revelation from God does not mean that everyone accepts the extrabiblical teaching that we must take those 66 books literally.
8. And no one does. I'm sure we all agree that we don't take the Bible literally literally. We recognize that some stories are parables, some are mythical in nature, some are historical, but not told in the same manner that a history book written today would be written, some written to a particular place in a particular time, that some places hyperbole and other literary techniques are used.
Yes? And that we must use our logic, human tradition and understanding to come to an understanding about what to take literally today and what not to take literally. Most of us don't advocate the Sabbath Laws, the Holiness Code, the Jubilee laws. We don't usually think we should literally pluck an eye from our heads, nor that we should "sell our goods and give it to the poor."
Or DO some think it all – each and every line – should be taken literally for our lives today? I don’t think so. I think we mostly agree that there needs to be some interpretation involved.
9. Similarly, the tradition of considering OT Law as coming in three flavors - some that can be ignored and some that are eternal truths - is an extrabiblical teaching - a construct to explain why we don't believe in literally heeding each and every rule written therein.
10. If we DO think we take the larger teachings (setting aside the parables, hyperbole, etc for a minute) of the Bible literally, then we have to say that God sometimes commanded or endorsed killing children, genocide, rape, slavery, selling your children, polygamy and a long list of nasty yuckiness that we reject today as being Moral or Holy.
68 comments:
Dan, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss your take on the Bible to ensure that I correctly understand what it is that you believe.
In the companion to this blog entry, you write that your main point is that, "just because somebody doesn't interpret the Bible the same way you do does not mean they hate the Bible, nor that they reject the Bible's authority."
I agree with that completely, with the caveat that some interpretations are far, far more plausible than others.
What I still don't know is, how do you interpret those passages of the Bible for which you reject literal interpretations as atrocious?
You write:
If we DO think we take the larger teachings (setting aside the parables, hyperbole, etc for a minute) of the Bible literally, then we have to say that God sometimes commanded or endorsed killing children, genocide, rape, slavery, selling your children, polygamy and a long list of nasty yuckiness that we reject today as being Moral or Holy.
Okay, so you quite obviously do not interpret these passages literally.
How do you interpret these passages? Do you have a figurative interpretation that both is plausible and is deferential to the authority of the entire Bible?
To give you an example of what I mean, consider Matthew 5:13-16, where Jesus teaches that we are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. I don't believe that Jesus taught that we are literally bioluminescent sodium chloride.
Or, consider Luke 14:26, where Jesus taught that anyone who doesn't hate his parents, siblings, wife, children, and even life itself cannot be His disciple. I don't believe that Jesus taught that we should literally hate our families. For one thing, we're told to love our neighbors. More than that, in Matthew 19:19, Christ explicitly affirmed the commandment to honor one's parents, and in Mark 7 He expounded on the full weight of that commandment.
But it's not enough for me to say, I reject a literal interpretation: in order to argue against such an interpretation in good faith, I have an obligation to present a counter-interpretation that is at least equally plausible and that still affirms the fundamental authority of the passage.
For Matthew 5, I would offer this figurative interpretation. We're not literally salt, but, just as salt prevents meat from rotting, we should work to prevent social decay in our communities. We're not literally light, but, just as light reveals the physical world around us, we should work to reveal spiritual and moral truths to our fellow man.
For Luke 14, I would say that the command is that our commitment to Jesus Christ should clearly and decisively trump all other commitments, and that our love for Him should trump even the love we have our own lives. We shouldn't hate our families or our lives: that's hyperbole to demonstrate how much more our love for Christ should take priority.
Take one of the passages for which you think a literal interpretation entails the idea that God commanded genocide or some other moral atrocity: your pick. Then, tell me how you interpret the passage.
Please, Dan, don't just tell me that you don't accept a literal interpretation. Please, tell me what interpretation you offer instead.
Dan,
At Eric's you said the following, "I'll create a post at my blog (again) where I talk about reading the Bible and rightly divining God's Word.", would I be correct in assuming that this is the post you were referring to?
Dan,
Thanks, can you tell me what role context plays in reading the Bible rightly?
Re: your #9. What is the third flavor of dealing with the OT laws. You give two, I'd be interested in the third.
#10 is my favorite because it implies that God was taking and giving items that were not His to begin with, E.g. life, children, people, land, stuff.
If you believe that Genesis through 2nd Samuel contains lies or coded statements then how can you believe in the prophecy that leads to the Lord Jesus? (I choose 2nd Sam. Because that’s where God gave Israel a king.)
It’s the same way with Paul’s writing in the New Testament. If you believe his writings are not 100% truth then you cannot believe that Paul was hand picked by Jesus. If you don’t believe Paul was picked by Jesus then you can’t believe in the book of Acts. If you don’t believe in the book of Acts then how can you believe in the book of Luke (same author). Then can you really believe in books that agree with Luke, such as the other Gospels.
The danger of discounting or dismissing sections of the Bible is the cascading effect it has on the other sections. The Bible as we know it was inspired by one Author. Its completeness and the way it compliments itself are evidence of this especially when compared to other “holy” books such as the koran or the book-of-morman.
Can you really say “I believe in this part of the Bible but not that part”? No
"Can you really say “I believe in this part of the Bible but not that part”? No"
I don't believe God is a giant chicken, even though Psalms describes him as sheltering us under his wing. I do, however, believe he does comfort and protect us.
I don't believe the Earth was created in 6 days, but I do however believe God created the Earth.
So, can you really say, "I believe in this part of the Bible, but not that part?" Sure. No problem.
It seems folks value the Bible as sacred text because we find God working through it in some way that makes our world a better place.
I find it historically interesting that Jewish prophecy is interpreted by some of the folks in the New Testament as proving Jesus was God's chosen Messiah. It's very interesting, really, because I don't see how the writers could have been addressing the issues of their original readers and at the same time be predicting the Jesus of the New Testament. It's my rational, Greek way of thinking that gets in the way.
And the question of inerrancy? Well, errors are in the text. Mark says he's quoting Isaiah, but he quotes Micah and Zechariah instead.
Furthermore, Jesus says we're to be perfect as our Abba in heaven is perfect at the end of Matthew 5 in the Sermon on the Mount. Again, my Greek, rational mind can't see how I can be as perfect as the Master of the Universe.
Taking the Bible literally, or suggesting that it is inerrant requires a lot of unnecessary explanations and mental gymnastics to fit our western, Greek, rational world view.
But I submit that Jesus wasn't western or Greek or interested in rational arguments. Jesus was Jewish. In some parts of Jewish thought, perfection wasn't associated with being without flaw or blemish as much as it was about something doing what it was created to do.
A perfect fig wasn't Plato's form, some kind of template floating in the universe somewhere from which all figs are modeled. It was a fruit that nourished it's seeds thereby producing more fig trees.
So if I use this concept of perfection, I am perfect when I am doing what I was created by God to do.
It's not a literal thing. It's a relational thing. Yes, I know, it's also an extra-Biblical thing, too ("What's your evidence, Roger..." etc., etc.).
But the thing is, I don't need to believe the OT texts were predicting Jesus of Nazareth. Such a belief one way or another won't change my experience with Christ.
I value the Bible as sacred text because I find God working through it in some way that makes me a better person than I would be otherwise and that makes my world a better place.
It seems to be a simple, yet true, interpretation that keeps integrity with my experience of God and the best parts of the Bible, and doesn't back my rational, western, Greek way of thinking into a corner.
Thanks everyone. Sorry, I was tied up dealing with weather issues yesterday and may not have much time today, but allow me to try to tackle a few thoughts as I can.
Bubba said:
I agree with that completely, with the caveat that some interpretations are far, far more plausible than others.
Let's begin with our agreements. Yes, we both agree that just because one doesn't interpret the Bible the same way as another does not mean that either hate or reject the Bible. Agreed. Yes, some interpretations ARE for more plausible than others.
Two for two.
Bubba then asked:
What I still don't know is, how do you interpret those passages of the Bible for which you reject literal interpretations as atrocious?
Getting back to my list, let me ask first: do we agree that the Bible never tells us we must take the Bible literally? Do we agree that the Bible never tells us that we must presume that the Bible is without error? That God has never told us this, either?
That would be my starting point. It is just factually accurate to make these statements.
And so, IF that is the case, then we look at this Bible with all these wonderful teachings and some that are a bit odd and/or disturbing. We begin interpreting this good book, then, with some rules that I've expressed before.
1. We interpret the single verse through the whole of the Bible.
2. We interpret the whole through the teachings of Jesus.
3. We interpret the obscure and difficult to understand through the obvious.
4. We strive to understand context.
5. We use our God-given reasoning.
Given that, when we have ALL these clear and wonderful teachings about loving our enemies, about doing no harm to the innocent, that command us strongly and repeatedly to shed no innocent blood... When we have Jesus (the source of our faith) clearly telling us that we are to turn the other cheek, that we are to overcome evil with good, repeating that we are to love our enemies, that we ought not harm the innocent, etc, etc... When we have our own moral intuition telling us how wrong it would be to kill innocent people...
When we have all of this clearly commanding us NOT to harm innocent people and then we come across a few places in the Bible where it appears God has told people to do what is clearly opposed in so many other ways AND when we have no logical nor moral reason to interpret that as a literal and inerrant expression of how God operates, what reason would I have for believing such a horrible teaching about my God?
So, what do I do with that then? I set it aside as an aberration that's contrary to the bulk of the Bible as well as my own reasoning. My best guess is that it represents what people thought about God, rather than that God sometimes commands people to do acts that are contrary to what is Right and Good.
As you noted, Bubba, that is a far more plausible explanation than anything I've heard from others. Some interpretations ARE more plausible than others.
That is, to me, the most plausible explanation for those type of passages and why would I try to explain these passages as some sort of holy loophole ("if GOD commands it, it's no longer an atrocity...") if there is no reason to do so? I'm not saying that's the only possible explanation for such passages. I'm saying I'm perfectly okay setting it aside as an aberration without trying to explain them.
I'm fine with saying, "Huh! What a strange passage. Clearly, from the rest of the Bible and from our own moral compasses, slaughtering innocent people is wrong. I wonder why that's there? Beats me, but clearly it's not representative of our understanding of God or of morality."
I will note that, as I understand it, at the time that many of these "slaughter them all" passages were written, the people of Israel were in captivity and oppressed. In that context, I can sure see a people finding comfort in the notion that God would help them wipe out the oppressor, these other nations. Sort of like the Psalmist who prays that God will destroy the enemy.
Just because it's there, is not an indication that this is what God wants, but rather an indication that God understands the plight of the oppressed. God even understands, seems to me, our venting our frustrations in ways that are less than Godly.
So, in offering the above scenarios as the most plausible (to me) explanations of why those passages are in there, I would have to return to, Why would we presume to need to explain these passages? It's enough for me to say, "I dunno what they mean - perhaps this captivity explanation - but clearly, they are not normative to Christian and/or moral behavior." Why do we need a better explanation?
I'd suggest that I've heard two possible reasons.
1. The black/white reason. "If any part of this is not true and without error, then we can't accept the rest of it as true." There is a certain irresistable simplicity to this explanation. No need to ponder if a particular passage is relevant or factual - it simply is!
The problem with this is that it lacks an adult nuance. It seems akin to me to the teenager who says, "if ANYthing I learned growing up is not 100% true and factual, I can't accept the rest of what I've learned. Therefore, either Santa is true or it's all a bunch of bunk!" Well, as adults we know that this is not true. There are many things we learn growing up that aren't 100% true and factual, but that doesn't mean that there is no truth.
2. The "it's scripture!" reason. If we accept the human tradition of the 66 books of the Bible as being scripture as meaning, by default, it's gotta be 100% factual and without error. Well, says who? Again, this is all a human tradition.
I, for one, DO accept the 66 as scripture, but I do so with the caveat that I realize that this idea is a human idea, not handed down from God's own Person. We, the (protestant) church, decided to say, "These 66 books are canon. They are our scripture."
Even then, what do we mean by "scripture?" Do we mean, as Paul suggests, that we take it as scripture, which is good for teaching and edification? Okay, but that in and of itself does not suggest that we take each page as inerrant and as a perfect representation of God's will. We already don't do that. As I noted earlier, when the Psalmist cries for God to destroy the enemy, I believe most protestants (maybe I'm wrong, here) take it to be an expression of the Psalmist's deep angst over oppression, and NOT as normative for God's will.
I just don't see any biblical or logical or godly reason for treating the pages of the 66 as inerrant. Rather, doing such is a human tradition that does not contribute to the most plausible exegesis. As Roger aptly noted, suggesting that it is inerrant requires a lot of unnecessary explanations and mental gymnastics to fit our modern views and it's just not biblically, morally or logically reasonable, seems to me.
Bubba, you wrote,
"If Scripture, which presumes to present God's revealed word, contains mere conjectures, than those conjectures should be despised for distorting the real message, and you ought to have a serious issue with Jesus Christ's affirming the entire text rather than correcting the record."
If we value the Bible because we see evidence in our own lives and in the history of the church that it reveals how God is interacting with creation, then distortions need not be despised. Despite the limitations they faced, the writers of scripture were able to reveal much (through metaphor, parable, poetry, historical interpretation, etc.) about the kinds of relationships God wants to have with us, God wants us to have with each other, and God wants us to have with the rest of creation. I think that's amazing.
I don't think the conjectures of the Bible are about the true message as much as they are about how that message is to be lived out by God's people. Jesus did affirm the true message of Scripture, I believe, in the Sermon on the Mount, while in the same discourse correcting the record as to how the true message is to be lived out. Jesus did this by pointing out the problem areas he saw and offering alternatives more in line with that true message.
It doesn't bother me or threaten my faith that writers of the Bible may have gotten some of the facts jumbled. I can trust that the Bible will continue to be a witness to what God has done and wants to do in creation. And even if I didn't trust this to be true, it would not erase the change in my life for the better I have experienced as a result of following the teachings of Jesus.
Thanks for the comments Roger and Bubba, I'm still trying to catch up on all this.
Bubba, I'm looking through all that you've written (and thanks for the calm, even-handed, rational, polite approach you are using) trying to figure out where to begin.
It seems to me that perhaps our differences come down to something along these lines, where you say:
In outright rejecting inerrancy as "a human tradition that does not contribute to the most plausible exegesis," you embrace another tradition -- errancy -- that I believe has even less Scriptural support.
It is my position that we have obligation, no great biblical, logical or moral reason to embrace inerrancy. I'm not sure that I'm outright rejecting it (although I am) as much as I'm saying, "Why would I embrace it?"
I get the point that Jesus "affirmed" the Scriptures (or at least "the Law") in the SOTM and don't disagree that Jesus did, indeed say,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
But this, to me, does not suggest that I must presume that when the OT portrays God as saying, "kill the men, women and children" of a locality that this is an inerrant portrayal of what God might sometimes command.
My point remains: WHY would I presume that? I have other scriptures in abundance that confirms to me that God does NOT want us to shed innocent blood, in addition to God's Word written on my heart and my own God-given logic. I have nothing telling me that I must accept this as a literal representation of God's will and a lot to suggest to me that this is NOT a literal interpretation of God's will, so why would I strive to jump through whatever moral and logical hoops I'd have to jump through in order to make that literally true?
Do you see what I'm asking? WHY would I do that? Merely because Jesus affirmed "the Law and the prophets?" That does not seem to me to be enough of a reason.
You suggest:
He affirmed Scripture itself, to the very smallest penstroke, implying that the text has no chaff to sift out.
And I'm saying, that may imply that to you, but it does not imply that to me. This seems to me to be the nub of our disagreement. You find a fairly strong implication of inerrancy in that one passage and I don't. What do we do with that?
Thanks for the wonderful thoughts, Roger, and I certainly agree. There's a lot of obvious "meat" in Jesus' teaching to deal with and keep us busy.
I believe, for instance, in the notion of the Trinity, but I'm a lot less concerned about that than I am with learning what it means to "love our enemies" or "turn the other cheek," or "sell your belongings, give to the poor and come follow me..." since they seem to be more central to Jesus' teachings.
Bubba said:
If I understand your position correctly -- and please, please correct me if I don't -- I think your problem isn't with literalism. It's with inerrancy.
You may have a point, my concern may be mostly about inerrancy. But it is about literalism, too, I think.
I don't believe that when you see a passage that has God telling people to commit actions that other passages tell us are wrong (ie, God telling Israel to spill innocent blood, when the Bible offers an abundance of passages that condemn such actions), that this passage is without error in its representation of God. That is, I don't believe God tells people to spill innocent blood and it is an error to understand a passage that way.
But, as a result, I think that such passages ought not be considered something to be taken literally. I think we CAN'T take them as a literally accurate depiction of God's Will.
Now, I understand you don't think I've offered an alternative explanation (ie, figurative instead of literal) for those passages. I feel like I have, though.
As I noted, these passages were written, I believe, while Israel was in captivity and under the thumb of an oppressor. So, it is understandable that Israel might find some comfort in a notion of a vengeful God who wipes out enemies, even their children! After all, Israel may have lost many of their children due to their enemy's behavior and that is enough to cause many of us to want vengeance.
Now, does that mean I think those passages were "God inspired"? I'll have to say that I don't know. Perhaps it's possible that those sort of dark, horrible passages were words that could have given comfort to the people at that time, I simply don't know. I'm not God, I don't know what God has and hasn't inspired and I don't always know God's motives, other than ultimately, God's motive is Love.
I'm also okay with the notion that this may have been more of the author's voice than God. But again, I don't think that demeans the passage or makes it NOT scripture. It's there and I'm okay with it being there, I just don't think you can reconcile God telling people in passage A, "Kill innocent people," and in passage B, "It's WRONG to kill innocent people."
I think it a disservice to the Bible and to God to suggest that the Bible has a God that commands atrocities that are otherwise wrong. And yes, killing children in war is always an atrocity, that is the correct word for it in our common human language.
I'm not sure WHY you are so determined to have an alternative version? Is it not enough to say, "Wow, clearly this passage does not represent God's Will at any point in history, at least not as we understand God in the Bible..."?
Bubba, perhaps it would help me if you could very briefly offer your explanation of how you interpret these passages literally and inerrantly? That is, how do you align passages that condemn shedding innocent blood with passages where God commands it?
Is the sum total of your position that, "IF God commands it, it's not an atrocity."? If so, I must say then, that it comes down to the point you made earlier:
some interpretations are far, far more plausible than others.
It is far more plausible to me to say that these passages don't represent God's Will in a way that is without errors, if presumed to be a literal, historic presentation of actual events. It is better and more plausible to say that these passages are Vengeance fantasies or something unknown than that God has sometimes in the past commanded actions contrary to what we know to be true based on other passages as well as our own human conscience.
Again, I must ask, WHY would we presume we HAVE to take this as inerrant and 100% factual? Because Jesus said, "the Law and the Prophets will not pass away..."? That does not say to me that these passages MUST be taken literally/inerrantly.
You answer to that question is:
if God is omnipotent, why can He not inspire a couple dozen men across a few centuries to inerrantly record His revealed word?...
Second, we have NO external and objective standard against which the Bible could be measured.
1. Certainly, God COULD, in my opinion, inspire people to write a series of stories and essays without error. But I don't see anything to suggest that God HAS done that.
God COULD have had ancient Israelis describe the beginnings of the universe as something closer to what actually happened - that it happened over billions of years rather than 6 days. But God didn't. God has clearly opted NOT to describe the creation story without scientific error.
I reckon that I just don't think that the facts always need be present to get to the truths. In fact, if God had TRIED to have pre-scientific people write a more literal, inerrant version of the Creation, it may well have interfered with the Truth. "What's a Billion??? This is crazy talk!"
2. As to having no external objective source for truth, it seems to me that it comes down to this: THAT is the main reason, it seems to me, that some of us have clung to the notion of an inerrant Bible.
NOT because the Bible describes itself that way or because Jesus taught it that way or because God has revealed it that way, but because we get nervous with having to sort out morality subjectively. Far better to have a book with every answer in it so no questions need to be asked and no hard to answer, gray areas to deal with.
"The Bible says six days. Six days it is! The Bible says Gay Marriage is wrong, Gay marriage must be wrong! Don't tell me it's not in there that way, that's what my pastor has told me and his pastor before him..."
In truth, your statement is right. We have no outside objective source with which to weigh the Bible. We have to use our flawed reasoning and sometimes, we'll be wrong. But that's just the way it is and I see nothing biblically to suggest otherwise.
A few quicker answers/clarifications:
You apparently do not accept a deity who would mete out death, but you accept the doctrine of damnation?
I accept a deity who allows folk to make decisions, even decisions that lead to death and separation from God. I do not accept as biblical or moral the notion of a god that tells us to kill innocent people.
To be clear: God, the Bible tells us, is not willing that ANY should perish/die apart from God. But if we choose not to accept God's grace, God is not one to force such upon us.
Bubba said:
My concern is, because the central claims of Christianity are even more difficult to comprehend in terms of logic and morality, your decision to question inerrancy in order to dismiss the more peripheral claims, opens a door to dismiss the more important, more difficult stuff.
This may be a point of departure for us. I don't find the central claims of Christianity all that difficult.
1. There is a God.
2. That God created the world.
3. That God loves us, wants the best for us.
4. That we are created in God's image with the freedom to choose good/bad, right/wrong.
5. God wants us all to follow God's path, as demonstrated by Jesus: the path of love of humanity and creation.
6. God offers us the gift of heaven, of presence with God. It is a grace, a gift.
7. Because we have free will, we can choose or reject this grace, but God wants us to embrace and accept it.
8. Because we are less than perfect (ie, in our free will, we often make unperfect, unhealthy, "sinful" choices), we can't create heaven on our own, that's why it needs to come by God's grace.
9. We can be saved, then, by God's grace, through faith in Jesus.
I don't find these central claims of Christianity to be difficult at all, in theory. Of course, living out a life in Jesus' steps is difficult, impossible, even. Denying ourselves and taking up the cross is no picnic. But it's not difficult to understand, even if it is difficult to live out.
There are other, more religious-y tenets of Christianity that can be confusing, but they are not all that central (ie, they aren't given in the Bible as central tenets of Jesus' teachings). Yes, I get the trinity from the Bible, but it's not as central a teaching as God's grace and love for humanity.
However, a God who might command - or has at least commanded in the past - people to commit atrocities, I don't see that as peripheral. Either God IS a God of love and justice, who is ANGERED by the shedding of innocent blood, or God is NOT a God of love and might sometimes (arbitrarily??) command the slaughter of innocents.
That to me is a much more basic strike against Christianity's core teachings than any problems we might have by setting aside that teaching as not normative to God's nature.
I've been out for a while, but would like to stay a little simpler, so I'll ask this.
Can we agree that the following verse is authoritative?
They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; Romans 1:29-30
Looking at who the "they" is mentioned in that verse above, we find...
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things...
So, yes, I agree that those who know God but don't glorify God as God and who instead turn to idol worship, yes, those folk might tend to be "gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful." Absolutely, I can agree with that.
Why do you ask?
Bubba, perhaps you could explain what you mean with these statements:
If you ever applied your standards consistently across all the Bible's claims, you would almost certainly reject the central claims for the same reasons you reject the more difficult OT passages.
I believe it's possible that your trust in our faith's central claims is open to an attack that hasn't been exploited only because you haven't tried to apply your skepticism consistently. That's an incredibly precarious situation.
I'm not sure what you're saying. What skepticism? Where do I lack consistency?
Craig asked earlier:
Thanks, can you tell me what role context plays in reading the Bible rightly?
An important one? We ought to strive to understand context as best as we are able, recognizing that this is difficult and also recognizing the tendency we have to read these passages with a modern understanding and to realize the problems that may cause.
For instance, a pre-scientific people would have no use for a scientifically accurate representation of the creation of the universe, so there would be no context, no point in writing one. So, to suggest that early writers explained the Creation story in a more mythical manner is not a criticism, just a recognition of context.
Craig also asked:
Re: your #9. What is the third flavor of dealing with the OT laws. You give two, I'd be interested in the third.
I'm sorry. I had in my mind that I've heard other people suggest three flavors of OT law - 1. cultural/time-specific rules, 2. civic rules specific to Israel and, 3. universal laws, with the first two being temporal rules and the third group being universal/applying to all times and people. I'm not sure if I'm labeling the first two types correctly, but that was the gist.
Dan,
Thanks for the clarification. I'd like to respond to two of your comments.
#1. regarding the 3 types of laws. If you do not agree that there are 3 types, as you have laid out, how do you deal with the laws that obviously don't apply to us today. One example would be the fact that, despite incredibly explicit and detailed instructions, we do not worship in either a tabernacle or temple in Jerusalem. Further we do not practice the detailed cleansing and sacrificial rules explicitly laid out. It seems there are 3 possible reasons we don't do those things today. A. Somewhere someone just decided it was too hard and to ignore those rules. B. Those rules were specific to the Israeli theocracy and when that ended those rules ceased to be in force. C. Christ's death and resurrection eliminated the need for both temple/tabernacle worship and/or or sacrifice. Or do you have a different interpretation?
#2. If we can agree that the Romans passage is in fact authoritative then can we agree that these passages from the same the chapter are also authoritative?
"1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. 6And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ."
“18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
"24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another."
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
I look forward to your answer.
1. I think clearly that some rules in the OT are time/culture-specific and that other rules are more universal in nature. My point is that the OT does not specify, "THESE are temporal and THOSE are universal." That is a value judgment we modern folk place on them, and rightly so.
2. Yes, I think that entire passage is authoritative, having some important words to teach us. Clearly, some behavior(s) are being discussed that are negative/harmful/sinful. Exchanging one's natural relations with unnatural certainly sounds like a negative to me, for instance.
I fully support people maintaining their natural orientation. You?
Dan,
Yup, you've got it right. The notion that there are three types of laws: juridical specific to Israel as a nation, ceremonial/cleanliness laws, moral laws, is laid out pretty nicely in the Westminster Confession, Chapter XIX.
As you note above, that's an extra-biblical categorization. Useful, maybe ... but still extra-biblical.
More, Dan, this time about Christian essentials.
Responding to Roger's comment, you write:
There's a lot of obvious "meat" in Jesus' teaching to deal with and keep us busy.
I believe, for instance, in the notion of the Trinity, but I'm a lot less concerned about that than I am with learning what it means to "love our enemies" or "turn the other cheek," or "sell your belongings, give to the poor and come follow me..." since they seem to be more central to Jesus' teachings.
I'm not sure how one can say that the Trinity wasn't central to what Jesus taught, since He went into quite a bit of detail about the Holy Spirit, and since He often spoke both about His unique relationship with the Father and His own divinity: "Before Abraham was, I am."
Beyond what Christ taught, John made clear that a rejection of the Incarnation is anti-Christ, and if you wish to affirm that orthodoxy is determined by adherence to the Nicene Creed, you have to admit that the Trinity is pretty important.
But, about what Christ taught, I think you miss a couple key things in the passages you cite.
The Sermon on the Mount begins with a blessing for the spiritually bankrupt and ends with a warning that judgment hinges on whether Jesus knows you: there's a lot of ethical teachings in the sermon, but nothing that implies that the most important thing for anyone's life -- that is, his salvation -- hinges on one's ethical behavior.
Instead, the key is accepting salvation from Christ: being born again, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, accepting that He is the bread of life.
Even in the other passage you cite, about "sell your belongings, give to the poor and come follow me..." you miss a crucial point.
In all three accounts, Jesus teaches that no one is good but God, His listeners asked how anyone can be saved, and Jesus answered that what's impossible with man is possible with God.
The high standards of Christ's command here wasn't to imply that we can be saved by obedience: it was to point us to the need for God's intervening grace, through which we can begin to approach those standards.
I wrote, earlier, that "the central claims of Christianity are even more difficult to comprehend in terms of logic and morality" than the verses that you find problematic.
You responded with your list of what you believe are Christianity's central claims, and then wrote, "I don't find these central claims of Christianity to be difficult at all, in theory."
I'm not surprised. Your list did not explicitly include the Crucifixion and Resurrection, the Atonement and the Judgment.
Your list was so vague that I guess you could have been alluding to these things, or you could have downplayed them as "more religious-y tenets" that you say aren't central -- y'know, like the Trinity, which separates orthodox churches from heretical cults like the Mormons.
I believe that these "religious-y" theological claims are central to Christianity.
But never mind that: do you accept those claims, or not?
If you do, I don't see how they stand up to the same standards that you demand -- in terms of logic or morality -- from the OT passages you find objectionable.
That's what I meant about applying your skepticism consistently.
If you believe in the Atonement and in the Judgment the way Christ and His Apostles describe these crucial events, I don't see what problem you could have morally with God sending the occasional plague or commanding the ancient Israelites to wipe out an especially egregious tribe like the Moabites.
If you believe in the Trinity and in the Incarnation, I don't see how the Old Testament presents more significant obstacles in terms of logic.
Bubba,
It seems to me that several of the doctrines you're talking about are but ways of describing the consequences of ethical living based on the teachings of Jesus.
For example, the Trinity is more about affirming Jesus' authority as an ethical teacher in relationship to the Creator of the Universe and the Holy Spirit. Okay. But IF Jesus wasn't part of the Trinity, would that make what he taught invalid? Would that negate the positive, life-giving consequences made real in one's life by being obedient?
What about atonement? Do we really know? There are lots of theories out there with their share of Biblical backing, but even if every theory was wrong, I believe I would have a qualitatively better life as a result of being obedient to the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. Wouldn't that be worth it, in and of itself.
I've already accepted Jesus' "authority" so the doctrine of the Trinity isn't a high priority on any list of key beliefs for me either. I follow him because what he says has proven true. The Trinity is an existential reality for me.
I've already committed my life to obedience and have found that to be redemptive, so however it works out in the end will be fine with me. I'll trust God with what I do not understand. Atonement is happening already. It's a reality as a consequence of do what Jesus says I should do.
I disagree with your assessment of the Sermon on the Mount. I think the Sermon on the Mount ends with warnings about following the ethical teachings of Jesus, not warnings about not believing the right doctrines.
Warnings about recognizing false prophets by what they do, assertions that only those who do the will of my Father will enter the kingdom, and the summary statement that those who hears the words of the Sermon and puts them into practice are the ones who survive the storm are how Jesus ends his sermon.
"Accepting salvation from Christ: being born again, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, accepting that He is the bread of life" are not a part of Jesus' longest sermon. But if one commits to following the teachings of Jesus, would not your metaphors aptly describe what is taking place?
That's not to say other teachings in the gospels or NT or OT are wrong. But I would certainly subordinate them to what Jesus does say. It seems clear to me that what Jesus does say in the Sermon on the Mount is that what you do is more important than what you say (or what you say you believe).
What do you think?
Roger, I believe that Jesus' ethical teachings are important, but not supremely important.
More important than what Jesus taught to us, is what He did for us: He died for our sins and rose from the grave, purchasing our forgiveness and the eternal life that we have the opportunity to share with Him.
For one thing, God could convey His ethical commands through a merely human prophet: He largely already did, because much of what Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount only reiterates or amplifies what is already present in Jewish Scripture.
Instruction can be sent by proxy, but salvation requires God's more direct involvement. What Jesus accomplished on the cross, could only have been accomplished if He is God, because only God Incarnate could have lived a perfect and sinless life in order to be a substitute for us, rather than suffer for his own sins.
But IF Jesus wasn't part of the Trinity, would that make what he taught invalid?
Generally, no -- note that Jesus did commend being persecuted for His sake and taught that He would be eternal judge, both of which implies His divinity -- but it would have made invalid and void what He did on the cross.
Roger, I understand the desire to focus on the more down-to-earth ethical teachings, but perfect obedience is impossible.
"Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
You can't achieve perfection; none of us can. So, to whatever degree our imperfect obedience to Christ's ethical teachings improve our earthly lives, it cannot provide for eternal life with a truly holy God, because it doesn't account for the sins that we commit.
You seem to understand this when you wrote, earlier, "my Greek, rational mind can't see how I can be as perfect as the Master of the Universe."
But the solution isn't to see such perfection as something far, far less than it. It's to recognize that it means what it says, and to recognize the frightening reality:
You can't be perfect, not on your own.
Christ is perfect: Christ is God, He is the Creator Himself, as all things were made through Him.
You can appropriate His death as the death your sins deserve, and you can appropriate His life -- not just His teachings, but His very life -- as eternal life with the Father.
That's the enigma: how can the spiritually poor inherit God's kingdom, and how can we be truly perfect as God is perfect?
The answer isn't what we do in trying to confirm to what Jesus taught, but in accepting what Jesus did for us: the poor in spirit, realizing their spiritual bankruptcy, rely wholly on Christ to save them, and He does. Because He does save them, and because they do rely on His saving work, they will become perfect.
That line in the sermon ain't an error: it's the arrow pointing us to our need, not just for instruction, but for salvation.
Matthew records this verse that points to our need, but he also records the verse that points to the solution.
"Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (26:26-27)
Dan,
My question is, how do you determine which rules you choose to follow and those you don't? Are you saying that there are some rules that shouldn't be followed today and some that should? Again, how do you choose.
So, to be clear you affirm the following from Romans 1.
1. Paul's apostleship
2. God's wrath
3. God's power and nature are visible to all
So when Paul says the following, "27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
How do you interpret this? How do you believe Paul would define "natural relations" and "unnatural relations"? What does Paul mean by "indecent acts"?
Finally, when Paul concludes with this, "32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
I assume that you concur that people who engage in the behaviors listed above, as well as those who approve of them deserve death? Is Paul talking about literal physical death?
Again, looking forward
"I fully support people maintaining their natural orientation. You?"
Dan,
Sorry I missed your question in my earlier comment. The short answer is yes I do support people maintaining their natural orientation.
The bigger question is, who decides what "our natural orientation" is. I would submit that God is best able to determine what the "natural orientation" of humankind is. Who would you say decides?
Let me say thanks to EVERYONE for their part in this kind and reasonable conversation. And let me try tackling a few points...
Bubba said:
To speculate that the passage is a "revenge fantasy" on the part of the Israelites in captivity is to consider quite openly the possibility that the passage was authored only by men and not inspired by God, and that the passage therefore contains error.
Why could God not inspire a revenge fantasy? That makes tons more sense - is more plausible in the extreme - to me than the notion that God sometimes commands people to commit atrocities. Further, you go on to say that there are some passages (apocalyptic writing) that "simply aren't clear." Why could these atrocious passages not be an example of a passage that is not clear?
You say that God can't inspire a revenge fantasy and that it "demands to be taken literally," but, says who? It seems that way to you, I understand that. But not to me. An unbiased open-minded reading of this passage (keeping in mind that I came from holding an inerrant POV of the Bible) to me DEMANDS that these passages be set aside as NOT literally factual representations of God's will.
Who in the world ever said that the Midianites and Moabites were innocent?
If nothing else, the children of the Midianites and Moabites were innocent. It is exactly this sort of shedding of innocent blood that is frequently condemned in the Bible.
But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God,and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood... their feet run to evil, and they hasten to shed innocent blood... ~Isaiah 59, one of many passages condemning shedding innocent blood/killing innocent people.
Is it your position that the children of the Midianites and Moabites were not innocent? The babes??
I'm quite sure that this is not your position.
It seems to be your position, then, that IF it's God commanding the action - whether that action is killing children, rape, bestiality, whatever, if God commands it, it's not a sin. It is my position that God does not command us to sin.
This would be one point where we hold vastly different positions, it seems to me.
Bubba also said:
You write that the account of creation "clearly" has scientific error. That's a stunning admission of what sources you do take as authoritative, and which ones you don't.
Yes, it is the case that the Creation story found in Genesis (actual, either of the two different Creation stories) are simply NOT scientific explanations of how the world began. And yes, I DO take our God given reasoning and observation abilities as fairly authoritative (although not infallible).
But rather than go on in this vein, I return to the question: WHY? What reason would we have for presuming that any of these passages ought to be taken literally or considered to be without error? The Bible does not instruct us to take them this way, Jesus does not instruct us to take them this way, God does not instruct us to take them this way AND our own God-given reasoning DOES suggest we ought NOT take them that way. Or, at least my own God-given reasoning does.
You seem to take the position that, if science and the Bible disagree, science is clearly right and the Bible is clearly in error.
No, I take the position that, if the evidence is fairly clear that something happens a certain way and God hasn't told me NOT to reject that evidence, then I have no reason not to take that evidence as reliable. It's not even so much a suggestion that the Bible is in error, but that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not called for.
Craig said:
I would submit that God is best able to determine what the "natural orientation" of humankind is. Who would you say decides?
God, I believe. So, if God has made someone with a certain natural orientation towards women, that is a great and blessed thing. And if God has made someone with a certain natural orientation towards men, THAT is a great and blessed thing.
So, we don't disagree, Craig, that God is who determines what one's natural orientation is. Where we probably disagree, then, is WHO IS BEST able to discern what orientation God has given them. It is my contention that the individual is the one best-suited to determine that.
Do you believe that YOU are better suited to determine what orientation God gave someone else (Person A) or do you think Person A is best suited?
Craig asked (and this gets to how we read the Bible, so that's why I think this is on topic):
How do you believe Paul would define "natural relations" and "unnatural relations"? What does Paul mean by "indecent acts"?
My best guess would be that Paul would have considered it unreasonable for two men to be able to have "natural relations," since Paul lived in a time where the notion of homosexuality wasn't as well understood as it is today. Paul probably didn't know that such a thing as a loving, healthy, committed relationship between two men or two women was possible. Now, we know differently.
As to what Paul meant by "indecent acts," well, I don't know for sure. But this SEEMS to be talking about (and many scholars would agree) some sort of ritual sexual practices associated with paganism and idol worship that were OUTSIDE a loving committed relationship. That's what it seems to be talking about to me.
And I agree: Sex orgies in temples to ensure a good harvest or something of that nature is not a good or valid expression of healthy sexuality. Do you agree, too?
Craig also asked:
how do you determine which rules you choose to follow and those you don't? Are you saying that there are some rules that shouldn't be followed today and some that should? Again, how do you choose.
Probably the same way as you, roughly. I use my God-given moral reasoning and logic. I rely upon the teachings of Jesus and other teachings found in the Bible. But I DON'T take each teaching found in the Bible as a perfectly sound teaching to apply today.
As I've noted, just because there are several places where God commands Israel to wipe out the children of an enemy, does not mean that this is a good teaching for us to implement. No, I have to read the Bible using my God-given reasoning to sort out what applies today and what may have applied in the past and what may never have been a good teaching. Sort of like you do, I suspect.
Dan,
Just a few clarifications. Since you have now introduced the concept of more than one "natural orientation" can you provide and scriptural backup for your assertion? Assuming that we, and Paul, are talking about "sexual orientation", it seems a stretch to assume that the singular orientation could be interpreted as the plural orientations.
Further since the people we are talking about have made, according to Paul, "their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" and "exchanged the truth of God for a lie "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." and "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death". Why should we trust and affirm the ability of the decisions made by the people described above?
As to your second response, you have made this assertion before. Yet, you have given no reason for your assumption that Paul could not have known that a "loving, healthy, committed relationship between two men or two women was possible.". So, while this is your opinion, you have not demonstrated how you reached this conclusion by "rightly divining God's Word". Since it seems germane to the post, could you please explain what passages have led you to the conclusion that there were not "loving, healthy, committed relationship(s) between two men or two women", and how your interpretation of these passages led you to this conclusion?
Finally, I think Bubba did a fine job of explaining how I would reach the conclusion about what laws are still operative. So I will defer to his explanation.
Since you have decided that the passages that describe God commanding the Israelites to commit what you call atrocities. How do you deal with those passages where God "commits atrocities"? Is it your position that God committed an atrocity when he sent the "angel of death" to kill the firstborn of Egypt?
That's it for now, work is calling.
Bubba said:
"Taking innocent human life is always immoral, so that even God is forbidden from doing so or commanding so."
This idea has no basis in Scripture, and editing the Bible to make it fit would remove or diminish so many passages that what's left wouldn't be recognizable.
At the moment, I'm not saying what God does or doesn't do. It is a bit much for me to presume to speak with authority about what an almighty God might do God's own self. I have opinions, but I'm not really even talking about that, at the moment.
I'm talking about humans. And it is always wrong for humans to kill innocents, that would be my position. And I further posit that God would not ask humans to do something that God has said is wrong for us to do.
God would not ask us to kill children, nor would God ask us to rape puppies, nor would God ask us to eat the hearts of babes. Not today, not ever.
I may not be of the right pay grade to speak of what God may do in God's spare time, but I do feel confident that God does not ask us to commit atrocities - and for humans to rape puppies, to eat baby hearts, to slaughter children, these things ARE atrocities. They would not cease to be atrocities if God were to ask us to do them.
I think that is what separates you and I on this point.
On the other point, as to what GOD might do...
"Taking innocent human life is always immoral, so that even God is forbidden from doing so or commanding so."
This idea has no basis in Scripture, and editing the Bible to make it fit would remove or diminish so many passages that what's left wouldn't be recognizable.
I don't know that it would alter the Bible that much. There are places that suggest that God kills innocents (the Flood, for instance, Sodom/Gomorrah, assuming that there were children there, a few other places). BUT, if we were to allow that these were not literal historical events, it would not alter the Bible much at all. We'd be talking about, what? Five - ten instances? It's certainly not an integral part of biblical teaching.
For my part, I don't think natural deaths (children dying of cancer or illness) are atrocities. It's part of life and not something that God deliberately causes to happen, it just happens. Births happen, sickness happens, harvests happen, floods happen, death happens, it's all a good part of the natural world.
I'll try to get to some of the other comments as I have time.
Dan,
I would like to echo Bubba in thanking you for responding to the questions being raised. I sincerely hope that you see that I really want to understand what your thought process is in interpreting the Bible. So thanks again, I look forward to hearing your response.
But why is it wrong for humans to take innocent human life?
I have an answer for that: it's wrong, because it's not ours to take.
I don't necessarily disagree with that answer. It's certainly one reason why it's wrong to take innocent human life.
It's also wrong because we have a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is perhaps the same thing.
It's wrong because, EVEN IF somebody THINKS they hear God telling them to kill innocents, the likely reality is that person is crazy, not that God is telling them to do such.
I'm not saying one way or the other what God HAS to do, God is beyond me and as mortals, who are we to question God? But, we all agree, innocent lives are not ours to take.
So, where does that leave us? That some people have thought or written that God told them that it was okay to do what we are not to do? What if someone says that God wants them to rape puppies, does that make it okay? No, clearly. Because, in addition to lives not being ours to take, such actions are an affront to humanity and decency.
So I reckon that would be another reason: We don't take innocent human lives because it is an affront to humanity and decency.
If you say that it just is always immoral -- self-evidently, with no explanation needed and no exceptions -- you will have to explain why it's permissible for God to take human life.
To say that He doesn't, just won't do.
Why? You want me to tell God what God does and doesn't do? All I'm saying is that God WON'T do: God won't ask humans to kill innocents or rape puppies. I know you don't disagree, TODAY, but you hold the position (I believe) that God HAS in the past done just that.
I don't hold that position and don't feel it necessary to hold that position in order to respect the Bible and honor its teachings. In fact, as I've stated, I think suggesting that God sometimes might command us to commit atrocities is a serious offense against reading the Bible with integrity and intellectual honesty.
Bubba said:
this isn't a remotely Christian view of nature, because it denies God's sovereignty over nature.
The Christian view is that GOD IS IN CONTROL. It's deism to think that something like death "just happens."
You say that "floods happen," but Genesis 6 is quite clear that the largest flood wasn't a chance occurrence of nature: it was a true act of God.
God is in control, but not all of Christianity holds to the micromanagement view of God. God does not go about, as a rule, turning on and off floods. It's just part of nature.
To believe that God started the ice storm last week and ended it on Friday and warmed up Kentucky on Saturday and Sunday before turning it below freezing again today is NOT part of orthodox Christianity. I recognize that there are some segments of evangelicals (and maybe others) who believe thusly, but it is not orthodoxy, in general.
This does not deny God's sovereignty over nature, it just says that God doesn't play around with nature that way. This IS a big beautiful creation that God has made and it is a wonderful, magnificent and sometimes fierce thing, not unlike God. But to say that God is not a puppet master over humans or creation is not antithetical to Christianity. Just some (I believe) rather small sects of Christianity.
I will note that I'm saying that without researching it. I could be wrong: Maybe there ARE large segments of Christianity - maybe even the majority - that believes God micromanages the weather. But they do so contrary to logic, science and the Bible.
Just because Jesus waxes poetic and says, "God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust..." does not mean that Jesus was intending for us to take that literally.
Which brings us back to the whole literal/symbolic historic/mythic reading of the Bible. There's nothing in the Bible that suggests that each weather-related passage ought necessarily be taken literally. Some stories may well be mythic ways of explaining things to pre-scientific peoples. That is what seems most plausible to me.
Maybe you came up with these ideas on your own, maybe they're partially from someone else, but either way, you don't seem to use the Bible as the primary source for your understanding of these greater issues. Instead, you seem to be selective about including the Bible at all in this, invoking passages that support (or can be seen to support) what you already believe and downplaying those that don't.
It is the case that I grew up in a traditional baptist home and church, taking the Bible literally and assuming its inerrancy, but more than anything else, taking its teachings SERIOUSLY.
However, the more I read the Bible with the desire to take it seriously and live out Jesus' teachings, the more obvious it became to me that one can't take the Bible seriously AND literally/inerrantly at the same time. To do so is to make a mockery of the Bible.
And it is for just the reasons that I have offered somewhat already. IF we presume we have to take the Bible literally and inerrantly (despite the fact that the Bible, God nor Jesus ever tell us to do so), then we HAVE to accept a lot of obviously awful stuff, for instance that God sometimes might command atrocities. BUT, to believe that, I have to reject a lot of biblical teachings.
That is what I mean by saying that in order to take the teachings of the Bible seriously, we CAN'T take it literally.
I could see that we're at least both starting with the same foundation, the Bible itself.
To be clear: I'm NOT starting with the Bible itself. I'm starting with God. I believe all of Creation is a testimony to God's reality and that humanity and history and traditions all point (for me) to the validity of Jesus' life and teachings.
So, clearly, my desire is NOT to cling to the Bible, but to honor God and follow in Jesus' steps. As part of that, I love deeply the Bible and strive to take it about as seriously as anyone I know, personally. But the Bible is NOT my starting point. God and Jesus are my starting point. The Bible is a witness to their story, but not my starting point.
Dan,
Any chance you will respond to my post from the other morning. No hurry, but I have some other questions, but I don't want to get ahead of where we are in the discussion.
Thanks
Are these the questions you're talking about?
Craig asked:
Since you have now introduced the concept of more than one "natural orientation" can you provide and scriptural backup for your assertion?
No. You're suggesting that Paul here (in Romans 1) is talking about homosexuality and, if that is the case, then Paul refers to the problem of folk rejecting the natural for the un-natural.
It is my hunch that Paul was not thinking in terms of homosexuality being a natural state for anyone. After all, as far as he knew, every man is attracted to women and women were attracted to men. The only exceptions Paul likely knew of were abusive situations, like catamites (boy prostitutes) and temple orgies in pagan temples. If that is the only expression of homosexuality that one knows of and one doesn't have the benefit of today's knowledge where we know that some folk are indeed born with a natural same sex attraction, then Paul probably assumed that ANY male attraction would be the unnatural, unwholesome ones he saw in his time.
So, since no one at the time knew that it was possible for folk to be naturally attracted to the same gender, it is not surprising that the Bible does not mention it.
Similar kind of thing as in the creation story: A scientific explanation is not offered anywhere in the Bible because there would be no context for such an explanation to mean anything.
Craig said and asked:
Further since the people we are talking about have made, according to Paul, "their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools"... Why should we trust and affirm the ability of the decisions made by the people described above?
I don't know that we should. But you know what? Not a single one of my church brothers and sisters - gay or straight - have done any of the above, they have not exchanged the wisdom of God for pagan idols, they have not forsaken God, any of that stuff. So we're not talking about the same thing, it seems to me.
As to your second response, you have made this assertion before. Yet, you have given no reason for your assumption that Paul could not have known that a "loving, healthy, committed relationship between two men or two women was possible.". So, while this is your opinion, you have not demonstrated how you reached this conclusion by "rightly divining God's Word". Since it seems germane to the post, could you please explain what passages have led you to the conclusion that there were not "loving, healthy, committed relationship(s) between two men or two women", and how your interpretation of these passages led you to this conclusion?
Well, there are no mentions of loving, committed same sex relationships in the Bible, and since gay marriage is a fairly modern phenomena, I see no reason to think that Paul knew about such an idea. Do you?
I just can't thank everyone enough for keeping this conversation mostly at the respectable conversation level. We are adults here talking about how we understand the Bible in different contexts and no one has (to my knowledge) misrepresented anyone's position - beyond perhaps a few innocent misunderstandings - and there have been no name-callings or anything of that nature. Thank you, thank you, thank you. We can do this!
Craig, if we look at Romans 1 with an eye relatively unbiased with modern preconceptions and look for what the all-important context is, we see Paul talking about pagan practices, is that something we can agree upon? After all, Paul is talking about...
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.
Now, setting aside a modern evangelical desire to see only homosexuality in this passage, do you see that contextually this looks to be talking about pagan idol worshipers? Those who have "exchanged the glory of... God for an image in the form of... man and.. birds and... animals...", Paul is talking about pagan worship practices, right? And this is what has God all angry, that they're worshiping the stuff of earth rather than the creator of earth?
Now, considering that context, we might need to know more about these practices and people, right? I've read several theologians who note that...
"The pagan religions that surrounded and contaminated Israel's history frequently practiced some form of cult prostitution, usually centered on the theme of fertility. . . One means of pleasing the fertility gods was to engage in sex with the female or male prostitutes available at the temple."
source
Because context is important when we read the Bible, then, do we agree that Paul is likely talking about these specific practices? People who are not necessarily gay (since Paul would not have known about orientation) but rather who have abandoned their natural heterosexual inclination (what Paul WOULD have known about, albeit not in those terms) to have sex in these temple practices with sometimes male, sometimes female, sometimes children! partners.
Contextually, then, you and I probably agree that this is not a wholesome expression of their sexuality. But that passage is NOT talking about a wholesome, committed loving gay or lesbian relationship. In fact, even though it's probably not Paul's intention, the fact that he expresses concern for what following what is natural is a key concept that I think does get at gay marriage issues.
I fully support wholesome, natural expressions of one's natural orientation, such as in a gay marriage situation. I'm not saying that is what Paul was talking about, because Paul would not have known about orientation in the way that we know about it. But reading the Bible for training and enlightenment today means we have to read the Bible with an eye to context and with an eye to modern understanding.
We don't have to accept the Genesis account as literal because we have modern scientific understanding to know that the world simply wasn't created in six literal days. But that is not a rejection of the Creation story, just a rejection of a literal interpretation of it.
We don't have to assume that Paul meant any and all instances of men pursuing men because we understand the context of what he was talking about AND we have the modern understanding of orientation that Paul did not have. And that is not a rejection of the Romans passage, just a modern understanding of it.
Where do we disagree, brother?
Two other things, very quickly, Dan.
First, I meant to write, above, that it's possible the wars of annihilation waged by ancient Israel involved the death of innocent lives: the Bible isn't perfectly clear that that's the case, so I think it's probably reasonable conjecture, but still conjecture.
Second, it doesn't seem to me that you apply consistent standards when determining what the Bible teaches. In rejecting inerrancy, for instance, you point out that the Bible doesn't explicitly state that every passage in all 66 books are inerrant, but you don't acknowledge that the Bible at least points to inerrancy in some passages, and -- most noticeably -- you never seem to acknowledge that the opposite position of "errancy" isn't explicitly affirmed in the Bible, either.
On the issue of marriage, you note that the Bible never explicitly condemns gay marriage, as if that's hugely important, but the fact that it never condones it, either, doesn't seem to matter at all.
In your conversation with Craig, you engage in question-begging when you write "the fact that [Paul] expresses concern for what following what is natural is a key concept that I think does get at gay marriage issues."
But I have, in the past, repeatedly invoked Matthew 19, where Jesus Christ affirms that we were created male and female so that a man (male) will become one flesh with his wife (female), and you disagree that this is a fairly explicit affirmation of God's will that marriage be exclusively heterosexual.
No matter how weak the evidence for your position -- if it's next to nothing or even, with an argument from silence, quite literally nothing -- you think the evidence is persuasive. You find emanations of penumbras about Paul's commending what's "natural" to find support for radically redefining marriage.
And, no matter how strong the evidence for the contrary position, you think it's never enough: it always has to be more explicit that what you must know the Bible contains. Jesus Christ Himself made it quite clear that the reason we were even made male and female is for marriage, where marriage involves a man (male) and his wife (female), and you think that has no impact on the propriety of redefining marriage.
I think it's quite clear, then, that the Bible itself isn't the standard by which you determine God's will.
So I ask again, if the Bible isn't your primary and authoritative source for truth about who God is, what He has done, and what He desires... what is?
Thanks.
So much to talk about, so little time!!
A few brief answers to short questions:
Do believe that Jesus Christ literally and historically healed the sick -- the lame, the blind, and the leprous?
Do believe that Jesus Christ literally and historically calmed the storm that arose while He was asleep?
Sure, I have no problem with those possibilities.
If you say yes to both these questions, do you believe Christ's claim, in John 5, that the Son is not able to do anything on His own, but only what He sees the Father doing? Does that not suggest that God does control sickness and health, storms and calm weather?
It would be my belief that God CAN control weather, just that God doesn't generally do so. Hence, these are miraculous - out of the norm - situations. If it happened all the time, I'm not sure how miraculous it would be.
Bubba asked:
Do you believe in the literal, historical, physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus, as described in the New Testament?
If you do, would you agree that medical science would dismiss those accounts as impossible
Yes, I believe in the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event as described in the NT. The difference between the Creation story and the resurrection story is that we have evidence that the world is not 6,000-ish years old and that it was not created in six days. There is reason aplenty to cause us to legitimately say, "Okay, well that story was clearly not a literal representation of how the world was created, but the Big point that God created remains intact."
On the other hand, we have no body of Jesus to prove or disprove a resurrection. I accept it on faith that it happened as described, having no evidence to the contrary.
I think the difference is that my faith is not shaken by evidence that the creation story must have been somewhat mythical in nature because I and my company are not of the sort that insist upon a literal interpretation of the Creation or even the Resurrection story. I believe in faith the resurrection story, but it is not the sum total of my belief. IF someone could somehow prove that Jesus was never resurrected, it would not mean the end of my following the teachings of Jesus.
Which is sort of a natural spot to take me to your very last question, Bubba...
So I ask again, if the Bible isn't your primary and authoritative source for truth about who God is, what He has done, and what He desires... what is?
I believe in God the creator, almighty maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ, the son of God, who came to live a perfect life, leaving us an example, that we might follow in his steps.
I believe all of this because it makes sense. It's logical. It speaks truth to power in practical, everyday sorts of ways.
I believe all of the above because I think the Bible is a great source of information about God. I believe the stories and poetry and imagery of the Bible point to a God in ways that echo true to my spirit.
I believe it all because I think all of creation is a testimony to God's work; Because I see God in the trees and streams and deserts and snow storms and earthquakes and it is all so so so very good.
I believe it because of God's word written upon my heart and upon all of our hearts. I believe it because I see that of God in humanity.
I believe it because of the testimony of my friends and family, of my church and of strangers, even, at times.
For a thousand reasons, I believe that the basics of Christianity are the Way, the Truth and Life for a hurting world.
The Bible is one very strong, solid reason why I believe in Jesus and God, but if the Bible were gone tomorrow, I would still believe.
As to HOW we live that out, well, I think the Bible in toto is a great way of knowing how. I believe using our logic and that of God, written upon our hearts is a great way, too. What makes sense? What would Jesus do?
None of this is infallible, Lord knows, because we are not infallible. But this is and always has been true.
Did ancient Israel not know how to live since they did not have a Bible? Did the early church not know how to live since they did not have a Bible? Well, they all sure made plenty of mistakes, as do we. But I'm not sure that the presence of the Bible has helped us live any more perfectly than the absence of the Bible made them live less perfectly.
Is that a satisfactory answer?
Dan,
I also want to agree with what has been said regarding this nature of this conversation. It has been a nice change from other exchanges.
To your response. Although Paul may be talking about pagan practices he certainly doesn't specify that the practices are ok beyond the pagan context. Not only that but how often do we see professing Christians that do the same sorts of things (money, power, sex, drugs, etc). So the text as written does not support what you are reading into it. If effect you seem to be arguing that it would be ok to engage in the behaviors listed as long as it is outside of the pagan context.
It still seems as though you are assuming a lot about what Paul knew or didn't know. I provided several sources that would contradict your assertion that "committed loving homosexual relationships/marriage" did not exist, yet you don't even acknowledge that. So, no we don't agree that it is "likely" that Paul is talking exclusively about these practices. It is equally likely based what I previously wrote that Paul was responding out of a combination of his expertise in Jewish law, as well as knowing what Jesus taught. So we agree context is important, but I can't buy what you are reading in to the context. You keep assuming that it is possible for there to be more than one "natural orientation". While you could produce some studies that might support your contention, I thought this thread was about rightly interpreting the Bible. You have not provided any Biblical support for your contention.
I think Bubba brings up an excellent point when he refers to you arguing from silence. In the context of Biblical interpretation how can one unbiasedly interpret silence?
Thanks Bubba
I agree with Bubba and you that I am largely arguing out of silence. The thing is, I think it's clear that you all are, too.
My point is and has been that the Bible is silent on gay marriage. On healthy committed loving gay relationships. It is silent. These topics are not touched in the Bible.
And so, when the Bible is silent, we have to look for clues in the Bible that MIGHT be related and beyond that, we have to use our own God-given reasoning and logic and sense of morality. You do this and I do this. That is my point, or one of them.
Craig also said:
Although Paul may be talking about pagan practices he certainly doesn't specify that the practices are ok beyond the pagan context. Not only that but how often do we see professing Christians that do the same sorts of things (money, power, sex, drugs, etc). So the text as written does not support what you are reading into it.
You are again correct. He does not specify that the practices are okay outside of pagan contexts. But what practices? Is Paul talking about loving, wholesome relationships or is he talking about sex for sport, sex as worship, sex as lever to gain favors? I'm suggesting that he is talking about sex - gay or straight - in these contexts, NOT in the context of wholesome committed relationships.
Which leads us back to the notion that we are both arguing in silence, as the Bible is completely silent on the topic.
The text does not support what you're reading into it, either.
That being the case, what possible logical, moral reasons can you come up with OUTSIDE of the Bible for opposing gay marriage? For opposing people living in wholesome committed relationships with the nature that God has given them, rather than a subversion/perversion of that nature?
Dan,
You established this thread as a forum on "reading the Bible and rightly divining God's Word". With your last comment, you seem to have moved past the stated purpose of your post. You have steered this toward "loving committed relationships and gay marriage", not I. I have been perfectly content to examine the text as written and follow it wherever it leads.
You introduce the assertion that these L/C/GM relationships did not exist in Paul's day. I provide sources that argue otherwise.
For you to ask, "what possible logical, moral reasons can you come up with OUTSIDE of the Bible for opposing gay marriage?" strays beyond the parameters you established. I have asked you for what Biblical reasons you have to support it, and you have none. You dismiss the words of Jesus as pointed out by both Bubba and myself. If you have a reading of Matt. 19 that includes same sex couples please enlighten me. You presume that I oppose these relationships, yet nowhere have I said that.
I would very much like to continue to explore the original topic, and have some other areas I'd like to explore. However, if this is going to go down this road, lets move on on good terms. I'd much rather explore new territory, than cover old.
OK?
Okay.
You state:
You introduce the assertion that these L/C/GM relationships did not exist in Paul's day. I provide sources that argue otherwise.
I will have to admit not knowing what Paul knew. I don't know if he knew about loving committed gay marriage. You provide some evidence that such may have existed at the time, fair enough.
I do remember reading historically that there was this whole anti-female thing in ancient Rome, where women were thought good only for bearing and raising children, but bad for socializing with. To that end, some older men took up with younger men/boys, often altering their looks to make them look more feminine.
But that does not seem to be homosexuality, but rather misogyny, where the men despised women's company so they took young men/boys and "made them" into more worthy females. That would be another example of abusive behavior that would be wrongly compared to homosexuality.
But, let's assume your sources are correct, and there were healthy loving gay relationships around (although, I'd have to note that if Nero were the example, I'd have much doubt that there was anything healthy or loving about that relationship), I'm not sure how that effects my argument.
My point remains that Paul appears to be talking about temple prostitution/abusive sorts of behavior in this Romans context. So, it would still be my point that the Bible has nothing positive or negative to say about gay marriage and that we are both arguing in silence.
Nothing you have offered convinces me otherwise. That Jesus does not mention gay marriage as a good or a bad is not evidence that it is bad. That Jesus, when he was talking about marriage, mentioned man and woman is not evidence that this is the only acceptable way, just that it was the norm.
Dan,
I'm not sure I can convince you, nor do I especially want to. However, the fact that you reject the evidence that doesn't support your position so cavalierly indicates that it would be impossible to convince you no matter what the evidence. So, where does that leave us, you insist that silence means assent to your position, I argue that the Bible is not silent on what constitutes marriage. You deflect that by saying, "Jesus, when he was talking about marriage, mentioned man and woman is not evidence that this is the only acceptable way, just that it was the norm.". Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Jesus (Messiah, Son of God, The Word, etc.) established Man-Woman as the "norm" for marriage, who are you (or me) to suggest that he didn't mean "the norm". Again, I'd like to get back to the subject of your original post, if that's ok with you.
As with Bubba, I have a busy weekend. Work, Band Concert, Work, Double Date, and Dinner with John Perkins on Mon. (I'm pretty excited to get to meet him) So I'd like to propose that we move on next week, and try to explore a more productive direction.
Again, thanks for the conversation. We may not come to an agreement, but I would hope that at least we can all see that each of us here is interested in following Christ by God's grace, even if we disagree on a sin here or there, an interpretation here or there.
As to the topic, I DO think this line of thinking is on the topic. My point in the above would be that we have to keep in mind context and we have to keep in mind that just because Jesus said something or didn't say something on a topic is not the be all and end all.
Jesus never condemned slavery, for instance. In fact, he used master/slave imagery frequently. By the "male and female/marriage" line of thinking, if Jesus had WANTED to end that norm, he would have said so. Jesus refusal to condemn slavery and use of master/slave stories is "proof" that he endorsed that as the only possible norm.
Or so says that line of thinking. But that line of thinking is wrong because it fails to recognize that some of the stories in the Bible are addressed to cultural norms and traditions of the day.
Late to the party, but I'll throw in my two cents anyway.
On the homosexuality point, the Romans piece is often seen as meaning "natural function", otherwise other sins listed would be or should be equally tolerated. Dan's interpretation would have to allow for those who's natural orientation is toward the violent or the lazy or the covetous.
I would add that the Levitical restrictions have no bearing on intent behind the sexual practices. That is, a loving and committed incestuous relationship, or a loving and committed adulterous relationship, or a loving and committed relationship between a guy and his father's wife, etc etc etc. It is clearly the action that is prohibited and there is no need to wonder what it means for those who are nice about it. If so, then we run into the problem of HOW loving and committed a relationship must be to pass muster. So arguing from silence is one thing, but a baseless assumption is quite another.
I find it to be a stretch that what Paul did or didn't know or understand should be an issue either. This guy was struck blind by Christ after a brief conversation and it doesn't take a leap of faith to assume that he was enlightened in a variety of ways. How is it possible to suspect that an Apostle or Prophet would be so lacking when discussing the teachings of the Almighty?
"And so, when the Bible is silent, we have to look for clues in the Bible that MIGHT be related..."
Fine. But the only thing related to homosexual behavior is that it should not be done. Anything at all related to marriage concerns a man and a woman. By your own standard you have no leg on which to stand.
"It is my hunch that Paul was not thinking in terms of homosexuality being a natural state for anyone."
"My best guess would be that Paul would have considered it unreasonable for two men to be able to have "natural relations," since Paul lived in a time where the notion of homosexuality wasn't as well understood as it is today."
Dan, you have often chastised me for "hunches" and "guesses" only because you chose to assuse me of making them about Scripture when I was insisting I was accurately relating what Scripture says. Here you are freely guessing and acting on hunches. Bad form, muh man.
"To be clear: I'm NOT starting with the Bible itself. I'm starting with God."
I submit that without the Bible, you'd not be starting with THIS god, but with something entirely different. Without the Bible, all the claims about the story of God and Jesus being distorted through the ages would be far more likely to have occurred where it would unlikely that there'd be little resemblance to the truth here in 2009. Without the Bible, all those flowery and poetic lines about seeing God in everything, the heavens proclaiming His Glory and so on and so forth would stand without us recognizing what we're seeing. The goofy notion of "My Truth" would be as extreme as one could imagine, more so than it now is.
Finally, the use of expressions like "raping puppies" or whatever, does not further the conversation. Nor does it compare to actual actions described in the Bible. Continuing to label actions of God as "atrocities" are also provocative as nothing God does could be atrocious. This is judging His actions on human ideas of righteousness. His reasons are His reasons and we are not privy to them all.
I hope my comments haven't adversely tainted the tenor of this conversation too badly.
Your comments were fine, Marshall.
You said:
Dan's interpretation would have to allow for those who's natural orientation is toward the violent or the lazy or the covetous.
No, they wouldn't. We can see and know outside the Bible that violence is wrong, laziness and covetousness is wrong. They harm others or have negative repercussions. There is no such harm and are no such negative repercussions for gay marriage, only positive consequences.
That would be another clue (albeit not perfect) for biblical interpretation: Does it meet the common sense test?
you have often chastised me for "hunches" and "guesses" only because you chose to assuse me of making them about Scripture when I was insisting I was accurately relating what Scripture says. Here you are freely guessing and acting on hunches.
The difference is, I'm acknowledging they are my best guess on interpreting scripture. I'm not insisting some unknow-able point is clearly true and factual. I'm saying that the Bible simply does not address gay marriage (an absolute fact) and so we're both arguing from silence, and so my best guess as to how to interpret these passages are as I've stated.
It's okay to admit you're guessing if you are, in fact, guessing (perhaps an educated guess, but still a guess). What's problematic is when you make an assertion ("The Bible clearly condemns gay marriage!") that is an opinion and not a fact, and stating it as a fact.
the use of expressions like "raping puppies" or whatever, does not further the conversation.
The point of using that expression is to try to get across how atrocious it is to presume that God might tell us ANYTHING and to assume that because someone said God said something ("kill children," "rape puppies") does not mean that God said it. I thought if the notion of God commanding people to kill children is not ridiculous enough to recognize as a falsehood, perhaps the notion of God commanding us to rape puppies would help. No offense intended, just an attempt to illustrate a point.
...Nor does it compare to actual actions described in the Bible. Continuing to label actions of God as "atrocities" are also provocative as nothing God does could be atrocious.
Well, here's where we disagree. I'm thinking that if one concludes the passages where it appears God has commanded the slaughter of children must be taken literally, then that action is, to me and I think most people, atrocious (much worse than raping puppies) and an example of why that passage must not be taken literally - because it requires us to assume that God would ask people to commit atrocities.
You may not like the term, you may think that if God commands it (whatever "it" is), it can't be atrocious, but those actions are, in fact, atrocious. I don't know of any other term for slaughtering children.
So much confusion over one word.
A quick study of the original text would show that the word "natural" here, "phusis" is the same word that Paul uses over and over to distinguish between "natural" sons of God (ie. Jews) and the "adopted" sons of God (ie. Gentiles). So it isn't about "natural function" it is about the created nature of a person, in other words, heterosexual men participating in pagan temple worship involving sex of some sort.
Nor does "natural" in that context have any meaning related to a moral designation. In fact he's arguing for the equivalency between the natural children of God (Jews) and the unnatural children of God (Gentiles.)
Also, regarding whether or not Paul understood gay marriage as we do today: the argument is clearly ridiculous. He wouldn't have understood *heterosexual* marriage as we know it today. Today, women are not chattel bought and sold as property. Today she is not meant to be a servant of her "master". Today, she isn't married off at 13 or 14. Today the marriage isn't arranged by the parents. Etc., etc., etc. Modern marriage looks nothing like marriage did back then, gay or straight.
This of course is critical to an interpretation of the passage (and every passage), since, as everyone knows, orthodox and traditional methods of interpretation clearly rest on the assumption that Biblical writers did not and could not write about things that they did not know about. That is, what they wrote must have had meaning for them when they wrote it.
Always glad to clear up the confusion.
for more information on the correct interpretation of the Romans verse y'all are so hung up on:
http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/NatureAndPassion.html
Thanks, Alan, for the help on the word analysis. As always, knowing the context, the language and usage of words is important if we want more than a superficial understanding.
You are right on: "That is, what they wrote must have had meaning for them when they wrote it." and that is one of my points here on "reading the Bible." Just because a passage is written, explaining the creation in incorrect scientific terms for instance, does not mean that we need reject that passage. It just means we need to recognize who and when it was written.
Just because the Bible does not condemn slavery or treating women as chattel does not mean we need to think that these actions are okay today.
Bubba said:
Try tacking on a clause that permits "gay marriage" to what Jesus affirmed, and what He affirmed no longer makes sense:
"God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife... but it's okay for a man to become one flesh with another man, or for a woman to become one flesh with another woman."
If an individual is morally permitted to marry someone of either sex, why even invoke the fact that God made us male and female? The fact becomes a complete non sequitur.
The only logical reason that our being made male and female is important to marriage, is if God intended marriage to be an exclusively heterosexual institution.
Here is one of those instances where it seems to me to come down to what makes sense to you and what makes sense to me. TO YOU, the "only logical reason" is male/female marriages only. For me, a logical reason is that there was no such context for gay marriage in that day, so Jesus wouldn't mention it.
It's very similar to the slavery issue. Why did Jesus use slave/master images and never condemn slavery? Is THE ONLY logical reason that slavery is okay? You and I both agree that this is not the case. Rather, slavery was the norm, it was not a time where talking of abolishing slavery made sense or would be any thing that anyone in that context would talk about?
A day where slavery could be condemned as always wrong was beyond the context of the times.
Similarly, a day where gay folk existed, much less could marry was beyond the context of the day. Jesus COULD have condemned slavery, but he didn't. Jesus COULD have promoted gay marriage, but he didn't. There was no context for either notion.
That makes logical sense to me. I understand you disagree. But I'm telling you what makes sense to me and nothing you've offered has changed that for me.
Dan, I believe your writing that belief in the historicity of the Resurrection is optional, is far more important.
On the subject of marriage, I must ask: according to the Bible, and according to Jesus Christ Himself, why were we made male and female?
I believe the answer to that question is obvious, and it logically, necessarily precludes any possibility that even monogamous homosexual relationships are within God's will.
EVERYthing was made, male and female. For procreation purposes, if nothing else.
But humans are not mere animals. We CAN and do engage in marriage for reasons beyond pure procreation. Again, I don't find your argument convincing.
Actually, it's not the case that everything was made male and female. For planets, stars, rocks, indeed all inorganic material, the terms do not apply in any literal sense. Even among life, not all organisms reproduce sexually, bacteria being the most obvious example. And even while plants have male and female sex organs, there's not a distinction such that some plants are male and some are female, since all plants have both sets of organs and can reproduce without a partner.
But even noting that many forms of life -- including all animals, I believe -- were made male and female, that doesn't answer the question, why?
And I didn't just ask why.
I asked why, according to the Bible and the recorded sayings of Jesus Christ.
You write that we were made male and female "For procreation purposes, if nothing else."
Where does the Bible say this? Where does Jesus say this? Specifically, what book, chapter and verse?
If you're not appealling to Scripture with that answer, I wasn't asking for your personal speculation. I was asking what the Bible says and what Christ taught.
You then write that men and women "engage in marriage for reasons beyond pure procreation," which isn't something I dispute, but it also tells me absolutely nothing about what the Bible says about why we were created male and female.
According to the Bible, and according to Jesus Christ Himself, why were we made male and female?
I think it's an incredibly easy question, I would like to make sure you know what the answer is, and I would appreciate your telling me what the answer is.
Even if you don't find the conclusions I draw from that answer logical and persuasive -- and I believe that you don't only because your radicalism forbids it -- I still want to see you admit what that answer is.
Well, you know what that Genesis says...
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
To be fruitful, to multiply and tend the earth.
And as you noted, Jesus said:
'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"For this reason" a man will leave his parents - to be married with a woman.
We all know what that says. What we're talking about is what it doesn't say. The Bible DOESN'T say, "the World was created billions of years ago over a long and beautiful and awesome process..." the Bible doesn't say, "Slavery is wrong - do away with it now!" and the Bible doesn't say, "For gay folk, a gay marriage is a wonderful and blessed thing."
But just because the Bible doesn't say it, does not make it true.
Okay.
Still, I disagree with your position. You don't convince me.
Thanks for explaining your position, though, and listening to mine, and doing so politely.
You're welcome, Dan.
I still would like to discuss why you apparently believe that belief in the historical, literal Resurrection is optional, but if you think this is as good a point as any to wrap up this discussion, that's fine by me.
It does seem to me that our disagreements about the Bible aren't limited to matters of literal interpretation vs. figurative interpretation. You believe the Bible contains errors -- scientific error and moral atrocity -- and I do not.
This discussion didn't correct my understanding of your positions: it confirmed some of what I already understood and revealed other beliefs that I find even more troubling.
I appreciate your efforts to clarify what you believe.
Bubba said:
You believe the Bible contains errors -- scientific error and moral atrocity -- and I do not.
Just a clarification, you are correct: I believe that - by our common language and knowledge - the Bible has passages that, if taken literally, would suggest God has commanded atrocities (killing children is always an atrocity, 99.9% of humanity would always agree with this) and since I don't believe God would command us to commit atrocities, I don't believe that literal interpretation to be correct. The world was not, in fact, created in six days, but over billions of years. So, if the creation story is taken literally, yes, that would be a story with errors.
But this is why I come back to the fact that my problem IS with a literal interpretation of scripture. I see no reason whatsoever at all or in the slightest to take the Creation stories in the Bible literally. Therefore, I don't think they contain errors, either, in that regards. It's merely a story told in mythological language about the beginnings of the world.
I would not say that the Iroquois story of Creation is literally true, either, but I don't know that I would call it "errant," it just is what it is: A mythological story to indicate a notion of the beginning of time. It does not need to be taken literally and therefore, IF not taken literally, it is not in error. It only become errant when one insists on taking it literally.
Post a Comment