|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Sin and salvation
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Fine. I just don't think grasping for wisdom is a problem in an OT framework.
If you had said that you don't believe that wisdom is a problem in an OT framework then I might have some sympathy. It clearly does not fit your framework.
However, as a factual statement it is simply incorrect.
I could come up with more quotes for you if you are interested, but something tells me that mere hard evidence will not change your mind...
e.g. Ezekiel 28 ... some of the language may sound familiar to you ...
quote:
“‘In the pride of your heart
you say, “I am a god;
I sit on the throne of a god
in the heart of the seas.”
But you are a man and not a god,
though you think you are as wise as a god.
3 Are you wiser than Daniel?
Is no secret hidden from you?
4 By your wisdom and understanding
you have gained wealth for yourself
and amassed gold and silver
in your treasuries.
5 By your great skill in trading
you have increased your wealth,
and because of your wealth
your heart has grown proud.
6 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
“‘Because you think you are wise,
as wise as a god...
...You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God...
The OT clearly has different categories for wisdom - there is wisdom that comes from God and there is wisdom (like the King of Tyre and Adam before him) that tries to usurp God's rightful place.
Some have even wondered if Ezekiel 28 refers to a myth about Satan.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Covenant theology in terms of obedience comes rather a bit later wot? Exodus and all that? Aren't you being anachronistic?
I don't even see how the covenants of Genesis 12,15 and 17 are relevant.
Anachronistic? When do you date Genesis to? Genesis comes in a book in the Hebrew scriptures; a book of 5 books. It was meant to be read together.
Right from the beginning of the book mankind's relationship with God is bound by covenant(s). Genesis 15 is a classic 'cutting of a covenant'. Again, the notion of covenant assumes that wisdom must always be in the context of obedience to the Suzerain.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Fine. I just don't think grasping for wisdom is a problem in an OT framework.
If you had said that you don't believe that wisdom is a problem in an OT framework then I might have some sympathy. It clearly does not fit your framework.
However, as a factual statement it is simply incorrect.
I could come up with more quotes for you if you are interested, but something tells me that mere hard evidence will not change your mind...
e.g. Ezekiel 28 ... some of the language may sound familiar to you ...
In the proclamation to the King of Tyre grasping at wisdom is not the problem, it is thinking he was God.
In vv 11-17 wisdom is already granted, part of creation. It was the corruption of pride that soured it all:
quote:
You were the signet of perfection,*
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone was your covering,
carnelian, chrysolite, and moonstone,
beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire,* turquoise, and emerald;
and worked in gold were your settings
and your engravings.*
On the day that you were created
they were prepared.
14 With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you;*
you were on the holy mountain of God;
you walked among the stones of fire.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day that you were created,
until iniquity was found in you.
16 In the abundance of your trade
you were filled with violence, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
and the guardian cherub drove you out
from among the stones of fire.
17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendour.
Eve takes the fruit because it was desired to make one wise.(in my translation).
There is no line in there like "wanted to be God".
Proverbs chastises those that do not seek wisdom!
quote:
Proverbs 2:1-5
The Value of Wisdom
2My child, if you accept my words
and treasure up my commandments within you,
2 making your ear attentive to wisdom
and inclining your heart to understanding;
3 if you indeed cry out for insight,
and raise your voice for understanding;
4 if you seek it like silver,
and search for it as for hidden treasures—
5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God.
Eve sought.
She found knowledge and fear of the Lord. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But she was punished for it for some reason...... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Covenant theology in terms of obedience comes rather a bit later wot? Exodus and all that? Aren't you being anachronistic?
I don't even see how the covenants of Genesis 12,15 and 17 are relevant.
Anachronistic? When do you date Genesis to? Genesis comes in a book in the Hebrew scriptures; a book of 5 books. It was meant to be read together.
Right from the beginning of the book mankind's relationship with God is bound by covenant(s). Genesis 15 is a classic 'cutting of a covenant'. Again, the notion of covenant assumes that wisdom must always be in the context of obedience to the Suzerain.
The covenant with Noah is conditional on blood.
Gen 12 and 15 is unconditional covenant (J or E or a mix?).
Gen 17 is P covenant and is conditional on circumcision.
The whole obedience thing is definitely Exodus and Deuteronomy.
Yes, you can read Gen 3 through that lens. But you don't have to, surely.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Again, the notion of covenant assumes that wisdom must always be in the context of obedience to the Suzerain.
Sure.
Just in the context of Gen 3 there is no reason I can see why the two are put at odds (obedience vs wisdom).
If you see the obedience being the big factor, do you think God would have eventually allowed them to eat of the tree and become wise?
Why is he delaying? Hanging out with his dutiful kids before letting them fly the coop?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In the proclamation to the King of Tyre grasping at wisdom is not the problem, it is thinking he was God.
In vv 11-17 wisdom is already granted, part of creation. It was the corruption of pride that soured it all:
We can argue over the interpretation of Ezekiel 28 if you want to but for my argument to hold all I have to demonstrate is that, in the OT, wisdom is not always seen as a good thing per se.
Here is an example of someone whose wisdom led them away from God. So wisdom is to be sought but the concept of possessing wisdom and still rejecting God is present too.
That's all you need as far as Genesis 3 is concerned. You are creating problems because you want to create problems. There are enough difficulties in the original text without you inventing them!
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Eve takes the fruit because it was desired to make one wise.(in my translation).
There is no line in there like "wanted to be God".
Yes there is - how about the preceding verse?
In verse 5 the Serpent tells her to eat the fruit so that 'she will be like God.' And then she eats the fruit. And then God's judgement on the matter, in v 22, repeats this refrain.
Your interpretation only makes sense if you ignore both the immediate context and the canonical context.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Here is an example of someone whose wisdom led them away from God.
Well. Eve wasn't wise so Ezekiel analogy doesn't really hold anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So wisdom is to be sought but the concept of possessing wisdom and still rejecting God is present too.
That's all you need as far as Genesis 3 is concerned.
Do you think Eve was rejecting God? She just wanted to be more like him and wise.....is that rejection? I take it as wanting to follow your role model.
Stupid to disobey maybe, but hey, she wasn't made wise right? You could even argue it wasn't her fault.
Have you also noticed there is no fear that she will get in trouble if she disobeys? Why is that? Perhaps she thinks she couldn't be doing anything wrong if she became wise and more like God?
I really don't think I'm creating problems. I'm just questioning assumptions that have held for over two thousand years. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The covenant with Noah is conditional on blood.
Gen 12 and 15 is unconditional covenant (J or E or a mix?).
Gen 17 is P covenant and is conditional on circumcision.
The whole obedience thing is definitely Exodus and Deuteronomy.
Yes, you can read Gen 3 through that lens. But you don't have to, surely.
How can you talk in Wellhausen DH terms and then switch to 'Exodus and Deuteronomy'? This is what I mean by jumping around.
You don't have to read Genesis 3 through a covenantal lens, no. But you do have to read it in its immediate context and its canonical context.
I'd argue that must involve the concept of covenant and I'd hardly be out on a limb doing so.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Just in the context of Gen 3 there is no reason I can see why the two are put at odds (obedience vs wisdom).
And yet in Ezekiel 28 you are quite happy that a person is described as being wise and yet rebelling against God?
Wisdom is a good thing on its own, but pursuing it can either leads us toward or away from God.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If you see the obedience being the big factor, do you think God would have eventually allowed them to eat of the tree and become wise?
Why is he delaying? Hanging out with his dutiful kids before letting them fly the coop?
Don't know. Those questions are fair enough to ask but I can't see how asking them undermines the traditional view.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I'd imagin it was obvious that any being who says the only smart thing to do is fear them is not worth following.
But maybe that's just obvious to me.
Perhaps parental analogies have lead us down a dead-end.
If we are looking at the text of Genesis 1-3 then rather than parent-child, a closer analogy would be that of sculptor and clay. This is more like the relationship you have to a barbie doll (or Ken if you prefer) than to any human-human relationship.
I'm not saying that I understand it fully but if there is a God (and yes, that is a big if) then he is a God.
If all you do is look around at other people I don't think it is surprising that you won't find anybody worth worshipping.
Of course the only exception I'd say to that rule is Jesus. Well, I would, wouldn't I? And interestingly Jesus also said a lot about how the only way we could avoid death was by obeying his word (e.g. John 5). And similarly people did not die straight away when they disobeyed his commands either.
Ok I realise that no metaphor stands up to close scrutiny but the barbi doll example did make me chuckle. Also it highlighted what I guess, though I'm open to correction, is a big devide between Christian and atheist thinking. Not the submission thing. But the submission without question thing. I mean in a hypothetical situation - um let's say an army invades and occupies my home town. And a rebellion springs up in defence. I can't fight and wouldn't know how to lead so I'd naturally submit to the rebel leader making myself as useful as possible and following his or her orders. But submission without question? No way. I'd be watching like a hawk and judging every action they make. And I'd quit if I thought they had overstepped the line.
No the main fault I can see in this example is that Christians may say, "you are talking about a human leader, we are talking about god". But in all honesty I could not submit without question to man or god. I'd have to keep my eye on what they were doing and call bullshit if there orders seemed fishy. (waves flag) Long live democratic process and all that!
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
But submission without question? No way. I'd be watching like a hawk and judging every action they make. And I'd quit if I thought they had overstepped the line.
No the main fault I can see in this example is that Christians may say, "you are talking about a human leader, we are talking about god". But in all honesty I could not submit without question to man or god. I'd have to keep my eye on what they were doing and call bullshit if there orders seemed fishy. (waves flag) Long live democratic process and all that!
Ah, okay. That is slightly different.
I don't think anyone was advocating 'submission without question'. I'm certainly not suggesting that we accept every command from the bible without question.
However, what do we do with our questions? Surely either "I decide when I obey God and when I don't" or "submission without question" are not the only two options?
I've been thinking about this a lot recently with regard to democracy in our culture - ISTM that it is a common misconception to confuse obedience with agreement... i.e. I will submit to the current government only on the things I agree with.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, what do we do with our questions? Surely either "I decide when I obey God and when I don't" or "submission without question" are not the only two options?
Actually, they are. It's just that the first option covers an awful lot of ground!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's about doing what you can to avoid hell. Nothing more. Frankly, I don't give a fuck about having a relationship with God or trying to be more like Him, except in the "wouldn't it be cool if I was in charge of everything and got to tell everyone what to do rather than having to kowtow to someone else's whims and rules" sense. I just don't want to burn.
Hell is mentioned maybe six or seven times in the bible.
According to Hell is mentioned 53 times in the bible this,
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Another interpretation that does not do justice to the text.
Sorry, what Phd in theology and biblical studies do you have?
Just add an IMO behind that if it makes you uncomfortable.
And no Phd. Just a nearly completed Bachelor of Theology with honours (University level) and multiple awards for academic excellence.
Not that it matters even if I did have a Phd.
Indeed, and I am just about to complete a BA Hons in Theology and Ministry.
Having an education needn't make you believe less conservatively. - Oh look! Conservatives can be educated and intelligent as well ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Sorry for delayed responses - I've been ill.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I was just answering one, not both, sorry.
I do not understand what your prior answer had to do with either article I have quoted.
That if the effects are infinite there are two possibilities. Either they impact God, in which case God is mean, petty, and paltry. Or they impact other human beings - and the effect on other human beings is infinite because some scumbag created hell and sentences people there. I didn't explicitely deal with the idea that God is a puny miser, jealously huddling every last iota of grace lest someone misuse it because that is contrary IMO to any decent understanding of God. But that's what would be required for God to be affected eternally by the infinitely weaker mortals.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Given that God set up his scales of justice and chooses to make them what they are this is clearly a case of "I wish you wouldn't make me hit you."
Well, He is the Creator.
So domestic violence is just peachy when legal rights are on the side of the more powerful.
It's always nice to be reminded that so-called Christian morality boils down to nothing more than Might Makes Right when you push it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
4: Restoration. Hell doesn't even come close to being restorative.
Indeed, restoration of God's order is what hell is about, at least in Aquinas' book. You have not explained why you think that hell fails at this.
Restorative justice is a term of art. The classic example is if I damage your car, I get fined to pay for a new one for you. My apologies for assuming you'd understand the terms.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So every justification for punishing the temporally wicked fails when applied to hell.
So far you have not shown that at all.
Simply because you are quibbling about a term you do not understand doesn't mean that I haven't demonstrated it.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I do my level best to practice empiricism and to test what I believe.
Please would you expand on that? (Every time I read that sentence it just seems plain silly.)
How could you possibly isolate one particular belief from all other variables so that you could test it empirically?
Empiricism != the scientific method. When my beliefs about the world come into contact with evidence that contradicts them I do my best to update them. I do my best to work out what is and start from there rather than apply what must be and filter the world through that lens. I do not, however, claim complete success. Merely an ideal to aim for and IMO a more sensible one than putting myself in line with a being that I can neither see nor touch.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But that's after eating the apple. Before that there was no fear.
You've side-stepped the issue here. Why would the man be afraid of God if it was not wrong to eat the fruit?
Um... starting with your premise because God would demonstrate that God was evil by torturing the man eternally. The knowledge of good and evil includes the knowledge that others are evil. And being scared of someone that is near-omnipotent and that you now know to be evil becaue they do incredibly evil things like having others tortured eternally does not strike me as anything other than sensible.
Never mind that it was nakedness that caused Adam to hide.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The whole thing sounds like a massive set-up designed by God to keep us dependent on Him rather than free to be and do what we want.
That's right - you are quoting the Serpent pretty much verbatim.
Given that God is the creator of the greatest evil possible (hell), and we have only God's word on the serpent then this is not the argument you think it is.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I mean in a hypothetical situation - um let's say an army invades and occupies my home town. And a rebellion springs up in defence. I can't fight and wouldn't know how to lead so I'd naturally submit to the rebel leader making myself as useful as possible and following his or her orders. But submission without question? No way. I'd be watching like a hawk and judging every action they make. And I'd quit if I thought they had overstepped talking about god".
Maybe this is a tangent but, on reflection, this illustrates the difference between agreement and obedience too.
Do you really mean that you'd quit just like that?
"Hey guys, I'm not okay with this whole rebel thing anymore ... So let's just call it off. I won't tell anyone about the rebel plans honest. Pinky swear."
I'm now no longer comparing this to God, but sometimes you're in whether you like it or not.
[ 28. June 2011, 13:17: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Sorry for delayed responses - I've been ill.
Hey, welcome back.
I've been posting a lot because I've been ill - but I'm beginning to feel better so RL might kick back in.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Empiricism != the scientific method. When my beliefs about the world come into contact with evidence that contradicts them I do my best to update them. I do my best to work out what is and start from there rather than apply what must be and filter the world through that lens. I do not, however, claim complete success. Merely an ideal to aim for and IMO a more sensible one than putting myself in line with a being that I can neither see nor touch.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) "I do not claim complete success"???
You mean your beliefs are empirical sometimes and not at others. Just like everybody else. (Religious or otherwise.)
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Never mind that it was nakedness that caused Adam to hide.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) He's not hiding from the woman though is he? He says he is hiding because he is afraid ... of God, the one from whom he is hiding.
Has some mischievous H&A moved this thread into the circus (How to make the text say what it clearly doesn't say) while I was sick?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Given that God is the creator of the greatest evil possible (hell), and we have only God's word on the serpent then this is not the argument you think it is.
That tells us a lot about your presuppositions but doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
[ 28. June 2011, 13:44: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I mean in a hypothetical situation - um let's say an army invades and occupies my home town. And a rebellion springs up in defence. I can't fight and wouldn't know how to lead so I'd naturally submit to the rebel leader making myself as useful as possible and following his or her orders. But submission without question? No way. I'd be watching like a hawk and judging every action they make. And I'd quit if I thought they had overstepped talking about god".
Maybe this is a tangent but, on reflection, this illustrates the difference between agreement and obedience too.
Do you really mean that you'd quit just like that?
"Hey guys, I'm not okay with this whole rebel thing anymore ... So let's just call it off. I won't tell anyone about the rebel plans honest. Pinky swear."
I'm now no longer comparing this to God, but sometimes you're in whether you like it or not.
Good question. I'm not brave but if for instance I was ordered to kill an innocent child for the good of the rebellion I'd refuse.
Come to think of it arn't children innocent by default anyway?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
"I do not claim complete success"???
You mean your beliefs are empirical sometimes and not at others. Just like everybody else. (Religious or otherwise.)
I mean it's the ideal I aim at. Which has consequences - such as being entirely incompatable with accepting Faith to be a virtue. Faith is what you use when you can't test through time, through negligence, or through weakness, or sometimes through deliberate fault.
quote:
He's not hiding from the woman though is he? He says he is hiding because he is afraid ... of God, the one from whom he is hiding.
Has some mischievous H&A moved this thread into the circus (How to make the text say what it clearly doesn't say) while I was sick?
Let's just confirm this. See what the text itself says.
quote:
Genesis Chapter 3, verses 8-10 (KJV):
8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Adam claimed to be afraid because he was naked. That is precisely what the text says. I don't know why you think that being worried about nakedness in front of God is worthy of the circus. Or being more worried about nakedness to God than nakedness to another naked person.
You can disagree with the interpretation of the text, but Adam himself claims that he hid because he was naked. To therefore object that the text doesn't say that is a reflection on your knowledge of the bible.
quote:
That tells us a lot about your presuppositions but doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
When you claimed that an argument was one like the snake, you were trying to cast an argument as out of bounds. I was pointing out that your attempted dismissal by comparison to someone you consider in the wrong shouldn't matter.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Adam hid himself because he heard the voice of God and was afraid because he was naked.
If I was in the house naked and the postman came to the door, I would hide myself!! (For his sake too)
It was the voice of God, God's imminent arrival, that made Adam hide.
Aaaargh, God's coming and I'm stark-bollock naked - He can't see me like this!! Where's that hedge!
[ 28. June 2011, 15:46: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Reviewing this thread I would like to remind contributors that the Olympics are not until next year! There is far too much mental gymnastics on this board with people twisting and diving and jumping through various hoops to make the text say anything bu the plain meaning.
The story is quite simple without bringing Greek mythology and bloody Norse trees into it!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The covenant with Noah is conditional on blood.
Gen 12 and 15 is unconditional covenant (J or E or a mix?).
Gen 17 is P covenant and is conditional on circumcision.
The whole obedience thing is definitely Exodus and Deuteronomy.
Yes, you can read Gen 3 through that lens. But you don't have to, surely.
How can you talk in Wellhausen DH terms and then switch to 'Exodus and Deuteronomy'? This is what I mean by jumping around.
You don't have to read Genesis 3 through a covenantal lens, no. But you do have to read it in its immediate context and its canonical context.
Yes. Which is long before the covenant of law and obedience in the scheme of things in terms of chronological history.
But actually that doesn't really matter. Obviously obedience is important.
But I think the text begs the question of why God is angry when the humans become wise and/or more like God.
Traditional christian theologies do not answer that question.
Because they're not interested in that question. They ignore that question and focus purely on the obedience issue in order to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of humankind instead of God.
This is so another human being can come along and reverse this trend through obedience (Romans 5).
The nature of God in traditional theologies is sidestepped and IMO all the really interesting questions of the text are ignored.
You can tell Christians have totally appropriated this text for themselves because it never occurs explicitly again in the Hebrew Bible.
Jesus never mentioned it either.
Rather a large omission IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Just in the context of Gen 3 there is no reason I can see why the two are put at odds (obedience vs wisdom).
And yet in Ezekiel 28 you are quite happy that a person is described as being wise and yet rebelling against God?
I don't see the connection to Eve as I have said above. She was neither wise nor rejecting God
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Reviewing this thread I would like to remind contributors that the Olympics are not until next year! There is far too much mental gymnastics on this board with people twisting and diving and jumping through various hoops to make the text say anything bu the plain meaning.
Which plain meaning would that be. Yours or Johnny's or mine?
Don't they teach you hermeneutics?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The story is quite simple without bringing Greek mythology and bloody Norse trees into it!
This story simple?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Theosis is about how the gospel makes us sons of God and therefore become like God.
Theosis, according to many patristic writers (- the article IngoB linked to), does not mean becoming like God, but becoming god/s.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
we cannot become God by nature,; yet in a certain sense the divinized do "become God" by grace since they participate in the Divine Nature). Saint Basil the Great taught that "the highest of all things desired (is) to become God" by the power of the Holy Spirit 3. According to Saint Gregory Nazianzen, the Risen Christ "still pleads even now as Man for my salvation, for He continues to wear the Body which He assumed, until He makes me God by the power of His Incarnation" 4.
Pure nonsense.
Indeed - we agree on something.
I've never understood this idea of 'God becoming man so man can become God'. That doesn't appear in the Bible.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Reviewing this thread I would like to remind contributors that the Olympics are not until next year! There is far too much mental gymnastics on this board with people twisting and diving and jumping through various hoops to make the text say anything bu the plain meaning.
Which plain meaning would that be. Yours or Johnny's or mine?
Don't they teach you hermeneutics?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The story is quite simple without bringing Greek mythology and bloody Norse trees into it!
This story simple?
Well yes, I did hermeneutics in my degree.
All I am saying is that the genesis story is a lot simpler than the attempts to equate iot with Greek philosophty and Norse legend would have it.
That may well be a 'reader-response' on the part lof those who are immersed in such things, but it does rsather read into the story things that were not meant by the original writer - whether yuou believe it to be Moses or one of his peers, or some priest in post-exilic Jerusalem.
It really is like Shakespeare failing a modern day exam on Shakespearean interpretation.
Garden. Tree. Don't touch. Touch. Now look what you did! Leave. Now. Don't worry though, I'll be around, it'll work out.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Garden. Tree. Don't touch. Touch. Now look what you did! Leave. Now. Don't worry though, I'll be around, it'll work out.
Garden. Tree. Don't eat. Garbled into don't touch. Touch without problem (there's a midrach saying the snake pushed Eve into the tree). Eat. Problem. Look what you did even though you didn't know it was evil. Leave. Now. Don't worry though. I'll be around, ensuring you get hurt every time you try to draw away - and then blaming the tortures I inflict on you. After all it's all your fault I'm doing this to you.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well yes, I did hermeneutics in my degree.
Then how can you keep harping on a "plain reading of scripture"?
I think it was something Luther harped on, but even the reformers couldn't agree on what a particular passage meant.
There is no such thing as plain reading. All interpretation is filtered through multiple lenses.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Garden. Tree. Don't touch. Touch. Now look what you did! Leave. Now. Don't worry though, I'll be around, it'll work out.
Garden. Tree. Don't touch. Eve sees no reason not to touch. Punished. Suffering entered the world through God's punishment. Why disobedience is not cool when all the reasons are good are not addressed. God comes out looking bad. Like a God that does not want his creation to be wise like him. Obey God at all costs. He's a nasty character.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Garden. Tree. Don't touch. Touch. Now look what you did! Leave. Now. Don't worry though, I'll be around, it'll work out.
Garden. Tree. Don't eat. Garbled into don't touch. Touch without problem (there's a midrach saying the snake pushed Eve into the tree). Eat. Problem. Look what you did even though you didn't know it was evil. Leave. Now. Don't worry though. I'll be around, ensuring you get hurt every time you try to draw away - and then blaming the tortures I inflict on you. After all it's all your fault I'm doing this to you.
Here's a box. But don't open it! You opened it! All the evils are coming out of it! But don't worry, hope comes out too!
How could it not be clear to anyone that these are metaphorical stories designed to explain something too complex to easily understand and communicate, especially for ancient peoples?
The so-called "creation" of evil is nothing more than actions based on the interaction between the spirit, which is unlimited, and the physical world, which is inherently limited.
Therefore people want to rest when work needs to be done, they want to eat when the food should go to others, they want to fulfill normal physical desires without regard to their effects on others. The spirit wants to over-ride and control these desires, but the body has its own agenda.
"Sin and salvation" is nothing more than this very ordinary, obvious, and unavoidable contest.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Strange how for many people, the scepticism and cynicism of a Justinian and an Evensong just doesn't occur to them.
Where does this come from?
In 23 years of ministry and conversation , I just don't get it!
I prefer the simple and vibrant faith of the average, intelligent, thoughtful Christian believer who, while never being a literalist or a fundamentalist, nevertheless accepts the truth of the Gospel and the glory of the salvation story contained from Genesis to Revelation.
There is something slightly 'angry' in some of the responses in all these boards, it seems to me. I just don't understand it myself.
It's inevitable I auppose, given the nature of the Ship, but there really does seem to be a willingness to dismantle and treat things with disdain, rather than look for and rejoice in the simple truth of Scripture.
For example, what's with bringing in the Midrash and having Eve pushed into the tree? What's that got to do with anything? It doesn't help illumine Scripture does it? Let the Bible speak for itself and it remains authentic and substantial. Start to sneer at it and mix it with dross and it becomes totally unsatisfying.
You won't agree, but hey, I'm happy with it.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Good question. I'm not brave but if for instance I was ordered to kill an innocent child for the good of the rebellion I'd refuse.
You don't have much imagination in your theoretical test cases do you? Does your superior officer have a German accent in this one?
Or more likely your straggly platoon of rebels come across a Farm house with the enemy on the other side and your Sergeant tells you to shoot first at whatever comes through the gate.
In RL it is possible but not that likely that you will have the luxury of being able to decide for yourself overtime.
But we digress ....
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I mean it's the ideal I aim at. Which has consequences - such as being entirely incompatable with accepting Faith to be a virtue. Faith is what you use when you can't test through time, through negligence, or through weakness, or sometimes through deliberate fault.
You've just dodged the issue. What you mean is that you would like to test all your beliefs empirically but you can't. No one can.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
See what the text itself says.
quote:
Genesis Chapter 3, verses 8-10 (KJV):
8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Adam claimed to be afraid because he was naked. That is precisely what the text says. I don't know why you think that being worried about nakedness in front of God is worthy of the circus. Or being more worried about nakedness to God than nakedness to another naked person.
You can disagree with the interpretation of the text, but Adam himself claims that he hid because he was naked. To therefore object that the text doesn't say that is a reflection on your knowledge of the bible.
This is simple comprehension. If you wanted to highlight the key phrase then you missed half of it out.
" I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself."
The text does not say that he was afraid because he was naked. It says he was afraid because he was naked and he had just heard God's voice. The reason why he is afraid is God's presence, the explanation for his fear is that he was naked.
The very next verse, v 11, then gives us the context for why this might make him afraid.
Just take this to any English literature Professor and ask them why they think the writer thinks Adam is afraid.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
When you claimed that an argument was one like the snake, you were trying to cast an argument as out of bounds. I was pointing out that your attempted dismissal by comparison to someone you consider in the wrong shouldn't matter.
Who said I was dismissing it? I was pointing out the irony, but I was certainly not claiming it makes it out of bounds.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. Which is long before the covenant of law and obedience in the scheme of things in terms of chronological history.
But actually that doesn't really matter. Obviously obedience is important.
But I think the text begs the question of why God is angry when the humans become wise and/or more like God.
Traditional christian theologies do not answer that question.
Because they're not interested in that question. They ignore that question and focus purely on the obedience issue in order to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of humankind instead of God.
You say that as if they randomly pick that explanation from the air rather than for the rest of the Torah and Hebrew scriptures. Again and again and again in the OT God gets angry at mankind's disobedience. It happens quite a lot in Genesis. The context gives us a ready made answer but you'd rather import a reason from a completely alien context.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You can tell Christians have totally appropriated this text for themselves because it never occurs explicitly again in the Hebrew Bible.
Jesus never mentioned it either.
Rather a large omission IMO.
He quotes the end of Genesis 2 in Matthew 19 - which is the verse immediately preceding this passage! Of course there were no chapters in his bible and so Jesus quotes directly from this passage.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Strange how for many people, the scepticism and cynicism of a Justinian and an Evensong just doesn't occur to them.
Where does this come from?
In 23 years of ministry and conversation , I just don't get it!
Early indoctrination. Lack of thought and conversations with atheists, agnostics and committed Christians who were not raised in the faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I prefer the simple and vibrant faith of the average, intelligent, thoughtful Christian believer who, while never being a literalist or a fundamentalist, nevertheless accepts the truth of the Gospel and the glory of the salvation story contained from Genesis to Revelation.
I accept the truth of the Gospel and the glory of the salvation story contained from Genesis to Revelation.
I just don't accepted particular lenses of interpretation that have been applied to those scriptures.
But that's cool. Neither did Jesus. I'm in good company.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is something slightly 'angry' in some of the responses in all these boards, it seems to me. I just don't understand it myself.
It's inevitable I auppose, given the nature of the Ship, but there really does seem to be a willingness to dismantle and treat things with disdain, rather than look for and rejoice in the simple truth of Scripture.
You are still under the illusion that Scripture is simple.
Your education has been lacking IMO.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Strange how for many people, the scepticism and cynicism of a Justinian and an Evensong just doesn't occur to them.
Where does this come from?
In 23 years of ministry and conversation , I just don't get it!
It comes from a sincere and genuine attempt to understand the writings and teachings of Christianity rather than to simply accept them. It comes from genuinely trying to come to grips with that which is written, and to understand it at as deep a level as possible - something which entails looking from all sides rather than merely superficially.
quote:
There is something slightly 'angry' in some of the responses in all these boards, it seems to me. I just don't understand it myself.
The anger comes from the raw moral sewage you are spilling. The moral perversions you preach.
You claim that your God is loving. You then show a God that tortures people he claims to love for eternity. That which you preach is love is what I believe to be its opposite. Your God is about as loving as Joseph Fritzl was to his daughters.
You claim that your God is just. You then show a God that tortures people for all eternity for actions by finite beings in a finite world, claiming the rules he has written as a pretext. About the most unjust rulings possible. Your God is less just than a kangaroo court or than Guantanamo Bay.
You claim that your God is merciful. Merciful because he doesn't have everyone tortured for eternity in Hell. A statement that's like saying Joseph Mengele was merciful because he didn't experiment on more people. Or that the Doctor in the Human Centipede is merciful for not abducting more victims. And remember that Hell is far worse than anything done by Dr Mengele or in any horror movie.
You claim that your God is holy. And because he is holy he can not stand the touch of the impure. To me the important feature of holiness is that sin can not touch the holy but the holy can walk amongst the sinful. Your God is about the least holy entity I can imagine. The light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not. Not The Light Shone and then Hid Lest The Dark Touch It.
Loving, just, merciful, holy. These are all good things. But your God is almost the platonic ideal of being far from these qualities. By ascribing such qualities to a being that demonstrates the exact opposite behaviours, you are undermining the very value of Love, Justice, Mercy, and Holiness.
You are preaching that up is down, black is white, and that evil is good. The first two are ... irritating. But if the attempt to pervert good into evil by claiming evil to be good does not anger you then what the hell will?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You've just dodged the issue. What you mean is that you would like to test all your beliefs empirically but you can't. No one can.
I am no more living my life according to perfectly empirical rules than you are perfectly following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. No one can. I just try to where I can. This is only ducking matters if you failing to live up to perfect Christianity is ducking there.
I will stop claiming I try to be empirical when you stop claiming to follow Christ. Neither of us will be perfect there.
quote:
The text does not say that he was afraid because he was naked. It says he was afraid because he was naked and he had just heard God's voice.
When I posted you were claiming that the text clearly didn't say that Adam said he hid because he was naked. Adam was afraid to be seen because he was naked. To claim this certainly isn't circus material, as you claim.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I prefer the simple and vibrant faith of the average, intelligent, thoughtful Christian believer who, while never being a literalist or a fundamentalist, nevertheless accepts the truth of the Gospel and the glory of the salvation story contained from Genesis to Revelation.
There is no such person. They are a caricature that happens to support your kind of religion. By 'accepting the truth of the Gospel' you only mean agreeing with your theology. Claiming it as truth is a fundamental error of judgement, and leads to exactly the kind of delusional way of thinking you describe.
quote:
There is something slightly 'angry' in some of the responses in all these boards, it seems to me.
Some of your posts do have that effect on me.
quote:
I just don't understand it myself.
It's inevitable I auppose, given the nature of the Ship, but there really does seem to be a willingness to dismantle and treat things with disdain, rather than look for and rejoice in the simple truth of Scripture.
I think it's the smug, self-satisfied tone of paragraphs like this that undermine the good stuff to write. Why not consider the possibility that some of us slightly 'angry' people have looked very carefully over more than your 23 years of ministry at the simplistic kind of theology you churn out and perhaps very reluctantly concluded that it fails to adequately reflect reality.
[cross-posted]
[ 29. June 2011, 13:16: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. Which is long before the covenant of law and obedience in the scheme of things in terms of chronological history.
But actually that doesn't really matter. Obviously obedience is important.
But I think the text begs the question of why God is angry when the humans become wise and/or more like God.
Traditional christian theologies do not answer that question.
Because they're not interested in that question. They ignore that question and focus purely on the obedience issue in order to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of humankind instead of God.
You say that as if they randomly pick that explanation from the air rather than for the rest of the Torah and Hebrew scriptures. Again and again and again in the OT God gets angry at mankind's disobedience. It happens quite a lot in Genesis. The context gives us a ready made answer but you'd rather import a reason from a completely alien context.
No. That's what Paul does in Romans 5. Alien context. He assumes human beings were created to live forever and not be immortal. When the text says no such thing.
And you're still ignoring my main points about wisdom and the contradictions in the text......
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You can tell Christians have totally appropriated this text for themselves because it never occurs explicitly again in the Hebrew Bible.
Jesus never mentioned it either.
Rather a large omission IMO.
He quotes the end of Genesis 2 in Matthew 19 - which is the verse immediately preceding this passage! Of course there were no chapters in his bible and so Jesus quotes directly from this passage.
Nothing to do with Original Sin. That's discussing adultery.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I am no more living my life according to perfectly empirical rules than you are perfectly following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. No one can. I just try to where I can. This is only ducking matters if you failing to live up to perfect Christianity is ducking there.
I will stop claiming I try to be empirical when you stop claiming to follow Christ. Neither of us will be perfect there.
I don't think that is a fair comparison.
I fail to live up to Christ's ideals all the time, but that is still my consistent goal.
I'm not complaining about our inconsistencies but rather that you are making a category error. You can not, do not and will not test even most of what you believe empirically. Every day you make countless decisions and actions that are based on beliefs that you simply have taken on trust.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
When I posted you were claiming that the text clearly didn't say that Adam said he hid because he was naked. Adam was afraid to be seen because he was naked. To claim this certainly isn't circus material, as you claim.
I can't work out here whether you really think this or are just trying to wind me up. I've never claimed anything of the sort.
What I said was that his nakedness gave the immediate occasion of his shame and fear but it did not explain why he was afraid.
What if the text had said, "I hid because I was purple ... or because I was tall ... or because it 3.35pm ..."?
looking at the text and saying, "See, Adam wasn't afraid of God" would be completely missing the point. All you have done is pushed the question back to why he was afraid because he was purple ... tall ... it was 3.35pm ... or because he was naked.
And at that point the context is clear - he was afraid because he knew that he had disobeyed God.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And you're still ignoring my main points about wisdom and the contradictions in the text......
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
But you haven't given any contradictions in the text!
Let's re-cap...
- You told me that I was importing the idea of covenant into Genesis 1-3 because the context of the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch was too remote.
- However, your alleged contradiction comes about because in the book of Proverbs wisdom is to be sought after.
There are no contradictions to do with wisdom in the text. You are importing them.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Nothing to do with Original Sin. That's discussing adultery.
I know.
In his bible it was the same passage though. If he disagreed with it you'd think he would mention that while quoting from it don't you?
Do you really think that a conservative 1st century Rabbi like Jesus would quote from Genesis as describing the very work of God himself and that any of his hearers would assume that he treated the very next few words any differently?
(If I'm ever going to kick this cold I'd better get to bed. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) )
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Let the Bible speak for itself and it remains authentic and substantial. Start to sneer at it and mix it with dross and it becomes totally unsatisfying.
You won't agree, but hey, I'm happy with it.
But surely if you just let the bible speak for itself without trying to unpack it you end up with the shellfish problem.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Good question. I'm not brave but if for instance I was ordered to kill an innocent child for the good of the rebellion I'd refuse.
You don't have much imagination in your theoretical test cases do you? Does your superior officer have a German accent in this one?
Or more likely your straggly platoon of rebels come across a Farm house with the enemy on the other side and your Sergeant tells you to shoot first at whatever comes through the gate.
In RL it is possible but not that likely that you will have the luxury of being able to decide for yourself overtime.
But we digress ....
No more of a west country accent.
And as you said earlier you were moving this away from the god example anyway.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
Apparently going after ideals while acknowledging them to be impossible (as I explicitely did) is wrong in the world of Johnny S. I trust you don't try to promote mercy, justice, or any other ideal that humans can't fit.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I can't work out here whether you really think this or are just trying to wind me up. I've never claimed anything of the sort.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
He's not hiding from the woman though is he? He says he is hiding because he is afraid ... of God, the one from whom he is hiding.
Has some mischievous H&A moved this thread into the circus (How to make the text say what it clearly doesn't say) while I was sick?
Apparently you did claim it was circus territory.
quote:
What I said was that his nakedness gave the immediate occasion of his shame and fear but it did not explain why he was afraid.
And you are arguing against people who gave the nakedness as the proximate cause of his shame and explicitely stated reason to hide. And claiming that it was obvious that this was so. You didn't say it wasn't the point. You said it was circus territory.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Let's see. The Catholic Church also teaches that pre- and extra-marital sex is wrong - yet you're obsessed with its "approach to contraception." That's interesting, since if people in "sub-Saharan Africa" (or anywhere else) followed the first doctrine, the second wouldn't be a problem. See what I mean?
I see what you mean. And would agree with you if I had neither compassion nor knowledge of basic psychology.
Basic psychology is that humans are going to have sex with each other. Objecting that they are not following literally inhuman guidelines is daft. If moral teachings have any use at all they should lead people away from the darkness and to the light. Not be used to point and laugh and say "If you'd only done what I said things would be good." You know your teachings are going to fail. And when they fail the results are going to be worse than if you'd used the public health textbook ABC (Abstain; if you can't abstain, Be faithful; if you can't be faithful, use a Condom).
And the Roman Catholic approach here is one I find deeply un-Christian. Christ came for the sinners, not the Righteous. Saying "Well if only they were righteous then everything would work" is the opposite of this approach.
quote:
And gee, BTW: is it all right with you if "150 million Catholics" choose how they wish to approach their own marriage and childbearing life without your input?
As long as they are simply applying that to themselves, that's fine by me (and was when I was going out with a devout Catholic). The second they start to get in the way of public health in any way at all then no. Promoting the spread of diseases is not fine.
With RC doctrine, contraception is a Mortal Sin. That's as bad as it gets. It's the sort of thing you should prevent other people from doing.
quote:
And is it OK with you if other people don't go along with your particular views on Creationism? Why do you demand they change? People believe in all sorts of things in the world, you know. Going to crusade against astrology next?
Life's too short. Now if you were to mention Wakefield and the Anti-Vaccination lobby...
quote:
You might want to recognize that the Church has no real compulsive power in the world anymore - no real power of any kind, in fact - so that people who believe certain things might have decided for themselves that they wish to believe them.
And given that such can lead to the death of third parties (opposing decent sex-ed) if they merely believe them because they wish to it's doubly wrong.
quote:
Ingo has a point of view; he's chosen it himself. He might be right, in fact. How about granting that other people have the right to understand things the way they wish to, without needing your input?
Fine. Apply the same doctrine to IngoB as you are trying to to me. If he stops providing his input I will stop providing mine to him. If he doesn't want my input as part of running arguments he only has to stop providing his. However if you want there to be any sharing of views at all I have precisely the same rights IngoB does. (And I don't want him to shut up - there's a decent and honest human there even if I disagree with him).
quote:
You could actually be wrong, you know - or, at the very least, you could be completely missing out on things you can't see and/or don't understand.
I am wrong on some things. I know this. And like having my beliefs tested by those with different points of view.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But you haven't given any contradictions in the text!
back atchya. Let's leave it there shall we?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Nothing to do with Original Sin. That's discussing adultery.
I know.
In his bible it was the same passage though. If he disagreed with it you'd think he would mention that while quoting from it don't you?
Not if it was on an entirely different topic, no. Why would he?
("Oh and by the way, this next bit sucks - just ignore it all).
And my point being that the kind of theology Paul adopts on "Original Sin" and is later developed by Augustine is not discussed by Jesus AFAIK. It's irrelevant.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Apparently you did claim it was circus territory.
And?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
you are arguing against people who gave the nakedness as the proximate cause of his shame and explicitely stated reason to hide. And claiming that it was obvious that this was so. You didn't say it wasn't the point. You said it was circus territory.
I know I did that and you are not explaining what difference any of this makes.
My point was that you cannot use the hiding bit to say that the man was not afraid of God. According to the text he was afraid because he was naked and he was afraid because he was naked because he was afraid of God - Grammatically, in the Hebrew of Genesis 3 v 10, the phrase 'I was afraid' is connected both backwards to the hearing of God's voice as well as forward to the being naked. The sequence of the Hebrew runs like this, "I heard God's voice ... and as a consequence of that I was afraid ... why was I afraid? Because I was naked ... So I hid."
The reference to the circus was to do with the board on the ship where we play games. ISTM that this thread was turning into a game of how we can come with increasingly creative reasons on why the man would not be afraid of God having directly broken God's one command. YMMV.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
back atchya. Let's leave it there shall we?
Fine by me.
It's been a pressure.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
back atchya. Let's leave it there shall we?
Fine by me.
It's been a pressure.
A Japanese Baptist! I had no idea.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Let's see. The Catholic Church also teaches that pre- and extra-marital sex is wrong - yet you're obsessed with its "approach to contraception." That's interesting, since if people in "sub-Saharan Africa" (or anywhere else) followed the first doctrine, the second wouldn't be a problem. See what I mean?
I see what you mean. And would agree with you if I had neither compassion nor knowledge of basic psychology.
Basic psychology is that humans are going to have sex with each other. Objecting that they are not following literally inhuman guidelines is daft. If moral teachings have any use at all they should lead people away from the darkness and to the light. Not be used to point and laugh and say "If you'd only done what I said things would be good." You know your teachings are going to fail. And when they fail the results are going to be worse than if you'd used the public health textbook ABC (Abstain; if you can't abstain, Be faithful; if you can't be faithful, use a Condom).
And the Roman Catholic approach here is one I find deeply un-Christian. Christ came for the sinners, not the Righteous. Saying "Well if only they were righteous then everything would work" is the opposite of this approach.
You're missing the point, Justinian. You're trying to argue that people are completely under the thumb of the Catholic Church when it comes to contraception - but couldn't care less about its teachings when it comes to pre- or extramarital sex. Well, color me skeptical on that one.
When 98% of American Catholics are willing to be honest with pollsters about the fact that they are not opposed to the use of contraception, I'm kind of thinking the rest of the world doesn't have much of a problem with it either. As I said, last I looked the figure was 85% worldwide - but that was a few years ago. IOW, the people have already spoken, pretty loud and clear - exactly what I said above. (As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with you that the teaching is wrong; I just don't think, given the actual facts, that it really has much of an effect. And you still haven't offered any actual evidence that it does, or any examples of "manifest harm." So far, I'm the one who's offered some links to support my position; you're only offering your own personal opinion. So, how about it?)
Anyway, back to the original topic - a place where you yourself seem to ignore "basic psychology." You want to argue here that the "doctrine of Hell" - as you understand it, that is - is something set in stone; anything else that people have offered here is disallowed because you want to speak to "definitions" instead.
But of course belief about Hell isn't set in stone; people hold all sorts of different beliefs about it - lots more nuanced than the simplistic straw man you've got going here. Even the "classic" doctrine of Hell - the one you say Ingo has explained here - bears little relationship to your caricature of it. I do realize, though, that straw men can't survive actual on-the-ground reality - and that fundamentalism can't abide nuance of any kind.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(I would be interested, though, in some sort of explanation about Hell from you.
How should such a doctrine work? How should a "loving God" deal with a Hitler, say (since you brought it up)?
Is a God who pays no attention to a Hitler, say- a man personally responsible for the planned deaths of 11 million human beings - any more worthy of worship than the God you think is implied by the doctrine of Hell? I don't think so, personally.
So I'd be interested in how you think the "classic doctrine of Hell" should be amended so that it works properly, in your opinion.)
(P.S.: I think you'll find that it goes something along the lines of what people have suggested on this thread and that you won't deal with or acknowledge.
I'd also like to suggest that your approach - smearing people who disagree with you - is not really very convincing. It's called ad hominem argument, and it betrays weakness, not strength.)
[ 30. June 2011, 12:28: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(I would be interested, though, in some sort of explanation about Hell from you.
How should such a doctrine work? How should a "loving God" deal with a Hitler, say (since you brought it up)?
Purgatory, not hell. If Hitler were to be punished for ten thousand years, that might well be just. And a million years is not something I'm qualified to argue. But there is a vast difference between one million years and eternity. Eternity is massively disproportionate, and denies the possibilities of forgiveness, redemption, or grace. Making God ultimately graceless except to his favourites. And ultimately creating the greatest evil imaginable. A finite system on the other hand where you do not have an eternal hell but there is a system of punishment need not run into these problems.
And that's if the loving God doesn't act in time to prevent Hitler.
quote:
I'd also like to suggest that your approach - smearing people who disagree with you - is not really very convincing. It's called ad hominem argument, and it betrays weakness, not strength.)
I'm fascinated to see where I'm smearing. Give me evidence that it's not simply to do with their arguments. Yes, I am accusing people of supporting evil. And promoting it. Because that's what many moral arguments come down to - what is good and what is evil? So when Mudfrog asked I told him. What's the rest?
It is not smearing to tell someone that I am strongly disagreeing with them because I believe they are preaching evil when they ask why there's passion in the disagreement. And it may be ad hominem, but it is very much a relevant one that does not undermine my argument. Or do you have other examples in mind?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You're missing the point, Justinian. You're trying to argue that people are completely under the thumb of the Catholic Church when it comes to contraception - but couldn't care less about its teachings when it comes to pre- or extramarital sex. Well, color me skeptical on that one.
No. You are creating a straw man out of my position and then turning it fundamentalist because that seems to be what you wish to argue about.
I am arguing that the Catholic Church has influence. I'm arguing not that people always do what Rome says - but that it is one factor amongst others they take into account.
quote:
(As a matter of fact, I happen to agree with you that the teaching is wrong; I just don't think, given the actual facts, that it really has much of an effect. And you still haven't offered any actual evidence that it does, or any examples of "manifest harm."
And you need to re-read my posts because you are mistaken. To repeat myself from page 5 of this thread:
From first and second hand knowledge, I disagree that nobody pays any attention to it. The two cases that spring to mind that I have personal knowledge are are (i) a friend on the board of an international aid charity doing her best to prevent it having anythng to do with contraception in sub-Saharan Africa and (ii) some fuckwit getting the free condom box removed from a friend's college by using a needle on all the condoms (that one might not have been linked to Catholicism).
Now stop claiming that things I have direct knowledge of and have posted on this thread are things that don't exist and I haven't posted evidence for.
quote:
So far, I'm the one who's offered some links to support my position; you're only offering your own personal opinion. So, how about it?)
You've offered one link. I've offered what I have seen and heard. And I'm saying that something exists. One case from me is sufficient to demonstrate that it does. Besides, your link about the numbers of Catholic women who use birth control is irrelevant - the problem is that Catholic organisations try to prevent birth control being available. Link for link. (And this ties in with my general experience of the RCC - the individual people are generally good, the institutions not so much).
quote:
But of course belief about Hell isn't set in stone; people hold all sorts of different beliefs about it - lots more nuanced than the simplistic straw man you've got going here. Even the "classic" doctrine of Hell - the one you say Ingo has explained here - bears little relationship to your caricature of it.
Oh. Really. IngoB has been linking as to why eternal punishment is just. And the necessary and sufficient condition for my arguments to hold is eternal punishment. I do realise that you would rather try and dismiss me as not understanding theology and arguing against what people don't really believe when there are those actively preaching it in the thread.
quote:
I do realize, though, that straw men can't survive actual on-the-ground reality - and that fundamentalism can't abide nuance of any kind.
In which case would you please take your straw men off the field?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Is a God who pays no attention to a Hitler, say- a man personally responsible for the planned deaths of 11 million human beings - any more worthy of worship than the God you think is implied by the doctrine of Hell?
Such a God is not any more (or less, for that matter) worthy of worship, no. But His reality would be a much better one to exist in.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Is a God who pays no attention to a Hitler, say- a man personally responsible for the planned deaths of 11 million human beings - any more worthy of worship than the God you think is implied by the doctrine of Hell?
Such a God is not any more (or less, for that matter) worthy of worship, no. But His reality would be a much better one to exist in.
I think that you can have your cake and eat it too.
I say that God doesn't pay any more attention to Hitler than anyone else. He loves Hitler exactly as much as He loves everyone. He doesn't punish or harm Hitler in any way.
But if Hitler continues to believe and live as he apparently did in this world, he will attract to himself trouble from day one. He will not have an enjoyable existence. Not that God punishes him, but that hatred begets hatred and rebounds on a person in the same way that love begets love. He will come into the company of people as fierce or fiercer than himself and they will make his life uncomfortable.
God shows His love to Hitler by allowing him to do as he wishes. If he changes he benefits from the results of those changes. If he does not, though, then he continues with the results of his actions.
That is what hell is. We make our own hell.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
