|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Word of God?
|
anglocatholic
Apprentice
# 13804
|
Posted
In what sense is the Bible the Word of God?
Do the words of the Bible equal the word of God?
Or is it the illuminated meaning of the words of the Bible that are the word of God?
Or is it something else?
[ 19. November 2013, 02:28: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
An Anglican from Sydney but not a Sydney Anglican.
Posts: 34 | From: Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
In what sense is this autostereogram a 2D picture of flowers in a field and in what sense is it a 3D picture of butterflies?
My view is that the Bible contains the Word of God in a similar way that the autostereogram contains a picture of butterflies. The flowers do not equal the butterflies, but are arranged in very precise patterns to allow you to see the butterflies once you know how to look for them.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
A great topic – could spin out in many directions, but following W Hyatt's very good analogy and trying to keep is short...
Because the phrase “Word of God” means different things in different contexts, perhaps a 'top-down' answer to the OP questions would be that the bible is (rather than just contains) a message or communication from God that is intended to impact on humans in such a way that they are faced with a decision for or against loyalty to God.
From a 'bottom-up' angle an answer would be that the assorted human writers (or speakers) whose messages ended up in the collection of works known as The Bible were theologians who, by virtue of their extensive experience and understanding of God, produced works that accurately enough portrayed God's design and intention for creation.
Both ends of the spectrum (top-down and bottom-up) work together to produce an affect in readers / hearers that effects a change – starting with having to take a decision.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Jesus Christ is the Word of God, the Logos made flesh.
Everything else is words.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
...so the Bible (well the Gospels, but you know what I mean?) is the word of the Word of God? That puts us in a slightly different position from the other 'Religions of the Book' as comparative religionists sometimes group us.
(Q: does 'comparative religion' result in our ending up comparatively religious?)
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
...so the Bible (well the Gospels, but you know what I mean?) is the word of the Word of God? That puts us in a slightly different position from the other 'Religions of the Book' as comparative religionists sometimes group us.
(Q: does 'comparative religion' result in our ending up comparatively religious?)
Exactly. To my mind, Christianity is not a religion of any book. It's the religion of incarnation, and the Incarnation.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
To my mind, Christianity is not a religion of any book. It's the religion of incarnation, and the Incarnation.
And how do you know that?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read 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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
I couldn't disagree with this more. I feel a bit like a Salvationist in Eccles.
To me, the bible is a library. It contains the accumulated wisdom of two closely related religious traditions. If I want to know Christ, I pray, I receive him in the eucharist and I read the bible. I also read the works of the mystics, and experience the light of his presence in other people.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
quote:
“Cranmer was careful neither to equate nor separate the scriptures from the Word of God, Christ. To equate them ran the danger of bibliolatry, confusing the sign with the thing signified (as he saw transubstantiation doing). Such a view made preachers to be indispensable interpreters of a divine reality, as much mediators as a pre-Reformation priest. To sharply separate the scriptures from Christ, however, would mean that the words of the scriptures could not be for us the Word of God. Cranmer is not as careful in his use of language at this point as he is with Holy Communion, where he is scrupulously careful. There was less danger for him in confusing the words and Word of God than in running together the element and matter of the Lord’s Supper. The following citation from the Homily reflects this sacramental sense.
“The words of holy scripture be called words of everlasting life; for they be God’s instruments, ordained for the same purpose. They have power to turn (convert) through God’s promise, and they be effectual through God’s assistance, and (being received in a faithful heart) they have ever an heavenly spiritual working in them."
Report of the Anglican Communion “Bible in the Life of the Church
--------------------
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
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
To my mind, Christianity is not a religion of any book. It's the religion of incarnation, and the Incarnation.
And how do you know that?
--Tom Clune
That's my question too. If Jesus is the real Logos and the Incarnation our only true way of knowing about God, how do we know anything about Jesus? Through the Gospels. If the Gospels are not reliable, then it's meaningless to say that the Incarnation teaches us anything about God.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I think the second paragraph of that Report, leo, gets at something important that is often missed in discussions of what is and what is not the "Word of God" - and that something is the aspect of intention. God communicates in order to achieve an end. Debates over "Word" can limit the sense to something static, a definition, whereas communication is dynamic and has import.
That's why I prefer to use the words "God's message" or "communication," to avoid getting bogged down in a static debate.
FooloftheShip - I understand the point about experiencing God, but I'm always thrown back on the issue of validation. Simple experience does not necessarily ensure one is experiencing the right or correct thing; examples abound of people who earnestly believe they are led by God's Spirit, but whose lifestyle impacts adversely on others. Hence the need for a public validation, i.e., an ability to set out the reason / evidence for holding a particular belief. Having recourse to an defined collection of books that are in the public domain goes to that end.
The only way I can see that there is a 'safe' way to appropriate God via experience alone is if one lives completely cut off from any other human contact, so that there can be no impact of one's way of living on anyone else. But no man is an island, is he?
Also, although reading the works of others is commendable and profitable, doesn't that just shift the discussion along the spectrum a bit? Doesn't God now 'speak' in some profitable way to the reader through the work of the mystic, rather than through the bible?
Further to that thought, I think all Christian belief and experience has to go back to the bible eventually. We may think we are dealing with experience or theology at a remove, but trace it back and I keep finding it rooted in that bible. Sooner or later it becomes the arbiter of debates. We are where we are, I guess.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
To my mind, Christianity is not a religion of any book. It's the religion of incarnation, and the Incarnation.
And how do you know that?
--Tom Clune
That's my question too. If Jesus is the real Logos and the Incarnation our only true way of knowing about God, how do we know anything about Jesus? Through the Gospels. If the Gospels are not reliable, then it's meaningless to say that the Incarnation teaches us anything about God.
John 5:39-40 is crucial to my understanding of this.
quote:
You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Not referring to the Scriptures as "the Word of God" doesn't mean they cannot be a reliable witness. I believe that the Scriptures are a unique testimony to Jesus, who I exclusively refer to as the Word of God. The problem with the shorthand of referring to the Bible as the Word of God is that it fails to deal with the pitfall Jesus' hearers fell into: you can read it, "dilgently study" it even, and completely fail to come to him to have life.
I think Hebrews 1 and 2 Corinthians 3 have a lot to say to this issue too. Jesus is the ultimate Word of God (Hebrews 1). It is perfectly possible to read the Scriptures and not grasp their ultimate purpose, which is to lead us to the Word of Life. That requires the work of the Spirit (2 Cor 3).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
OK, so this is where my catholic side comes out. We are all on a pilgrimage to God, and we need various witnesses and companions for the purpose. This is the purpose of the church - to provide an interpretative community for the bible and for personal experiences of God. And, of course, to experience God in each other, and for spirit to guide spirit.
Given the rapid tour of catholic and quaker ideas of corporality, anyone would think I was an anglican.....
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
Problem with that last one is that you then have to conclude that God thinks that people should be stoned to death for a great list of minor offences, many of them simply boiling down to having a different religion, and that rape victims should in some circumstances marry their attackers. And in some others be stoned to death themselves.
I really, really, really, really hope God DOESN'T think the way he allegedly does in some places in the Bible, because that God is one sick puppy.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
In what sense is this autostereogram a 2D picture of flowers in a field and in what sense is it a 3D picture of butterflies?
My view is that the Bible contains the Word of God in a similar way that the autostereogram contains a picture of butterflies. The flowers do not equal the butterflies, but are arranged in very precise patterns to allow you to see the butterflies once you know how to look for them.
And when I look at the 3D picture I interpret it slightly differently to you. I see fairies with wings, not butterflies! And in some ways this reinforces the analogy - that different people looking at the same 'flowers' ie the words in the Bible may interpret the 3D picture that emerges differently!
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It's a 2d picture of flowers in a field. If you give yourself a headache it contains some hollow shapes that might be vaguely butterfly like. But it's basically a picture of yellow flowers.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
But it's not ONLY a picture of yellow flowers. They have to be in that very specific pattern for the 3D image to be formed. And even then it is easier to see for some than others. I have no difficulty seeing 3D pictures as I can diverge my eyes very easily. If you cannot do this, or you have poor vision in one eye, or a squint that means you don't have depth perception then you are unable to see them. Maybe there are possible spiritual parallels to that as well? Due to our makeup, psychological or whatever some find 3D patterns emerge more easily than for others? Anyway, I digress...
(By the way if you are seeing them as hollows rather than as stand out shapes above the page you are trying to see them by going cross eyed ie converging your eyes rather then diverging them, diverging is how the pictures are designed to work! - to declare an interest I'm an optometrist by training and these sort of visual illusions interest me!)
[ 07. May 2013, 10:30: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I know why I see them as hollows. I also know that I can't see anything at all any other way ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Bit of a tangent really.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
I'll echo what Karl said - I really hope God doesn't think that rape victims who don't scream loud enough should be killed - but also it begs the question of which Bible? Since the Protestants are the newcomers, should the Catholic Bible be considered to be divine? What about Revelation, which some African Christians reject? And can one library contain ALL of what God thinks?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
In what sense is this autostereogram a 2D picture of flowers in a field and in what sense is it a 3D picture of butterflies?
My view is that the Bible contains the Word of God in a similar way that the autostereogram contains a picture of butterflies. The flowers do not equal the butterflies, but are arranged in very precise patterns to allow you to see the butterflies once you know how to look for them.
And when I look at the 3D picture I interpret it slightly differently to you. I see fairies with wings, not butterflies! And in some ways this reinforces the analogy - that different people looking at the same 'flowers' ie the words in the Bible may interpret the 3D picture that emerges differently!
You're right, it does reinforce the analogy. I actually think the Word of God helps us sense his presence more than it lets us see him in any definitive way.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglocatholic
Apprentice
# 13804
|
Posted
I do not believe the printed text is the Word of God but the channel that brings us the Word of God. It is important to not divorce Spirit and Word. The same Spirit that inspired the Bible also illuminates its meaning. It is the revealed meaning of the text that becomes for us, the Word of God.
--------------------
An Anglican from Sydney but not a Sydney Anglican.
Posts: 34 | From: Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
I feel a bit like a Salvationist in Eccles.
I don't understand that bit.
--------------------
"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
Oh...!
Now I geddit.
You feel like a Salvationist in Eccles - as in Ecclesiantics !
I thought you meant Eccles in Greater Manchester - I thought, 'I don't know any Salvationists in Eccles...'
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 08. May 2013, 08:00: 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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
In what sense is this autostereogram a 2D picture of flowers in a field and in what sense is it a 3D picture of butterflies?
My view is that the Bible contains the Word of God in a similar way that the autostereogram contains a picture of butterflies. The flowers do not equal the butterflies, but are arranged in very precise patterns to allow you to see the butterflies once you know how to look for them.
And when I look at the 3D picture I interpret it slightly differently to you. I see fairies with wings, not butterflies! And in some ways this reinforces the analogy - that different people looking at the same 'flowers' ie the words in the Bible may interpret the 3D picture that emerges differently!
You're right, it does reinforce the analogy. I actually think the Word of God helps us sense his presence more than it lets us see him in any definitive way.
Don't know about that. I find that the thing I'm most inclined to do with the Bible whenever I read some of its more obnoxious passages is throw the thing at the wall.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
Of course - you've been told there's a picture of butterflies (or fairies) and all you get are flowers and a headache.
If I did not have an approach that allows me to see an infinitely loving God throughout the Bible, despite all its objectionable stories, I'm sure I would conclude that it could not be the Word of God.
[ 08. May 2013, 16:39: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find that the thing I'm most inclined to do with the Bible whenever I read some of its more obnoxious passages is throw the thing at the wall.
And what happens when you meet obnoxious Christians, Karl?!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
My view is that the Bible contains the Word of God, but that is not to suggest that there are redundant words or phrases which can be dispensed with. What I mean is that it is the understanding which is inspired, not the form of words necessarily.
Some years ago I was involved in a Bible translation project for a local language in Uganda. It involved checking the consistency of the translation of various Bible portions, and this raised interesting questions about how different languages convey ideas. I certainly believed that God was directing this project, and, because of this, I conclude that there was a sense in which this translation was 'inspired' (without wishing to give any credit whatsoever to the imperfect and often bumbling human agents involved). Through a good Bible translation (and there are some truly awful ones) God can speak afresh to a particular people using the particular characteristics of their language. While, of course, faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic is vitally important, I don't accept that a Bible translation necessarily is merely a poor imitation of the glorious 'original' (whatever that original was, for which there is, as we know, an ongoing debate).
Given the abundance of textual variants and the difference of wording and structure of parallel passages in the Gospels, it is obvious to me that the actual words cannot be incontestably true, in the sense of strict verbal accuracy. At least some of the words of Jesus cannot be strictly accurate translations of the original Aramaic, because of the differences; for instance, the different order of the temptations in the wilderness in Luke and Matthew. One of these passages must be 'wrong'! But, yet, in another sense, the differences demonstrate the lack of editing, and therefore speak of the Gospels' authenticity. The substance is true, even if the variability of the wording attests to human construction and memory.
The Bible is also not "the Word of God" if it is understood without reference to its historical context. This is why Karl's objections are invalid, in my view. We cannot understand the actions of God in one particular context as examples of His universal modus operandi for all people in all situations. We need to work hard to understand why certain laws and judgements, which appear harsh and unfair, were necessary in a certain context.
The "Word of God" does not float above history in the way that the universal truths of mathematics do. It is bolted to history, and speaks through the historical and very human context. Therefore previous generations have not done all our thinking for us. Each generation has to seek God afresh, while listening to previous generations and by wrestling anew with the information in the Bible.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I know perfectly well that what I'm about to say is controversial, though the controversy genuinely puzzles me.
I don't believe that the bible contains the whole of God's self-revelation. Therefore, redundant words and phrases are not a huge problem, because I'm not looking to wring the maximum possible meaning from every syllable. It seems clear from John's gospel that, in the writer's estimation at least, further revelation would follow by the mediation of the holy spirit. There is also the primacy of the incarnation.
All of this is witnessed to by the bible, but I am approaching it as a witness, not as the written embodiment of all truth.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find that the thing I'm most inclined to do with the Bible whenever I read some of its more obnoxious passages is throw the thing at the wall.
And what happens when you meet obnoxious Christians, Karl?!
They don't bother me. They're not meant to be the Word of God. There is no intellectual problem with them being arseholes.
The relevance of your question escapes me.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible is the word of God in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God
They are both fully human and fully divine.
If you want to know God looks like, look at Jesus.
If you want to know what God thinks like, read the Bible.
Problem with that last one is that you then have to conclude that God thinks that people should be stoned to death for a great list of minor offences, many of them simply boiling down to having a different religion, and that rape victims should in some circumstances marry their attackers. And in some others be stoned to death themselves.
Depends how you read the Bible. I read it as written by people of their time, who did believe those things. They did believe God thought those things.
I don't have to. I believe God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving.
No point believing bronze age nomadic goat herders ideas of God's character.
HughWillRidmee put it perfectly the other day.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Hearsay, tradition, wishful thinking, nice warm feelings, voices in one’s head, arguments from authority by men in fancy dress, stories invented/embraced by nomadic stone-age goat herders and uncorroborated writings chosen as sacred by a group commanded by a despotic emperor do not meet the standards normally required for “solid evidence”.
I see the Bible as the 'story of Jesus' and I am a follower of Jesus.
Works for me.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't have to. I believe God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving.
No point believing bronze age nomadic goat herders ideas of God's character.
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't have to. I believe God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving.
No point believing bronze age nomadic goat herders ideas of God's character.
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
Aye, well, there's the rub. A God who wants us to stone rape victims to death according to the nomadic goat herders, or an all-loving God of our wishful thinking.
Fucking crap choice there.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A God who wants us to stone rape victims to death according to the nomadic goat herders, or an all-loving God of our wishful thinking.
Fucking crap choice there.
Other choices are available... For example, some advocate interpreting the Bible using the idea of progressive revelation, which lets us off the hook of having to explain how an all-loving God who 'wishes that none shall perish' nevertheless flooded the entire earth and commanded genocide.
EDIT - The Bitly link is to Wikipedia but the page URL has brackets, which the SoF software doesn't like.
[ 09. May 2013, 09:57: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't have to. I believe God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving.
No point believing bronze age nomadic goat herders ideas of God's character.
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
By looking to Jesus and his character.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't have to. I believe God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving.
No point believing bronze age nomadic goat herders ideas of God's character.
OK, but without the words of those nomadic goat herders, on what do you base the belief that God is perfect, good, totally inclusive and forgiving? Anything other than wishful thinking?
By looking to Jesus and his character.
But how do you find out about Jesus' character apart from through the Bible - the same Bible that also contains the words of the nomadic goat herders?
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Other choices are available... For example, some advocate interpreting the Bible using the idea of progressive revelation, which lets us off the hook of having to explain how an all-loving God who 'wishes that none shall perish' nevertheless flooded the entire earth and commanded genocide.
EDIT - The Bitly link is to Wikipedia but the page URL has brackets, which the SoF software doesn't like.
The link didn't work for me - just got an error message from Wikipedia?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
A God who wants us to stone rape victims to death according to the nomadic goat herders...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Do please elaborate.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I do think that every Bible student, preacher, minister - in fact every Christian - should be required to memorise the words of Edwin Muir as a dreadful warning: quote:
The Word made Flesh is here made word again ...
And GOD three angry letters in a book.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
A God who wants us to stone rape victims to death according to the nomadic goat herders...
Do please elaborate.
"23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you."
So if a rapist is able to prevent his victim from screaming (knife to throat "you scream, you die!"), then they both die. Nice eh?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
"23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you."
So if a rapist is able to prevent his victim from screaming (knife to throat "you scream, you die!"), then they both die. Nice eh?
You are condemning a particular law (and by extension, the Lawgiver), based on an imagined and hypothetical scenario. I suppose this is a plausible method of argumentation - admittedly I do it all the time, it's called the reductio ad absurdum argument. But this only works if we fully understand what the law is actually saying and implying in this particular socio-historical context, and whether there are any mitigating circumstances which prevent its full implementation. So I will look into this, and get back to you. Watch this space, as they say!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
An imagined and hypothetical scenario that would have been the situation of most of the victims of the late Mr Savile, various Catholic priests and apparently half the light entertainment stalwarts of the 70s. An imagined and hypothetical scenario that I would suggest happens all the time.
But I await your justifications. When you're done there, you could take a look at:
"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Or indeed:
"13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."
where we find that not only are we to stone women to death for pre-marital sex (that's most of the populations of most universities gone ) but that it's up to them to prove their innocence and if they didn't happen to bleed first time they're deemed guilty.
I think justification for these would have to be pretty damned inventive.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Sorry my link to the Wikipedia article on progressive revelation didn't work - try this one instead. You can then read about progressive revelation in Christianity and also in the Bahá'í faith.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think there's a lot of mileage in progressive revelation, but it has to be open enough to say "that bit you thought I said in the past, well, you didn't quite get me right, see..."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
An imagined and hypothetical scenario that would have been the situation of most of the victims of the late Mr Savile, various Catholic priests and apparently half the light entertainment stalwarts of the 70s. An imagined and hypothetical scenario that I would suggest happens all the time.
You want me to pronounce on all this stuff?!
Funny, but I didn't think this had anything to do with the veracity of the Bible! What book of the Bible mentions Jimmy Savile? Pray, do tell me...
quote:
But I await your justifications.
Ah, I see. The jury has already delivered its verdict, and therefore anyone who questions that verdict is engaging in futile and sophistic defence of the indefensible. So I realise what the score is: I can't say anything to cause you to question your view (do I detect a certain agenda on your part?), but, for my own benefit at least, I will address this issue.
quote:
When you're done there, you could take a look at... [verses 28 & 29]
Nah, I don't need to, because the work has already been done.
I'll get back to you about the 'screaming' issue in due course (and the other passage you cited).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
An imagined and hypothetical scenario that would have been the situation of most of the victims of the late Mr Savile, various Catholic priests and apparently half the light entertainment stalwarts of the 70s. An imagined and hypothetical scenario that I would suggest happens all the time.
You want me to pronounce on all this stuff?!
Funny, but I didn't think this had anything to do with the veracity of the Bible! What book of the Bible mentions Jimmy Savile? Pray, do tell me...
The point is fairly obvious - one cannot assume that not screaming means consent.
quote:
quote:
But I await your justifications.
Ah, I see. The jury has already delivered its verdict, and therefore anyone who questions that verdict is engaging in futile and sophistic defence of the indefensible. So I realise what the score is: I can't say anything to cause you to question your view (do I detect a certain agenda on your part?), but, for my own benefit at least, I will address this issue.
You do like to assume bad faith on your debaters, don't you? I'd say it's pretty clear that stoning people to death for failing to scream is pretty indefensible - wouldn't you?
quote:
quote:
When you're done there, you could take a look at... [verses 28 & 29]
Nah, I don't need to, because the work has already been done.
I'll get back to you about the 'screaming' issue in due course (and the other passage you cited).
Well you can, but I have others. These are examples, not the sole sticking points here. We've already done the Joshua genocides to death, and I don't intend to revisit them here, because you know as well as I do that I will never, ever accept genocide as the will of God and you will get all hot under the collar again like you did last time at my intransigence and all the rest.
It's probably the same with this stuff. I have no a priori commitment to believing that the Bible is the Word of God, so I feel quite free to call obnoxious attitudes in Scripture as I see them.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
You do like to assume bad faith on your debaters, don't you?
Not with everyone, no. But it is an understandable reaction to your use of the word 'justifications', which, as you know, is a loaded term.
But no more about this, as it's a hell issue.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think there's a lot of mileage in progressive revelation, but it has to be open enough to say "that bit you thought I said in the past, well, you didn't quite get me right, see..."
I should have mentioned this upthread but the other key point in progressive revelation (at least the version I've read a bit about) is that Jesus gives us the ultimate revelation of what God is like. So we take the Old Testament nasty bits as steps towards a true picture of God (e.g. the flood = God cares about our actions and behaviour), not as an accurate portrayal of God's character.
The focus on Jesus gives grounding to the progressive revelation idea, and stops it becoming a wishy-washy, 'believe what you like' thing.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
On the subject of Deuteronomy 22:23-27...
quote:
“If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbour’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.
“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbour and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her."
Karl proposed a hypothetical scenario in which it would not have been possible for a genuine rape victim to cry out in the city. This scenario - or thought experiment - thus demonstrates that the law of God is perverse, obnoxious and unjust (with the implication that the Lawgiver is Himself worthy of being described by those adjectives).
But does the text justify this kind of criticism?
What Karl is really saying is that the law of God does not allow for mitigating circumstances (and he has also insinuated that this law should be understood in terms of universal applicability, hence his reference to Jimmy Savile's crimes etc).
Is there textual evidence that the law of God - in general - allows for mitigating circumstances? What kind of law is this? Does this kind of law ask about motive and consent?
Well, the answer to this is a resounding yes! Here are verses 25-27 again with emphasis:
quote:
“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbour and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her."
Clearly the law presents a scenario, in which the woman is absolved of any wrongdoing, on the basis of mitigating circumstances: she was in the country and it was not reasonable to expect anyone to be around to bear witness to the crime.
Now I realise that this does not answer Karl's hypothetical scenario, but it does establish the general principle that God recognises the role of mitigating circumstances in the framing of His law. This has to be taken into account, especially by someone like Karl, who, after all, is seeking to draw general conclusions from a specific law relevant to a particular socio-historical context. Therefore honesty demands that he should draw all relevant general conclusions, and not just some.
So why would God give a woman the benefit of the doubt if she happens to be outside the city walls, but not the benefit of the doubt when she is the other side of them?
I suppose someone could just say that the law was badly formulated or that God is simply perverse. Fine. I can't stop people thinking like that, if that is what they want to do. However, it's not a very scholarly approach.
The scholarly approach is to interpret what is actually in the text and draw relevant conclusions. The text communicates to us the idea that the law of God recognises the principle of mitigating circumstances. To deny that, is to argue from what is not in the text. In other words, it would involve a reliance on a hypothetical argument from silence.
But, nevertheless, it is logically possible to construct a scenario in which it would appear that the law, as pertaining to an action in the city, does not allow for mitigating circumstances and misconstrues silence as consent.
With our limited knowledge of the Ancient World, we cannot categorically prove that Karl's imagined scenario could not have occurred. There is an inevitable agnosticism concerning the events, customs and lifestyles of a period only comparatively thinly attested to by documentary evidence. I have noticed that certain vociferous atheists (particularly of the internet kind) tend to make claims about the Ancient World which are really unwarranted, in view of the paucity of evidence. For example, if there is a lack of archaeological evidence that a certain event took place, for which there is some mention in an ancient document (such as the Bible), then "we must assume that the event did not take place". Or if a location is mentioned in the Bible, for which there is scant or no archaeological evidence, then "we must assume that the place did not exist" (such as Nazareth, and this is followed by the extraordinary leap of faith into pronouncing ex cathedra that Jesus Himself could not have existed!).
This is not a scientific approach, but a dogmatic one (driven largely by ideological prejudice). Just as science can only work with the empirical data to hand and is happy to say "we don't know, but the problem may be resolved one day in the future", so historical research - particularly of the Ancient World - takes the same approach.
However, we do have some pointers, that can shed light on this problem, concerning a rape victim being able or unable to cry out in the city.
The cities of the Ancient Near East were rather different to modern cities. While I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the structure of ancient cities, I don't think it is too far off the mark to state that dwellings were generally tightly packed together, and therefore noise could carry very easily. Furthermore, can we assume that, in a highly patriarchal society, women generally did not associate with men to whom they were not related? Again, I am no expert on this question (perhaps Karl is?), but a woman who was approached by a strange man, in a private space, would presumably immediately assume some undesired motive and would react, such that others could hear her? I can't imagine that there would be a scenario of a woman just lounging around at home having a chat with the bloke from three doors away (to whom she is not betrothed), and then he suddenly, in a swift movement, clamps his hand over her mouth, sticks a knife to her throat, tells her not to make a noise, otherwise "she's gonna get it", and then proceeds to rape her. This is modern thinking being read back into the lifestyle and culture of the Ancient World. So what I am saying is that it is highly likely that women would have considerable advance warning when approached by an inappropriate male in a private room. Of course, if they are approached in the street, then there would be witnesses to the violent act, given the high population density of these urban areas.
Now I am sure that Karl, in his creativity, could cook up a possible scenario that would still 'prove' that the law of God was cruel and unworkable, but, as I have said above, we can only draw general principles from what is actually in the text, not from what we imagine ought to be in the text, but is not actually there. The text clearly reveals that the law of God recognises the role of mitigating circumstances. And that is all we can say from this vast social, temporal and cultural distance.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Now, EE, assuming that you're correct in all the assumptions you're making about ancient middle eastern cities, can you address how it's reasonable for God to demand a death penalty for the crime of pre-marital sex with a betrothed woman, for both parties?
Hell, it's not even a crime in this country. Do you think it should be? Why then? Why not now?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I should add - it's notable that the end result if the woman isn't betrothed is that the couple get married.
This is interesting. It means that the death penalty is applied for taking and defiling someone else's property - i.e. the betrothed woman - not for the sex.
Now, forgive me, but to me this seems much more the sort of law I'd expect from a patriarchal society making stuff up that maintains their patriarchal status quo in which women are little more than chattels, than it does like the decree of a just and perfect God. Especially when we realise the status of the woman - betrothed or otherwise - is the salient point here.
Yeah, we could find ways of explaining how these laws are just and good, but for my money it's a darned sight easier and a darned sight more convincing to see them the way I've suggested.
Even if it does bugger up the "bible = word of God" idea.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
