Ship of Fools: Why is Passover a cause for celebration?

Thread: Why is Passover a cause for celebration? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022973

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I would have thought the murder of hundreds of innocent children would be a cause for much weeping and sorrow.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

What is being celebrated is a God that heard the cry of a weak, oppressed people and acted mightily to deliver them from slavery. Looking at the toll on the innocent was, on one hand, not really part of the worldview when the Exodus account was coming together. On the other hand, it is precisely the themes in the Exodus account that grew into the concern for the innocent that you now hold against it. God's concern for a down-trodden people in Exodus grew in to a general concern for the down-trodden everywhere.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Celebration because God's people were saved while His enemies were destroyed.
An enduring theme that runs right through the Bible from beginning to end , whether we like it or not.

So, unless we want to drive ourselves nut-side over the whole -- How does a God of Love square with murdering folks ?-- bit, then treating Bible stories as metaphor is the only rational option.
Or not read the Bible at all.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Is there any historical reference to a sudden loss of first-borns among Egyptian families (not counting the account written by the other side)?

Or is this part of the myth?

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

Isn't it because God's People(TM) where saved when they deserved to die, simply because they sacrificed a lamb? Or am I confusing it with a different event?

Posted by ProgenitorDope (# 16648) on :

I'd say there's an argument for karma, cruel as it may be (and it often is). It was the firstborn of the Egyptians dying just like the firstborn of the Hebrews they killed at the start of the story. Granted, the two events occurred about a generation apart but--and someone please correct me if I'm wrong--in the thought of the time, crimes could pass from fathers to sons.

Further, if you want to be REALLY callous, you could say they were warned; the Firstborn plague was, what, the Tenth attempt to convince the Egyptians?

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ProgenitorDope:
I'd say there's an argument for karma, cruel as it may be (and it often is). It was the firstborn of the Egyptians dying just like the firstborn of the Hebrews they killed at the start of the story. Granted, the two events occurred about a generation apart but--and someone please correct me if I'm wrong--in the thought of the time, crimes could pass from fathers to sons.

Further, if you want to be REALLY callous, you could say they were warned; the Firstborn plague was, what, the Tenth attempt to convince the Egyptians?

Well to convince Pharaoh; I'm sure the vast majority of Egyptians had no say. The Bible also describes God as deliberately hardening the heart of Pharaoh.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is there any historical reference to a sudden loss of first-borns among Egyptian families (not counting the account written by the other side)?

Or is this part of the myth?

I always had a sneaking suspicion that the killings were actually done by activists to make a point. otherwise, why mark the doors? God can tell the difference, but a bunch of assassin/terrorists out to scare the bejeebus out of the Pharaoh might need a little guidance.

And don't tell me a group of people feeling downtrodden and with no voice are not up to that. history says differently.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is there any historical reference to a sudden loss of first-borns among Egyptian families (not counting the account written by the other side)?

Or is this part of the myth?

To quote Michael D. Coogan in The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures published by Oxford University Press:

"... no direct correlation exists between any person or event found in Exodus 1-15 and non-biblical sources."

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

Politzania reigning supreme...
We'll smite our foes for we are right and God is on our side.

i.e., spin.

Feels quite good to tell such stories around the campfire in Babylon. We have the capacities to attribute all sorts of interesting attributes to God over the ages in addition to killing off those we despise. Christians like the foundation on which they can see Christ the Lamb as a recapitulation. We're better off trying to understand what the ancient Hebrews were trying to understand and articulate with their story of Passover. It is an awfully good story, even if my mind always sees Charlton Heston in the story within the movie The Ten Commandments.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Pessach is not a celebration.
It is the retelling of The Story.
This is clearly stated in the Haggadda (Order of Service) in several places. First, the lines that each one present should actually experience the story feeling that it is as if s/he is leaving Egypt her/himself. Second, that you shall teach it to your children. Third, the "What is different about this night from all other nights?" and fourth, The Four Questions which give the children something to do and learn or recite.

There is indeed a recitation of the Ten Plagues (the children shouting out each one and holding up placards) and you're right it is not seen for the horror it is.

Sorry I can't be more structured and detailed but the Haggada I used is safely back in its carton in the Kibbutz library till next year.

As for celebration...well yes..I did buy a lovely new top and would have bought new shoes too had I found something I really loved.

To add a Christian aspect: I think a lot of us women/mothers cringe at the long journey by donkey in the 39th week of a pregancy, the nowhere to stay, the stable, the baby in the straw, all the smelly shepherds come to visit and the screaming heavenly choir.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

My neighbours are from Orthodox Jewish families that emigrated to South Africa from Lithuania at the turn of the last century.

They talk about bitter-sweet Pesach, the symbolic tension between Hametz and matzah. Leaven and unleavened. The bread of ordinary life, and the unleavened flat cracker which represents a dash to freedom, the hope of being liberated from mitzrayim, the "narrow place" of slavery and suffering. Similar perhaps to the Christian analogy of being there between the 'already' and the 'not yet'. A celebration that is also about loss, an incomplete celebration.

Following on Pesach is the Omer, the spiritual journey of counting the days between Pesach and Shavuot, between freedom and revelation.

Mary, still learning how to do italics and edit posts in time

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I would have thought the murder of hundreds of innocent children would be a cause for much weeping and sorrow.

It is legitimate to take what is yours, whether you are making a specific point with that action or not. God gives life in this world and takes it away. That's not murder. Neither was it murder back then, irrespective of what symbolic value this might have had for the people involved. That today we would likely not appreciate this kind of sign any longer is true. But it is anachronistic to project that onto the people back then. And of course our refined sensibilities, in particular our key assumption that one must empathize even with the plight of one's enemies, derive largely from one Jesus Christ.

Upon having progressed to school, a child may look back at kindergarten and declare that place to be strictly for the dumb. I assume you have a more grown up perspective on education, so maybe you can afford one on Divine salvation history as well...

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

@IngoB

Me and my wife made a son. Would it be anything other but murder if we decided to kill him? Of course it wouldn't.

As to history my question was about how people react to Passover now. I would hope that society has a more grown up perspective on morality than our ancestors.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Isn't it because God's People(TM) where saved when they deserved to die, simply because they sacrificed a lamb? Or am I confusing it with a different event?

The point of killing the lamb was to obtain blood to put on the doorposts. When the angel of death saw the blood, he passed over those dwellings.

Moo

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Characterizing Passover as celebrating the deaths of Egypt's firstborn is roughly equivalent to claiming Good Friday "celebrates" Christ's crucifixion.

It's also a position that echoes a fairly ugly bit of history.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Me and my wife made a son. Would it be anything other but murder if we decided to kill him? Of course it wouldn't.

You are a pro-creator, not the Creator. You and your wife neither created the world nor the life in it, including not the life of your son. Or did you construct your egg and sperm, respectively, out of nothing? The ability of your bodies to produce new life is as much given to you as your own life is in the first place. A brush has no rights on the painting, just because it is the instrument by which the painter brings the painting about. If that brush had free will, then that would not change. The brush would merely gain some ability to cooperate with, or resist, the painter - making it a good or bad brush. And that's precisely what we call "morals". You may not kill your son because God did not give you procreative abilities in order to destroy life. That does not mean that God Himself cannot take the life He has given your son (in part through you). And we know that He will, sooner or later.

(Actually, by Christian lights the human soul is directly given by God, and is not a necessary result of the biological processes that God allows you to set in motion through sex. According to this, humans are incapable of generating human life naturally. But even if they were, it would not follow that they can also take it. That's the point of my argument. We are merely instruments of God in this world, whereas God is the Lord.)

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
As to history my question was about how people react to Passover now. I would hope that society has a more grown up perspective on morality than our ancestors.

Since the killing of the firstborn by God is not in fact a moral problem, and since we know that we cannot expect at that point in salvation history a sophisticated suffering with their enemies from the Israelites, we can take the grown-up perspective and consider what this sign meant to the Israelites and in consequence, what it prefigures for us. And of course God leading His people out of oppression (against massive resistance by the oppressor) is a cause for celebration.

(Actually, properly speaking God cannot have a moral problem. He is not a moral agent, He is the agent of morality. However, God could be inconsistent or not true to His word. The above can be rephrased in terms of this. Is it inconsistent for God to forbid us to kill the innocent, but to kill the innocent Himself? The answer is no, it is not inconsistent, because God merely takes the life back that He has brought about, whereas we would be taking what He gives.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It is a cause for celebration in that God has freed people from oppression.

As for the deaths, the cups of wine are brim-full and at the mention of each plague, wine is flicked on to the tslercloth as an acknowledgement of mourning.

There is also a midrash that the angels saw Gd crying and asked him why. He responded, 'The Egyptians. Are they not also my children?'

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Me and my wife made a son. Would it be anything other but murder if we decided to kill him? Of course it wouldn't.
You are a pro-creator, not the Creator. You and your wife neither created the world nor the life in it, including not the life of your son. Or did you construct your egg and sperm, respectively, out of nothing? The ability of your bodies to produce new life is as much given to you as your own life is in the first place. A brush has no rights on the painting, just because it is the instrument by which the painter brings the painting about. If that brush had free will, then that would not change. The brush would merely gain some ability to cooperate with, or resist, the painter - making it a good or bad brush. And that's precisely what we call "morals". You may not kill your son because God did not give you procreative abilities in order to destroy life. That does not mean that God Himself cannot take the life He has given your son (in part through you). And we know that He will, sooner or later.

That seems fairly selective, doesn't it? I mean, if George has the ability to make a son because it's been granted by God, thus it's really God creating George's son, doesn't the same logic apply to George killing his son? i.e. George has the ability to kill his son because it's been granted by God, thus it's really God killing George's son.

Or is this another case where God gets credit for the good stuff, but the bad stuff is all the fault of humans?

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

A more pointed question - Do you need to be Jewish to be a Christian? Already answered.
Doesn't mean the Hebrew religious narrative is anything other than vital to Christians. It is. But, if you're a Christian, the meaning of the passover is now not as it was. It has been revealed, do we not reckon?

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

God does worse here:
18While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “Your sons and your daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house, 19 and behold, a great wind came from across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people and they died, and I alone have escaped to tell you.” Job 1

Innocent children of an innocent man killed to prove a point? Brrrr!

Greg Boyd has an explanation for all this. You have to be an Open Theist to understand.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That seems fairly selective, doesn't it? I mean, if George has the ability to make a son because it's been granted by God, thus it's really God creating George's son, doesn't the same logic apply to George killing his son? i.e. George has the ability to kill his son because it's been granted by God, thus it's really God killing George's son.

Sure, but George doesn't only get abilities from God, but also aims and directives. Both explicitly, as in the Ten Commandments, and implicitly, as in the moral law written on his heart. George is certainly capable of killing his son, but generally he ought not to. This at least is the will of God, and that will creates the purposes of all things in the world just as much as their matter and function.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or is this another case where God gets credit for the good stuff, but the bad stuff is all the fault of humans?

There is nothing you can point to that would ultimately define "good stuff" vs. "bad stuff", other than God. And since God cannot contradict Himself (an eternal omniscient Mind cannot be at odds with itself) and cannot fail in what He wills (being omnipotent), the only way in which "bad stuff" can happen is through creatures working at cross-purposes or failing in their purposes. For the latter, they can be faulted, if they have, and do exercise, their own free will. So while it is not true that all or even most "bad stuff" is the fault of humans, they indeed can be culpable for "bad stuff", whereas God isn't.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
God does worse here:
18While he was still speaking, another also came and said, “Your sons and your daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house, 19 and behold, a great wind came from across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people and they died, and I alone have escaped to tell you.” Job 1

Innocent children of an innocent man killed to prove a point? Brrrr!

Greg Boyd has an explanation for all this. You have to be an Open Theist to understand.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Pessach is not a celebration.
It is the retelling of The Story.
This is clearly stated in the Haggadda (Order of Service) in several places. First, the lines that each one present should actually experience the story feeling that it is as if s/he is leaving Egypt her/himself. Second, that you shall teach it to your children. Third, the "What is different about this night from all other nights?" and fourth, The Four Questions which give the children something to do and learn or recite.

There is indeed a recitation of the Ten Plagues (the children shouting out each one and holding up placards) and you're right it is not seen for the horror it is.

Jon Stewart's riff on
Passover v. Easter

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:

To add a Christian aspect: I think a lot of us women/mothers cringe at the long journey by donkey in the 39th week of a pregancy, the nowhere to stay, the stable, the baby in the straw, all the smelly shepherds come to visit and the screaming heavenly choir.

Can't say I've ever cringed at that, although I suppose I might if I thought about it. But it's nothing compared to the heart-wrench that comes from reading of the deaths of children. To even compare the two is absurd.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I always had a sneaking suspicion that the killings were actually done by activists to make a point. otherwise, why mark the doors? God can tell the difference, but a bunch of assassin/terrorists out to scare the bejeebus out of the Pharaoh might need a little guidance.

And don't tell me a group of people feeling downtrodden and with no voice are not up to that. history says differently.

Interesting. I always had the same suspicion about the statue of Dagon that was always found in the morning, flat on its face, bowing down to the Ark of the Covenant. (1 Sam. 5) I thought it might be a little creative resistance/pranksterism/symbolism to unnerve the Philistines.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE] God gets credit for the good stuff, but the bad stuff is all the fault of humans?

To approach any Biblical story with the attitude that God's integrity is impugned by its outcome is merely to assert human pride. God will never engage with pride. He will walk away from it. If you want to find truth you have to climb off the high horse.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Greg Boyd has an explanation for all this. You have to be an Open Theist to understand.

Hear hear !

I quite like open theism...

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Greg Boyd has an explanation for all this. You have to be an Open Theist to understand.
Hear hear !

I quite like open theism...

Me, too. Especially the work of Greg Boyd, who I've had the pleasure of meeting. He is as delightful in person as he is in print.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I would have thought the murder of hundreds of innocent children would be a cause for much weeping and sorrow.

That was Old Testament God, who was sometimes not very nice. All of the modern Haggadah books (Passover seder rituals) observe the 10 plagues as bitter, because although they resulted in settling the Hebrews free, they also resulted in the suffering of more or less innocent people.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Innocent children of an innocent man killed to prove a point? Brrrr!

Greg Boyd has an explanation for all this. You have to be an Open Theist to understand.

You don't, you know. I don't know anybody who believes Job (or his first unfortunate family, or his second fortunate family, or his friends) were real people in history. It's not a 'history' book, it's a 'wisdom' book, and the story is an extended, embellished parable.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I would have thought the murder of hundreds of innocent children would be a cause for much weeping and sorrow.
That was Old Testament God, who was sometimes not very nice. All of the modern Haggadah books (Passover seder rituals) observe the 10 plagues as bitter, because although they resulted in settling the Hebrews free, they also resulted in the suffering of more or less innocent people.

I wonder how God copes with this perception of his personality change from OT to NT?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I quite like open theism...
Me, too. Especially the work of Greg Boyd, who I've had the pleasure of meeting. He is as delightful in person as he is in print.

Ooh, jealous. I think Boyd has written some immensely interesting stuff and I'm off to start a new thread to talk about it! Favourite theologians...

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Innocent children of an innocent man killed to prove a point? Brrrr!

Greg Boyd has an explanation for all this. You have to be an Open Theist to understand.
You don't, you know. I don't know anybody who believes Job (or his first unfortunate family, or his second fortunate family, or his friends) were real people in history. It's not a 'history' book, it's a 'wisdom' book, and the story is an extended, embellished parable.

It doesn't matter. Parables describe situations truthfully and comprehensively, ie. have more than just the one leg to stand on.

Some manage a nifty two step swimmingly!

And some durn well just fire on ALL CYLINDERS!

[ 12. April 2012, 11:07: Message edited by: footwasher ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Innocent children of an innocent man killed to prove a point? Brrrr!

Greg Boyd has an explanation for all this. You have to be an Open Theist to understand.
You don't, you know. I don't know anybody who believes Job (or his first unfortunate family, or his second fortunate family, or his friends) were real people in history. It's not a 'history' book, it's a 'wisdom' book, and the story is an extended, embellished parable.

Yes, Greg Boyd would, I imagine, take a similar view of the historicity of Job. But that doesn't really answer the problem of theodicy, or why this book is in the Bible. Just saying, "it's a literary foil" doesn't really solve those issues, it simply begs the question, "but what are we meant to take away? Literal or figurative, what are we to learn from it?"

those are the sorts of questions Boyd and other open theists are tackling.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To approach any Biblical story with the attitude that God's integrity is impugned by its outcome is merely to assert human pride. God will never engage with pride. He will walk away from it. If you want to find truth you have to climb off the high horse.

Well I've never killed any children. So......not sure why my horse is higher than gods.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To approach any Biblical story with the attitude that God's integrity is impugned by its outcome is merely to assert human pride. God will never engage with pride. He will walk away from it. If you want to find truth you have to climb off the high horse.
Well I've never killed any children. So......not sure why my horse is higher than gods.

Your proud mind (horse)assumes that you have the moral high ground. If God is creator and sustainer of all things including you and me, then whatever he says and does becomes our point of reference.
Your assumption that the killing of children is cosmic genocide needs to be put aside. Ps 18:30 states: "his way is blameless."
As giver of life he is also a legitimate terminator of it. Otherwise, as we die of old age or disease or in accidents he is also morally responsible.
You cannot measure him with a human standard. To do so is to make yourself his equal which is a proud stance as well as a futile one.
In mere human terms, you have in any case assumed, in accusing him of genocide, that the death of the Egyptian first born was the death of innocents, that the deaths were wonton, that God had somehow not signalled his intentions or warned Egypt of the consequences of hardening themselves and that they did not deserve punishment for the way his people had been treated.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Your assumption that the killing of children is cosmic genocide needs to be put aside. Ps 18:30 states: "his way is blameless."

As giver of life he is also a legitimate terminator of it. Otherwise, as we die of old age or disease or in accidents he is also morally responsible.

Do you believe in hell as eternal conscious torment, Jamat? Because if you do, it seems like you're saying God is justified ('his way is blameless') in directly causing people's deaths before they've had full opportunity to come to faith in him, thus condemning them to an eternity of agony and separation from Him. How can that be squared with 'God is love', 'God doesn't wish anyone to perish' and so on?

Also, you seem to be saying that God is directly in control or at least responsible for everything that happens. Your get-out for God when it comes to disease, accidents etc. is that he is a legitimate terminator of life. Well, what about this get-out: God has given free choice to people and part of that is the freedom to do things that lead to accidents, disease and death. In a sense, God is still responsible, but only in an indirect way.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
SC Kevin:Do you believe in hell as eternal conscious torment, Jamat? Because if you do, it seems like you're saying God is justified ('his way is blameless') in directly causing people's deaths before they've had full opportunity to come to faith in him, thus condemning them to an eternity of agony and separation from Him. How can that be squared with 'God is love', 'God doesn't wish anyone to perish' and so on?

I believe what Jesus did. There is an outer darkness away from his presence with weeping and gnashing of teeth Can't see how it is unconscious can you?

The assumption in your statement suggests the usual strawmam of opponents of reformed theology, that God dooms man by his foreknowledge of their fate. It is a different issue but I personally think God through his Holy Spirit makes every effort to steer us towards a choice for himself. How he does it must vary in different circumstances but I have heard some marvellous stories of supernatural revelation.

The determining factor seems to be the heart attitude of the recipient. You have to be humble to hear his voice. I know that for me how hard it is to lower my proud egotistical mind. Is anyone any different?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Thanks for your reply, Jamat. I'm more or less agnostic on the eternal destiny of those who die having rejected Jesus; what I wanted to focus on was the idea of God directly causing and willing people's deaths, especially if the result is an eternity in conscious hell. That's what I have a big problem with...

Although I suppose if God has perfect foreknowledge then he'll see which people ultimately accept or reject him, so for those who reject him it is acceptable for him to end their lives prematurely. Hmm... But then their life ends prematurely so maybe God can't know (because it never becomes reality) whether they would have chosen, later in life, to follow him. My brain hurts, I give up!

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Although I think you may see me as somewhat of a Job's Comforter, South Coast Kevin, I thought I might offer this short story which may, or may not, give you some relief from that pain.

The story, which I received second hand, but believe to be true, relates to one of those venerable Orthodox hermits who dwell on Mt Athos. This hermit apparently stated that God prolongs our lives either till we accept his saving grace or until we are so far gone He knows we never will.

I'm not sure that's any help.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
This hermit apparently stated that God prolongs our lives either till we accept his saving grace or until we are so far gone He knows we never will.

Thanks, I see what the hermit is getting at although I've got to say I'm a bit troubled by the implication that Love Doesn't Win!

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

I see your point.

It seems I have been a bit of a Job's Comforter.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Innocent children of an innocent man killed to prove a point? Brrrr!

Greg Boyd has an explanation for all this. You have to be an Open Theist to understand.
You don't, you know. I don't know anybody who believes Job (or his first unfortunate family, or his second fortunate family, or his friends) were real people in history. It's not a 'history' book, it's a 'wisdom' book, and the story is an extended, embellished parable.
It doesn't matter. Parables describe situations truthfully and comprehensively, ie. have more than just the one leg to stand on.

Some manage a nifty two step swimmingly!

And some durn well just fire on ALL CYLINDERS!

True, but I think the two points I was making still stand. One - No Camels Were Hurt In The Making Of This Parable (i.e. the story of the deaths of Job's family is part of the fiction). Two - you don't have to be an Open Theist to understand this.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Innocent children of an innocent man killed to prove a point? Brrrr!

Greg Boyd has an explanation for all this. You have to be an Open Theist to understand.
You don't, you know. I don't know anybody who believes Job (or his first unfortunate family, or his second fortunate family, or his friends) were real people in history. It's not a 'history' book, it's a 'wisdom' book, and the story is an extended, embellished parable.
It doesn't matter. Parables describe situations truthfully and comprehensively, ie. have more than just the one leg to stand on.

Some manage a nifty two step swimmingly!

And some durn well just fire on ALL CYLINDERS!
True, but I think the two points I was making still stand. One - No Camels Were Hurt In The Making Of This Parable (i.e. the story of the deaths of Job's family is part of the fiction). Two - you don't have to be an Open Theist to understand this.

I understand that a parable does not necessarily have a one to one correspondence to actual people and events. The prodigal son was analogous to the tax collectors and the prostitutes who had returned to God, albeit Jesus' version, and not the iteration of the Pharisees.

The starvation from lack of food obviously does not speak to the situation of the TCs and Ps. These people were the fat cats (Matthew, Zacchaeus?) and were probably looking after Jesus' and the disciples' material needs. What they found in the world outside God's Chosen was the spiritual sterility of the secular world, against which, by comparison, even the scanty teachings in the Temple seemed to be bounteous feasts.

What parables do convey well are attitudes.

One may say that the callous attitude, found in Job, to human life are anachronisms, conveying the primitive world views of bronze age civilization, but clash horrendously with modern, refined, accurate perceptions of morality (maybe even with Second Temple sensibilities). More to the point, they do not represent God's attitudes, we say.

What then do we make of Jesus' words to the effect that we should not be careful for our physical lives, but care more for our souls? And what do we say about a seemingly cavalier attitude of Jesus/God in saying that the man born blind from birth was so inflicted in order that God would be glorified in his healing?

Ditto Lazarus?

BTW, did you enjoy Dr Bailey's description and implication of the great exhibition of love of the Father at the return of the Prodigal? Toe curling denouement, no?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0