Thread: By ALL possible means save some? 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=025288
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
So says the apostle Paul, who I have heard described as "the ultimate pragmatist".
I have run across some people who appear to think that "all" here extends to include perpetrating known lies, provided these pull a crowd and get people to a place where they will "take a decision".
Assuming you take the Scriptures to have some kind of value in determining how the Good News is proclaimed, what if any limits to you think there are to "all" in this instance?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
The process known as "evange-elastic presentation", otherwise known as stretching the truth for the sake of a good homiletic.
Otherwise known as telling lies.
Also known sometimes as pious fraud.
If the truth shall set you free, then telling lies about the truth will make sure you remain in your chains.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
So: by all possible means [except lying] save some?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Assuming you take the Scriptures to have some kind of value in determining how the Good News is proclaimed, what if any limits to you think there are to "all" in this instance?
The vital word isn't "all" (caps or not) but "possible". It isn't for man to determine what is possible: we're given plenty of guidance and if we choose to disregard it then we are (IMHO you understand) guilty of self-deception.
Naturally, once you can deceive yourself you can deceive anyone, and if you bring them to faith that way, then to what faith have you brought them?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
if you bring them to faith that way, then to what faith have you brought them?
That's precisely my concern. I think that my adversaries think that the answer is "still a valid one". Which is partly behind my parallel thread on sacraments. It's as if they view the Four Spiritual Laws™ as guaranteed to work no matter what goes on around them.
(In similar vein, when a famous evangelical on the French charismatic scene notoriously underwent a sudden and wholehearted Catholic conversion a few decades ago, there was a lot of head-scratching among the evo community about what to make of his previously-much-lauded teachings. Someone commented that Solomon's later lapses did not disqualify the Song of Songs from Scripture...)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
This is based on the absurd heterodox premiss, the ancient heresy, that it is down to us and our preaching of the perverted kakangelion to save anyone.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The vital word isn't "all" (caps or not) but "possible". It isn't for man to determine what is possible: we're given plenty of guidance and if we choose to disregard it then we are (IMHO you understand) guilty of self-deception.
I think this is the key. By "possible" does he mean anything that one could physically do? Like put someone in a prison cell and not let them out until they convert? Torture? Auto da fe, anyone?
Clearly "possible" must include "morally possible" which precludes deception.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
This is based on the absurd heterodox premiss, the ancient heresy, that it is down to us and our preaching of the perverted kakangelion to save anyone.
But, but... "how shall they believe if they have not heard"? It might not be exclusively down to us, but most believers seem to think they have their bit to do, don't they?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Beliefs are two a penny Eutychus, as you know.
Jesus does what He says on the tin.
I believe.
Despite us.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
The message is that of salvation, right? ISTM the means of proclaiming it must be consistent with the vision of salvation you're proclaiming.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well in the instance I have in mind, and at the risk of derailing this entirely, it's very very PSA-centred; basically just a transaction. And the belief ( ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Martin) seems to be that as long as you can get people to sign on the dotted line (or the set prayer equivalent) the rest doesn't matter. I wonder how much the theology (or lack of it) affects this extreme pragmatism?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
Well in the instance I have in mind, and at the risk of derailing this entirely, it's very very PSA-centred; basically just a transaction.
Well, if it's "just a transaction" based on PSA (by which I assume you mean Penal Substitutionary Atonement), then it cannot be down to us at all, since Christ has done the necessary transaction from a legal point of view. It's illogical to suggest that Christ has borne the punishment for our sins, while saying that it is only valid if we believe it. If one person takes the punishment for another person's crime, then that other person goes free, irrespective of what he believes. It's an objective transaction. Therefore PSA implies legal universalism. This is why I am amazed that the more theologically liberal types, who may be attracted to universalism, knock it.
What's the alternative? That it's all down to us to emulate Christ's example?
I believe that both the penal substitutionary view and the moral influence view of the atonement are correct. The former without the latter leads to antinomianism, and the latter without the former denies the grace of God, and the all sufficiency of Christ as the Saviour.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Of course you can't lie (defraud, deceive, blackmail, intimidate...) The people who are using this text need to go away and learn what basic (child-level) hermeneutics are. Though they'd probably do best to start off with basic morality.
I can hear the whining: "But Dad, you said I could have whatever I want for dinner, and I want poison!" Pffft.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The vital word isn't "all" (caps or not) but "possible". It isn't for man to determine what is possible: we're given plenty of guidance and if we choose to disregard it then we are (IMHO you understand) guilty of self-deception.
I think this is the key. By "possible" does he mean anything that one could physically do? Like put someone in a prison cell and not let them out until they convert? Torture? Auto da fe, anyone?
Clearly "possible" must include "morally possible" which precludes deception.
I may not be recalling it correctly, but didn't Philip get hold of an Ethiopian guy and torture the dog lovin' shit out of him, even cutting off his nuts? It made a believer out of him just like it always does and he just couldn't wait to be baptized.
But, like I say, my recollection may be a bit off.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Therefore PSA implies legal universalism.
Have you never met a full-blown five-point TULIP Calvinist? The L stands for Limited atonement (ie Christ's death was effective only for the elect). I'm pretty sure they believe in PSA, too, though perhaps not in the crudest form.
Calvinists, especially hypercalvinists, are certainly in danger of antinomianism, but most of the little-green-book/four-spiritual-laws PSA types I have met are legalists who live in fear of losing their salvation and who are very likely to "pray the prayer" or "make a recommitment" multiple times, just to make sure.
[ 23. April 2013, 05:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The vital word isn't "all" (caps or not) but "possible". It isn't for man to determine what is possible: we're given plenty of guidance and if we choose to disregard it then we are (IMHO you understand) guilty of self-deception.
I think this is the key. By "possible" does he mean anything that one could physically do? Like put someone in a prison cell and not let them out until they convert? Torture? Auto da fe, anyone?
Clearly "possible" must include "morally possible" which precludes deception.
I may not be recalling it correctly, but didn't Philip get hold of an Ethiopian guy and torture the dog lovin' shit out of him, even cutting off his nuts? It made a believer out of him just like it always does and he just couldn't wait to be baptized.
But, like I say, my recollection may be a bit off.
Where are you getting that?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Eutychus
A lot of issues disappear if you consider that the crucial work of conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit. As is well known, the clues to the operation of the Holy Spirit are found in Jesus' discourse to the disciples in John 14-16. The Holy Spirit is the indwelling Spirit of truth, the teacher and reminder of all things, the witness to Jesus, the One who convicts "the world" concerning sin and righteousness and judgment, the One who guides into all truth.
Essentially, conversion is seen as an inner work, aided by proclamation and demonstration. That is a lot deeper than any act of human persuasion seeking to get people to agree to a set of propositions. If you like, there is a faithful human component (essentially true and faithful witness) which aids a Divine work of grace. God works through the witness of the church.
Or as Billy Graham once put it in my hearing, he has never converted anyone. "Conversion is the work of the Holy Ghost" he said, "I'm just one of the messenger boys".
It does seem clear that we are to be truthful witnesses, not only with our lips but with our lives, to the hope which is in us. I think this is quite a long way removed from any impression that we save.
This next bit is some Kerygmania-like reflection by me on 1 Corinthians 9. I've used the Blue Letter bible link so any who fancy can have a look at the Greek.
It's worth observing first of all from the preliminaries that he observes there is no glory which comes to him from preaching the gospel (v16) and that he must not abuse its power (v19)
A Greek expert may put me right on this, but my own belief re the passage from 1 Corinthians is that the key word is the verbal form "γίνομαι (ginomai)" (to have become, to be made) and the tense used indicates that Paul is reflecting on the ways he has responded in obedience to the inner promptings of the Holy Spirit. The common thread he has found is this. As a result of that, although freed from slavery, he has become a servant to all (v 19), identifying alike in his service with Jews (under the law), Gentiles (outside the law) and in his weakness with those who are themselves weak.
The whole phraseology is centred in humility and obedience. "In serving others I will do whatever God calls me to do; go anywhere, do anything in honouring my calling to preach the gospel." When taken together with other writings, it is clear that Paul believed that there was a Divine power (the power of God unto salvation) in the preaching of the gospel. So I think it is wrong to take from this verse the notion that Paul really believes he does any saving on his own, in his own power. He recognises that God may use him as an instrument through which the gospel is mediated and he must be open and obedient to that.
This puts preaching of the gospel in a proper context, which is miles away from any kind of "superstar" approach, or giving credence to any notion that any form of human manipulation will do. No form of human manipulation will do. It is a kind of blasphemy to believe that the Spirit of Truth would wish us to lie.
[ 23. April 2013, 07:37: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
OK, some clarifications.
Firstly, in the Gospel (kakangelion?) presentation I'm thinking of, the Spirit is conspicuous by his absence. You touch on an important point (and in this respect - viewing the work of the Spirit as vital - I think I'm still charismatic!).
Secondly, I wasn't meaning to imply that the work of effecting salvation was up to us humans (although I do believe we have a role to play). My musings are more along the lines of whether there are any limits on the means used in evangelism.
While I personally agree with all that's been said here about not being deceitful (and indeed Paul says that himself elsewhere) I have actually encountered a group that appears to take the view that deceitfulness doesn't matter. I don't agree with that, but anticipating their counter-arguments has given rise to an interesting (to me) train of thought, with two branches.
One branch is the sheer pragmatism of Paul. Greek to the Greeks, Jew to the Jews, scarcely has he announced that nobody needs to be circumcised to be saved than he is rounding on Timothy with a pair of scissors ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
(as I once heard Terry Virgo say, you can hear Timothy plaintively saying "but I thought you said..."?). Sometimes I think that for all his talk about not being deceitful, Paul in his understanding of grace was verging on the antinomian in his commitment to evangelising: the end (salvation) justified any and every means (and yes, since I've mentioned Virgo, I think this sort of thinking resulted in the "ruthlessness" (sic) I encountered in NF and their imperviousness to collateral damage).
The other branch of my thinking (as seen on the parallel thread on sacramanets) is the realisation that for this extremely pragmatic group I've recently encountered, the "four spiritual laws" decision-oriented type of approach seems to function as a sacrament (the kind of concept they would otherwise abhor). Administer it, and it works - irrespective of the disposition of the person doing the administrating. Never mind if they lied to get you to sign on the dotted line.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Yes, I get that. There is some truth in the observation that God seems able to use the most cack-handed forms of evangelism to produce some fruitfulness, but there is also much truth in the alternative notion that unethical and manipulative presentations can do great damage to people.
There is clearly some truth in the notion that the gospel is sacramental, an objective source of divine power and grace, and certainly when we look at Pauline teaching it seems very clear that he believed that. There is also truth in the notion that such power is not to be abused by any who have (or are perceived to have) the gift of evangelism. That seems to be quite clear from the 1 Cor 9 passage, and particularly verse 19.
There's a bit of a reminder that the James stricture re all forms of teaching, that those who teach will be judged with greater severity if they mess up or abuse the gift they have been given. That ought to put some kind of a brake on self-confident pragmatism. Actually, self-confident anything now I come to think of it.
I think the major issue we face in combating the forms of argumentation you refer to (and clearly see as wrong) is that they are self-enclosing. Once you've embraced the notion that anything goes as a means to a good end, then it's hard to see that it doesn't. For me the issue is pretty much resolved by John's Gospel and the repeated emphasis that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth who guides us into all truth.
That's hardly exegetical rocket science; in fact it is so obvious that you wonder how anyone can miss it. I don't think Paul did, but I see where you are coming from on that.
As Louis Palau once (memorably) put it "evangelists are dumb". He went on to observe that they sense they are under orders to preach for a decision. No doubt both you and I have seen and heard some OTT stuff preached under that kind of compulsion. Quite a lot of "evange-elastic" is a kind of over-enthusiam; the preacher gets carried away in the act of preaching.
But making manipulation a considered and justifiable strategy is just basic unethical bullshit really.
[ 23. April 2013, 08:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Bonjour M Le Eut,
Maybe your pal should read the whole passage where Paul also worries about abusing his authority in the Gospel (v18) and being a 'servant' to all (19) and running a race for an imperishable crown (25).
Compared to the way some people take a 'pragmatic' view of Scripture, your mate is on the mild end of the spectrum. I remember a group who encouraged their young ladies to offer sex to blokes to get them into the church. The verse for that? 'Offer your bodies as living sacrifices...'
I admire the guy's passion - but if he reckons he needs to resort to deception to get people to engage with the message, how much confidence does he really have in the power of the Gospel? In the end, is this really about seeing people saved, or getting some personal validation for his ministry?
Hope you get some good ideas out of all this to talk some sense into him.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd go further, Eutychus and suggest that some charismatic evangelicals run to a similar over-emphasis on the act of 'confessing' or acknowledging Christ as Saviour - as if the very words they used had some kind of magical or perhaps quasi-sacramental effect. I've certainly heard 'If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth,' used this way in some charismatic circles.
I suspect the people you've encountered who deploy the '4-Spiritual Laws' in the way you've described are cessationist or otherwise very conservative rather than charismatic. Hence the scant reference to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Fr Gregory (whom many of you may remember from these boards) once shocked me by stating that he found many very conservative evangelicals to be almost Islamic in their approach. When I sat back and considered this, I came to a similar conclusion. I once saw a programme about some people spending time on an Islamic retreat and at the end one of the participants became a Muslim.
The way she 'prayed the prayer' as it were and acknowledged that there was no God but Allah and Mohammed as his Prophet, was spookily reminiscent of how I've seen conservative evangelicals 'lead people to Christ.'
Sure, in any form of conversion there has to be some kind of public acknowledgement and outward profession ... but the parallels were uncanny.
I think what we're dealing with here in its evangelical Christian form is a highly reductionist tendency. These same people, I suspect, were they to be RCs or Orthodox would probably take a highly mechanistic approach to the eucharist or else have some kind of fixation with this or that shrine or this or that holy relic ...
Theirs is a fundamentalist and mechanistic mindset that would express itself in different ways in different settings but broadly towards the same reductionist end.
It's a tick-box approach to faith.
As far as deception and dubious ethical practices go ... well, no tradition seems free of those, of course.
I once challenged an evangelist who'd first got people to raise their hands in response to an 'altar-call' type challenge, then he asked them to stand, then he upped the ante and asked them 'come down the front', then to go into a separate room for counselling ... he ratcheted up the stakes at each point.
I felt that this was deceptive. The people who put their hands up didn't know what was going to happen next and that there'd be a ratcheting up of the expected response.
His answer was that Jesus had used this tactic with Zacchaeus - 'Come down from that tree ...'
I couldn't see how this was analogous at all.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
In the end, is this really about seeing people saved, or getting some personal validation for his ministry?
I think you're close to the mark there. And yes, I think 'flirty fishing' is another extreme example of this line of reasoning - and not confined to the Children of God cult.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Food was used in India to entice people to missions - worked particularly well in times of death and famine.
The people who came for feeding were known as "rice Christians".
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Never knew that (the "flirty fishing" thing). I've led a sheltered life. But it is a kind of "reductio ad absurdum".
On the other side of that coin, there was a kind of justifying of "putting to the question" (means of torture used against suspected heretics in various inquisitions) which argued
a) that it was essential to get at the truth of whether they were misled or misleading others away from the True Path, because of the dangers to themselves and others
b) their souls were in danger of eternal frying if they did not repent and therefore inflicting pain on them in this life was a kind of loving concern that they be saved from eternal damnation.
Once you accept any means to good ends, anything goes, really. And that really puts believers of that kind of stuff in danger themselves; of falling into the hands of the cynical and power-hungry "wolves in sheeps' clothing".
Such self-enclosing ideologies are not safe thought-worlds in which to live and grow up.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Therefore PSA implies legal universalism.
Have you never met a full-blown five-point TULIP Calvinist? The L stands for Limited atonement (ie Christ's death was effective only for the elect). I'm pretty sure they believe in PSA, too, though perhaps not in the crudest form.
Fair point. I have met quite a number of such Calvinists. But, in a sense, the 'L' of TULIP is a form of legal universalism, in the sense that "all for whom Christ died will be saved". So obviously if we believe that Christ died for everyone, then, by that same logic, all will be saved. A strict substitution is an objective event or transaction. Its efficacy is dependent on the one making the transaction, not the one for whom the transaction is being made.
I am actually a "legal universalist", but I also certainly believe in hell and condemnation. Is that a contradiction? Not at all. The legal aspect is only one part of salvation. There is also the orientation of the will. Someone may be saved legally but may hate it. He is "condemned to salvation" or "condemned to eternal life", and this life of God is sheer hell for the one who hates God and is consumed with pride, bitterness and hatred.
Penal substitution is certainly central to the work of the cross. If this were not so, then God would just be able "to forgive" by sheer fiat of authority by riding roughshod over his own character of justice. This speaks of a fickle God, who acts purely on naked authority. He may forgive today, but then tomorrow may decide not to forgive. The sheer cost of the cross speaks of a God who is 'bound' by His own justice, and pays the heaviest price to satisfy the demands of justice in order to forgive. I think this is tremendous and speaks of a constancy and reliability in God, which is the basis of our faith in Him. (By the way... if PSA is not true, then the entire symbolism of Old Testament sacrifice is inexplicable. "Without shedding of blood there is no remission" - Hebrews 9:22. Why does there need to be shedding of blood if God can "just forgive" by fiat of authority?)
The idea that the cross is merely a demonstration of moral commitment that we should somehow emulate is quite sadistic. Some may argue that PSA is sadistic: the nasty father abusing his child. But it is sheer presumption to think in these terms. It is not for us to feel sorry for Jesus, who gave up His life willingly, and who, after all, "only did what He saw the Father doing" (hence the truth of Patripassianism). The sadism of rejecting PSA is that it places an intolerable moral burden on man, who is by and large not able to live up to the example of the extremity of the sacrifice that God revealed as the ultimate example. The gospel is clear that we are saved by grace and we live by grace. I know what I am talking about, because I suffered in an extremely manipulative Pentecostal fellowship where we were guilt tripped into "being wholehearted for God" by thinking about the lengths that God went to for us, but, of course, it was not really about commitment to God / Christ, but about commitment to the leader of the fellowship. The cross was presented as the ultimate act of psychological blackmail: "I suffered all this for you, now you better make sure that you suffer for me". PSA cuts through all this crap, and places grace at the heart of salvation.
As for evangelism: since the transaction on the cross was and is objective, then there is no requirement for anyone to fulfil some kind of gnostic condition in order to benefit legally from it. The preaching of the gospel and the entire work of the Church is simply a matter of following the leading of the Holy Spirit to minister the love of God to others, and there is no simple formula. I think this is what Paul really meant. There is no "simple gospel" that functions as a kind of magic spell to unlock heaven, but the Holy Spirit works through believers in many different - and sometimes controversial (though not immoral) - ways to reach different people with the reality of the love and life of God. The point of this is to enable people to enjoy the salvation that has already been won for them on the cross.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The vital word isn't "all" (caps or not) but "possible". It isn't for man to determine what is possible: we're given plenty of guidance and if we choose to disregard it then we are (IMHO you understand) guilty of self-deception.
I think this is the key. By "possible" does he mean anything that one could physically do? Like put someone in a prison cell and not let them out until they convert? Torture? Auto da fe, anyone?
Clearly "possible" must include "morally possible" which precludes deception.
I may not be recalling it correctly, but didn't Philip get hold of an Ethiopian guy and torture the dog lovin' shit out of him, even cutting off his nuts? It made a believer out of him just like it always does and he just couldn't wait to be baptized.
But, like I say, my recollection may be a bit off.
Where are you getting that?
Acts 8. I finally looked it back up and, yes, the recollection was a bit off.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Acts 8. I finally looked it back up and, yes, the recollection was a bit off.
It was so outrageously off I thought you were just being sarcastic.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I knew it was intentionally funny. Made me laugh, anyway.
[Actually, it gave me an idea for a different way of doing bible studies ... Find a narrative, stand it on its head for dramatic effect, observe "that's obviously NOT what was going on, so what WAS going on?". A kind of sideways approach to encourage engagement with text folks have looked at loads of times before and so have stopped seeing what's there. Shake up the temptation in favour of automatic thinking. That sort of thing.
For example, Prodigal Son is cheesed off in the pig sty. Suddenly recognises that his father is the one really to blame. For his lack of protection, refusal to say no to his son's naive and selfish presumption. Decides to return home to put Dad straight ..A very modern Prodigal]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
EE. No.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC....
EE. No.
A profound and well substantiated rebuttal of my position.
Well done. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
And there was me thinking "Martin doesn't think much of my novel idea on bible studies.
"Ee no, we don't want none of that sort of rubbish going on!" A cry of pain re my heretical meanderings.
But you're right, EE.
I await the explanation with interest.
[ 25. April 2013, 08:25: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Food was used in India to entice people to missions - worked particularly well in times of death and famine.
The people who came for feeding were known as "rice Christians".
Any actual documentation on this? I mean on Christian missions in India only giving food aid to people who converted and refusing it to others? And on that tactic producing large numbers of converts?
I'm sure its happened now and again but I suspect its a bt of a myth. The "rice Christian" name was I think coined by Europeans about people they thought were becoming superficially Christianised as part of taking on a whole "cultural modernisation" package. Something taht seems to happen a lot in West Africa and might be happening in China. But if anythign its more common among the better-ediucagted and better-off rather than the very poorest. So a degree of "churchianity" goes along with wearing European-style clothes, speaking English, etc etc. If anything India is the cultural region whaere that sort of thing is least common. Tens of millions of peopel quickly adopted a "modern" post-industrial-revolution lifestyle without abandoning their tradtional religions, languages, caste structures and so on.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Eeeee nay, never Barnabas.
EE, you don't have a position. You have a bunch of a priori assumptions from which further rhetoric bereft of logic 'follows'.
So, no. Or 'uH errr' as Simon Cowell's buzzer goes in Britain's Got Talent.
Feel the love.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Food was used in India to entice people to missions - worked particularly well in times of death and famine.
The people who came for feeding were known as "rice Christians".
Any actual documentation on this? ...[just above]
Also in India you had the East India Company, which wasn't particularly keen with rocking the boat.
You can't see William Carey being in a position to be doling rice in such a fashion (though thinking about it if they only have enough for a few that might actually make you focus on your (Christian) friends).
And from the time (but opposite side of the world)
"He [Gladstong] admitted, too, that we had not fulfilled our Christian obligations by communicating the inestimable benefits of our religion to the slaves in our colonies, and that the belief among the early English planters, that if you made a man a Christian you could not keep him a slave, had led them to the monstrous conclusion that they ought not to impart Christianity to their slave"
I did see a board about John Smith (of Demera) (the quote is from a linked pdf) and it was depressing.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
[although (trusting wiki) the term seems to be associated with the Portuguese time]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Paul and his fans not being my favourite sort of Christians. I get Jesus spending more time on moral teaching and lots less on the selfish pursuit of getting a ticket to heaven. Or scaring others by encouraging them to sell their souls to him and God.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Paul and his fans not being my favourite sort of Christians. I get Jesus spending more time on moral teaching and lots less on the selfish pursuit of getting a ticket to heaven. Or scaring others by encouraging them to sell their souls to him and God.
Between the two of them, Jesus spends a hell of a lot more words on scaring people with the fear of Hell than Paul does.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... What's the alternative? That it's all down to us to emulate Christ's example? ...
You say that like it's a bad thing ...
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Damn right mousethief. Where does Paul get it from, eh?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I guess I am too stupid to remember when Jesus spoke of hell, and somehow have a skewed view of Paul then. Can someone point me to some clear information so that my perception of Jesus being less focussed on hell than Paul, being less threatening than Paul etc can be corrected? And the while, I've thought Jesus was more anti-violence than pro.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Paul and his fans not being my favourite sort of Christians. I get Jesus spending more time on moral teaching and lots less on the selfish pursuit of getting a ticket to heaven. Or scaring others by encouraging them to sell their souls to him and God.
Between the two of them, Jesus spends a hell of a lot more words on scaring people with the fear of Hell than Paul does.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Jesus scaring people with Hell.
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Mt 10:28
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell,[b] to the unquenchable fire.[c] 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ Mk 9:42-48
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. - Mt 5:22
You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? - Mt 23:33
I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” - Mt 8:11-12
----------
In contrast, a search for "hell" in the epistles of Paul turns up no hits, even in various translations.
[NB: many of the Matthew texts are repeated in Luke]
[ 26. April 2013, 18:58: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: Between the two of them, Jesus spends a hell of a lot more words on scaring people with the fear of Hell than Paul does.
He liked to exagerrate a bit sometimes to make a moral point.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: Between the two of them, Jesus spends a hell of a lot more words on scaring people with the fear of Hell than Paul does.
He liked to exagerrate a bit sometimes to make a moral point.
What, like that one about actually loving your enemies?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
daronmedway: What, like that one about actually loving your enemies?
I said 'sometimes'.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: What, like that one about actually loving your enemies?
I said 'sometimes'.
And you can tell them apart how?
And this has what to do with the question of whether Jesus or Paul was more likely to bring up avoidance of Hell as a motivation?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: Between the two of them, Jesus spends a hell of a lot more words on scaring people with the fear of Hell than Paul does.
He liked to exagerrate a bit sometimes to make a moral point.
That's what I used to think. That and poetical rhetoric. Apparently Jesus loves some and hates others, enough to damn some to hell and others to heaven.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: And you can tell them apart how?
I just try and stumble along.
quote:
mousethief: And this has what to do with the question of whether Jesus or Paul was more likely to bring up avoidance of Hell as a motivation?
There's no doubt that as related in the Bible, Jesus mentions Hell more often than Paul. On this thread, this is about whether it is Jesus or Paul who taught more about selfish pursuit of a ticket to Heaven. The question of whether Jesus might be referring to a literal Hell or making a moral exagerration, is relevant to this.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
On this thread, this is about whether it is Jesus or Paul who taught more about selfish pursuit of a ticket to Heaven. The question of whether Jesus might be referring to a literal Hell or making a moral exaggeration, is relevant to this.
1. So you say. How?
2. Does Paul try to scare people into agreeing with him the way Jesus does? If so, where, please? So far I have provided solid evidence that Jesus used "selfish pursuit" (or "enlightened self-interest" for people with less of an axe to grind) to lure people into the Kingdom. Will my serious attempt to provide evidence be met in kind by people who think Paul uses "selfish pursuit" as a drawing card more than Christ does?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I've always taken the crucifixion of Jesus as a pretty dramatic unselfish thing to do.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I've always taken the crucifixion of Jesus as a pretty dramatic unselfish thing to do.
And yet the writer to the Hebrews says that "For the joy that was set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." That suggests a degree of self-interest to me. The self-interest of experiencing the joy of being the saviour.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Is God the Son really like that?
There's an implication in the Hebrews passage that Jesus did do this for some kind of personal reward, but it feels very uncomfortable to me. The "kenosis" of Philippians 2, coupled with the "therefore God exalted him", paints a contrasting picture of obedience and consequence.
It all gets muddy in the Trinity at that point! The obedience of one hypostatis of God to Another kind of does the brain in. Or at least does mine in. But Love incarnate does not look for personal reward. At least I don't think so.
Where that leaves the Hebrews passage is something I'll leave to better exegetes than me.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
You need to read all of Psalm 22 Daronmedway. The reason for His joy is obvious. There again you've already identified it and ... twisted it somehow. That giving eternal fulfilment to a hundred billion people for a start is selfish?! How does one find anything negative in that? Ah ... disposition.
REJOICE MAN!
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on
:
Not this far:
quote:
The Alhambra Decree (also known as the Edict of Expulsion) was an edict issued on 31 March 1492 by the joint Catholic Monarchs of Spain (Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon) ordering the expulsion of Jews from the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon (not from the Kingdom of Navarre) and its territories and possessions by 31 July of that year.
Some Jews were only given four months and ordered to convert to Christianity or leave the country.
Scholars disagree about how many Jews left Spain as a result of the decree; the numbers vary between 130,000 and 800,000.
Other Spanish Jews (estimates range between 50,000 and 70,000)[citation needed] chose to avoid expulsion by conversion to Christianity.
The punishment for any Jew who did not convert or leave by the deadline was death without trial.
- Wiki
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
Definitely not.
(Un/)Fortunately like the lying example, as well as failing the loving your neighbour test, it didn't even work.
A bit later there was doubt about whether they had really converted, and the ramifications of the 'solution' to that still harm mission today (although did give a funny Mony Python sketch).
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
@Merchant Trader - that's even more gnomic than me!
@mousethief & targets - of course what Jesus meant by Hell He never explains. And how He was understood we haven't the faintest idea unless we really, REALLY try to be C1st Jews.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is God the Son really like that?
There's an implication in the Hebrews passage that Jesus did do this for some kind of personal reward, but it feels very uncomfortable to me. The "kenosis" of Philippians 2, coupled with the "therefore God exalted him", paints a contrasting picture of obedience and consequence.
It all gets muddy in the Trinity at that point! The obedience of one hypostatis of God to Another kind of does the brain in. Or at least does mine in. But Love incarnate does not look for personal reward. At least I don't think so.
Where that leaves the Hebrews passage is something I'll leave to better exegetes than me.
I think Jesus rejoiced at the idea of saving his bride the church and presenting her to himself pure and spotless. His bride is his inheritance and reward; he takes joy in his bride and that joy is a very good and beautiful thing. I'd much rather believe that when Jesus looked through the cross he saw the glorified church and it gave him great joy. And so, yes I do believe that in some deep and mysterious way the church even benefits from Jesus' self-interest. Such is the purity of Jesus.
[ 27. April 2013, 18:41: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Bride the church? really? He talked to the two others crucified beside him, and expressed concern about his mother. More selflessness. The things he expressed were about people, people!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
In Gethsemane He assented to giving His all, losing His life. On Golgotha He found what that meant. Complete and utter meaningless in de facto atheism. He lost God. And said yes to that. How did that serve His self? He lost EVERYTHING. For what? At the moment of loss? For what?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Bride the church? really? He talked to the two others crucified beside him, and expressed concern about his mother. More selflessness. The things he expressed were about people, people!
Um, yes? The people who collectively constitute his bride.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
In Gethsemane He assented to giving His all, losing His life. On Golgotha He found what that meant. Complete and utter meaningless in de facto atheism. He lost God. And said yes to that. How did that serve His self? He lost EVERYTHING. For what? At the moment of loss? For what?
For the joy set before him.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Being FULLY human that wasn't there. All hope, all joy, gone. The joy went before Him. There could have been no joy in dying as utterly alone in obscene Godless agony for the One who had always known His Father's presence.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
The problem is, when you're dealing with someone who really truly loves his enemies ( to the point of death on a cross), it becomes impossible to distinguish between other-centered motivation and self-centered motivation. Their good becomes his good; their loss is felt as his own. So "the joy set before him" is both his and our joy, and the question of selfishness turns into a nonsense.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Lamb Chopped
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Lamb Chopped
Here's the point as I see it: the self-interest of Jesus as a sinless person is utterly self-giving. Jesus was motivated by the joy that was set before him, and the joy that was set before him was the salvation of humanity. He endured the cross for a greater joy. But is was his joy, a real joy for which he was prepared to endure the cross and scorn its shame.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Indeed, agreed daronmedway. No yeah buts all round ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Harmony! If only we could have both.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Bride the church? really? He talked to the two others crucified beside him, and expressed concern about his mother. More selflessness. The things he expressed were about people, people!
Um, yes? The people who collectively constitute his bride.
Umm no. The bride of which you speak, the church, is an organization. Or multiple organizations, with power and money and authority. The corporate entity of church is not the same as the people. Which accounts for the alienation a large part of the population feels from it, at least in part.
Jesus did his thing one person at a time. Not collectively. Which is a point worth discussing. The net effect was all, but the effort was individual, and his end of life discussions were with and about individuals.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
There certainly is a difference between the orgainised denominational organisations that we commonly call "churches" and the Catholic - meaning Universal - Church. However, I don't think the individualistic vision of salvation that you present accords with how the Apostles Paul and John speak of the Church (collective noun) as the bride of Christ.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm sorry, I spent a lovely weekend at the side of (and part of the time in) a beautiful lake.
quote:
mousethief: quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
On this thread, this is about whether it is Jesus or Paul who taught more about selfish pursuit of a ticket to Heaven. The question of whether Jesus might be referring to a literal Hell or making a moral exaggeration, is relevant to this.
1. So you say. How?
Alright, let me try to give an analogy. You're saying "Jesus is scaring people more into agreeing him than Paul." My answer to this: "This depends on whether you believe Jesus' threats of Hell were real, or just a moral exagerration."
An analogy would be something like this. Suppose that I would make a long post in the Ship's Hell rambling on by saying that abortion is un-Christian. Normally, I can expect a Hell-Host to post in reply: "Take it to Dead Horses, or I'll fry your balls in boiling oil."
Ok, so I'll obey this Hell-Host. Would I do this out of a selfish feeling of self-preservation of my testicles? Or would I obey because I respect the Host's authority and I believe that such a rule is better for the Ship?
The answer to this question depends a lot on whether I believe the threat to be real, or a moral exaggeration.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You're saying "Jesus is scaring people more into agreeing him than Paul." My answer to this: "This depends on whether you believe Jesus' threats of Hell were real, or just a moral exagerration."
What does it matter, if they were scary? And if they weren't scary, what was the use?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: What does it matter, if they were scary?
The threats of Hell are only scary if they are real. In this case, this ultimately would make God a cruel Being, and following Him an act of egoism.
quote:
mousethief: And if they weren't scary, what was the use?
I don't know. Like I said, I have the feeling that Jesus exagerrated a bit sometimes, simply because He liked it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Then he was saying things that he should have known (being God and all) could be deathly scary to some people, just to have a bit of sport. Seems out of character.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: Then he was saying things that he should have known (being God and all) could be deathly scary to some people, just to have a bit of sport. Seems out of character.
I would venture that to the people He was talking to a the time, the moral exagerration was obvious.
An example is His story of the rich man and Lazarus. To me, He was trying to make a moral point with this story: don't ignore the beggar on your doorstep! He used a bit of colourful language of fire and gnashing of teeth to drive this point through, and I think His audience understood that.
Of course, being God, He could know that this story would be read by people 2000 years later in a different way. Maybe the lesson He wanted to teach to these people is: don't take everything I say so fucking literally.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
The problem with this "Jesus was just exaggerating when he talked about Hell" argument is that you should apply it consistently to his about pronouncements the general resurrection or Heaven as well. Are Jesus' words about these things also to taken as merely pious exaggerations? If Jesus really was into this kind of disingenuousness then in the final analysis he was a liar.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
mousethief: Then he was saying things that he should have known (being God and all) could be deathly scary to some people, just to have a bit of sport. Seems out of character.
I would venture that to the people He was talking to a the time, the moral exagerration was obvious.
An example is His story of the rich man and Lazarus. To me, He was trying to make a moral point with this story: don't ignore the beggar on your doorstep! He used a bit of colourful language of fire and gnashing of teeth to drive this point through, and I think His audience understood that.
But to some extent with the 'threat' taken away, it loses it's moral teaching.
There's no other explanation of why not to maltreat the poor at his gate (in the parable).
And with the heaven/hell bit known to be an colourful language, I don't see how it's driving it's point, it kind of breaks the story.
An exaggerated taking the extremes of the possible, quite possibly (for obvious reasons I hope that's the case).
An expression of what Jesus wanted to be true, possibly but that's even more terrifying.
A white lie to credulous 1st Century Natives, and we now know better, again possible, but then his audience didn't understand that.
But...
"Once there was a rich man, and a poor man, and the rich man treated the poor man badly. The rich man died and dissolved to dust and the poor man died and dissolved to dust."
Doesn't really relate to the theme, rather you need to be nice because there's no reversal of roles.
And...
"Once there was a rich man, and a poor man, and the rich man treated the poor man badly. The rich man died and went to heaven and the poor man died and went to heaven."
Doesn't really relate to the theme, even suggests it doesn't really matter.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
If my last post hadn't been done on an iPhone it would have said: quote:
The problem with this "Jesus was just exaggerating when he talked about Hell" argument is that you should really apply it consistently to his pronouncements about the general resurrection or Heaven as well. Are Jesus' words about these things also to be taken as merely pious exaggerations? If Jesus really was into this kind of disingenuousness then in the final analysis he was a liar.
Also, it occurs to me that Jesus disapproved of using parables to trick people. He certainly didn't like the way the Sadducees used absurd parables to promote unbiblical doctrines.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So says the apostle Paul, who I have heard described as "the ultimate pragmatist".
I have run across some people who appear to think that "all" here extends to include perpetrating known lies, provided these pull a crowd and get people to a place where they will "take a decision".
Assuming you take the Scriptures to have some kind of value in determining how the Good News is proclaimed, what if any limits to you think there are to "all" in this instance?
Paul and Silas seem to outline the ethics of their evangelistic strategy in 1 Thessalonians 2:4-6. quote:
4 For we speak as messengers approved by God to be entrusted with the Good News. Our purpose is to please God, not people. He alone examines the motives of our hearts. 5 Never once did we try to win you with flattery, as you well know. And God is our witness that we were not pretending to be your friends just to get your money! 6 As for human praise, we have never sought it from you or anyone else.
They seem to suggest that pure motives are as important as the content of the message and reject the use of flattery, pretence of friendship, and other forms of people pleasing as inappropriate methods of evangelism. So, ISTM, that Paul wasn't in favour of any sort of pragmatism that would allow for sensationalism or economy with the truth.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
daronmedway: The problem with this "Jesus was just exaggerating when he talked about Hell" argument is that you should really apply it consistently to his pronouncements about the general resurrection or Heaven as well.
I guess this is true if you treat the Gosple as a rule-book of what must I do to get into Heaven and avoid Hell. However, going back to my earlier example, there is no need for Ship Hosts to be consistent in their moral exagerrations. I get it that when a Host threatens to fry my balls it's an exagerration (I hope ), and that when they say that I should take it to Dead Horses it is an order. Humans are usually capable of dealing with this kind of ambiguity, I don't see why it should be different with Jesus.
quote:
Jay-Emm: But to some extent with the 'threat' taken away, it loses it's moral teaching.
Why? Is it only possible to teach someone a moral lesson if you use threats? I've been working with children and young people for a long time, and I would say quite the opposite.
quote:
Jay-Emm: There's no other explanation of why not to maltreat the poor at his gate (in the parable).
No, but maybe Jesus just wanted us to understand: don't maltreat the poor at your gate because, you know, maltreating somone is a bad thing. Maybe He needed a bit of moral exagerration to reinforce this point, but he'd also kinda hope that we'd get it by ourselves.
quote:
Jay-Emm: "Once there was a rich man, and a poor man, and the rich man treated the poor man badly. The rich man died and dissolved to dust and the poor man died and dissolved to dust."
I agree with you that this wouldn't work. That's why Jesus had to exagerrate.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Jay-Emm:[qb] But to some extent with the 'threat' taken away, it loses it's moral teaching.
Why? Is it only possible to teach someone a moral lesson if you use threats? I've been working with children and young people for a long time, and I would say quite the opposite.
No,
For example "Do not worry" doesn't use a threat. From Paul "Since you are going to judge the world, can't you decide the little things among yourselves"
But the parable hinges on the change of circumstances.
If for contrast you said "God doesn't care about the sparrows" then the point is lost from that parable. The alongsideness of it is destroyed.
If you take aware the second half of the parable you're left with nothing.
quote:
quote:
Jay-Emm: There's no other explanation of why not to maltreat the poor at his gate (in the parable).
No, but maybe Jesus just wanted us to understand: don't maltreat the poor at your gate because, you know, maltreating somone is a bad thing. Maybe He needed a bit of moral exagerration to reinforce this point, but he'd also kinda hope that we'd get it by ourselves.
But he conspicuously doesn't make it (here). It's kind of assumed but only with the second half.
Compare and Contrast with Nathans Parable, which leaves the situation but it clear it's wrong.
[ 29. April 2013, 17:27: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: The problem with this "Jesus was just exaggerating when he talked about Hell" argument is that you should really apply it consistently to his pronouncements about the general resurrection or Heaven as well.
I guess this is true if you treat the Gospel as a rule-book of what must I do to get into Heaven and avoid Hell.
Firstly, my guess is that next to no-one holds that opinion that the gospel is a book. And secondly, I'm not sure how what you've said relates to my comment. Perhaps you could expand on it a bit?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Jay-Emm: If you take aware the second half of the parable you're left with nothing.
I'm not arguing that you should take it away. I'm saying that I treat it as a moral exagerration.
quote:
daronmedway: Firstly, my guess is that next to no-one holds that opinion that the gospel is a book.
Sigh, yes I know that. I'm a bit sloppy in my use of language sometimes.
quote:
daronmedway: And secondly, I'm not sure how what you've said relates to my comment. Perhaps you could expand on it a bit?
I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear. Whether you should apply a certain argument consistently or not to Jesus' pronouncements depends on how you interpret these pronouncements.
If I read a Law book, I have to be consistent in how I interpret what it says. If I listen to a school teacher, I can make a difference in: now she's making a moral exagerration, now she is giving an order... I don't have to interpret what she says consistently.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Le Roc said: I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear. Whether you should apply a certain argument consistently or not to Jesus' pronouncements depends on how you interpret these pronouncements.
If this is the case then ISTM that the issue at hand is whether your interpretation is correct. I get the impression that you see interpretation as the means by which subjective meaning is imposed on objective sequences of words - a method of making words mean what we would like them to mean, or of preventing words from meaning that which we do not want them to mean.
I'm not saying that Jesus didn't use hyperbole as a rhetorical device. I think he did. But what I don't understand at the moment is precisely how you've reached the conclusion that Jesus' pronouncements about Hell are to be understood as hyperbolic whereas other things he said are not. How do you decide?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not saying that Jesus didn't use hyperbole as a rhetorical device. I think he did. But what I don't understand at the moment is precisely how you've reached the conclusion that Jesus' pronouncements about Hell are to be understood as hyperbolic whereas other things he said are not. How do you decide?
You decide based on his character and actions. He was inclusive, forgiving, loving and he valued people for who they were. Far more so than our 21st century eyes now often notice. Valuing/forgiving/loving can not = condemning to hell.
[ 30. April 2013, 07:19: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not saying that Jesus didn't use hyperbole as a rhetorical device. I think he did. But what I don't understand at the moment is precisely how you've reached the conclusion that Jesus' pronouncements about Hell are to be understood as hyperbolic whereas other things he said are not. How do you decide?
You decide based on his character and actions.
Are you are talking about the written record of his character and actions that has come to us in the New Testament scriptures? Because if you are, I'd have to ask you whether the picture of Jesus that you paint below requires you to set aside anything in those Scriptures which doesn't accord with your particular definition of inclusivity, forgiveness and love, like condemning people hell for example. Because - like it or not - that is precisely what Jesus does in the pages of the New Testament.
So, I seems to me that the one whose picture of Jesus' character and actions requires the least editing is likely the most accurate and - by the same token - the one whose picture requires the most editing will, naturally, be the least accurate. No?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
daronmedway: I get the impression that you see interpretation as the means by which subjective meaning is imposed on objective sequences of words - a method of making words mean what we would like them to mean, or of preventing words from meaning that which we do not want them to mean.
I agree only partly with the first part of the sentence, and I disagree with the second part. Interpretation is something that we always do. Only very rarely in the Bible, there are objective sequences of words with meanings are so clear that they don't need to be interpreted. They are words spoken in the First Century to people of a different culture, and written down only generations later. If we want to apply them to our Twenty-First Century lives, we always have to interpret.
But I realize that this is a Dead Horse topic, so I'll leave it here. You may interpret the words of the Bible differently from me, and you may even call them 'objective'. The only thing I'm saying here is: people interpret the Bible in different ways, and whether you consider Jesus' words a threat highly depends on your interpretation.
quote:
daronmedway: But what I don't understand at the moment is precisely how you've reached the conclusion that Jesus' pronouncements about Hell are to be understood as hyperbolic whereas other things he said are not. How do you decide?
I'm pretty much with Boogie here. I decide based on Jesus' overall character as portrayed in the Gospel, and on His command of love.
Does this give me a guarantee that I have the 'right' interpretation? No, but I'm not very concerned with having the 'right' interpretation in the first place. I just try to stumble along and live my life as given in Jesus' example, in my relation with myself, with others and with God. The rest is up to Him.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Le Roc,
Surely you would agree that the words of scripture are objective inasmuch as they objectively exist as they are irrespective of our speculations about them. I was asking whether you see interpretation as the imposition of entirely subjective meaning on an historically objective text or if you think that interpretation is about seeking to find the intended intrinsic meaning of the text.
The interpretive endeavour is, I would suggest, the attempt to reach the intended and intrinsic meaning of the texts thereby submitting our subjectivity to the word of God. This being the case, you would probably understanding why I find your stated lack of interest in finding the correct interpretation of the text somewhat perplexing.
Surely, if you are prepared to acknowledge that the text is rooted in a specific historical context which must be understood in order to rightly understand the text, you would therefore be interested to ensuring one interpretation of the text is 'correct' inasmuch as it expresses as closely as possible the meaning that was originally intended?
Why else your insistence that Jesus' original meaning was hyperbolic? The problem of course that there isn't much evidence to prove your hypotheses, which ISTM means that it's really just an exercise in wishful thinking.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not saying that Jesus didn't use hyperbole as a rhetorical device. I think he did. But what I don't understand at the moment is precisely how you've reached the conclusion that Jesus' pronouncements about Hell are to be understood as hyperbolic whereas other things he said are not. How do you decide?
You decide based on his character and actions.
Are you are talking about the written record of his character and actions that has come to us in the New Testament scriptures? Because if you are, I'd have to ask you whether the picture of Jesus that you paint below requires you to set aside anything in those Scriptures which doesn't accord with your particular definition of inclusivity, forgiveness and love, like condemning people hell for example. Because - like it or not - that is precisely what Jesus does in the pages of the New Testament.
So, I seems to me that the one whose picture of Jesus' character and actions requires the least editing is likely the most accurate and - by the same token - the one whose picture requires the most editing will, naturally, be the least accurate. No?
No, because he was using hyperbole! This argument will go round for ever.
In the end, we believe what we want to. I happen to believe in a loving, forgiving God, who forgives before we even reach home and does so 70X7.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No, because he was using hyperbole! This argument will go round for ever.
But even if Jesus were using hyperbole, presumably he'd still be seeking to make a point or sound a warning. If I say "my bag weighs a ton" as hyperbole, I don't mean it literally weighs a ton but I do want you to know that my bag is darned heavy. If I say "this country's going to hell in a handcart" as hyperbole, I may not literally mean it, but I will mean that this country's in a pretty bad way (I'm not sure I do believe that, btw).
Saying "it's hyperbole" (which it may well have been) doesn't negate that Jesus was sounding a warning here. Even if Jesus didn't mean "Believe in me or fry in hell" (and I really don't know my answer to the "does Hell exist?" question), I think it's safe to say there are sayings of Jesus that, at the least, give a warning that rejecting Him and the message He brings has serious consequences.
Hyperbole has to have some meaning behind it. Jesus wouldn't just start saying that sort of stuff for the fun of it, because he liked the words, or because he thought it made him sound impressive, or he liked to scare people. If he wasn't seeking to warn people through hyperbole, then he was just frightening them for the fun of it - which is about as un-Christ-like as it gets (as well as being dangerously abusive).
While I want to affirm the wonderful inclusiveness and grace of Jesus and that He came not to condemn the world but to save it, I don't think it's satisfactory to simply write-off the words of warning as "hyperbole" as if that renders them null and void.
quote:
In the end, we believe what we want to. I happen to believe in a loving, forgiving God, who forgives before we even reach home and does so 70X7.
So do I. I'd be screwed if God wasn't like that. But I also think God leaves it up to us whether we accept that forgiveness or not - and lays the cards on the table about what it means not to.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I really don't think that I can answer this without climbing on a mount that's starting to get suspiciously smelly.
quote:
daronmedway: Surely you would agree that the words of scripture are objective inasmuch as they objectively exist as they are irrespective of our speculations about them.
What we objectively have, is words that were written at least two generation's after Jesus' death, ressurection and ascension, in a language that He probably didn't use.
quote:
daronmedway: I was asking whether you see interpretation as the imposition of entirely subjective meaning on an historically objective text or if you think that interpretation is about seeking to find the intended intrinsic meaning of the text.
I'm not an expert on Bible interpretation, but I would guess that to me the second option is important. Jesus said some things to a couple of Jews in the First Century. But, being God, he also meant for this words to have a meaning for me in the Twenty-First. Bible interpretations to me is trying to find out what this meaning could be.
quote:
daronmedway: The interpretive endeavour is, I would suggest, the attempt to reach the intended and intrinsic meaning of the texts thereby submitting our subjectivity to the word of God.
No, I wouldn't put it like this. My interpretation is submitted to the question: "What can Jesus' words mean to me in the Twenty-First Century?"
quote:
daronmedway: Surely, if you are prepared to acknowledge that the text is rooted in a specific historical context which must be understood in order to rightly understand the text, you would therefore be interested to ensuring one interpretation of the text is 'correct' inasmuch as it expresses as closely as possible the meaning that was originally intended?
As far as the historical context goes, I am interested in the question: "What would Jesus' words mean to First-Century Jews?" Because this helps me to understand what they might mean to me.
quote:
daronmedway: The problem of course that there isn't much evidence to prove your hypotheses, which ISTM means that it's really just an exercise in wishful thinking.
I'm not really interested in evidence or proving my hypothesis. It's my interpretation of the Gospels, just like every one else's approach to them is theirs.
Look, this isn't really rocket science. I'm sure that almost everyone on the 'liberal' end of the Christianity spectrum approaches the Bible more or less in this way.
quote:
Stejjie: But even if Jesus were using hyperbole, presumably he'd still be seeking to make a point or sound a warning.
Yes. To me, the point He was trying to make (in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) is: "Don't ignore the beggar on your doorstep!"
quote:
Stejjie: I don't think it's satisfactory to simply write-off the words of warning as "hyperbole" as if that renders them null and void.
The fact that something is a hyperbole doesn't render it null and void. To the contrary. To me, it expresses that when Jesus told us to look out for the beggar on our door-step, He really meant it.
quote:
Stejjie: Jesus wouldn't just start saying that sort of stuff for the fun of it, because he liked the words, or because he thought it made him sound impressive, or he liked to scare people. If he wasn't seeking to warn people through hyperbole, then he was just frightening them for the fun of it - which is about as un-Christ-like as it gets (as well as being dangerously abusive).
Like I said before, I have a suspicion that His First Century audience might have understood that it was hyperbole.
As for us, well it doesn't seem that He tried very hard to help our Twenty-First Century interpretation much. I mean, He could have explained the right position on homoousis and homoiousis and prevented a couple of wars. You might as well call it abusive that He didn't do that.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
I'm not really interested in evidence or proving my hypothesis. It's my interpretation of the Gospels, just like every one else's approach to them is theirs.
So you are happy to publicly promote an interpretation of scripture for which you have no evidence or proof? And furthermore you wish to assert that your interpretation of scripture is as valid as any other simply because you happen to believe it? Surely you can see how weak an argument that is?
[ 30. April 2013, 14:44: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
daronmedway: So you are happy to publicly promote an interpretation of scripture for which you have no evidence or proof? And furthermore you wish to assert that your interpretation of scripture is as valid as any other simply because you happen to believe it? Surely you can see how weak an argument that is?
I don't care very much if you find it weak. FWIW, I'm not trying to convince anyone.
The only thing I am saying on this thread is: "Whether you believe that Jesus was ushering threats, depends on how you interpret His words." And that continues to be true, no matter how strong or weak you may find my interpretation.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: So you are happy to publicly promote an interpretation of scripture for which you have no evidence or proof? And furthermore you wish to assert that your interpretation of scripture is as valid as any other simply because you happen to believe it? Surely you can see how weak an argument that is?
I don't care very much if you find it weak. FWIW, I'm not trying to convince anyone.
The only thing I am saying on this thread is: "Whether you believe that Jesus was ushering threats, depends on how you interpret His words." And that continues to be true, no matter how strong or weak you may find my interpretation.
Well, given that the subject under debate concerns the teaching of Jesus Christ on the eternal destiny of humankind I think we should take care to base our interpretation on something more substantial than our personal feelings.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
daronmedway: Well, given that the subject under debate concerns the teaching of Jesus Christ on the eternal destiny of humankind I think we should take care to base our interpretation on something more substantial than our personal feelings.
To be honest, when I read the Bible I don't concern myself very much with the eternal destination of humankind (by which I assume you mean what happens to us after death), and in my interpretation the parable of the rich man and Lazarus doesn't teach me a lot about that.
It does teach me some other things, though. And as to what happens to me after death, I leave that pretty much up to God.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: Well, given that the subject under debate concerns the teaching of Jesus Christ on the eternal destiny of humankind I think we should take care to base our interpretation on something more substantial than our personal feelings.
To be honest, when I read the Bible I don't concern myself very much with the eternal destination of humankind (by which I assume you mean what happens to us after death), and in my interpretation the parable of the rich man and Lazarus doesn't teach me a lot about that.
It does teach me some other things, though. And as to what happens to me after death, I leave that pretty much up to God.
You're speaking as if the only person for which the teachings of Jesus have any relevance is yourself, hence your willingness to trust your own private interpretation despite the lack of substantial evidence. But surely you think the teaching of Jesus on Hell - hyperbolic or not - might have some wider ramifications that your own personal spirituality?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
daronmedway: You're speaking as if the only person for which the teachings of Jesus have any relevance is yourself, hence your willingness to trust your own private interpretation despite the lack of substantial evidence.
Let me try to clarify: when I speak about my interpretation, I mean by this: it isn't something would bestow upon you, and I respect that you might have another interpretation. It isn't an assertion of individuality in the sense that I don't need anyone else. I'm definitely not the only one in the world that has this kind of interpretation, and sharing with other people is an important part of it.
quote:
daronmedway: But surely you think the teaching of Jesus on Hell - hyperbolic or not - might have some wider ramifications that your own personal spirituality?
Maybe. In what sense?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: You're speaking as if the only person for which the teachings of Jesus have any relevance is yourself, hence your willingness to trust your own private interpretation despite the lack of substantial evidence.
Let me try to clarify: when I speak about my interpretation, I mean by this: it isn't something would bestow upon you, and I respect that you might have another interpretation. It isn't an assertion of individuality in the sense that I don't need anyone else. I'm definitely not the only one in the world that has this kind of interpretation, and sharing with other people is an important part of it.
quote:
daronmedway: But surely you think the teaching of Jesus on Hell - hyperbolic or not - might have some wider ramifications that your own personal spirituality?
Maybe. In what sense?
I wouldn't want you respect my interpretation if you thought it was wrong. I would want you to try to change my mind.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
daronmedway: I wouldn't want you respect my interpretation if you thought it was wrong. I would want you to try to change my mind.
I think it's obvious that we are interpreting the Bible in different ways. To a degree, this implies that we don't always use the same language in describing the Bible. Indeed, some of the words I use might seem alien to you and vice versa.
If I'd try to express it, then to me it's a book (yes, yes, collection of books) that tries to inspire me in my relation with God, others, and myself, through the stories, thoughts and examples of others who have tried this kind of relation in the past.
To me, it isn't much of a rule book of how I will get into Heaven and avoid Hell. So, having the 'right' interpretation isn't very important to me. In fact, some of the words you use like 'right', 'valid', 'proof' and 'evidence' don't have much significance to me when I talk about interpreting the Bible. I guess it's the same to you with some words I'm using.
Questions like "Is our interpretation of the Bible the right one, and do we have evidence to prove its validity?" don't come up a lot in the church group I attend. It's not how we think about the Bible.
So, I see no reason why I'd want to change your mind about whether your Bible interpretation is right or wrong.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Yer woodenists can't see the culture being used against itself for the trees LeRoc.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0