Thread: The bible is a horror story 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=029166
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
So said the persuasive interviewee yesterday on CBC's Tapestry.
quote:
"At the end of scripture, legions of angels are basically mass-murdering human beings. It's a blood-up-to-the-knees kind of thing!"
I also found this list of horror stories.
I know various explanations such as there are good and bad examples, that it's a story of faith and history not just God etc. But--
I found the horror story angle rather persuasive from an intellectual perspective. Coincidently I was reading some literary criticism which discussed communion as any sort of eating together, an intimate activity and sharing. Which brings up vampires and zombies, cannibalism, and Revelation, and the twisting of Christian imagery even within the bible itself.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
I once heard a preacher say: 'The Bible is a love letter' and thought 'Have you read it all?'.
Although I think the preacher was partly right and that the Bible contains a lot of beauty. I also think it's partly right to say that the Bible has elements of the horror genre within it (maybe as a contrast to the beauty).
There are whole images and phrases which would never have occurred to me if I had never read the Bible. So, as an example, I don't think I would have come up with the idea of a whore getting drunk on the blood of the saints on my own.
There are other elements of horror and even gore in the Bible, for example, of Amasa's guts spilling out when he is assassinated. And despite the horror on social media of ISIS beheading people, the Bible is full of decapitations which have also been portrayed in Bible-inspired art.
(As an aside, I once went to watch a Facebook linked video which was titled 'Terrorists play football with heads of Christians' and I thought, 'How lovely, let's look how football can bring Christian leaders and terrorists together, I must watch this'. You can probably imagine my face as I realised that I had got the whole thing a little wrong.)
So yes, some horror, a little gore, some genuinely eerie moments - Saul calling up Samuel's ghost, apocalyptic scenarios, people getting hung and pecked at by vultures. Brilliant.
Not entirely a love letter.
[ 12. May 2015, 06:53: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What astounds me is the love in the horror. Superhuman, transcendent love in the horror. Existential, contingent, mundane, evolving horror projected back on to Love that shines above cloud. On the other side of the world.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I also found this list of horror stories.
Just passing, and fixed your link...
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What astounds me is the love in the horror. Superhuman, transcendent love in the horror. Existential, contingent, mundane, evolving horror projected back on to Love that shines above cloud. On the other side of the world.
Eh?
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What astounds me is the love in the horror. Superhuman, transcendent love in the horror. Existential, contingent, mundane, evolving horror projected back on to Love that shines above cloud. On the other side of the world.
Eh?
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Yeah but remember that Shakespeare - the writer of great beauty and love also wrote Macbeth. The Bible is full of both beauty and ugliness.
The horror genre is interesting in terms of survival. In that the survival genre is involved (as with the Bible).
There was once a horror magazine in which the letter writers would always rant against believers because believers always rubbished the horror genre.
You don't need me to tell you that life contains too much horror, but as a genre, there are elements of beauty in horror as Martin infers.
[ 12. May 2015, 09:55: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
If warriors are committing genocide and pause for an hour to recite poetry that's no comfort for their victims.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
If warriors are committing genocide and pause for an hour to recite poetry that's no comfort for their victims.
We've all been a victim of Pam Ayres, but there is no need to mention her on this thread about horror. Actually I take this back - we are talking horror. I once went to see Carol Ann Dufy speak and she said 'I hope you've all had a good day, I'm very glad to end it for you.'
I was the only one in the crowd that laughed.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
That the Bible was conceived and written by humans ought to be considered beyond doubt. Unsurprisingly, it is full of the sort of nasty shit that humans do to each other. Much, much worse than that, it is full of the nasty shit that God does to people and his sinister plans for the future. There is much to admire in and learn from the Bible; but In toto it is hardly a guide for moral behaviour. As a human book about human fears and human desires it is endlessly fascinating. Horror stories, of course—but there are some nice stories too.
K.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
from no prophet etc's OP
quote:
"At the end of scripture, legions of angels are basically mass-murdering human beings. It's a blood-up-to-the-knees kind of thing!"
Er... the book of Revelation is not necessarily meant to be taken 'dumb wooden' literally.... as for the whore therein 'getting drunk on the blood of the saints' - quite a good image of persecutors.
I note that the 'horror stories' in the link are basically all given a considerable 'spin' by the person concerned rather than seen in their proper biblical context.
Human sinfulness is a horror story; the Bible portrays a God who is on the one hand very rightly intolerant of that sinfulness, and who occasionally does dramatic things about it to make sure we understand that; but who on the other hand is forgiving way beyond what we deserve, otherwise the Bible would be a much shorter and much more horrific story....
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
the Bible portrays a God who is on the one hand very rightly intolerant of that sinfulness, and who occasionally does dramatic things about it to make sure we understand that; but who on the other hand is forgiving way beyond what we deserve, otherwise the Bible would be a much shorter and much more horrific story....
What about justice for all the men, women and children he is said to have murdered?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
The Bible has plenty of sex and violence which should be X rated, its stories are far more exciting than some of the pathetic plots of the so-called horror movies.
The overall theme is the triumph of good over evil. Why don't we cringe at the demise of the baddies in films if we complain about it in the Bible, I wonder?
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
from no prophet etc's OP
quote:
"At the end of scripture, legions of angels are basically mass-murdering human beings. It's a blood-up-to-the-knees kind of thing!"
Er... the book of Revelation is not necessarily meant to be taken 'dumb wooden' literally.... as for the whore therein 'getting drunk on the blood of the saints' - quite a good image of persecutors.
I note that the 'horror stories' in the link are basically all given a considerable 'spin' by the person concerned rather than seen in their proper biblical context.
Human sinfulness is a horror story; the Bible portrays a God who is on the one hand very rightly intolerant of that sinfulness, and who occasionally does dramatic things about it to make sure we understand that; but who on the other hand is forgiving way beyond what we deserve, otherwise the Bible would be a much shorter and much more horrific story....
What I'm trying to say is that I don't know that the kind of phrases such as 'crucifying Christ afresh' or even the image of hell would have occurred to me if I hadn't read the Bible. Are you going to say that worse things would have entered my imagination if I hadn't read the Bible? I know that God can do no wrong, but I'm not totally convinced that some of the things in the Bible have made things better. Some of the things are horrific. And they are the kind of things I think about when I am ill.
[ 12. May 2015, 10:47: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I used to regard the Judeo-Christian God as basically accurately portrayed throughout the Books, for, ooooooh, 40 years and more. Dreadfully pragmatic. Well 'ard. Eden. The Flood. Babel. The Exodus. The lot (... yeah, him too). ESPECIALLY Revelation. Ooooooooooooh YES! Because life before death didn't matter. Afterlife did. So He was going to be all Fonzy to the Amalekites in the Second Resurrection.
Like the vast majority of Christians to this day it turns out, me. Apart from Him turning out to be cool of course.
Now I realise it's ALL us, projecting ourselves on God, on Love. Who nonetheless DID inspire the people behind the myths. The only God we have ever known is revealed in Jesus. In the behaviour of Jesus. The words are predicated on the behaviour. NOT the other way around. If it looks and sounds like Love, it's God, if it doesn't, it's us. Covers everything really. I can't think of ANY exceptions. From Genesis through the so called 'hard sayings' of Jesus to Revelation.
The light of Love shines in ALL of the horror stories. My favourites being Abraham under the Terebinth Trees at Mamre - bargaining with God for Sodom and Gomorrah - and Jonah - through whom God saved hundreds of thousands of people, a million, from His wrath, against Jonah's will. Stories of an ASTOUNDING God, rooted in the Bronze Age and soaring in to transcendent eternity. A MERCIFUL God. The God of The Flood who promised no more with the rainbow.
The horror is all ours. And we're INNOCENT in it. It can't be helped. It's part of mud becoming light.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
If the Bible reflects truth then it reflects truth both about God and about us, both about the transient and the eternal. If we forget that the Bible is about us then we see the transient as being the eternal and recoil in horror. If we forget that the Bible is about God then we see the the transient overwhelm the eternal and turn away in despair.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I don't know.
Okay, maybe the bible is merely a moral lesson: don't listen to snakes, and don't fall for their marketing ploys. I always wondered why the snake wasn't killed, and the devil wasn't killed. Or maybe like Jason, God wanted lots of sequels with lots of temptation so the bad ones have to remain undead. And lots of bloody slaughter is so much more satisfying than a flood, and which a promise not have another is rather lame isn't it?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Bible has plenty of sex and violence which should be X rated, its stories are far more exciting than some of the pathetic plots of the so-called horror movies.
The overall theme is the triumph of good over evil. Why don't we cringe at the demise of the baddies in films if we complain about it in the Bible, I wonder?
Because films aren't held up to us as instructions from the Most High God as to what is right and what is wrong?
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Bible has plenty of sex and violence which should be X rated, its stories are far more exciting than some of the pathetic plots of the so-called horror movies.
The overall theme is the triumph of good over evil. Why don't we cringe at the demise of the baddies in films if we complain about it in the Bible, I wonder?
Because films aren't held up to us as instructions from the Most High God as to what is right and what is wrong?
Sorry—and do you think the Bible in toto is a good moral guide to what is right and wrong?
K.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Bible has plenty of sex and violence which should be X rated, its stories are far more exciting than some of the pathetic plots of the so-called horror movies.
The overall theme is the triumph of good over evil. Why don't we cringe at the demise of the baddies in films if we complain about it in the Bible, I wonder?
Because films aren't held up to us as instructions from the Most High God as to what is right and what is wrong?
Sorry—and do you think the Bible in toto is a good moral guide to what is right and wrong?
K.
I think the larcenous murine's point was that it's held up as being one.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Ok, sorry if I lost the thread.
K.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Er... the book of Revelation is not necessarily meant to be taken 'dumb wooden' literally....
So, just like horror stories then! From the corpus of Edgar Allen Poe's work to having a giant lizard wreck Tokyo to various versions of the zombie apocalypse, good horror stories all have subtextual themes and underlying moralities. Do you think it was purely coincidental that George Romero set his zombie apocalypse in a shopping mall?
To get completely meta on you, here's Fred Clark noting parallels between the moral code outlined in Scream (which was itself a deconstruction of the moral code common to the slasher film subset of the horror genre) to the pre-millennial dispensationalist horror novels of the Left Behind series. Like all good horror tales, there is a sequel.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Father forgive them. They know not what they do.
Horrific indeed.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
No Prophet wrote:
quote:
And lots of bloody slaughter is so much more satisfying than a flood...[/QB]
Oh, I dunno. Irwin Allen got a lot of mileage out of diluvian-esque themes(if never an actual flood). Granted, nowadays John Carpeneter is probably considered hipper.
[ 13. May 2015, 14:19: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Bible has plenty of sex and violence which should be X rated, its stories are far more exciting than some of the pathetic plots of the so-called horror movies.
The overall theme is the triumph of good over evil. Why don't we cringe at the demise of the baddies in films if we complain about it in the Bible, I wonder?
Because films aren't held up to us as instructions from the Most High God as to what is right and what is wrong?
There are only parts of the Bible which are held up as instructions from God about right and wrong, eg the Ten Commandments and everything about Jesus. The rest is a mixture of genre, mostly what people have said or sung about God, but also pictorial prophecy which has come from God to reassure us that the good guys and gals win in the end.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
The bit where God kills loads of Egyptian children is pretty horrific. Also the bit where God kills David's son. Not just kills him but makes it suffer agony for ages first.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Love doesn't do that. We project that.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
The bible often seems like a horror story to me, that could be down to a generally cynical nature much of the time.
I don't mind hearing it read in church or sometimes on evango- TV. Occasionally if I'm asked to read it in church that's not a problem. However, reading to myself at home can produce an uneasy feeling in the pit of the stomach.
Does it put horrific thoughts in my head which weren't previously there? As a child brought up in an agnostic/atheist household I can recall plenty of horrific images, and the relevant nightmares to go with them -- all entirely unconnected to the Bible.
I suppose it's possible that our culture, and history of horror narrative has been influenced by the Bible. If we studied cultures that had never encountered the bible, or had any exposure Christian teaching it might be possible to gauge if it causes horror or not.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So you weren't brought up in a Judeo-Christian culture?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I once heard a preacher say: 'The Bible is a love letter' and thought 'Have you read it all?'.
It's a really kinky love letter. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I once heard a preacher say: 'The Bible is a love letter' and thought 'Have you read it all?'.
It's a really kinky love letter.
Yeah, and sent out to huge swathes of people. What kind of love letter is that?
[code]
[ 14. May 2015, 09:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
Youtube - McCarthy (music) - Should the Bible be Banned?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The bit where God kills loads of Egyptian children is pretty horrific. Also the bit where God kills David's son. Not just kills him but makes it suffer agony for ages first.
The part where a brother and sister commit the same offense against a holy leader, but only the sister is stricken with flesh eating disease because sin is so much more disgusting when a woman commits it. The part where women are driven to eating their babies because God got pissed off and sent in a foreign army to besiege Jerusalem to soothe His feelings. The part where some poor schmuck who is trying to keep the Ark of the Covenant from hitting the ground is zapped to death for daring to touch it.
Yeah, plenty of horror. Lurid stories feature in a lot of cultures, and since the Bible ( from a historical perspective) is a kind of overview of the growth of a specific culture's world view via its hallmark literature, there is no reason their own lurid stories would't feature.
Here's a question: what is the function of a horror story to a community? Does it function as a locus for group anxiety? A way to discharge internal trauma, whether suffered by an individual or a society?
( I actually am a horror fan, so I wonder about this a lot.)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So you weren't brought up in a Judeo-Christian culture?
Indeed I was Martin. Having non-practicing Christian parents was no protection from such.
Suppose I was saying that many of the horror stories generations have been fixated with have often been inspired, indirectly by the Bible, or more directly by Centuries of Church teaching.
Grimm's fairy tales and Witch stories spring to mind. Also take Bram Stoker's Dracula, parallels between his horrifically seductive novel and Christian belief are plentiful.
Cultures that have not been influenced by the Bible haven't always been immune from horror. Not sure where the Aztecs came by the idea of removing beating hearts from their donors/victims ?!
[ 14. May 2015, 18:55: Message edited by: rolyn ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I used to be an obsessive folklore buff-- African, Greek, Asian, you name it. And I guarantee you gruesome stories are everywhere. Vengeful supernatural entities, heroes that enact shudder - worthy revenge. Which leads me to believe some of the stories are a kind of psychological " acting out" of group troubles or ethos.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Actually, the end of Revelations depicts a new Jerusalem being reestablished. A new Jerusalem where God will be enthroned, the tree of life will be replanted, and there will be no more tears.
The battle of Armageddon is between the world powers and God. God wins.
Not a horror story at all.
[ 14. May 2015, 20:12: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Actually, the end of Revelations depicts a new Jerusalem being reestablished. A new Jerusalem where God will be enthroned, the tree of life will be replanted, and there will be no more tears.
The battle of Armageddon is between the world powers and God. God wins.
Not a horror story at all.
Yeah, and The Exorcist ends with the litte girl being saved from Satan and hugging a priest.
I'd say the rest of the plot is still sufficient to qualify for the horror genre, though.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
To me, the Revelations resemble Stephen King's explanation of what drove him to write " The Stand"-- for one thing, it gave him a chance to kill off everyone in the world who pissed him off, in colorful ways. The Revelations describe what was already happening-- occupation and oppression-- and shows what happens to the bad guys when justice comes. Colorfully.
[ 14. May 2015, 20:34: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
The Bible contains horror, sure, but also awe, violence, love, self-sacrifice, murder, rape, philosophy, theology, poetry, prose, fiction, myth, truth, lies, joy, fear, and genealogies. Lots of genealogies.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I think what a number of us are reacting to is the title of the thread, the Bible is a horror story.
First, it has many different genres in its pages. Some of the more beautiful poems are in it as well as terrifying stories.
Second, no prophet said the End of Revelations was the account of the Armmegedan, it isn't the end of Revelations. The end is the establishment of the New Jerusalem where there will be no more tears.
You have to remember as well the Christian church was already undergoing severe persecution especially in Asia Minor (note: the seven churches listed in Revelations are in Asia Minor)
Some, however, feel Revelations is a tract intended to warn against accomodating Christianity with the secular world.
Yes, the writer uses very vivid language, but it is not to terrify as to present the promise that the earth will be remade or resoted and the New Jerusalem will have God established in this New City.
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
The presence of horror in a story doesn't make it a horror story. Romeo and Juliet includes a 13 year old child stabbing herself to death in a tomb next to dead bodies but it's not a horror story. A lot of the world's great literature contains horror.
The Bible isn't a horror story because it isn't a story. It's a collection of every kind of genre including a fair bit of history (or pseudo history) and history contains any amount of horror.
What troubles me is not the horror in the Bible but the times that appear to endorse injustice - the deaths of Job's first children - what did they do wrong? The women who are put forward to be raped to save male guests. The vast quantity of people Joshua & Co finished off etc etc.
Horror is sadly part of life so it makes sense to me that it should be in there.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I used to be an obsessive folklore buff-- African, Greek, Asian, you name it. And I guarantee you gruesome stories are everywhere. Vengeful supernatural entities, heroes that enact shudder - worthy revenge. Which leads me to believe some of the stories are a kind of psychological " acting out" of group troubles or ethos.
Indeed I agree it's safe to assume that with the human comes the horror, Bible or no Bible. In fact it would be pretty remarkable if a Scripture, first written over 4000 years ago, didn't contain horror.
Horror is as you say a necessary part of humanity, particularly when growing up. I guess we're reaching a stage now where IT technology allows it to be acted out in a safe environment. My son often played computer games which involved shooting figures in the head etc. Whenever I quizzed him about it the answer was always that the thought of doing it for real was repugnant.
The reason critics find it easy to poke fun at the less than pleasant Bible extracts is that Christians are perceived as loved-up wusses who shouldn't be into that kind of thing.
Also I think there is a problem for those of us who get the Jesus,(born again), hit. We sometimes open the Bible expecting to be transported away on a fluffy cloud yet become troubled when reading Bible nasty bits, esp. stuff like the prospect of secular family members being eternally roasted simply because they didn't believe in Christ.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Helen-Eva. Why does it trouble you?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Have you read Job? It says Job was a God-fearing man. The children? Not so much. They were given to partying. It says that Jobe would daily offer sacrifice to God on behalf of his children in case they had sinned or cursed God. Fact is, I think they all got killed while partying.
But, then again, I don't take the story of Job literally. There are maybe two sections in Job that are biographical Job 1:1-5 and probably the last chapter of Job in which his wealth is restored. Okay, he probably did not live for 140 years.
What happens in between is a dramatic play or reading.
It is much like a movie in a way. Just because you see people depicted as being killed, in reality, you know they are not.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
What's wrong with partying?
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Alyosha:
I once heard a preacher say: 'The Bible is a love letter' and thought 'Have you read it all?'.
It's a really kinky love letter.
Yeah, and sent out to huge swathes of people. What kind of love letter is that?
[code]
What kind do you think? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What's wrong with partying?
Exactly. At the right parties, there's no end to the wine if you party with The Righteous Dude. Though he comes to a horrific end. Did it have to be torture to death? Yes because it's a horror story.
I always wondered about Isaac's PTSD. Due to double child abuse from both father and Father. Nice of God to stop it at attempted murder.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The reason critics find it easy to poke fun at the less than pleasant Bible extracts is that Christians are perceived as loved-up wusses who shouldn't be into that kind of thing.
I think it's more the case that christians tend to claim that God is supremely just. Which the bible then contradicts.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It's obvious that individuals and nations have different ideas about what constitutes justice, so I suppose it's unsurprising that people disagree about whether or not God is just.
Some atheists would argue that any god who allowed the world as it is to exist couldn't possibly be just. In this sense, what the Bible says is neither here nor there; even a sacred text full of puppies and buttercups and Christmasses every day wouldn't negate the horror of an unjust universe.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Rhesus monkeys know what justice is. We ALL know what justice is, like we ALL know what kindness, generosity, tolerance, decency, patience: love is.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The reason critics find it easy to poke fun at the less than pleasant Bible extracts is that Christians are perceived as loved-up wusses who shouldn't be into that kind of thing.
I think it's more the case that christians tend to claim that God is supremely just. Which the bible then contradicts.
If you look at it super literally, sure. If you see the Bible as a huge pile of fairytales, you're not gonna get much out of it, either. Folklore, though-- that's an entirely different animal.
Folklore is like a description of the interior chambers of a culture's heart. It is like one of those old family photos where everyone is dressed in strange old clothes, occupied in something that doesn't make immediate sense, and holy cow, is that great grandma's first husband standing there?
I am not saying that the lore might not be based on some historical events, but in order to become lore, a story needs to be told and retold. It is in the retelling that lore is shaped, like a rock that gets smoothed into a unique shape as it gets passed from hand to hand. The shape of the story begins to resemble the personality of the people.
To use a contemporary example: I was really into the J-horror craze a while back, and let me tell you, there is a level of darknessin some of that stuff that makes the Bible look like a Lucy Maud Montgomery book. Because I am a former folklore junkie, and because I have read a bit about the function of folklore, my armchair speculation of the images I was seeing was, this stuff is produced by the grandchildren of wartime Japan.
Think about the kinds of things that would have weighed on the collective consciousness of the average Japanse person in the early 2000's, and add in the dawning of the information age, which means all of a sudden, all around the world, people have access to in formation about their ancestors that they might have wished they never heard:
Details about what happened to people physically as a result of the A-Bomb strikes.
What Uncle Toshio may or may not have done during his tour in Nanking.
Help, our country was run for many years by a megalomaniac nutcase who legally declared himself God.
Oh, and he was in bed with a guy that orchestrated the systematic extremenation of six million people.
You walk into a house and an unescapable, fatal curse follows you forever. ( Hiroshima)The ghost that follows you is an angry young woman who was brutally abused and mutilated. (Nanking) A computer based virus comsumes people's chi, rendering them joyless, souless, suicidal human shells. ( The epidemic of depression and PTSD that developed in post- war Japan, as well as fallout- generated illness.)
More well- documented is America's horror franchise acting out the Cold War paranoia-- our movies were all about alien invaders and radiation born catastrophes/ epidemics. The collective terror at being conquered and occupied, and the collective fear/guilt at having unleased the atomic beast on the world to do God knows what.
We look at the Bible from a very long distance-- those funny clothes have been rendered into dust for millenia, and there is no chance of getting that first husband's name, ever. But humans are still humans, and humans work out their salvation by telling stories. By looking at how we do it now, it might give us some tiny clues as to why they might have done it then.
It's always bugged me that people refer to the Bible as " just a bunch of stories"-- not because it challenges the stories of the Bible, but because it disparages the importance of stories.
[ 16. May 2015, 15:40: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Have you read Job? It says Job was a God-fearing man. The children? Not so much. They were given to partying. It says that Jobe would daily offer sacrifice to God on behalf of his children in case they had sinned or cursed God. Fact is, I think they all got killed while partying.
But, then again, I don't take the story of Job literally. There are maybe two sections in Job that are biographical Job 1:1-5 and probably the last chapter of Job in which his wealth is restored. Okay, he probably did not live for 140 years.
What happens in between is a dramatic play or reading.
It is much like a movie in a way. Just because you see people depicted as being killed, in reality, you know they are not.
As Job is considered to be 'wisdom' literature, I'd be surprised if any part of it is meant to be biographical.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
So it's just bad wisdom then?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Not for the time, no. And far from it timelessly.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
In that case what exactly is the nature of this wisdom the book teaches?
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
In that case what exactly is the nature of this wisdom the book teaches?
The same as the horror stories: 'Don't piss off the devil'.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Have you seen the hippo?
In other words: 'Trust me, I've got it all covered.'.
It's got NOTHING to do with the Devil.
[ 19. May 2015, 12:11: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Have you seen the hippo?
In other words: 'Trust me, I've got it all covered.'.
It's got NOTHING to do with the Devil.
I understand that God's answer to Job's suffering lament is for him to look at nature (and there is a kind of solace in that), but how is this not God ducking the questions? Or reversing them?
The atheists say that Job reveals that suffering happens because God makes a bet with the devil. What kind of meaning can be found in that?
The Christians say that it reveals that God will only allow the devil to inflict suffering if God allows it.
And when suffering comes, the answer from God - we are to look at nature and consider God's brilliance? God is undoubtedly brilliant in all that he does and creates (apart from sharks), but what kind of answer is that?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
In that case what exactly is the nature of this wisdom the book teaches?
Perhaps think in the long term, so long that it's way beyond your comprehension long term.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
In that case what exactly is the nature of this wisdom the book teaches?
Perhaps think in the long term, so long that it's way beyond your comprehension long term.
Um....what?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
How do you think about something that's beyond comprehension?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
If you are implying that's impossible, yes. Isn't the only impossible thing the bible teaches. (Love your neighbor as yourself, etc.)
If I was too terse, and that made no sense: I'd take God as a simple example of a concept way beyond our comprehension. The god of the bible seems pretty clearly to be way beyond human comprehension but we can think of God without needing to understand all of God.
Having lost all his family, I doubt a person in Job's place would feel suddenly happy and safe to know that it was okay and God would give him a new family. I imagine would have serious terror of losing them again. So in any sense of long term that Job can imagine it is NOT okay. He may love his new spouse and children, and be pleased with his new stuff, but if he is any kind of parent at all, it is NOT okay that all his children were killed. In other words, from a human perspective tragedies loom big. And Job works well to me as a parable about how we lack perspective because from a large-scale--say global perspective--the loss of a family is a drop in the bucket. Any God who sees the whole world can care immensely, but if God was incapacitated by tragedy the way we are, she'd be literally crazy by now
I compare too-longterm-to-comprehend perspective to my actual perspective by thinking of the way my perception of time has changed over the years. I have a memory from young childhood of a walk that took FOREVER. I mean this was the longest damn walk ever, and I strongly remember that feeling. Except apparently my family walked once around one single block. Or as a lonely teenager, I felt I would be unhappy always and was probably destined to be lonely forever. Which was true for definitions of forever well under one decade. The death of a child sounds from my current perspective as a complete tragedy, and I'm sure it would not be something I'd ever "get over." But from the perspective of someone who can see the whole world? Children die all the time. Nasty, brutish, and short, and all. In the true long term we are all forgotten at least by humankind, and the death of one family does not make a long term tragedy on a global timeline.
So in a somewhat Zen style, I suspect that if I could get that kind of perspective on my problems, they wouldn't seem so bad!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
God isn't saying, 'Look at nature.'.
In response to our completely understandable rage at Him, He says 'Have you seen the hippo?'. I just LOVE that.
He's saying look at MY cosmos. It's as it has to be. That your good may come of it. There are no short cuts. Be kind.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He's saying look at MY cosmos. It's as it has to be. That your good may come of it.
The news was rattling on radio yesterday--every hour, and every half hour. People dying, people dead, people doing horrible things to each other. Natural disasters heaping misery on people with nothing but the cloth they wear.
I said to God "Can't you stop this?" (because it'll make me feel better if You did).... He said 'Nope'.
Maybe that's why the Bible is as it is.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Thank GOD I'm not alone rolyn!
He CAN'T. WE can.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Thank GOD I'm not alone rolyn!
He CAN'T. WE can.
Then maybe he should worship us.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He's saying look at MY cosmos. It's as it has to be. That your good may come of it.
The news was rattling on radio yesterday--every hour, and every half hour. People dying, people dead, people doing horrible things to each other. Natural disasters heaping misery on people with nothing but the cloth they wear.
I said to God "Can't you stop this?" (because it'll make me feel better if You did).... He said 'Nope'.
Maybe that's why the Bible is as it is.
The thing is in the case of Jobs family. And the Egyptian first born. And David's child we are not talking about humans hurting humans or natural disasters. We are talking about God directly intervening and murdering peoole.
[ 20. May 2015, 08:41: Message edited by: George Spigot ]
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Helen-Eva. Why does it trouble you?
Sorry for not replying sooner - I posted something then went away for the weekend and forgot to check for any replies - very rude of me - sorry.
I said:
What troubles me is not the horror in the Bible but the times that appear to endorse injustice - the deaths of Job's first children - what did they do wrong? The women who are put forward to be raped to save male guests. The vast quantity of people Joshua & Co finished off etc etc.
To expand on what I meant: it troubles me that the Bible seems to support some acts of violence and injustice. There's a cognitive dissonance for me between the message of salvation, redemption and love and the implication that savagery and injustice was right [or at least OK] on some occasions in the Old Testament.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The thing is in the case of Jobs family. And the Egyptian first born. And David's child we are not talking about humans hurting humans or natural disasters. We are talking about God directly intervening and murdering peoole.
I don't see much difference, to be honest. If God decides when each and every person dies, then his direct intervention in certain notable cases doesn't seem to represent a major ethical problem - you still end up dead, and God still holds the strings and remains Lord and Master of all.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The thing is in the case of Jobs family. And the Egyptian first born. And David's child we are not talking about humans hurting humans or natural disasters. We are talking about God directly intervening and murdering peoole.
I don't see much difference, to be honest. If God decides when each and every person dies, then his direct intervention in certain notable cases doesn't seem to represent a major ethical problem - you still end up dead, and God still holds the strings and remains Lord and Master of all.
Yeah, I've thought about that line of reasoning before.
However, when God punished the people of Sodom And Gommorah, for example, I think we are meant to understand that he was a bit more "involved" in the situation than he would have been had a volcano just erupted as part of the natural course of the created world.
I'm going to guess that the people who wrote the Old Testament did not quite subscribe to the "God Of The Philosophers", and hence probably believed that some things that happened in the world were beyond his control, until he chose to jump in with a direct intervention.
[ 20. May 2015, 23:37: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Helen-Eva. You couldn't do rude on a bad day. I on the other hand ... you encapsulate what most modern Christians feel.
For 40 years I believed The Bible with barely a metanarrative. Now I believe its thousand years of stories of ten thousand years of oral tradition of a million years of language of a billion years of the story of evolution, all God breathed.
It's ALL stuff we make up under the ineffable, deftest prompting, Zen nodding of unseen, unfelt, unheard, invokable God.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The thing is in the case of Jobs family. And the Egyptian first born. And David's child we are not talking about humans hurting humans or natural disasters. We are talking about God directly intervening and murdering peoole.
I don't see much difference, to be honest. If God decides when each and every person dies, then his direct intervention in certain notable cases doesn't seem to represent a major ethical problem - you still end up dead, and God still holds the strings and remains Lord and Master of all.
Well, let's see if you still don't see the difference if a voice from heaven says "Svit, I didn't like what you did last night, so I'm killing your kids."
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
To expand on what I meant: it troubles me that the Bible seems to support some acts of violence and injustice. There's a cognitive dissonance for me between the message of salvation, redemption and love and the implication that savagery and injustice was right [or at least OK] on some occasions in the Old Testament.
I don't think such savagery at all unusual in the late Bronze Age. OT folk attributed such acts to God. That doesn't mean they were. God 'did' and 'said' many horrendous things in the OT - it's the way they saw Him, not the way He is. Jesus showed us the way He is, I think.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
Originally posted by Martin60
quote:
For 40 years I believed The Bible with barely a metanarrative. Now I believe its thousand years of stories of ten thousand years of oral tradition of a million years of language of a billion years of the story of evolution, all God breathed.
It's ALL stuff we make up under the ineffable, deftest prompting, Zen nodding of unseen, unfelt, unheard, invokable God.
So,is the Bible about God or about us? And, if about us, is it still considered sacred?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The thing is in the case of Jobs family. And the Egyptian first born. And David's child we are not talking about humans hurting humans or natural disasters. We are talking about God directly intervening and murdering peoole.
I don't see much difference, to be honest. If God decides when each and every person dies, then his direct intervention in certain notable cases doesn't seem to represent a major ethical problem - you still end up dead, and God still holds the strings and remains Lord and Master of all.
Well, let's see if you still don't see the difference if a voice from heaven says "Svit, I didn't like what you did last night, so I'm killing your kids."
Well, would it be preferable if my kids suddenly died in a car crash without my getting any particular call from God first? Only if none of the family then ask the silly question 'Why us?' perhaps.
Of course, if the alternative is that my kids live to a ripe old age, then that's obviously preferable!
As it happens, though, I have no kids. Maybe I'd find it easier to become an atheist if I did.
[ 21. May 2015, 17:21: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The thing is in the case of Jobs family. And the Egyptian first born. And David's child we are not talking about humans hurting humans or natural disasters. We are talking about God directly intervening and murdering people.
I know George, and it is a bit of a choker by modern-day standards.
An infinitely compassionate, Loving and ever-Merciful Lord decides to squish folks for reasons that aren't always specific? Surely that is difficult and contradictory to the point of saying -- Why in heck does anyone bother with such literature?
Is it that we cannot comprehend how things were during the time Bible was written, a time when superstition, brutality, famine and plagues were the norm. Not cars, TV, jet-planes and the general comforts and freedoms we now take for granted.
The very crux of the Bible seems to be that people back then *cried out*, the same way as people cry out now. It's the human condition that disturbs us, horror et al. Now whether we've created a God to mirror ourselves, or whether (S)He's created us to mirror itself? Hmmm, that is the real biggie.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The thing is in the case of Jobs family. And the Egyptian first born. And David's child we are not talking about humans hurting humans or natural disasters. We are talking about God directly intervening and murdering peoole.
I don't see much difference, to be honest. If God decides when each and every person dies, then his direct intervention in certain notable cases doesn't seem to represent a major ethical problem - you still end up dead, and God still holds the strings and remains Lord and Master of all.
Well, let's see if you still don't see the difference if a voice from heaven says "Svit, I didn't like what you did last night, so I'm killing your kids."
Well, would it be preferable if my kids suddenly died in a car crash without my getting any particular call from God first?
Yes, it fucking would be preferable. At least that way there's a chance God could be with me in the tragedy, rather than actually being the cause of it. Massive, massive, difference.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
God engineered the death of his own son, but we don't take that as a sign that he didn't care....
Surely, being visited by God to be told that the life of one's child is required isn't necessarily a sign of God's abandonment; abandonment would surely be indicated by utter silence, a complete spiritual vacuum. Why would God bother to reveal himself unambiguously to someone whom he'd completely rejected? There would hardly be any point.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Seconded, I'd much rather hear it personally from God, telling me that he knew it was a shame, but it had to happen then just hearing nothing and then he's dead. The second has made many people lose faith.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
If God told me he was taking things out on my kids for what I'd done, his rejecting me wouldn't be the issue. I'd be rejecting him, the bastard.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
@ Kelly Alves
Amen to that---the power of story and the vitality of communication.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
@ Karl: Liberal Backslider
But, the sins of the fathers are visited on their children, and their children's children! We see it every day as the consequences of the choices people make ripple outwards and through the succeeding generations.
Don't blame God, but do call God a realist: if I leap off a tall building gravity is going to take its toll on me, but don't blame God for the decision I made to render my children fatherless, and for the impact of that even to impact on their children, etc.
God's response, it seems is not to magic up a large fluffy mattress. Instead we have blood and gore and misery and fear, and the reality of love that does not shy away, or pretend that everything is lovely, but instead remains true, and accessible.
We are the horror, and we tar God liberally with the horror that we make, and we wail that it isn't fair that beliefs and the actions have consequences.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
God engineered the death of his own son, but we don't take that as a sign that he didn't care....
This might betray a certain modalism on my part, but I've always assumed that the idea of the Incarnation would mean that God himself was feeling the pain of the passion and crucifixion.
Which is a bit different than God just loafing around in the celestials, carpet-bombing earth with plagues and fire in retribution for various transgressions, some of which amount to little more than affronts against his own ego.
[ 21. May 2015, 20:32: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Originally posted by Martin60
quote:
For 40 years I believed The Bible with barely a metanarrative. Now I believe its thousand years of stories of ten thousand years of oral tradition of a million years of language of a billion years of the story of evolution, all God breathed.
It's ALL stuff we make up under the ineffable, deftest prompting, Zen nodding of unseen, unfelt, unheard, invokable God.
So,is the Bible about God or about us? And, if about us, is it still considered sacred?
It is about God abd it is about us.
It is what God says about people, what people say about God, what people say about people and what God says about God. All mixed up in a story which is philosophy and poetry and prophesy all wrapped up in a story about a community's relationship with other people and with God.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Originally posted by Martin60
quote:
For 40 years I believed The Bible with barely a metanarrative. Now I believe its thousand years of stories of ten thousand years of oral tradition of a million years of language of a billion years of the story of evolution, all God breathed.
It's ALL stuff we make up under the ineffable, deftest prompting, Zen nodding of unseen, unfelt, unheard, invokable God.
So,is the Bible about God or about us? And, if about us, is it still considered sacred?
What balaam said:
Both. Yes, and profane.
[ 21. May 2015, 21:10: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
@ Karl: Liberal Backslider
But, the sins of the fathers are visited on their children, and their children's children! We see it every day as the consequences of the choices people make ripple outwards and through the succeeding generations.
Don't blame God, but do call God a realist: if I leap off a tall building gravity is going to take its toll on me, but don't blame God for the decision I made to render my children fatherless, and for the impact of that even to impact on their children, etc.
God's response, it seems is not to magic up a large fluffy mattress. Instead we have blood and gore and misery and fear, and the reality of love that does not shy away, or pretend that everything is lovely, but instead remains true, and accessible.
We are the horror, and we tar God liberally with the horror that we make, and we wail that it isn't fair that beliefs and the actions have consequences.
In which way is this different from No god?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
We are the horror, and we tar God liberally with the horror that we make, and we wail that it isn't fair that beliefs and the actions have consequences.
Okay, explain crib death at one month old to me please. An infant that age can't do much more than cry, suck and poop. I doubt the child had any beliefs.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's because its MOTHER ate that apple 6000 years ago.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
First up, I don't pretend to know more than any of us, so this is just my take.
How do you expect a 'loving' God to behave in reality? Should 'love' put a mattress out to catch the wilful suicide, stop the ebola virus infecting one but not another, prevent the virus ever forming in the first place, ban illness of any description. Surely the logic is clear; where would you draw the line---no one under the age of six months may come to any harm? Tough luck on us as we tip over the threshold.
We can't have it both ways. We either have 'Love' which sets the beloved free to face all the consequences of a world where 'freedom' and 'love' and 'fear', etc. actually mean something; or, we opt for a truly horrific world where those concepts mean nothing, but we are subject to the whims of an arbitrary puppet master.
If this is all there is---the 'world' of our physical senses, then it seems ultimately to be pointless. We are merely the random products of entropy, and that's it and all it ever can be. However high/low we go it adds up to zero in the end.
If, however, this is just a part of what is. A sandbox maybe, where we can actually learn and grow and become part of what truly is, then 'the horror' remains, but it is put in its place, or as John put it rather more elegantly: 'the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not understood it'.
Perhaps it matters that we truly are free to make up our minds about 'love' and 'life', 'fear' and 'death', and to live accordingly.
[ 22. May 2015, 07:06: Message edited by: Alisdair ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
@ Karl: Liberal Backslider
But, the sins of the fathers are visited on their children, and their children's children! We see it every day as the consequences of the choices people make ripple outwards and through the succeeding generations.
That things we do affect our children negatively does not make it a good thing that God should go out of his way to make it happen.
quote:
Don't blame God, but do call God a realist: if I leap off a tall building gravity is going to take its toll on me, but don't blame God for the decision I made to render my children fatherless, and for the impact of that even to impact on their children, etc.
Way to miss the point. We're talking here about God saying "right, you did that, so I'm going to kill your kids to get to you." - a la David in the OT. that's the action of a psychopathic, sadistic bastard, not a God.
quote:
God's response, it seems is not to magic up a large fluffy mattress. Instead we have blood and gore and misery and fear, and the reality of love that does not shy away, or pretend that everything is lovely, but instead remains true, and accessible.
We are the horror, and we tar God liberally with the horror that we make, and we wail that it isn't fair that beliefs and the actions have consequences.
This isn't about God not putting mattresses in the way. This is about the idea that God goes and pushes someone else off the building because he's pissed off about what I did.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Actually, Karl, God is much nastier than that. He would then suggest, after having you killed, that your enemies kill your family and neighbours, but keep your young girls as sex slaves. Nice!
Divine Command theory is fun.
K.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Actually, Karl, God is much nastier than that. He would then suggest, after having you killed, that your enemies kill your family and neighbours, but keep your young girls as sex slaves. Nice!
Divine Command theory is fun.
K.
Then he makes everything better by giving you a brand new wife and children. Because.....ones as good as another I guess?
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
You seem to be taking the view that God wrote the books of the Bible, but it was human beings who wrote their understanding of what they experienced.
There's no 'magic' going on here. If God is then God works with what is, which includes our understandings of God, in their times and places.
If 'Love' is in an absolute form then it remains true to its nature regardless of how we choose to interpret or disregard it.
So, saying that 'The Lord commanded that all be slaughtered' or whatever is a 'human' interpretation of reality, however much it may misunderstand or distort the reality of what 'Love' actually requires, or, for that matter, what are the true consequences of 'sin'.
People kill each other, and justify their actions in all sorts of ways. Does Love then turn away, arbitrarily intervene to prevent the atrocity, or act to clarify that 'It wasn't Love wot done it'?
Christ at his trial and execution gives us some clue about the manner of Love's way before injustice, hatred, fear, and misunderstanding.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
You seem to be taking the view that God wrote the books of the Bible, but it was human beings who wrote their understanding of what they experienced.
Personally, I'm pointing out that if we do that, we end up with a God who's a homicidal psychopath. I therefore conclude we should not do so.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
You seem to be taking the view that God wrote the books of the Bible, but it was human beings who wrote their understanding of what they experienced.
There's no 'magic' going on here. If God is then God works with what is, which includes our understandings of God, in their times and places.
If 'Love' is in an absolute form then it remains true to its nature regardless of how we choose to interpret or disregard it.
So, saying that 'The Lord commanded that all be slaughtered' or whatever is a 'human' interpretation of reality, however much it may misunderstand or distort the reality of what 'Love' actually requires, or, for that matter, what are the true consequences of 'sin'.
People kill each other, and justify their actions in all sorts of ways. Does Love then turn away, arbitrarily intervene to prevent the atrocity, or act to clarify that 'It wasn't Love wot done it'?
Christ at his trial and execution gives us some clue about the manner of Love's way before injustice, hatred, fear, and misunderstanding.
Right. Which kind of brings this argument around full circle. What are we meant to learn from all this. On the one hand we are told that the bible is at the very least inspired by God and is a source of wisdom. On the other hand we are told that God didn't actually do that people just wrote that he did.
Pretty lame.
SvitlanaV2 quote:
God engineered the death of his own son, but we don't take that as a sign that he didn't care....
I take it as a sign of either evil or mental sickness. No matter what the problem is murdering someone isn't any way to solve it and it's a terrible example to set.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
You seem to be taking the view that God wrote the books of the Bible, but it was human beings who wrote their understanding of what they experienced.
There's no 'magic' going on here. If God is then God works with what is, which includes our understandings of God, in their times and places.
If 'Love' is in an absolute form then it remains true to its nature regardless of how we choose to interpret or disregard it.
So, saying that 'The Lord commanded that all be slaughtered' or whatever is a 'human' interpretation of reality, however much it may misunderstand or distort the reality of what 'Love' actually requires, or, for that matter, what are the true consequences of 'sin'.
People kill each other, and justify their actions in all sorts of ways. Does Love then turn away, arbitrarily intervene to prevent the atrocity, or act to clarify that 'It wasn't Love wot done it'?
Christ at his trial and execution gives us some clue about the manner of Love's way before injustice, hatred, fear, and misunderstanding.
I think your argument here is commonly found—that is, the Bible was not written by God. However, there are still large parts of Christianity that believe that some or all of it was written by God. Once you accept that some of it was written by God, you have your work cut out for you in deciding which bits. To be fair, most Christians I know just say 'the good bits!'. You can't blame them for that.
K.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
I'm not saying God was uninvolved in 'the Bible', but that does not require any bizarre notions of automatic writing.
'The Spirit goes where it wills', and the Spirit of God works within and through us---we are part of God's 'Creation', however mixed up and disabled we may be when it comes to understanding who we are, how we fit, and what 'God' is all about.
It seems God is willing and able to work with this, not according to our demands and ideas, but remaining true to God's nature, even when that results in our complete misunderstanding and wilful misrepresentation. Love produces Humility and Grace.
We demand God dances to our tune, but Jesus pointed out the folly of playing that game, because for some the only tune they want to play is the one that suits them: 'I want a loving God; but now I want an angry God; and now I don't want any God at all,...'
The horror is all our own, and we smear it on liberally to anything we cannot control or understand.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
I'm not saying God was uninvolved in 'the Bible', but that does not require any bizarre notions of automatic writing.
'The Spirit goes where it wills', and the Spirit of God works within and through us---we are part of God's 'Creation', however mixed up and disabled we may be when it comes to understanding who we are, how we fit, and what 'God' is all about.
It seems God is willing and able to work with this, not according to our demands and ideas, but remaining true to God's nature, even when that results in our complete misunderstanding and wilful misrepresentation. Love produces Humility and Grace.
We demand God dances to our tune, but Jesus pointed out the folly of playing that game, because for some the only tune they want to play is the one that suits them: 'I want a loving God; but now I want an angry God; and now I don't want any God at all,...'
The horror is all our own, and we smear it on liberally to anything we cannot control or understand.
Alisdair, this is nicely written. How do you find the 'voice of God'—for lack of a better expression—in the Bible? If God was 'involved', as you say, at what points and how?
K.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
quote:
How do you find the 'voice of God'—for lack of a better expression—in the Bible? If God was 'involved', as you say, at what points and how?
I suppose I would answer that by saying: where ever we recognise 'Love' breaking through into the consciousness of the writer. And, if we need some guidance about the true nature of love, we are given Jesus as an example, and model---"Come, follow me".
I am very fond of Jonah's story. There is so much wrapped up in that scurrilous and entertaining tale of a man who knows God's will, who profoundly disagrees with it, and who at the end is still arguing vehemently with God about the rights and wrongs of God's actions. To me Jonah fails when he refuses to engage with God and runs away, but succeeds, and sees Love's capacity, not only for Mercy and Forgiveness (towards the people of the city), but also for Humility and Grace as God listens to (and puts up with) Jonah.
The story closes without a resolution, the conversation/argument is ongoing. To me that is one of the story's key points, the centrality of communication and relationship when engaging with God---being true to ourselves, and allowing God the same privilege, especially when we disagree, or don't understand.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Thanks. Without meaning to sound flippant, you make it sound like the 'love' bits are from God and the the killing, rape, torture, slavery, misogynist, racist, infanticide stuff is either not from God, or from God and we don't understand it. It seems that you want to have it and not have it.
K.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Well that's one way of looking at it, but realistically I wonder how you or I would expect people living out their lives as we do (or perhaps more pointedly as people are in Syria and Iraq today, where violence and death are routine facts of life), to interpret what they experience?
I get the impression you are looking for some kind of magic dispensation from 'reality' for the writers of the Bible. They wrote, as we would, according the the lights of their time and place. Is it surprising then that they see God in terms of summary justice and much shedding of blood; but there is no doubt that Love was present in their lives, as it is in ours.
Are we any better at receiving it and allowing it to flourish in our behaviour? No doubt in a few hundred years time people will look back on us in wonder at our barbarism, and fail to appreciate just how much like themselves we are.
If God is do you think God should be absent from that, unwilling to 'get his hands dirty'? What is Love worth if it shies away from the shitty reality of human behaviour?
[ 22. May 2015, 13:32: Message edited by: Alisdair ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Again, Alisdair, I commend your eloquence.
I think how we answer those questions depends on how we see the Bible. I would argue that the Bible is written entirely by people—and therefore it tells the stories of (particular) people and their particular place with their particular bias. It's not true to say that their fondness of barbarity was a merely a product of its age. Compare the bloodthirstiest books of the OT to expressions of Budda, for example. There were human beings who knew that there were better ways to encourage human well-being than slavery, execution for adultery, disrespecting your parents, etc., as well as things like thought crime and even imaginary crimes like witchcraft. My argument here is that the Bible (especially the OT) is such a bad example of history and a bad example of philosophy and morality that I'm sure what it is for—other than to stake a claim that the Jews are God's chosen people.
There is clearly a gear change in many parts of the NT, but those too are not only hard to reconcile with each other, but even harder to reconcile with the OT.
I could imagine someone making a case for arguing that the OT is the history of the Jewish people and the NT is an attempt to tell the story of Jesus and his followers. That's different from arguing that there is something magical about these books.
I really do appreciate your succinct and friendly approach!
Best,
K.
[ 22. May 2015, 14:03: Message edited by: Komensky ]
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
One of the things that I value in the OT is that, within the natural limitations of ordinary people, there is little attempt to sugar the pill. People are as they are: vain, arrogant, frightened, violent, hopeful, merciful, loving---and that is just one person.
We are the ones who attempt to idealise/demonize each other--the hero versus the villain. Which, no doubt, is why the 'hero' Jesus is such a disappointment to many. In the end he is not what was wanted, but perhaps he is what is needed.
quote:
It's not true to say that their fondness of barbarity was a merely a product of its age.
It was certainly a product of THEIR age, i.e. their geographic and cultural locality, but that is a gross generalisation, that misses the all the liveliness and goodness of their every day lives. We can certainly be horrifically bloodthirsty when we choose, most of us are just used to it being done to others, elsewhere.
To me the books of the Bible give a pretty accurate picture of what we are like. Basically we are neither good nor wise, despite our efforts. Periodically someone arises, like the Buddha, or Jesus, who seems particularly clear sighted. They are often cut down to size fairly smartly, and certainly ignored by many, or bent to fit other agendas.
There is nothing 'magic' about any of this, as far as I am concerned. But if Love is at the heart of what 'Life' is all about, it matters to try and understand what Love is, and what that can mean for us. Time for some poetry:
Love bade me welcome, yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-ey'd Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning
If I lack'd anything.
[full text edited pursuant to copyright practice]
-- George Herbert (1593-1632)
[ 22. May 2015, 14:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Alisdair, our practice is to restrict quotes from published works to a "reasonable length". Your quote appeared to be the entire poem, which is why I've edited it and instead put a link to the full text.
The fact that a work is old does not necessarily mean that somebody somewhere doesn't hold copyright on it, and the Ship prefers to err on the safe side in this respect.
/hosting
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Fair enough, I'll bear that in mind; although in this case I think we're safe enough.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by George Spigot
(initially quoting Svitlana v2)
quote:
SvitlanaV2
quote:
God engineered the death of his own son, but we don't take that as a sign that he didn't care....
I take it as a sign of either evil or mental sickness. No matter what the problem is murdering someone isn't any way to solve it and it's a terrible example to set.
Why and how is costly forgiveness "a terrible example to set"?? In what we call 'the atonement' God is not 'murdering' some otherwise uninvolved third party, he is acting in self-giving. This is a major implication of 'Trinitarianism' and also a major reason why 'unitarianism' of all kinds is wrong. It is because God set this example of costly forgiveness, in a dramatic and challenging act at a particular point in history, that modern views like yours, GS, exist.
As usual, the real horror here is all on the human side....
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by George Spigot
(initially quoting Svitlana v2)
quote:
SvitlanaV2
quote:
God engineered the death of his own son, but we don't take that as a sign that he didn't care....
I take it as a sign of either evil or mental sickness. No matter what the problem is murdering someone isn't any way to solve it and it's a terrible example to set.
Why and how is costly forgiveness "a terrible example to set"?? In what we call 'the atonement' God is not 'murdering' some otherwise uninvolved third party, he is acting in self-giving. This is a major implication of 'Trinitarianism' and also a major reason why 'unitarianism' of all kinds is wrong. It is because God set this example of costly forgiveness, in a dramatic and challenging act at a particular point in history, that modern views like yours, GS, exist.
As usual, the real horror here is all on the human side....
Right. So if I'm following you: Jesus and God and the same being or at least of the same substance (?). Jesus knows that he is God and knows that he cannot die. He knows that even if he suffers mortal death, he will survive it anyway. This is the greatest possible sacrifice?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Komensky wrote:
quote:
Jesus knows that he is God and knows that he cannot die. He knows that even if he suffers mortal death, he will survive it anyway. This is the greatest possible sacrifice?
Wasn't there at one time some debate among theologians(and I mean Trinitarians), about whether or not Jesus knew he was God?
It's something I've only heard passing reference to, though I would assume that the reasoning behind the negative argument would be that being ignorant of his future ressurection would make his sacrifice on the cross all the more poignant.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Komensky wrote:
quote:
Jesus knows that he is God and knows that he cannot die. He knows that even if he suffers mortal death, he will survive it anyway. This is the greatest possible sacrifice?
Wasn't there at one time some debate among theologians(and I mean Trinitarians), about whether or not Jesus knew he was God?
It's something I've only heard passing reference to, though I would assume that the reasoning behind the negative argument would be that being ignorant of his future ressurection would make his sacrifice on the cross all the more poignant.
Of course there were many interpretations amongst various Christian factions for many centuries after his death.
Here is one recent version of how Jesus became God.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Leaving aside the theological tangent, IMHO the worst (most painful) situation is to have faith but not absolute knowledge-level certainty of one's resurrection. Because a bit of hope does wonders when you're trying to torture someone.
That sounds like I think God is a torturer. Let me rephrase that.
no, seriously, what I see in Jesus is not just the Son of God, but the son of man--someone who is so human he even has to have faith just as we do, faith based on the Scripture and not some woo-woo easy divine certainty--and those of us who live that way today know how difficult that is.
[ 22. May 2015, 19:39: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Leaving aside the theological tangent, IMHO the worst (most painful) situation is to have faith but not absolute knowledge-level certainty of one's resurrection. .
John 10:30 makes it sound like Jesus was pretty certain.
K.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Alisdair.
Komensky.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Leaving aside the theological tangent, IMHO the worst (most painful) situation is to have faith but not absolute knowledge-level certainty of one's resurrection. .
John 10:30 makes it sound like Jesus was pretty certain.
K.
So you're saying that one would expect Jesus to be much more upbeat about his upcoming crucifixion, then? A few meagre hours of great pain followed by eternal life is a fair trade-off, after all.
The same has been said of ordinary Christians facing death; they should all welcome it, and there should be rejoicing rather than mourning from the Christian community, since they believe the deceased is heading for eternal life in a better place.
One problem, I think, is that joyfully celebrating the death of a child, no matter how much 'better' we believed the afterlife to be for innocent young minds, might simply repel atheists and agnostics as an utterly perverted act. I'm not entirely sure, though: there seems to be a trend for 'joyful' funerals, and perhaps this includes the funerals of children.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One problem, I think, is that joyfully celebrating the death of a child, no matter how much 'better' we believed the afterlife to be for innocent young minds, might simply repel atheists and agnostics as an utterly perverted act. I'm not entirely sure, though: there seems to be a trend for 'joyful' funerals, and perhaps this includes the funerals of children.
The views of the deceased should determine if the funeral is joyful or solemn. Failing that the view of the family.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Leaving aside the theological tangent, IMHO the worst (most painful) situation is to have faith but not absolute knowledge-level certainty of one's resurrection. .
John 10:30 makes it sound like Jesus was pretty certain.
K.
He was certain. But if you'll forgive me, the certainty of faith feels different than the certainty of knowledge. I think the main difference lies in the take-it-for-granted factor. There's a lot less of that in the certainty of faith--you're not always and in all places comfortable about it, certain though you may be, and you are still subject to the attacks of temptation (doubt). In this lies the pain.
If you like, compare it to the certainty that a man has about his wife's faithfulness even though he's been three years on assignment away from home. He may have every rational reason to trust her--character, history, current communication with her, and so forth. Yet that doesn't free him from the occasional 3 a.m. "What if?" attacks of the devil. And that is where the pain comes in. You can suffer from the attacks of doubt at the very same time as your heart is saying "This is totally irrational, don't give a moment's worry to it." Ay, there's the rub. How to banish those irrational thoughts.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One problem, I think, is that joyfully celebrating the death of a child, no matter how much 'better' we believed the afterlife to be for innocent young minds, might simply repel atheists and agnostics as an utterly perverted act.
Frankly, it repels me as an utterly perverted act. Anyone, in the event, heavens forfend, of the death of one of my children, trying to suggest to me that I rejoice that they're in a "better place" had better be pretty damned sure it's a "better place" because I'll very likely move them rather closer to it.
Why not follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion and rejoice that there are terrible diseases and child murderers and congenital life-limiting conditions that move children to this "better place"?
[ 23. May 2015, 14:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One problem, I think, is that joyfully celebrating the death of a child, no matter how much 'better' we believed the afterlife to be for innocent young minds, might simply repel atheists and agnostics as an utterly perverted act.
Frankly, it repels me as an utterly perverted act. Anyone, in the event, heavens forfend, of the death of one of my children, trying to suggest to me that I rejoice that they're in a "better place" had better be pretty damned sure it's a "better place" because I'll very likely move them rather closer to it.
Why not follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion and rejoice that there are terrible diseases and child murderers and congenital life-limiting conditions that move children to this "better place"?
It reminds me of that scene in tha movie Rabbit Hole, with Nicole Kidman as a bereaved parent, attending a support group. One evening she listens to a rather maudlin woman trying to rationalize the death of her own son.
WOMAN: Well, it's like some friends told us, God just wanted another angel up in heaven.
KIDMAN(icily, below her breath): So, why didn't he just make one?
[ 23. May 2015, 15:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I'm reminded of the old saying: 'Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.' God is good for giving us heaven, but bad for making us die to get there!
What makes faith more painful now, in any case, is that many of us modern western believers aren't entirely convinced that there is a heaven to go to. There's far less of a psychological recompense now when tragedies happen, which must make death seem like little more than a horrible affront to our sensibilities.
Christianity offers some virtuous moral principles to the world, but as a religious system it seems quite weak if eternity in the presence of the Saviour is removed. I wonder if Muslims are as ambivalent about the afterlife as Christians are.
[ 23. May 2015, 23:10: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
If freewill operates, the Jesus did not know he would die when and how he did. He knew be would die, we all know that about ourselves, but not at the time, place or way it happened. That was up to the people involved making their free choices.
I'm pretty sure he knew his death wouldn't be of natural causes but the other people were real and not puppets. People who do and say stuff like Jesus did are targets in any society.
The idea that Jesus knew all also offends that he shared our human nature if he knew all. I can often understand my spouse before she says or does anything. I expect some version of shared understanding for Jesus/God but at what level who can truly say. Otherwise it's akin to Jesus as a persona adopted for a role play or intense computer videogame.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
quote:
Right. So if I'm following you: Jesus and God and the same being or at least of the same substance (?). Jesus knows that he is God and knows that he cannot die. He knows that even if he suffers mortal death, he will survive it anyway. This is the greatest possible sacrifice?
I realise the discussion has moved on somewhat, but having returned from my travels I'll have a go at responding to the above, posted by Komensky (posted 22 May, 2015 20:23). I'm sorry it's not more brief.
On the basis of the records that we have, assuming they are a fair account, the interpretation above seems highly unlikely.
'Jesus knows that he is God and knows that he cannot die.' -- this is a presumption, the record indicates some other reality. Jesus is recorded as saying that he and 'the Father are one', but we are free to feed into that our own prejudices and expectations. There is nothing in that statement, or any others expressing Jesus' understanding that suggests he had some super-human inside track, or that he had any kind of absolute assurance of the outcome, or that the reality of suffering---physical and spiritual---was any less for him than for anyone else, probably the reverse in fact.
We often seem stuck in looking at God in a very 'childish' and literalistic kind of way, e.g. a literary description of God as the 'ancient of days', paints in our minds the image of a bearded old man, and we then proceed to relate to God as though that image is accurate and complete.
Did Jesus know he could not die? I suspect he had knew full well that if someone stuck a sword in his guts or nailed him to a cross he would die. As far as I am concerned Jesus was a human being, just like you and I. Once dead he was in the same boat as anybody else---in God's hands.
When we talk about 'God' I imagine we are talking about the source of Life and Truth, and, as John wrote, 'God is Love' (the capitals are important). We're not talking about something that is functionally merely an enlarged representation of ourselves, we're talking about 'someone' who is beyond us, and totally out of our control, but who is fundamentally the source of all that is.
When Jesus says, 'I and the Father are one', and that, 'if you have seen me you have seen the Father', I don't find it credible to then leap to the conclusion is made in your question. Jesus sent his followers out in his name, effectively giving them authority to represent him---to be 'Christ' to the people they met. He said that God would provide His Spirit to give substance to that authority.
I think that is exactly what was happening with Jesus, in the claim that He and the Father are one. Jesus is the chosen archetype of the people we are called to be, as we 'follow Christ', put our trust in him, and receive God's Grace in our broken lives.
Now I'm beginning to write as some flag waving apparatchik. In the end, if 'God is Love' the meaning and reality of that has to play out in this reality that we all share, not in any fantasy that we create, either for or against that God is. There is no magic, only truth; the only question is whether we receive the truth, or run from it (that includes seeking to bend it to our own wills).
'Pie in the sky when you die' is not a credible reason for faith in God, if that does not also indicate, even demand, change and action here and now. And even if there is nothing beyond this life, a high understanding of 'Love', as something that in extremis enables the lover to sacrifice themselves totally for the well-being of the beloved is a very powerful, possibly the most powerful, expression of 'humanity' that we have when it comes to building a sustainable and compassionate framework for life.
Of course that's just my take on things, a snapshot of where I currently am with this 'God' idea. Other ideas and practices are available. That freedom to think, to choose, to be, and to take the consequences, is vital.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
There's another factor loose in this situation that doesn't operate for us as we face our own unknown deaths--namely, that Jesus had the Old Testament prophecies to go by regarding his. As he said,
quote:
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me.
John 5:39 (ESV)
Believing that, he would certainly trace out the features of his own life, and particularly his coming death (ex. Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and a bunch of other places). These are definitely on the vague and shadowy side, but clear enough to freak out anyone who believed they applied to him--and Jesus clearly had the whole lot memorized and well digested!
Which is all to say--it is perfectly possible for Jesus to lay aside his omniscience as God, to live and to face his approaching death without the direct help of omniscience--and yet to have a pretty good handle on what was going to happen in some detail. How? He could dig it out of the Scriptures, just as we do. (though it's obvious that Jesus is a far sharper student than I am, duh)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
& Lamb Chopped.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Huh?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
He could dig it out of the Scriptures, just as we do. (though it's obvious that Jesus is a far sharper student than I am, duh)
Not sure that Jesus was doing that. I thought it was dug out when people were doing their darnedest to show that Jesus was fulfilling something.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The highest accolade is just using a commentator's name. I added yours to the two I'd used 11 previously. Sorry, I can' retract it.
npfiss... That's exactly what Jesus did ahead of anyone else all the way to Emmaus.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
He could dig it out of the Scriptures, just as we do. (though it's obvious that Jesus is a far sharper student than I am, duh)
Not sure that Jesus was doing that. I thought it was dug out when people were doing their darnedest to show that Jesus was fulfilling something.
That's the cynical way to look at it, of course. But it's really quite striking when you come to it fresh, and I was not raised a con-evo nor did I have anybody/anything to prime me to see this in the Old Testament. I came to faith reading the Bible in near-isolation from other Christians (long story, but I began by treating it as a fairytale), and I started from Genesis, so in effect I was something of a Jew before ever I met Jesus. (I must say the NT seemed to fit seamlessly onto the foundation of the OT--Jesus was not at all strange when at last he came along, in my experience. I mean strange in terms of being a stranger. he is and always has been "strange" in a number of other senses!)
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
I don't understand how that is evidence (*) that the NT stories were not retrofitted to be able to be seen as fulfillments of prophecies from the OT. It seems an equally possible explanation of your experience is that the retrofitting by the NT authors is there, and worked exactly as intended, producing your seamless experience.
(*) I'm not, by the way, quibbling over what constitutes evidence here. That is, I'm by no means saying "anecdote is not data".
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I wasn't trying to do things from a textual science point of view (though I do have some of those skills); I think that would be another thread o' worms in itself. Here I'll just say that from what I know there is no reason to suspect that kind of duplicity.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
I wasn't trying to take a textual science point of view. I'm trying to say that "reading OT then NT as a newcomer, they fit together" could be because events told in the NT really happened that way which seemed to be the point you drew from it, or it could be because the writers of the NT were at pains to write things so they fit with what had come before which seemed to me the point no prophet was trying to make.
When I read a Shakespeare history play and events in the fifth act turn out to have been foreshadowed by events in the first act, it could be because things happened that way in history. Or it could be that Shakespeare shaped his story to create that effect.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yes, and the greatest offender in that regard was Jesus Himself. Or so His chroniclers say ...
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I wasn't trying to take a textual science point of view. I'm trying to say that "reading OT then NT as a newcomer, they fit together" could be because events told in the NT really happened that way which seemed to be the point you drew from it, or it could be because the writers of the NT were at pains to write things so they fit with what had come before which seemed to me the point no prophet was trying to make.
When I read a Shakespeare history play and events in the fifth act turn out to have been foreshadowed by events in the first act, it could be because things happened that way in history. Or it could be that Shakespeare shaped his story to create that effect.
What on earth are you talking about?
K.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I think what she means (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Gospel writers might have written down what they THINK should have happened (based on prophecy) rather than what actually DID happen. Me, I rather doubt this, mainly because very few human beings are that skilled at writing (trust me, I've spent my life writing, editing, and picking apart texts of every sort), and also because they didn't do the writing of acts I-IV (that is, the OT prophecies themselves). That the early church could have come up with four people skilled enough to create such an impressive-but-fictional building on the OT framework just boggles my mind. I mean, FOUR people. If my old publishing house came up with one such skilled writer in five years, drawing from the million-plus population that is our denomination, it counted itself lucky. And the early church was frankly not that large--or literate.
It seems to me far more likely that they wrote down what they heard and saw, without adding fictitious fulfillments of prophecy. That takes a lot less writing skill to do a decent job.
[ 29. May 2015, 20:05: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
LC:
Well, we can take a contemporary example of prophecy being supposedly fulfilled, ie. trying to make current events sound like the fulfillment of the Book Of Revelation.
Granted, this usually involves shoe-horning moreso than outright fabrication, but still, when you've got hundreds if not thousands of writers independently aware of what needs to be shoehorned(eg. the Antichrist should have some connection to Rome, because the BOR talks about seven hills; his name needs to add up to 666 in Hebrew numerology, for obvious reasons etc), it seems pretty clear that it's possible for large numbers of people to have knowledge of what scenarios are demanded by prophecy.
But of course, there is a revolving door of those decipherings, each one being discredited in pretty short order.
And, even before the current age of relatively widespread education and literacy, I'd wager that you had people with the basic knowledge of Revelation making the same sort of predictions, based on what they had been told, or(if they were literate) read.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
LC.
Full stop.
As for the BOR, it's the BOD updated. How much extra spooky stuff there's in there, if ANY, echoing down the millennia, we have no idea.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
LC:
Well, we can take a contemporary example of prophecy being supposedly fulfilled, ie. trying to make current events sound like the fulfillment of the Book Of Revelation.
Granted, this usually involves shoe-horning moreso than outright fabrication, but still, when you've got hundreds if not thousands of writers independently aware of what needs to be shoehorned(eg. the Antichrist should have some connection to Rome, because the BOR talks about seven hills; his name needs to add up to 666 in Hebrew numerology, for obvious reasons etc), it seems pretty clear that it's possible for large numbers of people to have knowledge of what scenarios are demanded by prophecy.
But of course, there is a revolving door of those decipherings, each one being discredited in pretty short order.
And, even before the current age of relatively widespread education and literacy, I'd wager that you had people with the basic knowledge of Revelation making the same sort of predictions, based on what they had been told, or(if they were literate) read.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
You make my point for me. Have you EVER come across a decent, believable, even-halfway-well-written fictional fulfillment of Revelation? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, we can take a contemporary example of prophecy being supposedly fulfilled, ie. trying to make current events sound like the fulfillment of the Book Of Revelation.
Presumably, they're not trying to, they just see parallels and honestly, though (thus far, apparently) incorrectly, think they are being fulfilled.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It seems to me far more likely that they wrote down what they heard and saw, without adding fictitious fulfillments of prophecy.
It seems to me most likely that they wrote down what others told them they heard and saw, or what others said they had been told still others heard and saw. By the time the story has passed through a few "generations," there's been ample opportunity for reflections on prophecy fulfillment to slip in.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
LC:
Well, we can take a contemporary example of prophecy being supposedly fulfilled, ie. trying to make current events sound like the fulfillment of the Book Of Revelation.
Granted, this usually involves shoe-horning moreso than outright fabrication, but still, when you've got hundreds if not thousands of writers independently aware of what needs to be shoehorned(eg. the Antichrist should have some connection to Rome, because the BOR talks about seven hills; his name needs to add up to 666 in Hebrew numerology, for obvious reasons etc), it seems pretty clear that it's possible for large numbers of people to have knowledge of what scenarios are demanded by prophecy.
But of course, there is a revolving door of those decipherings, each one being discredited in pretty short order.
And, even before the current age of relatively widespread education and literacy, I'd wager that you had people with the basic knowledge of Revelation making the same sort of predictions, based on what they had been told, or(if they were literate) read.
You make my point for me. Have you EVER come across a decent, believable, even-halfway-well-written fictional fulfillment of Revelation?
My point is not that the writings are credible or actually get fulfilled. SImply that it is possible for numerous and disparate writers to all know what is written in Revelation.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, we can take a contemporary example of prophecy being supposedly fulfilled, ie. trying to make current events sound like the fulfillment of the Book Of Revelation.
Presumably, they're not trying to, they just see parallels and honestly, though (thus far, apparently) incorrectly, think they are being fulfilled.
Well, somewhere between "making up parallels" and "honestly seeing parallels" lies "seeing those particular parallels that just happen to fit your pre-existing agenda."
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, somewhere between "making up parallels" and "honestly seeing parallels" lies "seeing those particular parallels that just happen to fit your pre-existing agenda."
I don't agree at all. If one believes it's true, then those parallels will surely stand out at at least first glance, without requiring even a tiny drop of dishonesty. It could even be a lack of critical thinking in some cases, but a genuinely innocent and wholly honest incorrect conclusion.
[ 31. May 2015, 03:43: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, somewhere between "making up parallels" and "honestly seeing parallels" lies "seeing those particular parallels that just happen to fit your pre-existing agenda."
I don't agree at all. If one believes it's true, then those parallels will surely stand out at at least first glance, without requiring even a tiny drop of dishonesty. It could even be a lack of critical thinking in some cases, but a genuinely innocent and wholly honest incorrect conclusion.
Well, I guess this can lead to a discussion about what exactly is meant by the phrase "willful blindness", or if the concept even has any validity at all.
I don't doubt that some protestant evangelicals sincerely believe that the Catholic Church is the Whore Of Babylon. And that they are being honest when they say they notice parallels between the Whore being drunk on the blood of martyrs, and the RCC's persecution of "bible believing Christians".
On the other hand, it seems a little odd how they don't apply the same logic to the protestant reformers or their successor groups, some of whom also killed people that the evangelicals would regard as "bible believing Christians".
So, we can wonder why the Whore/RCC parallel stands out for these people, whereas the Whore/Calvin etc parallel didn't stand out for them. Was it just that they were on an honest, open-minded search for parallels, and unfortunately happened to be home sick the day that protestant atrocities were discussed in history class?
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, somewhere between "making up parallels" and "honestly seeing parallels" lies "seeing those particular parallels that just happen to fit your pre-existing agenda."
I don't agree at all. If one believes it's true, then those parallels will surely stand out at at least first glance, without requiring even a tiny drop of dishonesty. It could even be a lack of critical thinking in some cases, but a genuinely innocent and wholly honest incorrect conclusion.
Well, I guess this can lead to a discussion about what exactly is meant by the phrase "willful blindness", or if the concept even has any validity at all.
I don't doubt that some protestant evangelicals sincerely believe that the Catholic Church is the Whore Of Babylon. And that they are being honest when they say they notice parallels between the Whore being drunk on the blood of martyrs, and the RCC's persecution of "bible believing Christians".
On the other hand, it seems a little odd how they don't apply the same logic to the protestant reformers or their successor groups, some of whom also killed people that the evangelicals would regard as "bible believing Christians".
So, we can wonder why the Whore/RCC parallel stands out for these people, whereas the Whore/Calvin etc parallel didn't stand out for them. Was it just that they were on an honest, open-minded search for parallels, and unfortunately happened to be home sick the day that protestant atrocities were discussed in history class?
A lot of it is anti-Catholic prejudice. But the legitimacy (if it can be called that), I think, of the idea comes from the positioning of the Vatican in Rome (generally agreed to be the seven-hilled city spoken of in Revelation).
But for some people, even if the Vatican moved cities they would still blame the Catholic church. Christians should know better than to engage in that kind of prejudice really.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
But for some people, even if the Vatican moved cities they would still blame the Catholic church
Yes, just like they're still saying the EU is the fantastic creature described in Revelation, even though the EU now has more countries than that animal had heads.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
But for some people, even if the Vatican moved cities they would still blame the Catholic church
Yes, just like they're still saying the EU is the fantastic creature described in Revelation, even though the EU now has more countries than that animal had heads.
At the moment, some Christians are speculating that either a number of countries will leave the EU or that the existing countries will amalgamate in some way. It is actually a very imaginative way of looking at the European Union - as a kind of revived Roman empire.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It shows nothing but imagination and no scholarship whatsoever. I should know. It is so dangerous that it creates and sustains, IS the antichrist it hysterically projects.
As the Spanish Inquisition realised three centuries ago, witchcraft wasn't the problem. Belief that it was was.
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It shows nothing but imagination and no scholarship whatsoever. I should know. It is so dangerous that it creates and sustains, IS the antichrist it hysterically projects.
As the Spanish Inquisition realised three centuries ago, witchcraft wasn't the problem. Belief that it was was.
I think there is an element of truth in that Martin - and in the certainty that 'God is with' anyone engaged in an antichrist hunt. Modern-day witch hunts are not so dissimilar. I that what you have said is a really important.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
@ChastMastr. Ignorance is no excuse. Neither is the weakness of those that know.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The Beast is FIFA and Sepp Blatter is the Whore of Babylon!
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
OMG. Now it all makes sense.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Sorry I did not continue to follow this thread for a while.
Martin Luther had an expression: The Bible is the straw on which the Christ-child lies.
He would say there is a lot of straw in the Bible. He used Revelations as an example.
Having been raised in farm country, let me tell you the straw he is talking about is the straw that is used for bedding of the animals. As such, there is a lot of--for lack of a better word--manure that can get mixed into the straw.
As I look through this thread it appeared that often times people were focusing on the straw (and what is in it) than on the Christ Child.
Luther had a term for that: he called it Bibleolitry. If there is one thing both the ardent athiest has in common with the most Bible believing fundamentalist is that they both practice Bibleolitry. Both pick and chose what they want to deny (in the case of the athiest) and want to believe (in the case of the Bible believing fundamentalist).
Yes, there are wretched horror stories in the Bible. Yes, there are very passionate sexual scenes that can be found it the bible. (One of the problems is we tend to judge the Bible by our modernistic moral standards, BTW). But this is all straw on which the Christ child lies.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I think you are misremembering this:
quote:
The Bible is the cradle wherein Christ is laid.
Luther was not putting down any part of the Bible, as you imply; he was simply saying it is where we find Christ.
As for bibliolatry or bibliolatry--would you please give your source for this?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Lamb Chopped,
I am going to have to correct myself. The person who coined biblolitry is Samuel Taylor Coleridge according to the Dictionary for Theological Intepretation of the Bible. Took me a while to find that source.
However, the same source also points out that Biblolitry is as old as, well, the Bible itself. Jesus was constantly criticizing the Pharisees for their insistence on following the letter of the law (and overlooking the spirit)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0