homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: Divine Purpose in the Old Testament (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: Divine Purpose in the Old Testament
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Heh!Heh! Kwesi, I thought the apartheid issue would eventually arise.

The problem seems to be that people take themes from the OT and apply it (badly) to modern times.

It might be worth spending the time to see how the "peculiar people" of God were peculiar precisely because they possessed characteristics that would make possible the recognition of the Messiah when He finally came. Every Jewish male was potentially "meschiach".

After that, Jewishness (ethnicity), circumcision (gender) were no longer required...

[ 15. July 2010, 14:39: Message edited by: footwasher ]

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Nigel M: The OT presents the character of God as one who is willing to take anyone under his wing; Israel is only a model.
A pity that wasn't pointed out to the tribes dispossessed to make way for the Israelite occupation of the 'promised land', and those destined to become 'hewers of wood and drawers of water'.

I don't accept that Israel is 'only a model'. (A model of what, we may ask?). They were people offered an exclusive covenant so they could become a 'chosen' people. I wouldn't mind betting that was how Joshua, Samuel, Ezra and the rest saw it.

I guess we just have to differ. You believe that the God who told Samuel to commit genocide is the one who says love your enemies. I don't.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Footwasher: The problem seems to be that people take themes from the OT and apply it (badly) to modern times.
.....but what are the themes from the Old Testament that are badly applied to modern times?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:
Nigel M: The OT presents the character of God as one who is willing to take anyone under his wing; Israel is only a model.
A pity that wasn't pointed out to the tribes dispossessed to make way for the Israelite occupation of the 'promised land', and those destined to become 'hewers of wood and drawers of water'.
Who's to say it wasn't? The essence of herem is that it is judicial execution of a decision. It follows a clear procedure of warning to the one who opposes. It doesn't come out of a dark alley unexpected. I think we need to be alive to fact that if something was presupposed, it did not always have to be spelled out. The author did not need to say "Commit herem, and by herem I mean follow this procedure..." because the procedure was already known.

One of the passages dealing with the destruction of tribes is Exodus 23:20-33 -
quote:
(NET Version)
“I am going to send an angel before you to protect you as you journey and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Take heed because of him, and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him. But if you diligently obey him and do all that I command, then I will be an enemy to your enemies, and I will be an adversary to your adversaries. For my angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and I will destroy them completely. You must not bow down to their gods; you must not serve them or do according to their practices. ...

I will send my terror before you, and I will destroy all the people whom you encounter; I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. I will send hornets before you that will drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite before you. I will not drive them out before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild animals multiply against you. ... You must make no covenant with them or with their gods.

In all that wordage - which incidentally is par for the course in covenant stipulations - is the same obligation to obey that lay on Israel as much as anyone else. The other tribes are presented as enemies - those who oppose. The implication is that they made their choice. Given the nature of warfare and of herem especially, it is not really possible to imagine that they were unaware of the consequences of their acts.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I don't accept that Israel is 'only a model'. (A model of what, we may ask?). They were people offered an exclusive covenant so they could become a 'chosen' people.

A model, according to the record, of a people in a loyal relationship to the God of all creation, not just a local God. The covenant with Abraham demonstrates that point. They were just as much a model of what happens when they failed to obey as when they did obey.

I appreciate that you don't like what the record says in parts, but you still need to deal with the point that the text makes throughout: that the character of God is consistent with one who expects loyalty from creation, and who judges and sentences those who disobey.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
“I am going to send an angel before you to protect you as you journey and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Take heed because of him, and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him. But if you diligently obey him and do all that I command, then I will be an enemy to your enemies, and I will be an adversary to your adversaries. For my angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, and I will destroy them completely. You must not bow down to their gods; you must not serve them or do according to their practices. ...

I will send my terror before you, and I will destroy all the people whom you encounter; I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. I will send hornets before you that will drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite before you. I will not drive them out before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild animals multiply against you. ... You must make no covenant with them or with their gods.

Nigel, you can worship that God if you like, but IMO he is not the God revealed in Christ Jesus.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That makes two of us Kwesi
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Nigel, you can worship that God if you like, but IMO he is not the God revealed in Christ Jesus.

Amen

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think you are still imposing an alien concept of individualism on the text of the bible to the exclusion of the corporate. If Paul could draw on Israel as a model (1 Cor. 10) relevant to his readers, if Jesus' worldview was consistent with a corporate identity (e.g., Matt 10:15; 11:22-24; 18:23-25), if he could draw on the example of God sneering rain and sun on all peoples (Matt 5:45); if he could relate to the practical reality of disaster falling without distinction and apply that to repentance (Luke 13:1-5), then you have the character of God via Jesus applying to whole groups. The individual responsibilities of those under the covenant did not entirely erase the corporate. The thread runs through the whole bible.

You have to be able to respond to the purpose of the authors (and divine author?) in the whole, not just the parts. Otherwise you have a distorted view of the (corporate!) purpose of the bible.

We may have a different paradigm for our worldview today, more individual and less corporate. That, though, probably owes more the the development of philosophical thought in western Europe over the past few hundred years than it does to any paradigm shift in the bible. Are you sure you are not simply imposing that more recent worldview onto the bible?

If not, where is the evidence that the NT authors had a message dealing solely with individuals to the exclusion of the corporate? You have to deal with the evidence in the record as a whole.

The only other option, it seems to me, is to set the bible aside as a source of reference for God and the way he wants us to live.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If nothing else, the OT is so deeply embedded in the very language of the NT that you can't understand Jesus without understanding his roots in the Torah, which run really deep. Same with Paul. John had some issues with "the Jews," but even there he's working off of Jesus, who was Jewish and steeped in the Torah. Revelation is based entirely on a Jewish form of apocalyptic literature.

Jettison the OT and ultimately you jettison Jesus' real human experience.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:
Footwasher: The problem seems to be that people take themes from the OT and apply it (badly) to modern times.
.....but what are the themes from the Old Testament that are badly applied to modern times?
Some of the arguments that pro-apartheid adherents used were also used by the segregationist movement in the southern US.

Fanciful, interpretations with little bearing on biblical principles were blatantly used to justify the separation of the races. I remember mention of these views whilst discussing such issues on US boards. An injunction against mixing was even extracted from:

19Observe my regulations. Don’t let your livestock mate with those of another kind, don’t sow your field with two different kinds of grain, and don’t wear a garment of cloth made with two different kinds of thread. Leviticus 19

The principle, of course, was the Jews had cultural markers that separated them from the pagan nations that surrounded them. Not eating shellfish, animals which chewed the cud but had cloven hooves, etc. These were those markers. There was nothing intrinsically right with the practices, they were just customs. They were followed strictly in order to differentiate the Jews from the nations around them, even as God prepared the way for His Messiah and set out clues to his identification.

I see the Amalekites as types, spiritual analogies of the things that obstruct the return to God.

The question then is: are the accounts parables or are they historical events?

If they are historical events, then the Amalekite children are definitely innocent victims, and the women too as noncombatants, and the descendants of the original raiders. In fact, all!

The key to the problem are the words of Jesus:

28And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10

Lesson: One can suffer or lose their lives in this world, but the important consequences are in the afterlife.

22“Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. Luke 16

1“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. Matt 6

This may sound cold and dispassionate in view of the very real sufferings the victims went through, but Jesus taught that treasure laid in heaven LASTED. Eternal rewards. And punishments as well...

The other objection would be why God needed to put people, innocent people even, through suffering and pain.:

11Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 1 Corinthians 10

4For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. Romans 15

There is a sense that how we NOW act is more important than the past actions and consequences of the charcters of Scripture.

3how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, Hebrews 2

You could say the fate of the OT saints is tightly linked to that of the future saints:

39 Yet all these, though they were commended for their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40since God had provided something better so that they would not, without us, be made perfect. Hebrews 11

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:

For the rest I am befuddled.

Understandable, shamwari; I shouldn't have posted so late at night!

I'll try again, this time blow by blow, with the top-level points:

Background:-
We have a set of books (the Bible) that were authored by humans.
These humans deal with God in the third person; i.e., this is not a record that presents itself as God's direct communication to humankind.

Issue
How do humans find God's message for them in this human document?

Proposal
God deliberately chose to communicate to his creation via this mediated process.
The fact of mediation is consistent with the purpose of God as represented in the record, e.g., in handing responsibility to humans as the image of God, in calling the nations, etc.

If this is the case, then the purpose of the human writers, ascertained by analysis of the text, corresponds sufficiently to the purpose of God in communicating. God's message comes through because he purposed it that way and the human writers let the message come through because their purpose accords with God's.

I've concentrated on 'purpose' (intention) in all this, because that seems to me to be the way the writers saw both what they were doing and what God was doing in communicating. It is more biblical, in that sense, than concentrating on propositional language, or the meaning of words in isolation from intent (ergo, from context). The latter is too static to be biblical.

That's pretty much what I think about it – in a nutshell. The implication would be that in doing what we can to find the human authors' intentions, we are also finding God's intention. We work back to the latter by paying attention to the former. I appreciate there is a danger of circularity in this: Human says God communicates through humans, therefore God communicates through humans. I don't think this is insurmountable, because we a consistency in the heterogeneous record on the matter. Many writers from different periods go down the same route and are accepted into a canon of transmitted texts.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Footwasher, I must confess that I find the argument in your latest post difficult to follow. I do, however, note with considerable satisfaction that you agree with me that if 1 Samuel 15 is history (which it is) then "the Amalekite children are definitely innocent victims, and the women too as noncombatants, and the descendants of the original raiders. In fact, all!" Be careful, you might end up agreeing with my approach.

You would be mistaken, however, to regard the Samuel passage as a parable, because it clearly isn't. Nor are you justified in claiming certain NT verses as an explanation of the passage. There is, for example, no reason to believe that the elimination of the Amalekites was a means of saving their eternal souls. (Incidentally, such warped reasoning was used to justified the burning of heretics and the inquisition). You are also doing violence to the text in regarding the Amalekites as 'spiritual types'. That was not the author's intention.

Nigel M, I share Shawari's befuddlement, despite your latest post. What exactly, precisely and simply is your basic point? Where do you want to get to?

Bullfrog, I think you make an important point in that it's impossible to understand Jesus without an appreciation of the OT. There is, however, a wider context. While Jesus is seen by Jewish Christians (though not the vast majority of Jews) as fulfilling the promises of God in their own culture, there is also a strong counter-cultural element in the life of Jesus both in his teaching (you have heard it aforetime..but I say..) and in the manner of his death, and Jesus also transcends culture, not only that of the Jewish religion, but of all other understandings of God. There is not, it seems to me, a seemless transition from the OT to the resurrected Christ. We can see that, for example, in the Christian understanding of Messiahship, which is far more profound than that envisage by the one who comes to restore the throne of his father David.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But every Christian understanding is just the outworking of a Jewish one. Even the idea of a God that transcends national and tribal gods goes back to the Tanakh. All of Jesus' core teachings were out of the Tanakh. Everything he "fulfilled" had been there as a potentiality from the beginning. Jesus even shares a name with the famous conqueror of the Promised Land.

The seam isn't so clean, I think, as you imagine.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Nigel M, I share Shawari's befuddlement, despite your latest post. What exactly, precisely and simply is your basic point? Where do you want to get to?

To provide a reasonable (i.e., capable of being reasoned through) justification for locating divine intention in the bible.

It's an issue that was a spin off from the 'Sovereign God' thread and stands alone, really, hence the new thread. The context is the wider debate that has been knocking about in Christianity in various guises for over a century, concerning the nature of language in the bible and communication, both generally and specifically in the bible.

My take has been to take that biblical communication as we have it, but to focus on the purpose of the authors, seeing how they understood what they and their predecessors were doing. This is a different approach to, for example, imposing static and reductionist propositional categories onto the bible, or to imposing assorted linguistic techniques that focussed on what words are, rather than what they do (or did).

The lower-level support for the top-level argument is to be found, I think, in the marrying of a number of insights from structuralism (with a small 's'), speech-act theory, the philosophy of language (e.g., from the interactions between Gadamer, Hirsch, Ricoeur and Derrida), discourse analysis, and the theory of metaphor.

The relevance to the 1 Samuel 15 debate would be, in my opinion, that there is a purposeful communication from God in that text. Hasty caveat: not to be taken out of context!

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:


The relevance to the 1 Samuel 15 debate would be, in my opinion, that there is a purposeful communication from God in that text. Hasty caveat: not to be taken out of context!

Purposeful as in 'God had on purpose in giving us this text' or 'We can find purpose from God in this text if we understand it well enough'?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Bullfrog: The seam isn't so clean, I think, as you imagine.
Thanks, Bullfrog, though I'm not quite sure what seam it is to which you refer! Perhaps I'm not sure what I'm imagining! What do you think it is? [Confused]
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quote:
Bullfrog: The seam isn't so clean, I think, as you imagine.
Thanks, Bullfrog, though I'm not quite sure what seam it is to which you refer! Perhaps I'm not sure what I'm imagining! What do you think it is? [Confused]
The point where the NT breaks away from the OT. I don't think it's so clear where one ends and the other begins...it may not be completely seamless, but trying to pick out where the seam actually happens isn't so easy, and in some places there does seem to be a seamless transition.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, Bulldog, I completely agree with you, and readily admit that I have over-simplified a more complex reality. My main concern was to argue that there are shifts throughout scripture in the understanding of God which are quite profound.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nigel M
quote:
The relevance to the 1 Samuel 15 debate would be, in my opinion, that there is a purposeful communication from God in that text. Hasty caveat: not to be taken out of context!
Quite so. And the communication from God, in context, is that the Amalekites are to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nigel, are you perhaps making a distinction between "a purposeful communication from God in that text" and "a purpose attributed to God in that text?"

[ 16. July 2010, 04:35: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kwesi wrote:
quote:
Footwasher, I must confess that I find the argument in your latest post difficult to follow. I do, however, note with considerable satisfaction that you agree with me that if 1 Samuel 15 is history (which it is) then "the Amalekite children are definitely innocent victims, and the women too as noncombatants, and the descendants of the original raiders. In fact, all!" Be careful, you might end up agreeing with my approach.

You would be mistaken, however, to regard the Samuel passage as a parable, because it clearly isn't.

I agree it isn't. BTW, don't you feel that the real life incident of the man born blind just to serve the purpose of being an exhibit for demonstrating God's glory would also be unjustified, if the compensation in the after life had not covered the damages?

quote:
Nor are you justified in claiming certain NT verses as an explanation of the passage. There is, for example, no reason to believe that the elimination of the Amalekites was a means of saving their eternal souls.
I had tried to suggest there that they happened to be coveniently placed for God to teach a symbolic lesson to Saul, the surrounding nations, and to us.

As to the second point, there is some evidence that Scripture teaches that God reaches out to individuals and saves their eternal souls on their recognition of their error, and on repentance. One might even argue that many of the texts with reference to salvation are really discussing the loss of the opportunity to be God's Chosen People, destined to be those through whom the nations of the world would be blessed. Jews would be extremely puzzled to hear that forgiveness was contingent on sacrifice. Jonah's account points to the contrary.

quote:
(Incidentally, such warped reasoning was used to justified the burning of heretics and the inquisition).
You made my point for me: they were warped reasonings.

quote:
You are also doing violence to the text in regarding the Amalekites as 'spiritual types'. That was not the author's intention.
The important intent is the Divine one. The question is: Did God co-opt the incident to teach a spiritual lesson?

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Nigel, are you perhaps making a distinction between "a purposeful communication from God in that text" and "a purpose attributed to God in that text?"

I asked the same [Smile]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Then I apologize - I took your question to be about a more subtle distinction. (Which underscores how easily we can read things into posts (and texts) that the author did not intend!) I would not presume to try to simply rephrase your question.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Purposeful as in 'God had on purpose in giving us this text' or 'We can find purpose from God in this text if we understand it well enough'?

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
...are you perhaps making a distinction between "a purposeful communication from God in that text" and "a purpose attributed to God in that text?"

I think W Hyatt's questions are slightly different to Boogie's. And the answers, I fear, are Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes! If I take them in order:

[1] God had a purpose in giving us this text. This group of texts and not another, in this heterogeneous make-up, written by humans who refer to God in the third person, is provided by God with the purpose of assisting humans to fulfil their God-given role in being God's image. When humans communicate the message in the whole text, they are fulfilling God's purpose. This, at least, seems to be the thrust of how the authors understood it, e.g., the 2 Tim. 3:14-17 passage (note that however one might get hung up on the word 'inspiration', the focus of the passage is not really that, but rather purpose:
quote:
You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are confident about. You know who taught you and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.
I appreciate that I have not touched on exactly which text we are talking about – which set of books in a canon. That debate has been had I'm sure, in various states of apoplexy, across the other side of the Jerusalem to Jericho road in Purgatory. Here I have just been interested in finding the principle to start from.

[2] We can find purpose from God in this text if we understand it well enough. Part of the role of being responsible, image-of-God working, human beings is to put brain into gear and use God-given talents to the best of our ability (I think that actually fulfils a parable or two). Shamwari mentioned in an earlier post (two-thirds of the way down page 1) an approach oft times named “grammatical-historical exegesis.” This would be a key component of an approach to locate the human authorial intention in a passage – which is what I would take “understand it well enough” to mean. In doing so, we find that the writers have had as their top focus the character of God and how that God wants his creation to behave. This forms a uniting principle behind all the texts. Thusly it also provides a route to finding purpose from God in the text itself. My caveat is that if we take [1] above seriously, then strictly speaking we need to locate God's purpose more fully in the “more than the sum of the parts” that go to make up the canon. Focussing too much on a limited range of texts would be reductionist; it would miss the whole – seeing trees but missing the wood. This means that although there is a need to get to detailed grips with each individual author, section by section, we then also need to go a step further to see how the individual parts fit together. This, in turn, feeds back into our further understanding of individual texts. We have to thank Schleiermacher for that particular hermeneutical circle, though taking into account the way it developed via Heidegger to Gadamer, to include the way this process also changes the one doing the interpretation. A 'new man' is being created as a result of the very process of interpretation; this also acts to fulfil one of God's purposes in providing such a text.

[3] There is a purposeful communication from God in that text. The text as we have it is not static, it is dynamic. I think this is an insight from the authors themselves; e.g., the Isaiah 55 passage makes that point. It means we don't have to see the bible as something akin to a Christmas present that lands on our lap and that could end up in a cupboard until we can think of what to do with it (“How nice – another set of hankies this year – perhaps I can find someone to give it to as a birthday present in a few months!”). If we do not accept a deistic view of God (the one who winds up creation and lets it run without further interference) in respect of his interaction with the world, then perhaps neither should we assume that the bible is something God gave but which he no longer really is involved with. A more biblical view of 'gift' (how the human authors understood it) is one where God passes the responsibility for something to another, but where God remains in overall ownership and can revoke the license for, so to speak. Land was a gift to Israel, but was always dependent on the human owners using it in accordance with God's instructions. Failure to comply meant the Emperor stomping in to remove the humans from power. And that fulfils another parable or two. So God's communication – his intentional message – works through the text somewhat like the water cycle.

[4] There is a purpose attributed to God in the text. Certainly the human authors identified purpose in the collection of texts as they were being built up, collated, and transmitted. The Timothy and Isaiah passages are examples. More generally we have Jesus' emphasis on interpreting the Jewish Scriptures and then showing his followers the importance of doing this so that they, in turn, focussed so much on OT texts in setting out their purpose. Additionally the human authors, by virtue of their focus on God and his ways of working, demonstrate a capacity for taking life as it really was and asking the question about how God fitted into the equation. The logic appears to be that if God is really the author of all, then everything that happens has to be explained in terms of a divine purpose. This could be expressed as God making things happen, or regulating things as they happened, or countering something that came from another entity in a divine council. However it was explained, the writers don't give the impression that there was room for a purposeless event. This, I think, is where the book of Ecclesiastes scores. Rather than being a depressing take on life, as some have interpreted it to be, when seen in the context of the worldview of the time and the larger scope for attributing purpose to God, it actually makes the opposite point; there is an overall, overarching, purpose with God.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Quite so. And the communication from God, in context, is that the Amalekites are to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Quite so indeed! So how do you read the passages in the Gospels which validate corporate judicial execution?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It seems to me that the following posted by Nigel and located (buried?) at the heart of a long passage is a clue

"The logic appears to be that if God is really the author of all, then everything that happens has to be explained in terms of a divine purpose."

There is an underlying assumption (presumption) which seems to control everything else; namely, that God is the author of all.

I dont think he is.

There are some passages which are plainly an historical account - what happened no less.

This history was introduced or set in the context of a theological comment. For instance "The Lord said". But what proof is there that the Lord said anything at all apart from the writer's "faith stance"?

When it comes to "prophetic" passages the argument is somewhat different. I understand prophecy to be Insight rather than Foresight. And it is clear that such insights very often derive from a Divine inspiration. In which case we could say that God is the author of all such insights.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nigel M
quote:
So how do you read the passages in the Gospels which validate corporate judicial execution?
Which one's do you have in mind, Nigel?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Footwasher
quote:
BTW, don't you feel that the real life incident of the man born blind just to serve the purpose of being an exhibit for demonstrating God's glory would also be unjustified, if the compensation in the after life had not covered the damages?

I guess, Footwasher, I don't share your interpretation of this miracle. Surely, it's grotesque to suggest that God creates human beings with deformities for any reason whatsoever?

What I get out of Jesus' remark is that all of us are imperfect beings in many ways and need the healing of Christ's grace. Jesus' main point, however, is that the man's blindness was not an affliction brought on him by God either for his own sins or those of his parents.

Footwasher
quote:
I had tried to suggest there that they [the Amalekites?] happened to be coveniently placed for God to teach a symbolic lesson to Saul, the surrounding nations, and to us.
I can't believe you are suggesting that God created the Amalekites in order to wipe them out in order to teach us all a 'symbolic lesson'. BTW what is a 'symbolic lesson'?

Footwasher
quote:
Jews would be extremely puzzled to hear that forgiveness was contingent on sacrifice.
I'm afraid you've lost me!

Footwasher
quote:
The important intent is the Divine one. The question is: Did God co-opt the incident to teach a spiritual lesson?

Exactly how does God co-opt an incident?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re the man born blind.

A translation (entirely legitimate) is

It was not this man who sinned or his parents.

BUT that the works of God might be made manifest......

In other words Jesus is not commenting on any possible reasons for his blindness. That was a fact which nothing could change.

His blindness, however, offered an opportunity for God's healing power to be made manifest.

It hinges on the Greek word "ina". Normally it implies purpose. i.e. so that.

But it can imply consequence as I have translated / interpreted.

It is sheer blasphemy to suggest God caused his blindness simply to afford an opportunity 30 years later to cure it.

What sort of a monster God is that?

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does the presence of God in a narrative imply God's endorsement thereof? I can certainly think of passages where things happen and God's response, even in the text, is resignation at best.

This probably is another gradual shift in the OT. Could the God that wiped out half the camp in a pique of outrage (Numbers, I think?) be the same God who, when the Israelites request a king, very begrudgingly gives them what they ask for, knowing full well that it won't be good for anyone involved?

And then there's that eerie silence in the later prophets...

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
It seems to me that the following posted by Nigel and located (buried?) at the heart of a long passage is a clue

"The logic appears to be that if God is really the author of all, then everything that happens has to be explained in terms of a divine purpose."

There is an underlying assumption (presumption) which seems to control everything else; namely, that God is the author of all.

I wouldn't say that the writers presented God as author of all – as I said on my post, sometimes he is presented as the one who confronts something that does not come from him. Do you agree though that the authors did seek, in fact, to explain everything from the starting point that God has an involvement one way or another in the workings of his creation?

This is one of the points that I was trying to get across on the other thread – that the record shows a God who is actively involved. That goes to his character.

The term “Insight” is one I would be happy to apply to each and every author of a biblical text, not just the prophets. I take as my backing for this the witness of the NT writers who relied on a wide range of OT texts to provide insight into the character of Jesus.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Nigel M
quote:
So how do you read the passages in the Gospels which validate corporate judicial execution?
Which one's do you have in mind, Nigel?
There are a few examples listed in this post.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599

 - Posted      Profile for footwasher   Email footwasher   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I guess, Footwasher, I don't share your interpretation of this miracle. Surely, it's grotesque to suggest that God creates human beings with deformities for any reason whatsoever?
As grotesque as agreeing with Satan to test Job, by killing his children, among other atrocities? You can't get away from the fact that, later, God (and Job) feels the acceptability and appropriateness and sufficiency of compensating him with many children (and cattle, and wealth). You have to wonder whether it's YOUR 21st century morality and PC are the ones that are out of sync.

quote:
What I get out of Jesus' remark is that all of us are imperfect beings in many ways and need the healing of Christ's grace. Jesus' main point, however, is that the man's blindness was not an affliction brought on him by God either for his own sins or those of his parents.
You'd have to avoid facing the fact that Jesus was answering a direct question: "Why was this man born blind?"

quote:
I can't believe you are suggesting that God created the Amalekites in order to wipe them out in order to teach us all a 'symbolic lesson'. BTW what is a 'symbolic lesson'?.
No need to "protest too much". I did suggest that more is at stake than eyes and teeth, hands and feet. A sentiment echoed here:

7“Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. Matt 18

And here's an example of how some use the accounts symbolically.

Quote
Joshua is a fabulous metaphor for clearing sin from your life. Every story is priceless, and a worthy topic for sermons and lessons of all kinds. As a literal piece of history, however, it is a series of atrocities.


Freddy

quote:
I'm afraid you've lost me!
You mentioned salvation. Jews believe salvation (forgiveness of sin) does not require animal sacrifice, repentance suffices.

quote:
Exactly how does God co-opt an incident?
If someone is sinning and heading for judgement, you might as well make an example out of him. The Scots would love the practicality of the solution: killing two birds with one stone, as it were, if you will excuse the apparent insensitivity.

--------------------
Ship's crimp

Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
It is sheer blasphemy to suggest God caused his blindness simply to afford an opportunity 30 years later to cure it.

What sort of a monster God is that?

Careful, shamwari! You are doing one of those monster leaps of logic again!

You may well be right about the grammatical construction in John 9, but what is the evidence for asserting that God would not cause blindness in order to cure it later? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but want to stress the importance of justifying the steps we take. Otherwise we simply end up with a conclusion that you think God would be a monster if he caused blindness, therefore he could not possibly have caused blindness, therefore the text could not possibly say that.

That would be to fall prey to the presuppositions we have been brought up with.

[ 16. July 2010, 16:21: Message edited by: Nigel M ]

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
God creates a problem so that God can solve it...sounds like fortunate fall theology.

Though I think that is basically what Jesus says.

Weird...

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Footwasher
quote:
As grotesque as agreeing with Satan to test Job, by killing his children, among other atrocities? You can't get away from the fact that, later, God (and Job) feels the acceptability and appropriateness and sufficiency of compensating him with many children (and cattle, and wealth). You have to wonder whether it's YOUR 21st century morality and PC are the ones that are out of sync.
Job's God is more a problem for you than me, Footwasher, because I've argued that the God revealed in Jesus is different from many understandings of God in the OT. In Job 2:10 Job says: "Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil." So, am I to take it that you are asking me to believe in a God that does evil as well as good?

For what it's worth, my own approach to Job is probably much less literal than yours, but it's hardly necessary for me to develop the point.

As for my 21st century morality and PC, perhaps as my accuser you could point at which aspects of 21st century morality and PC cloud my judgement, so I can make the appropriate plea.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nigel: I do not see it as a monster leap of logic to assert that a God who causes a man to be blind in order that 30 years later he may effect a dramatic cure can only be regarded as a monster.

Maybe you can defend that action.

I would regard it as morally reprehensible and, if asked to worship such a God, would refuse.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Footwasher
quote:
And here's an example of how some use the accounts symbolically.
Quote
Joshua is a fabulous metaphor for clearing sin from your life. Every story is priceless, and a worthy topic for sermons and lessons of all kinds. As a literal piece of history, however, it is a series of atrocities.

........aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I would regard it as morally reprehensible...

On what basis, though, Shamwari?

This is the nub of my point here; I think in reality you would feel more comfortable with putting the bible into the category of solely a human product, limited by space and time. It could, in reality, be put to one side. If there are any texts worth relying on today, they would be ones that accord with some other criterion.

What is that criterion, though? How would it be justified? At the moment it appears to be just gut-feeling.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Footwasher
quote:
And here's an example of how some use the accounts symbolically.
Quote
Joshua is a fabulous metaphor for clearing sin from your life. Every story is priceless, and a worthy topic for sermons and lessons of all kinds. As a literal piece of history, however, it is a series of atrocities.

........aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!
Why is that painful? Christians have been doing that to the Bible for centuries, at least since Origen. A lot of the gospel stories are so obviously loaded with symbolism that it's kind of dumb to read them without acknowledging the intended metaphors into the story, probably including the blind dude.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nigel: the criterion?

The God who revealed Himself in Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus didnt play games with people's lives. Nor did he regard God in the same way as Tess of the Durbavilles. The Immortal(s) was not making sport of human existence.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bullfrog: what, may I ask, is the metaphor in the story of the blind dude?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hold on, Bullfrog, my frustration was a response to Joshua is a fabulous metaphor for clearing sin from your life. Every story is priceless, and a worthy topic for sermons and lessons of all kinds.

I find the whole idea risible, and a violence to the integrity of the text. The notion of a linkage between Joshua's invasion of the 'promised land' and the eradication of private sin in the 21st century is rubbish. Every sermon based on that proposition must, indeed, be 'priceless'. What the lessons 'of all kinds to be learned' from that book, apart from the annexation of territory, one fears to imagine. I thank the Almighty I've never been exposed to such asinine expositions. If I want to learn about the problem of sin in my life, then I'm more concerned to hear what Jesus has to say about it than the writer of Joshua.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Bullfrog: what, may I ask, is the metaphor in the story of the blind dude?

Going back to what Nigel M pointed out, and midrashing off of Jesus' comment that the blindness was brought about "so that he could be healed to show God's glory," then it's an analogy or allegory of the fortunate fall.

God allows sin (blindness) to happen, even in a good world, so that the greater glory of Jesus Christ (regained sight) could be revealed to humanity (the blind dude.)

This is not to say I'm endorsing the above reading, but I think it's consistent.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, shipmates, I left out the verb in the following sentence: What the lessons 'of all kinds to be learned' from that book, apart from the annexation of territory, one fears to imagine. It should have read: What the lessons 'of all kinds to be learned' from that book are , apart from the annexation of territory, one fears to imagine'.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Hold on, Bullfrog, my frustration was a response to Joshua is a fabulous metaphor for clearing sin from your life. Every story is priceless, and a worthy topic for sermons and lessons of all kinds.

I find the whole idea risible, and a violence to the integrity of the text. The notion of a linkage between Joshua's invasion of the 'promised land' and the eradication of private sin in the 21st century is rubbish. Every sermon based on that proposition must, indeed, be 'priceless'. What the lessons 'of all kinds to be learned' from that book, apart from the annexation of territory, one fears to imagine. I thank the Almighty I've never been exposed to such asinine expositions. If I want to learn about the problem of sin in my life, then I'm more concerned to hear what Jesus has to say about it than the writer of Joshua.

Joshua fit da battle of Jericho...

(if you catch the reference)

Ironically, Jesus' name IS Joshua. More accurately, they're both Yeshua.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So what, Bullfrog?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
So what, Bullfrog?

Just pointing out that perfectly decent marginalized people have made Joshua into exactly the allegory presented.

Granted, in that case it was more "social sin" being taken out rather than individual, but it seems a fine song (and story) to me put in its proper context.

And again, I think you're underestimating the link between Jesus and all that OT stuff. The cross-references are just too big and too numerous to ignore. And maybe Jesus "spiritualizes" the destruction of great swaths of people, but he still uses some pretty violent imagery sometimes. Maybe that's the reason he's more palatable - he merely damned everyone who rejected him to hell where Joshua only wiped them out physically.

I'm uneasy with genocide and damnation myself, but I think if I'm going to be a Christian and take the bible seriously, there has to be a way to understand this stuff besides cherry picking it away based on my own subjective preferences for what would make this "God" into something I could stand to be around.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As Paul (very nearly) said

Almost thou persuadest me to become an atheist.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Nigel: the criterion?

The God who revealed Himself in Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus didnt play games with people's lives. Nor did he regard God in the same way as Tess of the Durbavilles. The Immortal(s) was not making sport of human existence.

I think we need to take this back to the other thread as we are derailing the original intent here. I'll scoot it over...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bullfrog, I think you'd be on stronger ground with "Go Down Moses."

Bullfrog
quote:
I'm uneasy with genocide and damnation myself, but I think if I'm going to be a Christian and take the bible seriously, there has to be a way to understand this stuff besides cherry picking it away based on my own subjective preferences for what would make this "God" into something I could stand to be around.
Be my guest!

Jesus and Joshua have the same root. (So, I understand does Judas). So what? It doesn't change our consideration of the Book of Joshua, does it?

My deeper concern is that after well over a hundred years of modern biblical scholarship and a scientific revolution, the faithful are being filled with pap of the kind quoted re Joshua. The difficult and disturbing central questions raised by this book of doubtful history are ignored and replaced by pietistic homilies on sin. God save us! What kind of Christian apologetic is it that seeks to defend genocide after the experience of the last and present century? What sort of message of salvation is that to a world ravaged with ethnic conflict? In an attempt to preserve the indefensible notion that the bible is the inerrant word of God, which anyone with two brain cells knows it isn't, we get the kind of contortions in so many of the posts on this thread. It may satisfy Christians in the closet, but it does nothing to engage the faithful with God's world and the people in it.

I agree with you, Bullfrog, that the bible has to be taken seriously: indeed, very seriously, but it also has to be studied critically. You are right about the dangers of 'cherry-picking', but its contents have to be measured against what we understand about the Word and the Godhead: to be Christologically coherent and in accordance with trinitarianism. I'm not 'uneasy' with genocide, I'm against it, and not because I'm PC or corrupted by liberalism, but because it's not Christian.

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not an inerrantist in most senses of the word either, and probably qualify as a "liberal" by most of the usual litmus tests, but still...

How do you deal with the genocides of the OT besides by cherry picking them out? You quote Moses as a better civil rights example, but he wiped out thousands of children just before the Exodus, so you've still got a bloody mess to exegete there.

If you understand that I don't like to excise bits of Scripture, what do you do? Joshua is likely a glorified semi-historical (if historical at all) story. OK, so...What do you do with it? Do you think we should have a book of psalms that skips over 137 because we don't like to look at that side of our humanity?

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools