|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shouldn't we repudiate parts of the bible?
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
[...] Where is this? The bible's defense of slavery.
I'm sure we're all familiar with the Mosaic law's regs, so from the NT:-
quote:
(1 Cor. 7) Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters. In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God.
quote:
(Ephesians 6) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.
And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.
quote:
(1 Peter 2) Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What does studying the history of slavery and psychological effects of being at the mercy of others have to do with the morality of the biblical view of slavery?
They allow us to assess its merits.
How d'you decide what's right and wrong? If it's some other method, by all means, share. If it's the same method, we're in agreement.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What does studying the history of slavery and psychological effects of being at the mercy of others have to do with the morality of the biblical view of slavery?
They allow us to assess its merits.
How d'you decide what's right and wrong? If it's some other method, by all means, share. If it's the same method, we're in agreement.
You're talking about assessing the rightness or wrongness of a specific action by measuring it against some kind of moral yardstick, but that's not the question BA is asking (I think). He wants to know what the yardstick is.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
You're talking about assessing the rightness or wrongness of a specific action by measuring it against some kind of moral yardstick, but that's not the question BA is asking (I think). He wants to know what the yardstick is.
The yardstick is the evidence and argument. We can apply general principles, but they're formed by the same process.
The alternative is positivism, giving an opinion weight because of its source. If you go this route, you'd better hope your source truly is revealed truth. 'Cause otherwise, you've just elevated a handful of flawed humans to godhood. Not a good kind of apotheosis, that.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Bingo!
And that's the million dollar question that the repudiators can't answer.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Just did. There's nothing to answer. Arguing from authority is a fallacy.
Do the best you can with the evidence and reasoning at your disposal. Truth isn't revealed, it's discovered, by a long process of trial and error.
Expect answers to show up on a plate, and you end up defending slavery, the divine right of kings, geocentrism, and all the other "revelations" that landed up on the ash-heap of history.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
You're talking about assessing the rightness or wrongness of a specific action by measuring it against some kind of moral yardstick, but that's not the question BA is asking (I think). He wants to know what the yardstick is.
The yardstick is the evidence and argument. We can apply general principles, but they're formed by the same process.
The alternative is positivism, giving an opinion weight because of its source. If you go this route, you'd better hope your source truly is revealed truth. 'Cause otherwise, you've just elevated a handful of flawed humans to godhood. Not a good kind of apotheosis, that.
Wow...all this circular reasoning is making me dizzy.
Besides, evidence and argument aren't a yardstick.
Try again
I'm waiting for a legitimate reason for why I should repudiate scripture.
Oh...and simply posting a list of verses without comment is not an explanation of the biblical view of slavery.
And your misapplying the argument from authority fallacy.
[ 29. July 2014, 20:38: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But Eliab says ultimately it is based on his feeling of right and wrong. You say it isn't based on feelings or middle class prejudice but can't tell us on what it is based. You are asking me to repudiate scripture but you can't tell me why. All I get is because decent, ordinary, and rational people like yourself don't like it. So what?
Let's flip this around a bit, though let's not ignore The Silent Acolyte's post which is well done.
Please tell me what the genocide in Joshua tells you about God and how it informs our Christianity. I think it misinforms but you indicate that you think differently.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
[...] Where is this? The bible's defense of slavery.
I'm sure we're all familiar with the Mosaic law's regs, so from the NT:-
(1 Cor. 7)…
(Ephesians 6) …
(1 Peter 2) …
Those are the expected citations, but you don't explain how these are a defense of slavery.
[ 29. July 2014, 21:08: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Those are the expected citations, but you don't explain how these are a defense of slavery.
The defense can reasonably be inferred from the command to obey. If you want a justification, Paul serves one up in Romans 13:
quote:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Hey, Paul thought God was about to end the world, shouldn't be too harsh on the guy. As God didn't bring the curtain down, we've just set aside his teaching.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Byron posits:
the Bible's defense of slavery
It was your example, so I don't feel it's nitpicking to ask.
Where is this? The bible's defense of slavery.
For a start:
Leviticus 25:44-46
Matthew 5:18
About "middle class sensitivities" Or "liberal prejudices". Being against slavery is a "liberal prejudice"? Supporting the rights of women is for the upper crust only? Distaste for genocide is "elitist"?
There was a reason the church used to discourage
people from reading the Bible on their own.
Give a Bible to an average teenager without previous knowledge of Christianity and have them read from the book of Revelations, give them a version of the Bible without commentary or footnotes. Also don't tell them its from the "Bible".
What do you think will happen? Will the review be:
what is this nonsense? Was the author on Acid? or: I feel inspired to burn my enemies in an everlasting lake of fire.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[...] And your misapplying the argument from authority fallacy.
Amusingly, and appropriately, you don't explain why, just as you don't explain how my reasoning is circular. Toss in assertions about yardsticks, and we have us a tall glass of because-I-say-so. Not my poison, I'm afraid.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Byron, above, on the Bible's supposed 'defence of slavery';
quote:
quote:
(1 Cor. 7) Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters. In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God.
quote:
(Ephesians 6) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.
And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.
quote:
(1 Peter 2) Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval.
There are three basic things to say about these texts.
First, as I think I mentioned earlier, Slavery in those days and right down to the late medieval era with 'serfs' in English farms, was not always the outrage we think. In as very different culture without the kind of sophisticated money economy we now have, our style of nominally free employment wasn't very straightforward and for much everyday kind of service having slaves or being owned as a slave was a the normal option. And precisely because society was that way, freeing slaves was not always the best thing to do; indeed an owner who followed the OT rules probably offered the slave far greater security than freedom would have. I'm not sure of the detail, but I gather it took the extreme circumstances of the Black Death in England to break the pattern.
Second, early Christianity, Christianity of the NT teaching, is not set up to be a powerful body that changes the world straightaway by coercive means. Don't think medieval state church, think people who have been called out of the pagan world not to another country but to live among their fellow-citizens as 'resident aliens' respecting the local culture so far as is possible, unless it is a clear case of 'obeying God rather than men'. And in those cultures, slavery would not seem as clear an issue as it does to us – whence that Paul commands masters to treat slaves well rather than free them.
Third, for Christian slaves, this was a matter of following the example of Jesus by 'turning the other cheek' even to a bad master.
Over time Christianity did have significant effects; as, for example when a Christian master might well find that in a local church his slave was an elder over him in Christ. Look, even in NT times, at Paul's words to Philemon - “...that you might have (your slave Onesimus) forever; no longer as a servant, but better than a servant, a beloved brother... At the time, because of the normalcy of slavery and that it wasn't all just like the atrocity of the Southern USA slave states, this might not mean freeing Onesimus (remember that in OT law there was provision for a slave to opt to continue as such); but enough of that kind of event would start a change which led to our present attitudes. At the same time we should not anachronistically impose those attitudes backwards and expect them of people who were only at the beginning of that change.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But Eliab says ultimately it is based on his feeling of right and wrong. You say it isn't based on feelings or middle class prejudice but can't tell us on what it is based. You are asking me to repudiate scripture but you can't tell me why. All I get is because decent, ordinary, and rational people like yourself don't like it. So what?
Let's flip this around a bit, though let's not ignore The Silent Acolyte's post which is well done.
Please tell me what the genocide in Joshua tells you about God and how it informs our Christianity. I think it misinforms but you indicate that you think differently.
God chose to reveal Godself to the Israelites. God's choice made the Israelites God's chosen people with all the privileges and responsibilities that came with it. The privileges included God siding with the Israelites when they were in conflict with their neighbors. The responsibilities included keeping the law. The Incarnation happened in the place and within the culture shaped by God's relationship with the ancient Israelites. So, yes, the fate of the Israelites as a whole was more important to God than the fate of other ancient nomadic tribes that no longer exist. Not being a fundamentalist, I also God was concerned more with the fate of humans as a species than some of the ones that exist now only in the fossil record.
Jesus never questions the notion that the Israelites were the chosen people. He never questions that the religion of the ancient Jews wasn't correct and the others wrong. Just look at what Jesus actually says to the Samaritan woman at the well. Hint, Jesus doesn't say the Samaritan religion is equally as valid as the religion of the Jews.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[...] And your misapplying the argument from authority fallacy.
Amusingly, and appropriately, you don't explain why, just as you don't explain how my reasoning is circular. Toss in assertions about yardsticks, and we have us a tall glass of because-I-say-so. Not my poison, I'm afraid.
The argument from authority is not universally invalid. Certain kinds of discussions (e.g. common law) are impossible without an appeal to authority.
The argument from authority becomes fallacious when an authority is appealed to on a topic outside its expertise or upon which it is not disinterested. So if I were to assert that modern cosmology is tosh because the Bible clearly states that the sun revolves around the earth, that would be one example. Or if, in an argument with an unbeliever over the existence of God, I cited Scripture to support my contention that God exists, that would be an example of the second case.
It is impossible to have a discussion within Christianity of Christian doctrine without some sort of appeal to Scriptural authority. It seems to me that a Christian who advocates subordinating Scripture to some other authority is at least bound to show what that other authority is.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
But Eliab says ultimately it is based on his feeling of right and wrong. You say it isn't based on feelings or middle class prejudice but can't tell us on what it is based. You are asking me to repudiate scripture but you can't tell me why. All I get is because decent, ordinary, and rational people like yourself don't like it. So what?
Let's flip this around a bit, though let's not ignore The Silent Acolyte's post which is well done.
Please tell me what the genocide in Joshua tells you about God and how it informs our Christianity. I think it misinforms but you indicate that you think differently.
God chose to reveal Godself to the Israelites. God's choice made the Israelites God's chosen people with all the privileges and responsibilities that came with it. The privileges included God siding with the Israelites when they were in conflict with their neighbors. The responsibilities included keeping the law. The Incarnation happened in the place and within the culture shaped by God's relationship with the ancient Israelites. So, yes, the fate of the Israelites as a whole was more important to God than the fate of other ancient nomadic tribes that no longer exist. Not being a fundamentalist, I also God was concerned more with the fate of humans as a species than some of the ones that exist now only in the fossil record.
Jesus never questions the notion that the Israelites were the chosen people. He never questions that the religion of the ancient Jews wasn't correct and the others wrong. Just look at what Jesus actually says to the Samaritan woman at the well. Hint, Jesus doesn't say the Samaritan religion is equally as valid as the religion of the Jews.
The interesting thing about Joshua is that it's the only place in Scripture where God's people don't screw up. In every other book, the people of God muck it up and most of the time it's God talking through Her prophets telling the Israelites to repent and return to the Lord.
God didn't save Israel from Assyria, Babylon, or Rome. So it isn't true that God sided with Israel against her neighbours all the time.
[ 29. July 2014, 21:38: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
The argument from authority is not universally invalid. Certain kinds of discussions (e.g. common law) are impossible without an appeal to authority.
The argument from authority becomes fallacious when an authority is appealed to on a topic outside its expertise or upon which it is not disinterested. So if I were to assert that modern cosmology is tosh because the Bible clearly states that the sun revolves around the earth, that would be one example. Or if, in an argument with an unbeliever over the existence of God, I cited Scripture to support my contention that God exists, that would be an example of the second case.
It is impossible to have a discussion within Christianity of Christian doctrine without some sort of appeal to Scriptural authority. It seems to me that a Christian who advocates subordinating Scripture to some other authority is at least bound to show what that other authority is.
Authority is invalid if used to establish a proposition.
Legal precedent is different in kind: it doesn't say that another court's judgment is right, merely that it's binding.
So if the argument's that we should obey the Bible without question, then yes, that wouldn't in itself be a fallacy.
Question immediately follows why we should obey it, with the answer, "It's revelation," and the inevitable follow-up, "How do we know?" answered with "Because it says it is," adding circular reasoning to the list.
As biblical authority is frequently used to defend a proposition, this distinction isn't usually relevant.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
@ Steve Langton
If its not a "defense of slavery" It certainly is not a condemnation. And verses like these were used from many pulpits For the purpose of defending slavery,
So you are defending slavery as good enough for people living in biblical times but not good now is that correct? Or if conditions become more like they were during those times would slavery be good and moral again?
Or are you saying that the moral standards of the bible are not good enough now but were good enough then?
I find it interesting that the Bible is held up as the source of all objective morality
for all time, but the arguments are:
"well under those conditions slavery wasn't all bad" Or it was those particular women that needed to shut up not all women.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Wait, who's using an argument from authority to establish propositions (that's accepting for the purposes of argument your assertion that to do so is invalid)?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There are three basic things to say about these texts.
First, as I think I mentioned earlier, Slavery in those days and right down to the late medieval era with 'serfs' in English farms, was not always the outrage we think. In as very different culture without the kind of sophisticated money economy we now have, our style of nominally free employment wasn't very straightforward and for much everyday kind of service having slaves or being owned as a slave was a the normal option. And precisely because society was that way, freeing slaves was not always the best thing to do; indeed an owner who followed the OT rules probably offered the slave far greater security than freedom would have. I'm not sure of the detail, but I gather it took the extreme circumstances of the Black Death in England to break the pattern.
In the Roman Republic, a master could kill his slave without legal consequence, as the law classed slaves as property, not people. This slowly improved in the Empire. In the mid-1st century, that improvement was at a very early stage. Reality was that slaves could be beaten, raped and killed pretty much with impunity, and Paul (along with whoever forged Ephesians and Peter) would've been aware of that fact.
quote:
Second, early Christianity, Christianity of the NT teaching, is not set up to be a powerful body that changes the world straightaway by coercive means. Don't think medieval state church, think people who have been called out of the pagan world not to another country but to live among their fellow-citizens as 'resident aliens' respecting the local culture so far as is possible, unless it is a clear case of 'obeying God rather than men'. And in those cultures, slavery would not seem as clear an issue as it does to us – whence that Paul commands masters to treat slaves well rather than free them.
Yes, this is fair, they were people of their time. One of the many reasons why their words aren't binding today. (Not shouldn't be, but aren't, as only a handful of fundies marginalized even by their own brethren think slavery is God-ordained.)
quote:
Third, for Christian slaves, this was a matter of following the example of Jesus by 'turning the other cheek' even to a bad master.
Turning the Beatitudes into an abuser's charter!
quote:
Over time Christianity did have significant effects; as, for example when a Christian master might well find that in a local church his slave was an elder over him in Christ. Look, even in NT times, at Paul's words to Philemon - “...that you might have (your slave Onesimus) forever; no longer as a servant, but better than a servant, a beloved brother... At the time, because of the normalcy of slavery and that it wasn't all just like the atrocity of the Southern USA slave states, this might not mean freeing Onesimus (remember that in OT law there was provision for a slave to opt to continue as such); but enough of that kind of event would start a change which led to our present attitudes. At the same time we should not anachronistically impose those attitudes backwards and expect them of people who were only at the beginning of that change.
I don't. Like I said upthread, I view people through the standards of their time & culture. It isn't about judging Paul & other biblical authors, but rejecting the idea that their words should have any authority over us today.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
[...] I find it interesting that the Bible is held up as the source of all objective morality
for all time, but the arguments are:
"well under those conditions slavery wasn't all bad" Or it was those particular women that needed to shut up not all women.
Totally, the "view in context" argument is deployed awfully selectively, usually to do a Marcion on verses that are beyond the pale.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We should see them all, first and last and totally, through the lens of Jesus. And therefore embrace them with His arms.
Amen. Some parts of the Bible we may not fully understand until we see God face to face.
Tell that to the people who use it to condone hatred.
I'll be happy to when it comes up, but alas, the old friends who are likely to bring it up appear to have dropped me, I'm guessing because of the whole gay thing. C'est la vie... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
There are three basic things to say about these texts.
All three of which I basically agree with. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Well each to their own.
Well said! Moving on...
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Wait, who's using an argument from authority to establish propositions (that's accepting for the purposes of argument your assertion that to do so is invalid)?
Anyone who argues that something's right 'cause the Bible says so. That extends to arguing that we're obliged to obey it 'cause it's revealed truth.
The only way it wouldn't be fallacious would be if the argument was framed in terms of force: "We should obey the Bible because if we don't, God will torture use in hell." Even the most extreme advocates of Divine Command Theory don't go this far.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Of course Jesus did and we just, must continue on His humanist, liberal trajectory.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Byron;
quote:
“Turning the Beatitudes into an abuser's charter!”
It is inherent in all the teaching related to 'turning the other cheek' that it can potentially be misused. The point is that such teaching is not an expression of 'justice', or something you can make into a rule and impose on others as a law. It is an expression of love by the oppressed, and must of course be voluntary to be meaningful. The basic notion of justice must indeed continue to be valid in order to give full meaning to the loving and forgiving alternative. I had the sad experience in the past of dealing with two pastors who did treat such texts as a kind of abuser's charter, and it was not nice to be on the receiving end – but it was a total misunderstanding of the original teaching, which starts from voluntarily imitating the costly love by which Jesus has forgiven us, in confidence that a Christ who conquered death can also conquer that human abuse.
In one of the two cases mentioned the pastor had borrowed money from church members and was using stuff about “forgiving each other's debts” to persuade them not to make a fuss about it. He also would mention such ideas in his preaching, in a way that to the rest of the church appeared simply to be expressing the idea of love generally, as we did not realise it was aimed at those he owed money to. We were shocked when we did realise, and realised that our assent to what the guy said had had the effect of making the creditors feel that we supported the errant pastor.
The other pastor was trying to get something done which to some appeared legally questionable; on the legalities, he told the objectors things like “Your legal rights don't matter; we're not under law, we're under grace – don't be legalistic!” and, “Never mind whether we're hurting you, you have to practice love and turn the other cheek or you're not a Christian anyway!” (Sneering “So There!!” clearly implied). He got away with it because he was prepared to lie and it was just not possible to produce enough proof to convince his supporters (he had been at least superficially very successful up till then); but I'm not the only person who suspects a connection between his behaviour then and his stress-related death a few years later. That he felt the need to lie about it shows that he did, if too late, realise that such conduct was unjustifiable.
Since those two episodes I've always gone to some trouble to ensure that such misunderstandings don't take root in any church I belong to; and also that pastors are not able to act solo or with a small clique but can be held more accountable to their church to reduce temptation.
Ikkyu; I have registered what you said above, and I see where you're coming from. I've just had one ***** of a day being tested for various things at hospital, I'm not up to composing the answer you deserve tonight. I'll try after a night's rest.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Byron posits:
the Bible's defense of slavery
It was your example, so I don't feel it's nitpicking to ask.
Where is this? The bible's defense of slavery.
For a start:
Leviticus 25:44-46
Matthew 5:18
This is just more sloppy internet-style argumentation: naked citations with nothing said to establish that these texts in any way make a defense.
quote:
There was a reason the church used to discourage people from reading the Bible on their own. Give a Bible to an average teenager without previous knowledge of Christianity and have them read from the book of Revelations, give them a version of the Bible without commentary or footnotes. Also don't tell them its from the "Bible".
What do you think will happen? Will the review be:
what is this nonsense? Was the author on Acid? or: I feel inspired to burn my enemies in an everlasting lake of fire.
This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
You talk as if the Bible stands alone. This sounds like some sort of 21st-century, North American idolatry of the book.
The book cannot be interpreted outside of the Church, with worship and prayer being the principal locus of interpretation.
In fact much of the objection to certain texts of the bible seem to constructed of earlier centuries' interpretation the church no longer teaches, particularly when it comes to Holy War (what is so simplistically called genocide on this thread), sexual and other mistreatment of women, usury, you name it).
And, where is Phyllis Trible's name on this thread? I search and I can't seem to find it!
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Of course Jesus did and we just, must continue on His humanist, liberal trajectory.
Fuck me, Martin.
I could have been sure it was a divine trajectory! You know. That image and likeness thing?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Byron posits:
the Bible's defense of slavery
It was your example, so I don't feel it's nitpicking to ask.
Where is this? The bible's defense of slavery.
For a start:
Leviticus 25:44-46
Matthew 5:18
This is just more sloppy internet-style argumentation: naked citations with nothing said to establish that these texts in any way make a defense.
Laws that codify slavery and that say the sons of
slaves are slaves for ever, are not in favor of slavery? Laws that are said to come from God? At the beginning of Lev chapter 25 it says "The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai" The LORD dictates laws that permit slavery.
quote:
There was a reason the church used to discourage people from reading the Bible on their own. Give a Bible to an average teenager without previous knowledge of Christianity and have them read from the book of Revelations, give them a version of the Bible without commentary or footnotes. Also don't tell them its from the "Bible".
What do you think will happen? Will the review be:
what is this nonsense? Was the author on Acid? or: I feel inspired to burn my enemies in an everlasting lake of fire.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
You talk as if the Bible stands alone. This sounds like some sort of 21st-century, North American idolatry of the book.
The book cannot be interpreted outside of the Church, with worship and prayer being the principal locus of interpretation.
In fact much of the objection to certain texts of the bible seem to constructed of earlier centuries' interpretation the church no longer teaches, particularly when it comes to Holy War (what is so simplistically called genocide on this thread), sexual and other mistreatment of women, usury, you name it).
And, where is Phyllis Trible's name on this thread? I search and I can't seem to find it!
Tangent:(You have to explain to me that Phyllis Trible thing.)
You just made my point for me. I believe it is rational to judge Bible texts from a point of view outside of the Bible.
I admit I should have presented my point better.
It was an example against those that claim that everything in the Bible is inspired and "good" for you. If that is true you should be able to read any book of the Bible out of context and find something "good" in there.And to find that good you should not start from the assumption that it has to be good because its in the Bible. If you start from that assumption your claim is equivalent to the claim of a devout Muslim who can also justify everything that is in the Koran using the same kind of argument. Or everything in the book of Mormon for that matter.
Interpreting the Bible trough a tradition small or big T is to use a standard outside the Bible to judge it. If not why can't the person use the plain text? Why would the interpretation of the High schooler be wrong just because its not in accord with a tradition ?
You could argue against the High Schooler using
historical arguments that put the text in context
you can tell him that burning people to death in a lake of fire for eternity is immoral but you won't find those things in the text of the Bible.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
In fact much of the objection to certain texts of the bible seem to constructed of earlier centuries' interpretation the church no longer teaches, particularly when it comes to Holy War (what is so simplistically called genocide on this thread), sexual and other mistreatment of women, usury, you name it).
Which of you should we actually believe? You say that we shouldn't base our view of the Bible on what the Church no longer teaches. However, Beeswax Altar earlier in the thread denigrated condemnation of genocide as a "modern sensibility" that shouldn't be allowed to stand up against the biblical word. (At least you are not going down the historical revisionist route of claiming that the Church has always actually believed what the modern church wants to present as its image. I suppose we should at least be grateful for avoiding that dishonesty.)
I am interested also by your suggestion that it is simplistic to describe as genocide such as the divine instruction to massacre the Amalekites. Instead, apparently, we should dress it up as "Holy War", i.e. pure euphemism.
As an atheist I love these sorts of threads. I just wish more doubters could read them.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Byron:
Authority is invalid if used to establish a proposition.
Once again you misapplying the appeal to authority fallacy. The appeal to authority deals with actual facts. It says that not everything an authority says on a subject is necessarily true simply because they are an authority. That's it.
Eventually some authority establishes all propositions. Let's use the ever popular Toulmin method. The proposition is the claim. The evidence is the data. The warrant is essentially authority. If you want to establish the claim that x is immoral through evidence, then you need something connecting the immorality x to the evidence you are presenting. In questions of ethics and morality, your warrant is your understanding of just what is moral and ethical. You can't prove your definition of morality and ethics by appeals to evidence and argument. To try and do so is circular reasoning.
Under your definition of the appeal to authority, collecting evidence about the merits of anything would be impossible. For instance, how do we learn the history of slavery? We rely on historians. Who are historians? They are authorities on history. FALLACY!!! How do we know the psychological impacts of anything? We rely on psychologists. What are psychologists? They are authorities on...FALLACY.
The OP says We. I'm assuming by We the OP means Christians. Christians accept certain presuppositions that others don't accept. I would expect non-Christians to repudiate the vast majority of scripture. On the other hands, orthodox Christians shouldn't repudiate scripture simply because it offends modern moral sensibilities.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Pre Cambrian:
Which of you should we actually believe? You say that we shouldn't base our view of the Bible on what the Church no longer teaches. However, Beeswax Altar earlier in the thread denigrated condemnation of genocide as a "modern sensibility" that shouldn't be allowed to stand up against the biblical word.
The Church has never taught genocide. A faithful Christian wouldn't participate in a genocide. However, just because a faithful Christian wouldn't participate in genocide doesn't mean Christians should repudiate OT descriptions of what might now be called genocide. Christian opposition to genocide has nothing to do with modern sensibility. Scripture should not be repudiated because it offends modern sensibilities.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
No, we should not repudiate parts of the Bible, because of most of the arguments already presented.
Oscar the Grouch, I was pleased to see that you quoted:
quote:
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
This is of course the sort of thing that would have been repudiated at the time of its writing, as not being in keeping with the current sensibilities. How distastefully anarchic of Paul, presuming to dispatch with fixed realities of identity!
We are not the be-all and end-all of ethics. To me, it smacks of arrogance to assume that - unlike those ancient people - we could never deceive ourselves and pretend that God has blessed, nay demanded, something that we really wanted to do anyway. Those justifications of genocide read to me like shitty, shamefaced excuses by people coping with having done something horrible.
Maybe in the future, our ethics will be judged negatively by Scripture as read by future generations. They will be shocked at our ethics around economics. ("They had private bank accounts?! Privately-held houses and investments? How on earth did they justify this to themselves?")
In other words, I'm more concerned with those parts of Scripture that continue to repudiate me and my culture.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Church has never taught genocide. A faithful Christian wouldn't participate in a genocide. However, just because a faithful Christian wouldn't participate in genocide doesn't mean Christians should repudiate OT descriptions of what might now be called genocide.
Why not? Given that Christianity accepts that every so often God demands His followers commit "what might now be called genocide", why wouldn't a Christian participate in Holy Slaughter?
And is there any real difference between saying "I would never, ever do something like that" and repudiating "that"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Christians don't believe God will ever command holy slaughter. Christians also don't believe in animal sacrifice even though the OT commanded them. Christians believe the Incarnation changed how God and humans relate. So, instead of living under the old covenant, we live under a new covenant.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Christians don't believe God will ever command holy slaughter.
Again, why not? Sure, Christians believe that they're under a new, different covenant, but they seem to have retained some bits of the old covenant (e.g. Ten Commandments) and repudiated* other bits (your example of animal sacrifice). Why did the genocidy bits get chucked over the "repudiate" side of the fence?
--------------------
*You can use a different word if you like, but I'm not sure there's a functional difference.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Can you confirm you think and hold this?:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, yes, the fate of the Israelites as a whole was more important to God than the fate of other ancient nomadic tribes that no longer exist. Not being a fundamentalist, I also God was concerned more with the fate of humans as a species than some of the ones that exist now only in the fossil record.
The problem I have with your idea is that you accept that God did indeed side with the Israelites, versus they believed they had God on their side. It would seem that they created God in the image they imagined.
It is not okay to simply dismiss the women, children and men who were slaughtered with phraseology like "ancient nomadic tribes that no longer exist" and "God was concerned more with the fate of humans as a species than some of the ones that exist now only in the fossil record."
These were living and breathing people who lived, felt love and were loved, babies who bounced on parents' knees, families who hugged each other and cared for their elderly. You really can find it possible to dismiss actual living people?
The today parallel, if we simply transported the scene today back some few thousands of years, would be the 1000+ dead Palestinians, who are simply not people of interest because God sides with the Israelites. Can anyone truly be okay with this sort of idea? Oh my!
You did also say this:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Church has never taught genocide. A faithful Christian wouldn't participate in a genocide. However, just because a faithful Christian wouldn't participate in genocide doesn't mean Christians should repudiate OT descriptions of what might now be called genocide. Christian opposition to genocide has nothing to do with modern sensibility. Scripture should not be repudiated because it offends modern sensibilities.
Notwithstanding that the Church has some episodes that might be definable as genocide, but not biblical episodes for the NT... So what are you saying then? That God did a personality change? Or that the people smartened up and got something more correct? That getting his son dead and resurrected made God happy with the disregardable formerly unworthy fossil people?
Some of us see the revelation of God's nature as much more interactive with the awareness and consciousness of the people.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Laws that codify slavery and that say the sons of
slaves are slaves for ever
You still don't mount an argument, but follow up with yet more sloppiness. Your citation does not say what you assert it says; or, you fail to offer a citation that does say this.
For the rest, fisking is really the only option.
quote:
You just made my point for me. I believe it is rational to judge Bible texts from a point of view outside of the Bible.
What I actually said was that the only place from which a Christian can interpret the bible is within the Church and there, from within prayer and worship.
quote:
I admit I should have presented my point better. It was an example against those that claim that everything in the Bible is inspired and "good" for you.
This is an idiotic statement. A straw man.
quote:
If that is true…
But, it's not quote:
…you should be able to read any book of the Bible out of context and find something "good" in there.
So good so far. quote:
And to find that good you should not start from the assumption that it has to be good because its in the Bible.
No, the Christian starts from the position that the the bible is a divinely inspired human production. It contains spelling mistakes and shitty grammar. quote:
If you start from that assumption…
But, again, the Christian doesn't do that. quote:
…your claim is equivalent to the claim of a devout Muslim who can also justify everything that is in the Koran using the same kind of argument. Or everything in the book of Mormon for that matter.
So what. We're not talking about Islamic exegesis, still less Mormom exegesis. quote:
Interpreting the Bible trough a tradition small or big T is to use a standard outside the Bible to judge it.
Again, it is within its tradition that the Church, through prayer and worship, interprets. Tradition preceded scripture. It was the Church that created this anthology. Revelation in. Shepherd of Hermas out. quote:
If not why can't the person use the plain text? Why would the interpretation of the High schooler be wrong just because its not in accord with a tradition? You could argue against the High Schooler using historical arguments that put the text in context you can tell him that burning people to death in a lake of fire for eternity is immoral but you won't find those things in the text of the Bible.
Simply because that's not how Christian interpretation is done. Why stop with the high schooler? Let's expect six-year-old recent converts do their own biblical interpretation, why don't we?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Some of us see the revelation of God's nature as much more interactive with the awareness and consciousness of the people.
That assumes a teleology of moral progress which cannot be shown to exist, except on an individual basis.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Eliab:
but I remain morally responsible for what I believe, and if something in the Bible appears to me to be wrong, it is right for me to say that.
Individuals acting as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong have caused far more death and destruction than the biblical account of the destruction of the Amalekites.
I genuinely don't get your point. Surely you can appreciate that there's a difference between listening to one's conscience and taking moral responsibility for one's values and "acting as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong".
You seem to be making the assumption that everyone accepts some sort of authority as unquestionably correct and binding at all times, and the argument is about what it is we put in that exalted position: scripture or sentiment.
I don't think that no_prophet accepts that premise, and I certainly don't. It simply isn't true that if I reject the uncritical approach to scripture that you argue for, I have to endorse some other standard as being beyond criticism. I don't. Why should I?
Besides, as I tried to demonstrate, scripture isn't a thing. It's a category. The Bible doesn't speak with one voice. It cannot, in my judgment, be true that it is both OK to marry a Moabite, and OK to abandon her and your own children by her for no other reason than her race. And yet there's a scriptural warrant for both propositions.
Like everyone else, you have interpretive principles by which you do in fact repudiate parts of the Bible. You did it on this thread when (contrary to the known praxis of the first Christian church) you said that Christians don't believe in animal sacrifice. You, can, presumably, cite the letter to the Hebrews in support of that view. FWIW, I agree with you, but you are repudiating parts of the book of Acts when you do this, and you know that you are. Why the reticence in saying so?
[ 30. July 2014, 07:08: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
TSA - humanism and liberalism are obviously divine. Human consciousness is opening to the divine. To love. And we ALL know what that looks and feels like even though we obscenely pretend that it is OK for God to sanction our murderous monkey vileness.
How do we do that?
Make black white? In God's name?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And to join up the dots TSA, Jesus showed us HOW to be liberal, humanist, humane, human, divine.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The general Christian principle of interpreting the bible, and I do mean general as in espoused by the vast majority, is that bible traces the trajectory of humanity's interaction with the Divine through salvation history, followed up until the impact of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and the early stages of the ensuing missionary explosion of the Church into the world. Almost no Christian group considers say the polygamy of the ancient Jews as of the same moral and religious status just because it is also spelled out in the bible. That's just not how that works.
Agreed, with some qualifications. But I’m making a different point than arguing for Progressive Revelation as opposed to Divine Wikipedia, which is that the Bible contains teaching which (on its natural, contextual, reading) flatly contradicts other Biblical teaching.
The examples I choose were picked not just because the differences in ethics are obvious and undeniable, but because the paired sources belong roughly in the same periods of salvation history. Judges/Samuel both address the origin of the period of the kings and Acts/Hebrews both belong to the apostolic age of writings. I’ll concede that the rather significant event of the exile separates Ruth and Ezra, but in that case, it is (according to my private judgment, but one that I dare anyone to disagree with) the more true, gracious, enlightened and holy view which comes earliest. I avoided NT/OT comparisons because I’m making a point to which “the Incarnation makes a difference” is not a full answer.
quote:
While there certainly is a natural (and, I believe, God-given) backbone to your concepts of good and evil, the views that you now have have been formed and re-shaped by endless cultural and social interactions. […] And you can change again. Should you, though?
I’d find it very hard to improve on that as a statement of where we get our morality. Natural, God-given, socially-conditioned, and chosen. All true.
quote:
And it is at this point where the question of "bible morality" bites, if you are a Christian. It is far from clear that the various voices which de facto spoke morality into your head in your upbringing are more authoritative than the ones who now speak morality to you with the bible in their hands. Maybe they were, maybe they were not.
Bible morality bites once I accept that Scripture is in some sense inspired by God. Which, of course, I do. I then have to work out what the Bible says, what it means, and why it says that, and as soon as I do, I encounter things which strike me as inconsistent, confusing and wrong, as well as things which astonish me with their wisdom and holiness. I’m going to take both experiences seriously.
quote:
But the answer to that cannot be given in the mode of "here I stand, I can do no other".
But it can be “today, I can do no other”. I can’t, today, bring myself to feel that women have nothing to say in church, that God is just in punishing the third and fourth generation of people who bug him*, or that a father can licitly sell his daughter into slavery or give her in marriage to a rapist. I can’t do – it would take longer than 24 hours to so twist my conscience. I could do it in five years, perhaps, if completely persuaded both that my own judgement were practically worthless, and that the authority of the Bible were so undeniable that it trumped even the clearest non-Biblical ethics. But it’s impossible to do it today. So today, I have a problem unless I repudiate parts of scripture.
*I can’t be the only person who finds that bit of the Ten Commandments jarring. Why can’t we say so?
quote:
You are not unchangeable, in fact, you have been changed. That is the question, and you cannot evade its force by pretending that your moral principles are set in stone.
Here you’ve simply misread me. My moral principles aren’t set in stone. I said above that I’m sure that many of my judgements are wrong, and one of the reasons why I am arguing for a critical engagement with scripture and not an uncritical one is precisely because that’s what I think is the better way to learn and develop.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
The problem I have with your idea is that you accept that God did indeed side with the Israelites, versus they believed they had God on their side. It would seem that they created God in the image they imagined.
I accept the idea that God did indeed side with the Israelites because that is what the whole of scripture teaches including the gospels. I would believe the Israelites created God in their image if I didn't believe Jesus was God Incarnate. Being an imaginary deity incarnate is no different from not being divine at all.
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
It is not okay to simply dismiss the women, children and men who were slaughtered with phraseology like "ancient nomadic tribes that no longer exist" and "God was concerned more with the fate of humans as a species than some of the ones that exist now only in the fossil record."
Well, I didn't dismiss them with simple phrases but let's assume I did. You say I can't. I say I can. All you've done is make a pronouncement. Until you can give me standard by which I'm supposed to use when deciding if scripture should be repudiated or not, all I have is your pronouncement. As a Christian, the pronouncement of no prophet is not a sufficient reason for repudiating scripture.
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
These were living and breathing people who lived, felt love and were loved, babies who bounced on parents' knees, families who hugged each other and cared for their elderly. You really can find it possible to dismiss actual living people?
And yet you insist sentiment plays no part in your call for us to repudiate scripture. Furthermore, we have no evidence that the Amalekites or some of the other tribes mentioned in the OT even existed much less what they were like. We have every reason to believe that they bounced said children on their knee right before sacrificing them to idols. Cared for the elderly? You have no way of knowing if they cared for their elderly or not.
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
That God did a personality change?
No, I'm saying and have already said several times on this thread that God did a covenant change.
quote:
originally posted by Eliab:
I genuinely don't get your point. Surely you can appreciate that there's a difference between listening to one's conscience and taking moral responsibility for one's values and "acting as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong".
Not in the way you are proposing there isn't. Everybody faces moral conundrums to which their is no clear and easy answer. In those circumstances, a properly formed conscience is the best guide in individual decision making. However, using your conscience to judge the actions of people who lived several thousand years ago is making yourself the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.
quote:
originally posted by Eliab:
You seem to be making the assumption that everyone accepts some sort of authority as unquestionably correct and binding at all times, and the argument is about what it is we put in that exalted position: scripture or sentiment.
No prophet is asking me to repudiate scripture. I'm going to expect him to give me some authority for repudiating scripture other than sentiment. I'll be happy to repudiate false teachings based on the controversial parts of scripture. I'll not repudiate the controversial parts of scripture themselves based on sentiment.
quote:
originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think that no_prophet accepts that premise, and I certainly don't. It simply isn't true that if I reject the uncritical approach to scripture that you argue for, I have to endorse some other standard as being beyond criticism. I don't. Why should I?
And yet you aren't claiming to be the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong...
quote:
originally posted by Eliab:
You did it on this thread when (contrary to the known praxis of the first Christian church) you said that Christians don't believe in animal sacrifice. You, can, presumably, cite the letter to the Hebrews in support of that view. FWIW, I agree with you, but you are repudiating parts of the book of Acts when you do this, and you know that you are. Why the reticence in saying so?
An excellent example
Animal sacrifice is not a part of the new covenant. Nowhere does scripture command animal sacrifice and in fact condemns it. Still, in Acts 21, we have Paul seeming to sponsor animal sacrifice in the temple. Do I repudiate Acts 21? Absolutely not. I understand that given the context Paul had a legitimate reason (and actually reading the entire pericope along with Paul's epistles makes the reason quite obvious)for what he did. Now, if somebody taught that Christians should sacrifice animals based on Acts 21, I would repudiate that teaching.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Was wrongly informed that Anglicans consider reason and tradition in addition to scripture? Here reason - the use of our brain power - is required to properly consider God's role in taking sides with a tribe of dusty people bent on taking over the lands belongings to others. This, the anthropologists indicate is the usual conduct of tribal peoples.
I accept therefore that the Israelites thought God was on their side and helped them, ordered them, to kill as they did, but reason tells us this is contrary to God's nature.
Sentiment as you state it, well, that would impetuously guide me to damn myself to hell and refuse heaven, Jesus and all the rest, if it were true as you state: that God values an agreement, a covenant, over everything else. This sort of use and discarding of human beings is something I see as one of the great failings and distortions of the business-as-god direction of our civilization. The reasoning as you promote it is the root in my view.
I might throw the sentiment label back your way. Sentiment perhaps attaches you to this tribal view because it provides comfort and felt security in 'truly knowing' the traditional truths. I do not think we can afford the ongoing destruction of each other with such views, and that we are required to do better with our minds than that. We afford such a luxury at our peril.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
I don't have the cite from Hooker close to hand, but the gist is: resolve a question using scripture. Failing that, look to tradition for the resolution. Then, when scripture and tradition are silent, apply human reason informed by scripture and tradition.
The fabled three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason, favorite of confirmations far and wide in this country, is a modern tool frequently used to pervert both scripture and tradition with modern opinions masquerading as reason.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Hooker wrote :
Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.
You have it almost right, TSA; you have only flipped reason & tradition.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
In fact much of the objection to certain texts of the bible seem to constructed of earlier centuries' interpretation the church no longer teaches, particularly when it comes to Holy War (what is so simplistically called genocide on this thread), sexual and other mistreatment of women, usury, you name it).
…
I am interested also by your suggestion that it is simplistic to describe as genocide such as the divine instruction to massacre the Amalekites. Instead, apparently, we should dress it up as "Holy War", i.e. pure euphemism.
There is no dressing up, no euphemism, no attempt on my part to make it any less the nasty business that it plainly was.
My point is merely that they are two different things, genocide and holy war, though they wind up in pretty much the same place with respect to the carnage.
The point of genocide is to totally destroy a people. And, while we're at, let's collect and appropriate for our own use all their stuff. It's usually motivated by greed.
Holy war in the OT, on the other hand, is a total destruction of the people and their stuff, making both an offering to God. It is warfare waged at personal risk, but without the gain of possessions, herds, flocks, and slaves.
There are a number of instances where biblical characters are punished for holding back from total destruction of the enemy's goods. It was a stealing from God's portion, for all the booty was to offered to him, consumed with flame.
The object was to gain the land, fulfilling God's promise to his people. The destroyed people's goods were not the object.
I'm not saying this to make anyone like the depiction, rather just to write an accurate account of it and to distinguish it from garden-variety, 20th-century genocide.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Laws that codify slavery and that say the sons of
slaves are slaves for ever
You still don't mount an argument, but follow up with yet more sloppiness. Your citation does not say what you assert it says; or, you fail to offer a citation that does say this.
Lev 25 1 quote:
The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai:
Lev 25: 44-46
quote:
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
So this does not say that slavery was ok for Israelites as commanded by the Lord? Or is there anything else it does not say? That was my citation.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
You just made my point for me. I believe it is rational to judge Bible texts from a point of view outside of the Bible.
What I actually said was that the only place from which a Christian can interpret the bible is within the Church and there, from within prayer and worship.
And this is Outside the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
I admit I should have presented my point better. It was an example against those that claim that everything in the Bible is inspired and "good" for you.
This is an idiotic statement. A straw man.
I believe saying its a straw man would work without having to add "idiotic" to it. I don't understand why you seem upset It was not my intention to upset you.
And while no one explicitly said "everything in the Bible is good" . People seem to be defending
a position very close to that. It seems that to you a Bible text as clear as the one I quoted
cannot be a defense of slavery for some reason and since you don't say what that reason is I assumed your reason is that it is in the Bible.
The rest of your post tells me that that that cannot be true because you are making the case for a more nuanced understanding of the Bible.
So why is Lev 25:44-46 not in support of slavery?
[code]
[ 30. July 2014, 16:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Thou shalt accept that God hath killed wantonly in favour of the children of Israel and that it was good because it is a covenant?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
