|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: biblical inerrancy
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Except what liberal Christians are trying to do is actually find the Christ of the NT as opposed to church dogma about him. By the same token, liberals could accuse conservatives of following the Christ of church creeds rather than the historical Christ. Probably best to leave people alone, though.
Liberal is a Woolley if convenient term. The Christ of the Bible could be the Miracle working human teacher of the gospels, the theological Christ of Paul or the being of Revelation 1 and 2. He is also seen as pictures of suffering as well as reigning as King over the earth in the OT prophecies. He is probably known by relational experience as much as by intellectual understanding. ISTM that often simpler people emphasise the former, clever educated people as on this forum, the latter.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
A Ptolemaic metanarrative requires that above all God be Killer except when incarnate and neither can His followers be. Before that they must stone delinquents, witches, homosexuals and commit genocide.
I do not know what your cult was and use of Ptolemaic doesn't help. I thought I knew what you meant but obviously not. Your insistent slandering of God's character is sad. I seem unable to communicate here. I did not want to discuss that issue as everything has already been said elsewhere. Maybe you could consider what I asked above which is where does it stop this slander of God's character. He continually takes life, allows disease and refuses to intervene in human conflicts where countless innocents are embroiled. If you take the view that he is in fact real, and I know you don't really, then you've got some big fish to fry here. You already know I reject evolution as inconsistent with a personal God and an unprovable proposition. I also reject the basic tenets of post modernism since they reject all attempts to impose meaning on realities but their own. That is like forcing someone to convert at gunpoint and Martin you refuse to acknowledge views outside that frame instead treating me like a cretin who hasn't yet seen the light. I am still happy to interact but you have to admit old chap that there isn't much common ground.
My cult was like yours, but I don't know how much worse your theology is, whether you're damnationist too.
Ptolemaic is a perfect metaphor for your theology and you know exactly what I mean by it. You are no cretin after all.
Your insistent slandering of God's character is sad.
To call your God a psychotic is no slander, it's clinically accurate. He was my God too for decades. Thirty years and more. I suspect that your God is even worse. You haven't denied that you are damnationist with it.
You communicate your justification of God the psycho with fallacious reasoning just fine. You NEVER acknowledge your failures of reason, your fallacies. That isn't cretinous. It's proud. You cannot admit when you are wrong in your reasoning, your inferences and I'm not talking about your Ptolemaic theology which is entirely separate. You infer wrongly about my reasoning, either deliberately or because you don't have that capacity. Nobody else here has any problem with the logic of what I say.
God takes no life at all. He allows everything. Then you again read my mind and tell me that I don't believe in God.
How do you do that? If you don't know, then you have a severe problem way beyond your evil theology. You are fallacious. Incapable of reason. It's not your fault as it is driven by a primal universal. Fear.
Evolution and postmodernism are facts in the real world, the rational world, the world of the senses, the world of rock and mind and stories.
It is YOU who deny that we have anything in common. You, on no rational basis whatsoever, because it doesn't fit in your stunted Ptolemaic worldview, deny my absolute belief in God as revealed in His Son and extrapolated to infinity.
Are you going to call me a liar next?
[ 03. October 2016, 22:15: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Evolution and postmodernism are facts in the real world, the rational world, the world of the senses, the world of rock and mind and stories.
I love your description of the world. But postmodernism isn't so much a "fact" as a framework. Blue spectacles, to kype from Lewis. It is something to look through, not to look at. There are other frameworks. Which one(s) work better depends on who's looking and what they're looking at.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Agreed. I was being a tad loose. Postmodernism is a fact of life, i.e. a fact of cultural evolution.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If by that you mean it is a fact that it exists in our culture as a framework people use, and in the using of which create works of art and opinion, then definitely.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Egeria
Shipmate
# 4517
|
Posted
Rather as many people used Freudianism in the nineteen fifties. And they often believed that this framework was a fact of nature.
I think postmodernism is much the same. There are people who believe in it wholeheartedly, but there are plenty of others who take the position--to quote a graduate student of my acquaintance--that it's "the dumbest thing I've ever heard!" Certainly postmodernism has a strong appeal for those who would like to be seen as intellectuals, but who can't (or don't want) to do research and who can't write coherently. Because turgid texts full of meaningless jargon must be brilliant. Master pomo prose (see Judith Butler for example) and you too may win a bad writing context.
--------------------
"Sound bodies lined / with a sound mind / do here pursue with might / grace, honor, praise, delight."--Rabelais
Posts: 314 | From: Berkeley, CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
Master pomo prose (see Judith Butler for example) and you too may win a bad writing context.
As per...
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
You infer wrongly about my reasoning, either deliberately or because you don't have that capacity. Nobody else here has any problem with the logic of what I say.
So no one? You continually insist on Jesus being the only thing that makes sense but Jesus of the scriptures was a damnationist right?
ISTM that you picked out some ideal of tolerance and goodness out of the ether, called it Jesus and made it your personal pet. No different to any other idol.
Post modernism is not a fact of our modern lives any more than any other ism. It is not a necessary lens to understand reality. You are immersed in where it takes you but that seems to be a bit like a love affair. What happens when the high wears off?
All reasoning is based on premises and yours and mine are very different. To accuse anyone of fallacious reasoning is a bit insulting when all it boils down to is disagreement about that.
You obviously are so bitter about your 30 cult years that you think anyone else remotely the same needs to see the light.
If you say you believe in God of course You are not a liar. My question is What God on what basis and that is a genuine enquiry as I have no trouble accepting the Biblical God so being a convinced post modernist who rejects pretty well all meta narratives what is your basis?
[ 04. October 2016, 02:52: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is quite simple Jamat. What is the purpose of Christianity?
If it is Jesus' message then everything should be evaluated based on that. Genocide and stoning people does not fit that message. As no Christian follows the Bible as literal in its entirety, what you use to render the judgement as to which bit is accurate should be measured by what is most important.
To me, that isn't the question at all it is What is the purpose of me?
How can I judge what is most important. That seems a bit like asking which bits of a sunset are most important.
At the risk of staring a fire I deny genocide. Genocide is something only man can initiate. Anything God initiates like the flood, is judgement. Mostly judgement is corrective, sometimes protective. The flood ISTM was necessary because Genisis 6 which flags a Satanic attempt to corrupt the human gene pool and make us unredeemable.
I have no idea who the Caananites were really but I know the Amorites were Caananites. God spoke to Abraham about the future and said "The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full" This suggests that God was working up to judgement but also giving them time to repent.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Oh it's judgement. All those Canaanitd babies deserved to be put to the sword. That's OK then.
Makes me want to puke, that morally bankrupt utter bullshit.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh it's judgement. All those Canaanitd babies deserved to be put to the sword. That's OK then.
Makes me want to puke, that morally bankrupt utter bullshit.
That's why I didn't want to go there but since we're here babies are killed wantonly every day! It's called abortion. If you are a Christian you believe that human spirits live forever including aborted babies, including Caananite babies. The end is not yet when anyone shuffles off the mortal coil. Let's say you are God and you know a person will grow up to a future without him. Maybe you take that kid pre-emptively. I'm not God, but I believe as I think Moses said, his works are perfect and his ways just. So take your arrogant judgement of him Karl and stick it where the sun don't shine.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It's not a judgement of him because I don't believe he ordered such an evil thing. Face it, the OT God is sometimes painted as a homicidal bastard and no amount of mucking about can change that.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not a judgement of him because I don't believe he ordered such an evil thing.
Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition. This is the maker of the universe.
I don't like the story either but what other way is there to look at it?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That's why I didn't want to go there but since we're here babies are killed wantonly every day! It's called abortion.
This, besides being a tangent, is just wrong. Unborn fetuses are aborted wantonly every day. Being unborn, they're not babies.
quote:
If you are a Christian you believe that human spirits live forever including aborted babies, including Caananite babies.
That sounds more like Plato than Christianity. Of course there is a long-established branch of Christianity that does not believe that the damned will live forever. And it is by no means clear what the ancient Israelites believed about the afterlife.
quote:
The end is not yet when anyone shuffles off the mortal coil. Let's say you are God and you know a person will grow up to a future without him. Maybe you take that kid pre-emptively. I'm not God, but I believe as I think Moses said, his works are perfect and his ways just.
This is fair - as far as it goes. If you are the deity who holds the keys of life and death in your hand, what is it to you if one person dies now or later?
But if we're going in that direction, then there are a number of problems. Not least the whole issue of the atonement; if death on a cross was to God as death in old age, then that (perhaps) messes with your narrative.
quote:
So take your arrogant judgement of him Karl and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Did Moses judge JHWH? When Moses apparently was able to discuss with the deity about the forthcoming plans of judgment, was Moses being arrogant?
Without wanting to continue with your knockabout tit-for-tat hellish rants, it strikes me that your understanding of the deity is as simplistic and flawed as your understanding of geology, and amounts to "things are the way I say they are. Because I say so". You might despise "intellectualism" but the alternative you are offering is stupidity.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition.
The problem with this idea is that it is circular; God is good and the root of all goodness. Therefore everything God does is good. Therefore he is incapable of doing anything evil.
But then if God is the source of everything good, how can you measure whether God is good? That's just saying that God is God.
And, of course, it is perfectly possible to imagine a flawed deity. The goodness of God thing is only an issue because that's the definition of the deity in use in our tradition.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not a judgement of him because I don't believe he ordered such an evil thing.
Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition. This is the maker of the universe.
I don't like the story either but what other way is there to look at it?
Tribal foundation myth, much like the story of Brutus fighting Gog and Magog to found the Kingdom of Prydain.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not a judgement of him because I don't believe he ordered such an evil thing.
Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition. This is the maker of the universe.
I don't like the story either but what other way is there to look at it?
Tribal foundation myth, much like the story of Brutus fighting Gog and Magog to found the Kingdom of Prydain.
I know others may look at it that way. I don't.
One more point, If you read right through Joshua, you discover that the common thread in all the total extermination stories was the sons of Anak. These were Giants. The corruption of the human gene pool could have been a factor here as in the Flood. It is entirely possible that the beings Joshua was ordered to exterminate were hybrids, not totally human and if allowed to remain would have made humanity unredeemable.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Mr Cheesy
I have no wish to indulge in hellish rants. The alternative was to suck up what Karl said. I have done that before. I am neither simplistic or circular in anything I have posted here. I appreciate your points which deserve some thought apart from the one about abortion which is your value judgement.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Mr Cheesy
I have no wish to indulge in hellish rants. The alternative was to suck up what Karl said. I have done that before. I am neither simplistic or circular in anything I have posted here.
I disagree on both points. Only you are using hellish language. And your ideas are inherently simplistic and circular.
quote:
I appreciate your points which deserve some thought apart from the one about abortion which is your value judgement.
Nope, it is just a fact. Just as up to 50% of fetuses are naturally rejected anyway. Are you going to claim that we should be trying to save those "babies" too? Your definition makes no sense.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not a judgement of him because I don't believe he ordered such an evil thing.
Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition. This is the maker of the universe.
I don't like the story either but what other way is there to look at it?
Tribal foundation myth, much like the story of Brutus fighting Gog and Magog to found the Kingdom of Prydain.
I know others may look at it that way. I don't.
One more point, If you read right through Joshua, you discover that the common thread in all the total extermination stories was the sons of Anak. These were Giants. The corruption of the human gene pool could have been a factor here as in the Flood. It is entirely possible that the beings Joshua was ordered to exterminate were hybrids, not totally human and if allowed to remain would have made humanity unredeemable.
Giants? Half-giants? This is sounding more like mythology the more you look into it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
it strikes me that your understanding of the deity is as simplistic and flawed as your understanding of geology, and amounts to "things are the way I say they are. Because I say so". You might despise "intellectualism" but the alternative you are offering is Stupidity
So unpacking this, Mr Cheesy
My understanding is simplistic and flawed
You think My explanation of why Joshua may have acted as he did is 'stupid.'
You are refer back to a previous discussion about geology from years ago where I was pounded into the dust, which is completely irrelevant. Thanks for that vote of confidence.
Perhaps you might like to explain a more nuanced approach I might take here since you also think I am anti intellectual you must consider your own view of the OT far superior.
I concede to taking a straightforward reading of the Joshua narrative. Please explain how this is 'stupid'. I know lots of folk with similar views.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Jamat
If it is axiomatic that God is Good - and I believe that too - then that must have some impact on the way that we read scripture and also the lessons we draw from it for our own behaviour.
I think you believe that whatever God does must be good, and therefore if the OT shows Him commanding wholesale slaughter, that must in some sense which He understands (and we don't) good.
I've heard the Catholic position (which is both anti-abortion and anti-capital-punishment) summarised this way. Only God gets to kill people. I don't know about that, maybe that is in some sense tenable. But the OT picture has God ordering other human beings to take part in wholesale slaughter of enemies. God in effect saying to His chosen people, not just "you can be murderously violent if I give you permission to be so", but "you must be murderously violent because I have commanded it".
Now that crosses a line for me. I can in no way conceive of such orders as good. And particularly when I read in the NT that we are commanded to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. There is an inescapable contradiction there, which is one of the things which affects the way I look at scripture.
To my mind, there is a demonstrable trajectory in scripture in the way God is perceived by His followers. From a tribal henotheistic God who is above all other Gods and will vanquish them by violence if necessary, to the monotheistic God of the major prophets who wishes His people to be a light to the Gentiles, to the God incarnate in Jesus who encourages us to see Good as a good Father, to love our enemies, and to forgive those who sin against us, to the summary in the letter of John that "God is Love". The agape love which is unselfish, self-giving and forgiving.
The other perceptions were steps along the way to God is Love. When we rationalise those steps because of a our view of the inerrancy of scripture, we rationalise goodness away from God is Love. And we give scope to those who behave hatefully today in the name of God.
I strongly recommend that you read this book.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
My Cheesy,
Yes I concede where you assert circular thinking
I think it is still a fair point in terms of the wider topic of inerrancy.
In Joshua 10 God tells Israel to exterminate people
God is good
Ergo extermination is OK
I do not think under normal circumstances it is by the way but say for argument's sake a good God tells you to do something that would normally not be good.
You only have two options
Trust him or not.
Joshua obviously did according to the narrative but if you are arguing for a justification of the action via God's goodness, thenit is circular and bad logic.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So unpacking this, Mr Cheesy
My understanding is simplistic and flawed
You think My explanation of why Joshua may have acted as he did is 'stupid.'
I thought we were discussing God.
quote:
You are refer back to a previous discussion about geology from years ago where I was pounded into the dust, which is completely irrelevant. Thanks for that vote of confidence.
I don't recall being part of that - I avoid those threads mostly because debating with creationists is so painful. I've no knowledge about your previous experiences - if it resulted in you being pound into the dust, no doubt it was because of the weakness of your position.
quote:
Perhaps you might like to explain a more nuanced approach I might take here since you also think I am anti intellectual you must consider your own view of the OT far superior.
If you mean that I believe thinking is better than not thinking, and that thinking beyond the narrow confined space of a literalist is better than trying to make ends tie up that obviously don't tie up - then yes. Just as having a nuanced - even basic - understanding of geology is better than having one educated from a book which bears no resemblance to the facts on the ground.
That's the problem here, your position is absolutely no different to the person who believes that the world is pink. And it isn't worth the effort trying to argue with stupid.
quote:
I concede to taking a straightforward reading of the Joshua narrative. Please explain how this is 'stupid'. I know lots of folk with similar views.
It is pretty obvious that one cannot explain stupid to a person who refuses to accept that his worldview is constrained and instead rubbishes all evidence to the contrary.
That's rather like the dwellers of a cave who believe that the shadows they're seeing behind a fire are reality - and when one person escapes to experience actual reality refuse to accept it because they'd rather believe the shadows.
Oh, wait..
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:Giants? Half-giants? This is sounding more like mythology the more you look into it
Of course but had you ever thought of that angle? It only just occurred to me after reading through all the relevant chapters in a sitting.
[ 04. October 2016, 08:57: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You only have two options
Trust him or not.
I think if you're hearing a voice telling you to murder your own son or a bunch of unbelievers, you need to get yourself to a medical professional.
The real issue here is not what we'd do in the same circumstances but in how we interpret the text. Personally, I rather like Kierkegaard's take on the abomination which is the Abraham/Isaac story.
Rather than asking whether we too would obey and put Isaac on the pyre, a better question is to think about the value of using logic and the value of the prophetic.
As far as I can see, literalism just gets stuck in the mire, being able to use the stories to stimulate deeper thought is a much more healthy way to use them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So unpacking this, Mr Cheesy
My understanding is simplistic and flawed
You think My explanation of why Joshua may have acted as he did is 'stupid.'
I thought we were discussing God.
quote:
You are refer back to a previous discussion about geology from years ago where I was pounded into the dust, which is completely irrelevant. Thanks for that vote of confidence.
I don't recall being part of that - I avoid those threads mostly because debating with creationists is so painful. I've no knowledge about your previous experiences - if it resulted in you being pound into the dust, no doubt it was because of the weakness of your position.
quote:
Perhaps you might like to explain a more nuanced approach I might take here since you also think I am anti intellectual you must consider your own view of the OT far superior.
If you mean that I believe thinking is better than not thinking, and that thinking beyond the narrow confined space of a literalist is better than trying to make ends tie up that obviously don't tie up - then yes. Just as having a nuanced - even basic - understanding of geology is better than having one educated from a book which bears no resemblance to the facts on the ground.
That's the problem here, your position is absolutely no different to the person who believes that the world is pink. And it isn't worth the effort trying to argue with stupid.
quote:
I concede to taking a straightforward reading of the Joshua narrative. Please explain how this is 'stupid'. I know lots of folk with similar views.
It is pretty obvious that one cannot explain stupid to a person who refuses to accept that his worldview is constrained and instead rubbishes all evidence to the contrary.
That's rather like the dwellers of a cave who believe that the shadows they're seeing behind a fire are reality - and when one person escapes to experience actual reality refuse to accept it because they'd rather believe the shadows.
Oh, wait..
So instead of discussing issues you want to imply personal slurs? Glad we're straight and see ya later.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So instead of discussing issues you want to imply personal slurs? Glad we're straight and see ya later.
Yeah, I guess attacking your view as stupid must be a personal slur, because you said so. Seeya.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
You infer wrongly about my reasoning, either deliberately or because you don't have that capacity. Nobody else here has any problem with the logic of what I say.
So no one? You continually insist on Jesus being the only thing that makes sense but Jesus of the scriptures was a damnationist right?
quote:
Empirically no one. No one but you. Because of your wooden literalism.
You have to believe in demon-human hybrids. I forget these corollaries we must have been through through the years of woodenism. A wooden Ptolemaic orrery. I'm surprised your Earth isn't flat, or at least on the back of four elephants on a turtle. Ah, but those hypnopompic fantasies aren't part of the Bible's. So the entire cosmos is 6000 years old. If not, why not? That wood be inconsistent.
ISTM that you picked out some ideal of tolerance and goodness out of the ether, called it Jesus and made it your personal pet. No different to any other idol.
quote:
It's the ether of the gospels. Of that man's actions in the gospels. And of course, all theologies are heresy.
Post modernism is not a fact of our modern lives any more than any other ism. It is not a necessary lens to understand reality. You are immersed in where it takes you but that seems to be a bit like a love affair. What happens when the high wears off?
quote:
All reasoning is based on premises and yours and mine are very different. To accuse anyone of fallacious reasoning is a bit insulting when all it boils down to is disagreement about that.
quote:
You obviously are so bitter about your 30 cult years that you think anyone else remotely the same needs to see the light.
quote:
Again your mind reading skills aren't up to it. You can't possibly see it.
If you say you believe in God of course You are not a liar. My question is What God on what basis and that is a genuine enquiry as I have no trouble accepting the Biblical God so being a convinced post modernist who rejects pretty well all meta narratives what is your basis?
You have no trouble accepting a wooden Ptolemaic God. My basis is Jesus. Alone. What else could it possibly be?
And if there is only one 6000 year old universe, how old is God?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jamat
If it is axiomatic that God is Good - and I believe that too - then that must have some impact on the way that we read scripture and also the lessons we draw from it for our own behaviour.
I think you believe that whatever God does must be good, and therefore if the OT shows Him commanding wholesale slaughter, that must in some sense which He understands (and we don't) good.
I've heard the Catholic position (which is both anti-abortion and anti-capital-punishment) summarised this way. Only God gets to kill people. I don't know about that, maybe that is in some sense tenable. But the OT picture has God ordering other human beings to take part in wholesale slaughter of enemies. God in effect saying to His chosen people, not just "you can be murderously violent if I give you permission to be so", but "you must be murderously violent because I have commanded it".
Now that crosses a line for me. I can in no way conceive of such orders as good. And particularly when I read in the NT that we are commanded to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. There is an inescapable contradiction there, which is one of the things which affects the way I look at scripture.
To my mind, there is a demonstrable trajectory in scripture in the way God is perceived by His followers. From a tribal henotheistic God who is above all other Gods and will vanquish them by violence if necessary, to the monotheistic God of the major prophets who wishes His people to be a light to the Gentiles, to the God incarnate in Jesus who encourages us to see Good as a good Father, to love our enemies, and to forgive those who sin against us, to the summary in the letter of John that "God is Love". The agape love which is unselfish, self-giving and forgiving.
The other perceptions were steps along the way to God is Love. When we rationalise those steps because of a our view of the inerrancy of scripture, we rationalise goodness away from God is Love. And we give scope to those who behave hatefully today in the name of God.
I strongly recommend that you read this book.
That is a great post. I hear what you are saying. You seem to have thought a lot about the issue. For me I cannot get by 2 beliefs that most people here do not share.
One is this is a narrative that happened not a myth.
The second is WHY would God do such a thing he must have had a reason and I have mentioned a couple of thoughts in God's defence that might work.
In the end as I said, I deal with the text as it is but I do thank you for the reference which I will read and also for the obvious thought you put into this post. It must be difficult as a host wading through all the shitstorms these topics engender.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Empirically no one. No one but you. Because of your wooden literalism.
You have to believe in demon-human hybrids.
And if there is only one 6000 year old universe, how old is God? [/QB]
Martin, no hard feelings but you are sounding a bit like my wife. She asks things like who made God and I just don't know
But why does literalism have to be wooden? And is there any literalism that isn't?
ISTM if you read it as it was written you do see the demon hybrids. I also live in the modern world but the 'angel ' view of Genesis 6 strongly suggests something a bit like that happened and it is reinforced in the book of Jude. The Angels that left their first estate. (Not suggesting anything about the press here)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So instead of discussing issues you want to imply personal slurs? Glad we're straight and see ya later.
Yeah, I guess attacking your view as stupid must be a personal slur, because you said so. Seeya.
It is making assumptions about the views of someone you've not met that is really stupid as well as posting patronising asshat stuff that is not relevant. I am happy to defend my reading if you can stop using the pejorative language.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is making assumptions about the views of someone you've not met that is really stupid as well as posting patronising asshat stuff that is not relevant. I am happy to defend my reading if you can stop using the pejorative language.
Friend, I've been around the block here several times. I know you are not stupid, but remain convinced that the view you are expressing is stupid.
If you find other people patronising when they're thinking that your view is stupid, then you're not going to get too far around here. You have a fourway choice; either engage here or don't, shout at me in Hell or don't.
I remain convinced that the worldview you are expressing is stupid. If you want to try defending that, bully for you.
[ 04. October 2016, 09:55: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You only have two options
Trust him or not.
I think if you're hearing a voice telling you to murder your own son or a bunch of unbelievers, you need to get yourself to a medical professional.
I I
The real issue here is not what we'd do in the same circumstances but in how we interpret the text. Personally, I rather like Kierkegaard's take on the abomination which is the Abraham/Isaac story. O
Rather than asking whether we too would obey and put Isaac on the pyre, a better question is to think about the value of using logic and the value of the prophetic.
As far as I can see, literalism just gets stuck in the mire, being able to use the stories to stimulate deeper thought is a much more healthy way to use them.
Ok I hear this but the term literalism is very loaded.
I also use the stories to stimulate thought but how is that important in the question of whether they are true?
If I heard a voice telling me to kill my boy I would know it wasn't God but I am not Abraham and in fact he didn't and the whole story is a type of the crucifixion.
If the issue is how we interpret the text and I agree with that, what is interpreting here? Is deciding it is a myth part of interpreting? Or is that more speculating?
In interpreting is it OK to make assumptions based on stuff outside the text?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Ok I hear this but the term literalism is very loaded.
I also use the stories to stimulate thought but how is that important in the question of whether they are true?
It doesn't matter to me that they're "not true", but I don't accept that useful things are always true. I also don't accept the literalist division between true-helpful and lies-unhelpful.
The New Testament parables are often bad examples used to make a point. Stories don't have to have literally happened exactly as stated for them to be useful. In fact, it is far more problematic if they did happen as depicted.
quote:
If I heard a voice telling me to kill my boy I would know it wasn't God but I am not Abraham and in fact he didn't and the whole story is a type of the crucifixion.
Of course Abraham wasn't Abraham at that point in the story and he had no knowledge of the crucifixion (and incidentally I don't accept that it is a type of the crucifixion, it is quite a different thing to any of the theories of the atonement).
quote:
If the issue is how we interpret the text and I agree with that, what is interpreting here? Is deciding it is a myth part of interpreting? Or is that more speculating?
Yes, I think deciding that something is mythical is a part of the interpreting. How can it not be?
quote:
In interpreting is it OK to make assumptions based on stuff outside the text?
Not sure what you mean. The bible is not a coherent whole, it is fairly obvious that one cannot avoid making "assumptions based on stuff outside the text".
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Jamat;
quote:
But why does literalism have to be wooden? And is there any literalism that isn't?
I've posted the following, from Reformation era translator Tyndale, on other threads previously - apologies to those who've already seen it, but it does seem to answer Jamat's question there.
Tyndale on the ‘Literal Sense’
quote:
“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”
In medieval scholarship they interpreted the Bible by a scheme known as the 'Fourfold Sense' whereby they more or less flatly applied four 'senses' to every text. I always struggle to remember all four and different universities of the time even seem to have used slightly different terms, but three of the 'senses' were the Literal, the Allegorical, and the Prophetic.
The Reformers realised, in effect, that part of the problem they were facing was that the 'Literal' sense was being obscured by more exciting interpretations in the other senses, yet those interpretations could be very subjective, and/or only of temporary use - I've seen a couple of such interpretations by my Archiepiscopal namesake which I don't think anyone on the Ship would take seriously...!!
The Reformation idea, therefore, was that the 'Literal Sense' was primary - and the other senses might be useful, but shouldn't end up contradicting the Literal .
But as Tyndale then says, in that context the 'Literal' sense means something on the lines of 'read it like an ordinary book using ordinary language'; and as he says, that means making full allowance that the writers do imaginatively use all kinds of figures of speech and other literary devices to enhance the message, rather than just the boringly prosaic language which is what we tend to mean by 'literal' nowadays.
"as all other speeches do" is simply Tyndale saying that this is the ordinary way humans use language....
We don't interpret "Butterflies in the tummy" in a dumb 'wooden' literal sense that there actually are insects flying around inside somebody; we recognise that a figure of speech is being used to describe a particular feeling. Same with the Scriptures... and at least if you do believe they're God's Word, use the plainer and more literal bits to clarify when you're not quite sure of the more 'figure of speech' bits.
Hope that helps....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Empirically no one. No one but you. Because of your wooden literalism.
You have to believe in demon-human hybrids.
And if there is only one 6000 year old universe, how old is God?
Martin, no hard feelings but you are sounding a bit like my wife. She asks things like who made God and I just don't know
[/QB]
None taken mate. That makes you human and likable again by the way. And it's all right. I DO know. Logic is inexorable. You should try it. Then you would know. Your ignorance is due to emotional preference, experiential reasoning: you are emotionally incapable of rational reasoning and you cannot differentiate experiential from rational. That's normal. That's OK. Most people find any analytical, rational reasoning, let alone consistent rational reasoning, impossible. Me included of course. I have no idea how to communicate this to you apart from directly. No idea how to love you in it. Until you show some humanity, which you invariably do. I should love you regardless.
quote:
But why does literalism have to be wooden? And is there any literalism that isn't?
You answer your helpless question. You are a good man who insists on believing the wrong things wrongly, anti-intellectually. This is entirely due to emotional reasons. Fear is the key.
quote:
ISTM if you read it as it was written you do see the demon hybrids. I also live in the modern world but the 'angel ' view of Genesis 6 strongly suggests something a bit like that happened and it is reinforced in the book of Jude. The Angels that left their first estate. (Not suggesting anything about the press here)
What the demons are now the fourth estate?! In your friend Murdoch's case, may be.
Your reading is consistently woodenly anti-intellectually Ptolemaic, I can't find any failure in that, despite your otherwise proudly (knowingly, chosenly, deliberately, unrepentant; adversarially, Satanically) fallacious reasoning and mind reading; I'll give you that.
You partially repented of the latter to me but it is emotionally impossible for you to repent of the former.
[ 04. October 2016, 11:07: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:Giants? Half-giants? This is sounding more like mythology the more you look into it
Of course but had you ever thought of that angle? It only just occurred to me after reading through all the relevant chapters in a sitting.
Well, it doesn't help much - "you have to be brutally slaughtered because your great great great grandfather was the wrong race".
I think I prefer my National Origin Myth version.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It seems to me we have two different ways of looking at the "bad God" passages in the OT:
Argument 1.
X is bad
God is good
According to the Bible, God does (or commands) X
------------------------------
X isn't bad when God does it
Argument 2.
X is bad
God is good
According to the Bible, God does (or commands) X
--------------------------------------------
The Bible is wrong about that.
ISTM the first argument makes the Bible to be more important than God. We will stretch our beliefs about God to fit the Procrustean bed of the Scriptures. The second argument makes God more important than the Bible. We will stretch our beliefs about the Bible to fit the Procrustean bed of the nature of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tribal foundation myth, much like the story of Brutus fighting Gog and Magog to found the Kingdom of Prydain.
I know others may look at it that way. I don't.
Yes, but so what? Unless you can give us arguments for why your interpretation is better. Not arguments for why someone else's interpretation isn't consistent with yours. That doesn't really require arguing for. But what we're seeing here are arguments of the "No it's not. Joshua xx:yy so there" variety.
Is this whole thread just arguing about whether vanilla or chocolate is the best ice cream flavour? Or can you actually give us an argument for why your interpretive framework is superior?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not a judgement of him because I don't believe he ordered such an evil thing.
Joshua 10:40 Yes, he did and he is incapable of evil by definition. This is the maker of the universe.
I don't like the story either but what other way is there to look at it?
Tribal foundation myth, much like the story of Brutus fighting Gog and Magog to found the Kingdom of Prydain.
I know others may look at it that way. I don't.
Wait, what? If you know others may look at it as tribal foundation myth, then why did you ask "but what other way is there to look at it?" (Italics in the quote mine.)
Or were you really asking what other convincing (to you) way there is to look at it?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Or were you really asking what other convincing (to you) way there is to look at it?
Yep,If you read it as narrative, what is it saying.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Mr Cheesy wrote: quote:
Stories don't have to have literally happened exactly as stated for them to be useful.
Agreed quote:
I don't accept that it is a type of the crucifixion, (Abrahamic story)
A father sacrifices his unique son, WHO IS THE 'SON OF PROMISE.' The son carries the wood. It is a test of faith and obedience. A resurrection is expected (see Hebrews)and there is a substitution (Ram for son) quote:
I think deciding that something is mythical is a part of the interpreting. How can it not be?
Agreed in that you have to decide what you are interpreting unless it is agreed. Definition may not be a factor. quote:
The bible is not a coherent whole,
Disagree. It is IMV coherent as a metanarrative of monotheism. If you affirm the contrary, what is the evidence? You have an explanation of God, creation, fall and redemption. quote:
it is fairly obvious that one cannot avoid making "assumptions based on stuff outside the text".
Agreed. I was thinking of big picture world view assumptions. 'I' presume evolution for instance, is false.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
ISTM the first argument makes the Bible to be more important than God. We will stretch our beliefs about God to fit the Procrustean bed of the Scriptures. The second argument makes God more important than the Bible
That is very neat . The presupposition is that the Bible and God can be in opposition which I cannot accept. quote:
can you actually give us an argument for why your interpretive framework is superior?
Yep.
I am not alone in it. Others have agreed. My framework is based on an inherited knowledge.
My framework allows for God's objective existence
My framework allows for fall, sin and redemption.
My framework allows for a supervening Deity who can reach into my physical world.
My framework allows for an experience of the supernatural.
My framework allows for human weakness.
My framework allows for providential guidance
My framework allows for my personal mutability so creating hope beyond it.
My framework allows for prophecy that indicates an eschaton.
My framework allows for an assurance of personal salvation but within a corporate entity.
My framework offers a blueprint for personal relationships with others within and outside that corporate entity.
My framework can be reconciled with the Biblical revelation as it stands within the present canon.
Yours might do all those things for you as well, I don't know. I am also aware that in asking for an argument, you are probably expecting something deductive rather than a list of propositional assertions. Frankly, I cannot do that, maybe you can from within your Orthodox framework but what I think I can do is meet challenges to its coherence. To me it is a coherent metanarrative within itself and not just when read in conjunction with tradition.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So, basically, it's internally consistent, it does everything you want it to, and lots of people agree with you.
I don't think I need to mention how many seriously flawed worldviews there have been with those qualities.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, basically, it's internally consistent, it does everything you want it to, and lots of people agree with you.
I don't think I need to mention how many seriously flawed worldviews there have been with those qualities.
As a cradle Catholic I found series flaws in that background world view. How does one avoid serious flaws? Whether it is one person falling over a cliff or a couple of billion, it is still a cliff.
One thing Catholicism did not offer me was a personal assurance of salvation.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
mt--
(From ex-fundie balcony.)
But, when it works for you, it can be very comforting, FWIW.
Which is probably also true of a good many of the other worldviews you alluded to.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--
(From ex-fundie balcony.)
But, when it works for you, it can be very comforting, FWIW.
Which is probably also true of a good many of the other worldviews you alluded to.
Comfort is over-rated.
We humans like to pick a viewpoint and stick with it. Doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
A father sacrifices his unique son, WHO IS THE 'SON OF PROMISE.' The son carries the wood. It is a test of faith and obedience. A resurrection is expected (see Hebrews)and there is a substitution (Ram for son)
This is the whole problem with this idea: New Testament books are not in themselves evidence that something was a foretaste of the atonement.
According to some preachers, pretty much everything in the OT is a foretaste of the atonement. I reject that nonsense.
quote:
Disagree. It is IMV coherent as a metanarrative of monotheism. If you affirm the contrary, what is the evidence? You have an explanation of God, creation, fall and redemption.
One could only really consider it to be a coherent whole if one has never actually bothered trying to read it. It fails on a microlevel (how many days was Noah on the ark, who was the first farmer (Cain, Abel, Noah?) who were all the people around in the times of Cain and Abel when they're supposed to be the children of Adam and Eve) and it fails on a macrolevel (discontinuities between the prophets and the law, between the OT and the NT).
quote:
Agreed. I was thinking of big picture world view assumptions. 'I' presume evolution for instance, is false.
#facepalm
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Comfort is over-rated.
We humans like to pick a viewpoint and stick with it. Doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
Yes, you said that before. But it's almost besides the point: whether we like it or not, comfort is a big (a) motivator and (b) draw for people. If I find myself within a group with a shared identity that I find comforting, then I (might be) less likely to reject or question the assumptions behind it.
Saying from the outside in a stern and disapproving way "oh, you know, that's not the kind of thing that you should be doing" might have some intellectual support but is no help in understanding the attraction of those beliefs.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
One could only really consider it to be a coherent whole if one has never actually bothered trying to read it. It fails on a microlevel (how many days was Noah on the ark, who was the first farmer (Cain, Abel, Noah?) who were all the people around in the times of Cain and Abel when they're supposed to be the children of Adam and Eve) and it fails on a macerolevel (discontinuities between the prophets and the law,
Au contraire it succeeds on all levels but I guess that is another story. And yes, I have read it
[Coding]
[ 06. October 2016, 08:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
