»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Would you?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Would you? |
|
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
If an entity appeared before you offering indisputable evidence that she was god and ordered you to kill every child you see under the age of two, would you? |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Grinch - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
what a strange question...and of course not! M |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Interesting. I have a friend who is schizophrenic, and very religious. When he doesn't take his meds, he sees God. (Can you imagine how hard that must be? *shaking my head* It would be like taking meds so you don't see the love of your life. So sad...) But I watched him one day, talking to the sky. I asked him who he was talking to, and he told me, "God." As gently as I could, I did ask, "If 'God' tells you to hurt anyone, you do know that isn't God, okay?" I told him that a God that isn't about love is a bad God, and should be avoided. So hopefully, if I start seeing 'Gods' in whatever form, giving bad instructions, I would take my own advice, and whatever meds necessary to make bad gods go away.  |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
No. Grinch, what would "indisputable evidence" be? I for one would at least note the similarity between your scenario, and the satanic spirit of Herod when, according to the Gospel of Matthew, he did the very same thing during the time when Jesus Christ was born. Thus, the "indisputable" would have fallen into serious doubt. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I agree with Stephen, but would go even further. Indisputable evidence would be proof to me it wasn't God. Faith is more than just a requirement of Christianity; it's a foundational bedrock. Coincidentally, I'm reading an older novel by one of my favorite authors, Steve Perry, that I apparently missed the first time around. In The Trinity Vector, a silver box mysteriously appears and accurately answers almost any question put to it (including tomorrow's lottery numbers). The story is still unfolding for me, but religion plays a pivotal role in Perry's plot. Playing advocate to your devil, Grinch, let's rephrase the question. If a similarly authoritative entity had told you to kill a two-year-old Adolph Hitler in the distant past, do you think you would have acquiesced? Or perhaps we should ask, should you have acquiesced?  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
What's your tradition, guys? I'm not sure I'd trust any tradition that said, "Yes" to murdering two year olds because somebody said they should, especially if that somebody said they were God. The whole notion of Abortion is difficult enough as is. Now the question is stretching to children whom pretty much everybody understands are living, and where there is no debate about the issue at all. I'm not happy with Abraham for saying, "Yes" to God's request to kill Isaac. I wouldn't have. At least I don't think I would have. I guess if God every talks to me that directly, I'd have to give you a more direct answer then. I've refused to open doors for people whom I actually believed would kill me for refusing to do so, but then I suppose there's nothing like a nimbus of divine fire to tip the scales one way or another. Haven't seen one yet, though. Jonah has always made much more sense to me for daring to ask God if he was, in effect, out of his cotton-picking mind when God asked him to go preach to a tough, out of town crowd. "I don't think so," he said, roughly speaking. "You may scare me, but I don't know that's a good enough reason to do things that make no sense to me." While you find lots of Anything-you-say-Sir-ing in the Hebrew Bible, you also have a healthy amount of Yeah, sure, right-ing to balance it off. The theme continues into the modern day as well. If you consent to hurt other people other than to save the life of another or for some overriding other concern (the ransom of captives is sometimes considered one of these, but I'm frankly not all that up on the details, and I couldn't say for sure) you're supposed to be the equivalent of a religious idiot in the Jewish Tradition, somebody who stands up for form over substance. A dork. My understanding of what Jesus preached is that he came out of this same tradition, somewhat like Hillel and Akiva. That's my current understanding. Somebody says that they're God and that you should kill Children, basically your duty (I believe) in the Jewish tradition is to suggest that the entity claiming to be God go climb a rope. As man is bound by the covenant, God has made promises to man as well. It is as a substitute for the sacrifice of Abraham that God made the covenant with the Jews; and, within the Christian tradition, with man in general as well. Some would say that the agreement was only extended to those who accepted Jesus as a personal savior. I would say that such a statement discredits the Christian notion of God and the Christian notion of Christ in an appallingly cynical fashion, and assumes that the compassion of God is as limited as that of Man. I find this assumption highly unlikely. This seems a highly limited sort of God, one that hasn't really gone beyond His Learner's Permit yet, and not at all like the God of The First Commandment, or the God of Universal Love and Compassion of the Christian bible. But then I suspect that other people have very different and probably more interesting views of the issue than I do. And I know that some folks certainly lead lives that I admire more than I do my own. What can I say? What do I know? |
||
|
Marc-Andre Senior Member
since 2008-12-07
Posts 501 |
I'm currently working on a poem on a similar theme, which will be posted as soon as completed. Mark |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Lol @ Grinch. What the question is asking is: "would you allow God's omniscience and perfect goodness to override your own human view of right and wrong?" Stephen tries evades the issue by focussing on the quality of the evidence, but by calling into doubt any evidence as to God's veracity which ran counter to his personal sense of right and wrong he is effectively answering in the negative to the first question. The conclusion is that either you know better than God Stephen, or alternatively there is nothing God could say or do to make you trust Him. Or maybe I am wrong? Perhaps there is a benign proof he could offer you so that you accepted Him over a coffee and burger on Monday, thus allowing you to acquiesce to His instruction to kill 2 years olds on Tuesday? .......... and ... Genesis Chapter 22 1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. 9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. [This message has been edited by moonbeam (12-21-2008 08:59 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It doesn’t really matter, as long as there’s absolutely no doubt that the entity that speaks to you is god. Surely it’s not hard for you to believe god exists - all you have to do is imagine that entity making the request, use whatever evidence takes your fancy or works for you. Or are you saying that god couldn’t convince you that she is in fact god? Where’s your faith Stephen? quote: Yes, if god convinced me she was in fact god I’d have no reason not to. quote: Again, yes, god is god after all, who am I to question her motives or reasons, I should do absolutely everything she tells me to do and have faith in the fact that she knows what she’s doing. If I accept an entity as god and that entity asks me to kill children surely I’d have to be stupid not to. You shouldn’t deny requests made by god. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Why would God ask me to do something that I would never do for anything on anyone’s behalf? This would be indisputable proof to me that it wasn’t God doing the asking. But let’s say for kicks that God really has appeared and made such a request of me. That would ultimately force me to be a failure within my faith, force me out of my belief, and cause me to be lost from God and anything God ever promised. It wouldn’t be very “supreme being” for God to request something of me that would equal a ZERO. I’d reject the request and God and be rejected by God in return. Not a very good formula for everlasting life. Not a very good formula for any kind of life, is it? The only faith I’d have left is in other humans who would hopefully KILL ME to keep me from slaying beloved children if I was so cruel to even entertain the thought. Besides, that’s a tricky question in numerical providence because no one’s sure what God years are, so that might mean I’d have to kill myself. If “two” = 20 x 2 + 2. I’m a goner too, by twos. So I’d want some clarification on that before I accepted my already inevitable faithless fate. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: That's the whole point Regina. You don't KNOW why he would. He knows everything, you know nothing; ergo he tells you what to do for your own good and that presumably of mankind, even if that action is killing 2 yr olds. quote: No it wouldn't. It would indicate that you are unlikely to trust God when He tells you to do something you don't want to do. quote: So you are saying that YOU dictate YOUR faith? In other words God exists only as a construct of YOUR mind? quote: Why not? Surely that's the whole point of a Supreme Being, he can request anything? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No idea, she moves in mysterious ways, or so I’m led to believe. Perhaps it’s a test of your faith, maybe she’s short of under two year olds in heaven, whatever the reason would you just ignore the request? I definitely wouldn’t - I mean it’s no big deal is it? God created all the kids doesn’t she get a say in what happens to them? In any case she could just as easily click her beard and bring them all back afterwards couldn’t she? I get the feeling you lot aren't very good at this faith lark, it's a sad state of affairs when an atheist is more willing to follow the will of god than so called believers. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
No, who does a deed has nothing to do with how I judge it. If a beautiful woman does an evil deed it doesn't become beautiful, nor does an evil deed become right if a god does it or says we should do it. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ess We're* not talking about "a god", we're talking about THE GOD. The "almightly invisible God only wise" God. Stephen's God. The God of Protestantism and Catholicism. He CAN'T be wrong or evil. * Well I am anyway - can't speak for Grinch of course. And anyway Ess who are you to judge what is evil? God does that. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam, Grinch did say "god" not "God". In any case when I said "god" I vaguely meant any "god" (including "God"). I never said anyone is wrong or evil. The distinction I was making was this: an action is not good or evil because of who does it, but because of what the deed is as a deed and how it treats someone or something. And that remains for me whether a God is doing the deed or not. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Yes Ess I saw what he said which is why I added the note. However his question doesn't make a lot of sense unless he does mean the Almighty or some such equivalent, for otherwise he might as well have said "Joe Bloggs". I think it's a pretty fine distinction to say that God can order up an evil deed and yet be pure as the driven snow. In fact I'm not sure I accept that distinction. But in any case you're sidestepping the important point which is that by saying what you are saying you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is good and what is evil rather than God. Perhaps that's what you intend? If so that's fine, I can accept that. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Moon, god Yep, you got it - the creator, he of the angels and miracles, the all seeing all powerful, the alpha and omega. That bloke with the beard (no not Charlton Heston - the REAL deal). |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: So, even you recognize the fact that God knows ME. So that little detail pretty much ruins the entire argument. Darn. And I believe that God wouldn’t take the time to create a being who knows nothing or are you suggesting that believers are nothing but play toys for God or puppets? quote: So? I trust God to expect me to adhere to the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” But hey, you’re right. My trust in God is a very human trust. Which means it's not infallible, and since we both know that God knows that too. I won’t put any faith in God finding me insolent for not killing children. quote: Dictate? No, since that requires an unconditional command. Are you saying that there aren’t any choices?? There are conditions, particularly of the heart, and choices within my faith and belief in God. Or else I’d feel a little left out since I didn’t catch that last Halley’s Comet!! Come on. I think trying to be sound of mind is an integral offering in any relationship, but so are matters of the heart. And since I already know that you know that you are not your brain, well then, there’s just so much more involved to faith and belief than we can sum up in an online forum, yeah? Let’s co-author a book!! Representing our beliefs. I think we’d have a heck of time together, with what time we have, sharing and comparing in good faith? And everyone else can spend what time they have debunking us? Or we can just all co-exist like we do now and keep thinking the thoughts and feeling the foughts. (that should be a word). quote: Sure, and I can turn it down. Which is between me and God. I believe there are many life stories that didn’t make it into the bible. I mean it just doesn’t make sense that not one person outside those mentioned were ever touched in any way by God. Hmmm. Maybe they weren't writers or they were shy about it?? |
||
|
Marc-Andre Senior Member
since 2008-12-07
Posts 501 |
I've posted this in the open forum, but I think it is pertinent to this thread. Indeed I’ve failed in duty; castigate Me if you will. To Rome a traitor proved, My disobedience most deliberate, When Herod barbarously troops commoved With make-belief that killing babes behooved, Deserted post, a child from slaughter save, As Bethlehem was made its infants’ grave. I overheard three magi warn a man Whose wife had given birth the previous night Of Herod’s hideosity-sprung plan For troops to raid where newborns brought delight, To plague those homes with most disgraceful blight; Deranged with superstitious prophecy He made of genocide his policy. Of Herod’s humor, rumours had been rife His subjects latent gallows bird, he’d pelt At anytime to satisfy his wife. In Eunuchs lechery he had oft smelt, An empathy for victims never felt. In Israel he could become Augustus If only he could kill a babe named Jesus. As many infants as I could, I hid In quarters of my slaves until night fell; Once duly of betraying day light rid, We then made tracks for Egypt where they’d dwell Until the Fates would Herod send to hell. I’m now impervious to all your jeers For then I was baptised in Jesus’ tears. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Marc, A simple yes or no would have sufficed, with perhaps a brief explanation explaining why. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Is that the criteria for the question? If you're trying to create a paradox based on omniscience, it's certainly not hard to do. In fact, it's pretty much inevitable. In this light, the question is little more than a rephrasing of some very old saws. Can God lie? Can God lift a rock too heavy for him lift? ANY absolute -- be it knowledge, power, or even obedience -- is a self-referencing paradox just waiting to happen. Uh, including that statement.  quote: Again, this is simply circling the "Can God lie?" paradox. Any being of absolute knowledge and power must exist outside the flow of time (space, too). There is no past or future, there is only God. Therefore, the question isn't "Can God lie?" but rather "Does God lie?" To a Christian, the answer is obvious. Similarly, if we eliminate time from this hypothetical, the question becomes "Does God want me to kill little kids?" The answer is equally obvious. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
As far as the most powerful god: "You rule the gods and Jove himself..." Venus to her son Cupid, in Book Five of Metamorphoses. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Why not? She lets lots of them die every day so she’s can’t be that attached to them plus they’re going to a better place, aren‘t they? As I understand it death is just the beginning. Besides she might have a very good reason for wanting them dead. If she asked me to I’d be terminating toddlers quicker than you could say “hallelujah”. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: That's fine Regina. You answered the question, you are prepared to defy a command from the Supreme Ruler of the universe in the full knowledge that by doing so you are probably causing harm (because God would never ask you to do something unless he had a pure reason for doing so - even killing 2 years olds), simply because you personally think it's wrong. Good for you. (Btw I didn't mean you (as in humans) know "nothing", I was making a comparative - in comparison with God - bit unclear sorry.) |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Request and command are two different things, Moonbeam. Check your usage. No, I don't personally think it's wrong to kill toddlers. It is wrong and against the law, and if taken out of context Grinch's statement could land him a visit from a cyber-crime division, especially if an alarming amount of toddlers fell subject to harm in his immediate area of IP. And the title holder for disobedience will never be Me. Eve has been blamed for the downfall of all since the beginning of time. So yeah, get ready for a new breed of harm if I'm ordered to kill kids by God. I will not comply and we'll just all have to deal with it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It's not a question of why or why not, Grinch? It's a question of does. You might as well ask, "Does God want to me to smell blue?" The question makes little sense and an answer of "Why not?" makes less. You're just perpetuating the paradox. quote: Yes, God allows people free will. You're right, also, about the perceived significance of death. In both the Christian world and the secular one, there are things much worse than death. quote: Again, Moon, you're just perpetuating the paradox. Would you kill two-year-olds if you discovered you already did? Did you enjoy it?  The real question being asked, of course, is: Would God ever contradict Himself? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Well if god actually commanded me to smell blue I’d have to concede that she did indeed want me to do it - I’d also have to presume she ‘d have the power to allow me to do so. If god commanded me to “kill kids” then evidently she does want me to do it. quote: I’ve no idea, would she even be contradicting herself? She’s never told me directly NOT to kill toddlers, so where‘s the contradiction. There are those that might say that she wouldn’t want me to kill toddlers but how do I know they’re telling the truth? I just know she’s all knowing and all powerful and if she commanded me to do something I‘d be a little stupid not to do it. quote: I don’t see the paradox Ron, can you explain? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam Sorry, I didn't see your last comment to me. I will be back to respond later today. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Well, that clearly explains your confusion, then. God has told me not to kill. Is it possible you got the same message and just weren't listening? quote: The paradox inevitably arises, Grinch, because you only know that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, without any real understanding of what those qualities mean. Human comprehension, and especially human language, is necessarily finite. How do you squeeze the infinite into a finite sized container? Can God create a stone too heavy for Him to lift? Can God make a vehicle move so fast He can't catch it? Can God bake a cake so large He can't eat it? Can God formulate a proof of His own non-existence? The list just goes on and on and on. Your question is no different from these, only better disguised. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
(Sorry, there's been a lot of replies while Christmas was busy interfering - apologies in advance if I'm covering old ground) Ron I think Grinch's original question assumes an omnipotent and omniscient God, and whether you resolve the paradox with some kind of linguistic gymnastics or merely say that if God is omnipotent then he can remove his omnipotence, but provide a secret way to restore it again when he finds himself not omnipotent, for the purposes of the question he IS all knowing all present all powerful. The question also assumes that the order to kill comes from God - whether you prefer to take a faith based approach or an evidential approach to establishing this, is irrelevant. As I see it all the question does is to seek to establish whether a Christian man exercising free will would ignore an order from God that he felt was immoral (although clearly it wouldn't be immoral because God doesn't issue immoral orders). The answer for a true Christian is obviously that he wouldn't ignore it. Just as Abraham readied the knife to kill his son, so the true Christian would be ready to kill the children. All this of course becomes rather immaterial if you believe that the omnipotence of God precludes the concept of "free-will". And of course in my view the whole issue is nonsensical in any case, because you are right. A plausible "being" of absolute power and infinite capacities (if indeed it exists at all) would "exist" outside of all material dimensions and, at present I'm inclined to think, would be the only "reality", and would have no "knowledge" of our material existence. The answer to: "Does God want me to kill little kids" then simply becomes; "it doesn't matter" or some such. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Nah Regina that doesn't wash . You really wanna argue when a guy with a sub-machine gun "requests" you to put your hands up rather than "commands" you?!  Part of being a good Christian is surely doing what God asks you to do, no? quote: Geez, don't let's confuse the legal, the moral, the divine and heaven knows what else. Well if you aren't prepared to do God's bidding Regina then I guess you consider Him to be fallible. I'm not sure where that leaves you in the "good christian" stakes - maybe Stephen could help out there? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You talked to god and she specifically told you not to kill? Are you sure it was god Ron? Karen has a friend.. Never mind. quote: I’m pretty sure I’ve never spoken directly to god, or her to me, but I suppose that it’s possible that I could be wrong, then again so could you. The paradox? I’m not asking god to do anything paradoxical Ron, in fact I’m not asking her to do anything she hasn’t already proved herself quite capable of, if Abraham and Issac are anything to go by. If it’s any easier though we can use that example if you like: If god commanded you to kill your firstborn son, would you? I’m with Abraham on this btw, with or without the interceding angel. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Regardless of the answer, regardless of your belief system, regardless of your faith or doubt, you have to make the decision. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: But that's the whole point, Brad. You don't have to make the decision. Just as I don't have to decide whether I should or shouldn't believe that God can create a rock too heavy for Him to lift. It's a meaningless hypothetical. However, for the sake of discussion, let's pretend it had any meaning, that it was in some way possible? I think I would have to put Grinch's hypothetical in the same realm as most life and death questions. Would you give your own life (give, not risk) for someone else (pick your own someone)? As much as I suspect we'd all like to believe we'd do the most noble thing, I honestly think the only people who can answer that question are either dead or grieving. Would you want to live if you couldn't walk? Anyone who answers that question too quickly probably isn't to be believed. We can talk about possibilities that involve life and death all day long, but I very strongly suspect the answers are no less hypothetical than the questions. In other words, when and if God taps me on the shoulder, I'll get back to you. quote: With the prior caveat that my answer can be no more meaningful than the question, sure I'll play the game. I've known a handful of women in my life who, perhaps through sheer force of femininity, made it absolutely impossible for me to ever deny them anything. I could never say no to them. I know in retrospect that was as much a testament to my weakness as to their strength, but even today, even knowing that, it does little to lessen the power they had. If one could say no to God, I think that would be proof it wasn't really God. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, okay, it's a hypothetical. Okay, we don't know how we would answer it, but I'm still stuck with the idea that religion is sometimes presented as a way out of the existential dilemma (though nobody who posts here regularly has done so to my knowledge or memory). "Terrible freedom" or "free will" is with you as long as you are a competent, thinking being. Religion isn't going to get you out of it. It just doesn't matter if God is omniscient, you aren't. That's the dilemma, is it not? And that I think is what the question is trying to highlight. Not the nature of God, but the nature of us. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
That was harder than pulling teeth Ron! As it happens I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer. I think Brad, Moon and even Abraham had it about right. It’s not about the nature of god, it’s about the nature of the individual and the extent of their faith. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Yeah, God, Gangster, no matter. Bring it On. God would be pretty half-cocked anyway to ask ME to kill all the toddlers on earth. How long do you think that would take? That’s a lot of work. I mean I’d need some youth back in me bones to really mean business. And would that mean all kids from the time I was asked, even after they passed the age of two, or just the ones I get to before their 2nd birthday?? Do I get to have a posse? A jet? Dare Force One. LOL. quote: You are basing your assumption on a hypothetical visit from God who asks me to kill all kids below the age of two. I guess my question to you would be, would you let me? I mean God didn’t speak to you, just me cuz I’m Shpecial, and that means you (and the rest of the world) would have to believe my account to be true so that I could perform my murdering spree. And remember, if you don’t let me, ALL of mankind will suffer, INCLUDING non-believers, by your argument. You’re right. Thank, God, I’m just not that special, Moonbeam. quote: Do we need to take a vote, or can we all say that the God concocted in this theory is fallible? Don’t make me feel…so alone, Moonbeam. I’m not feeling any love. quote: I’m sure that’s it’s neither your place to decide nor Stephen’s. Despite the respect that I have for both of you, what you think does not define me, especially in the eyes of God. How can I ask God to watch over my beautiful baby grand daughter and be prepared to harm her for God at the same time? That would make me a complete oaf of an Oma. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam quote: Indeed, nuns sometimes do evil too, despite their role, and great rulers despite their role and their high power. Nor one's role, nor knowledge, nor power determines how one uses the role, knowledge, or power. Children that have far less knowledge and power may still often do more virtuous things than many very knowledgeable and powerful politicians. But even children sometimes do some of worst evils as well. Just as these do evil sometimes, and despite their role, knowledge or power, I doubt not, God probably does too to some extent. And if our portrayals of God have any truth, I don't think they suggest much otherwise. Which religious book doesn't include God doing anything that you find evil? The same God that preaches "thou shalt not kill" didn't practice what he preached when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, whole cities of people. quote: Neither my judgement nor God's judgement is automatically better or worse, but it is better or worse by the evidence itself. If I were your neighbour and God your other neighbour and betwixt us you were seeking advice on how to grow a garden well, if I told you to water and tend it thus and thus, but God told you to burn it down every week and never water it, the evidence of the garden itself shall tell you the truth of whose judgement is better. But even before that, the knowledge of the evidence will tell you, even if that knowledge is very small. One doesn't need to much about gardens to know enough against such an extreme as I suggested, or as Grinch suggested in his question. My judgement would not be worse because I am not God, but it would be better because it is true by the evidence and God's judgement would not be better because he is God, but worse because it were false by the evidence. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Ron, only if that God was the God that you (and possibly I) recognise. Clearly, God for many Protestant Christians (because I happen to know) despite being all good and all powerful is apparently prepared to "allow" sin, sickness, free will, human autonomy. He would therefore presumably be prepared to allow a "no"? quote: Absolutely Grinch, but Ron was just trying to make it more interesting. quote: You can't Regina . I hope you know I've been using "you" generically. You are quite right in what you say about the law and human morality of course. I hope you have a peaceful Christmas btw .quote: Your making the perennial mistake of this thread Ess and assuming the wrong type of God a fallible God, which then renders the question pointless. What "I" or "you" find evil is irrelevant. The Christian God we're talking about here can't do evil by His very nature. Ask Stephen! If he destroyed Sodom, that wasn't evil, it had some overriding good purpose, even if the inhabitants had problems seeing it. As for the nuns, the children, the kings and princes - of course they can do evil, they are sinners by the tenets of the Christian faith. Sure if you want to start with a fallible God that's fine, but then the answer to the question is obviously no. quote: Again, you are talking about a fallible God. I have no problem with your line of reasoning once you admit that. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting that there are so many replies on such a topic. I'd need an example of how an entity could offer irrefutable proof. To me that conjecture is so far out of the realm of possibility that it makes the question baseless. About the only place where a god seemed to offer proof of his existence was in the Bible and look what happened there. He fed Moses' followers in the desert with food from nowhere. THAT could make me lean toward evidence he was God. Did they all become pious and holy? Nope, they went back to complaining in no time. He set the plagues in motion against Herod, after announcing He would do so. THAT would get my attention. Did it get the Jews' attention? Not for long. After all of the miracles seen firsthand by these people, when Moses went into the wilderness and brought back the commandments, they had reverted back to heathen ways, complete with worshipping false idols, drunkeness, debauchery, etc....after having SEEN proof many times that they were following the creator of the universe, the entity that could snuff them out with a thought and who controlled their after-life destinies! Sorry but your "irrefutable proof" insertion makes the question Rod Serling material to me. Besides, if SHE stood before me and claimed to be God, I would remind her that the divorce has been final for years |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Moon, I wasn't talking about what God would accept, but rather how any mortal would necessarily respond when face to face with profound infinity. If I was hesitant to say no to a woman I loved finitely, how much more reluctant would I be in the presence of infinite love? Personally, I don't think it would even be possible. Let me put it another way. Why would God hide himself from His creation? Perhaps it's because free will can only exist in the presence of doubt. When one "knows" something with absolute and utter conviction, choices become much more limited. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Thanks Moonbeam, I wish for you the same And yes, I know. Me, too.  I'm really impressed that we can have such exchanges in this forum (considering the subject) without ugly attacks and abuse toward the other. I appreciate that everyone. I mean, my first initial and very female emotional response was OMG that would mean my grand baby!! And no matter how I might try to keep my motherly protective nature out of the equation, I see myself more ready to protect the babes (by my own subjective proxy) instead of being an agent to an objective task I'm to fulfill for God...and failing, possibly even by God's wiring of me and others who would also, hopefully, get in the way. So no God that I know would order such of thing of me that would be more than I can bear. Maybe I'd be allowed a deal? The babes or Bush's WMD's? ROFL. anywho, Happy Monday All, if there is such a thing. reg |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Moonbeam, If God is absolutely "omnipotent", able to be or do anything, then you must also grant that he and his will are just as omnipotently able to be fallible. He would need to be limited in ability if he and his will and choices were only able to be infallible. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Folks talk a lot about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son and they forget the point of the story. The story is not an end in itself, as people seem to take it here, but is the story that introduces the covenant story, God's bargain with Israel and — I think — with the world. Jews mark the Covenant with circumcision because they believe it is a blood bargain. They tie it with their survival as a people. It's very powerful and very primitive all at the same time, whatever your other feelings about the deal may be. In return for their loyalty, which as Mike pointed out above, has been flawed uneven and silly, not to mention sinful as that of even the most flawed, sinful and silly of non-Jews, God said that he would never again demand the sacrifice of human beings for Him. Other things as well, but that's the one that seems to apply here. God does not ask this of us, the death of two year olds or the death, really, of anybody, if we are to believe the Torah and the books that have entered the Judeo-Christian canon since then. If we kill, we must take responsibility for that ourselves, and we must live with that. No fair blaming it on folks with irrefutable proof that that have a bridge to sell you from here to Salvation if only you kill some two your olds for him. If you are to believe the Christians, when Jesus died, he died for your willingness to say, No, and to treat that child as you yourself would wish to be treated. As Rabbi Akiva said you should wish to be treated. And as Confucious said you should wish to be treated. Odds are much much higher that if somebody appears to you, shows absolute proof that they're God, then demands that you should start killing kids, you should start taking your medication again and make another appointment with your therapist. Really, guys, what are the odds? About paradoxes, if one looks at Bertrand Russell's Theory of Logical Types, you'll note he offers the rather practical suggestion that paradox seems paradoxical because it is a confusion of levels of meaning, and that once the confusion about level and meta-level is straightened out, the paradox tends to vanish as the linguistic artifact it generally is. "Can God make a stone so heavy He cannot lift it?" for example, suggests, that God may be bound by thought or language at all, while only our ability to conceptualize God is captured here. We are confusing the picture of the thing for the thing itself, sort of an intellectual Cargo Cult, and are trying magically to pretend the manipulations we effect on the language must be the same as those that apply in reality. If there is a God at all, of course. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Well, how is one distinguished from the other? If we put the picture away, where and what is God? I mentioned in another thread that the weather man may use arrows to represent winds, but when we go to the winds themselves they are not flying around as arrows! And similarily if we represent the wind as a god, such as Boreas. What do we have left when we no longer use our art and imagination to represent something as "God"? In which way don't we have something such as "wind" that some men may likewise use arrows on a map or some more greatly use "God" to represent? Do you think we would have something equal, or even better, if we stopped using our art and imagination? I don't think so. You might as well try to say the moutainous lands would be just as mountainous if you took away the mountains. I don't think the problem is that we are referring to mountains of imagination, but that we pretend it would be better just to refer to some hidden mote upon which these mountains are piled. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Do you mean that it’s impossible for anyone to truly believe in god? Or simply that it’s impossible for you personally to believe in god? I think there’s enough evidence to suggest that some people would require very little evidence, there are numerous examples of people who believe without a shadow of a doubt that god exists based solely on what amounts to nothing more than hearsay. I’m an atheist, which you could say makes me fairly sceptical, but even I can see myself accepting a god (or as near an approximation that makes no difference) given enough evidence. If she took me to witness the start and the end of the universe, created a new life form before my eyes, held the sun in the palm of her hand and convinced Denise that Obama is a natural born citizen I’d be well on my way to believing. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Why this persistence with "she", Grinch? If you prefer a beautiful Goddess such Venus, instead of an invisible blob of infinity, just say it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Why not question the persistent use of “he”? I prefer to disbelieve in all gods with a certain measure of equality. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, While I find myself mostly content with climbing maps, I find I have friends that actually want the workout that mountains themselves supply. Should you wish to pray, I suspect you'd like the prayer to go further than the language and actually reach some more exalted destination, should there in fact be one. Perhaps not, from your reply, though. I would have thought otherwise. Mirabile dictu. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: So was I. I was trying to highlight the inconsistency of a position that professes faith while simultaneously claiming a human freedom to act. quote: What you're saying is that however much Stephen or Regina wanted to say "no" they wouldn't be able to in the presence of God, and the answer to Grinch's question was therefore "yes". Put another way you are suggesting that in order to have free will a Christian must have doubts about the existence of God? Yet: Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So the faith that so many Christians profess is apparently being certain of what they do not see, or to use your words, "know[ing] something with absolute and utter conviction" So, if you are correct either they have no free will or they do not have faith in the existence of God? quote: Why would the unicorn hide from us? Surely in order that our enjoyment of fables be not spoiled. Rather than constructing convoluted hypotheses about the machinations of an all powerful being to explain his invisibility I'm personally inclined to think that the explanation might simply be that he doesn't exist in the manner in which the majority of religious people think he exists. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Lol Ess. Yes, the God paradox that Ron has pointed out. He (God not Ron) does indeed have to have the infallibleness to be fallible, but then again he could have had the infallibleness to ensure that when fallible he could make himself infallible again, and so it goes on. The so called paradox is probably worthy of a thread a hundred times this length - or more likely, no thread at all! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
quote:I'd need an example of how an entity could offer irrefutable proof. To me that conjecture is so far out of the realm of possibility that it makes the question baseless. Do you mean that it’s impossible for anyone to truly believe in god? Or simply that it’s impossible for you personally to believe in god? I meant neither of those things. I meant what it says...what would irrefutable proof be? Yes, of course, there are those who would accept God with very little evidence, using faith, but those were not your words, which refer to "irrefutable proof". Also, which God are you referring to? Would it be the Christian God, Allah, Zeus, Ra, or which? Would it be a God you believed in or another one? If it were your God and you saw the irrefutable proof, why would you not do anything He or She would say? That's the entity that opens the gates to Heaven or sends you to Hell for eternity. How could you refuse? Because of your morals? Don't a large part of the basis of your morality come from the belief and teachings of your God? How could it possibly be immoral to do as he commands? Too many gray areas to make your question valid...... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: For me? quote: I presume though that the evidence would need to be different for different people, it doesn’t really matter what it is though,as long as it’s convincing. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam: quote: You bring up a good point to explore ... which is the question of the nature of God's authority. Does God have absolute and arbitrary authority, or is he bound to some standard of goodness which is independent of and above himself? The orthodox Christian answer is interesting in that it is a bit more subtle than either of these choices. God's goodness is not arbitrary in the sense that if God called evil good then it would follow that it was. It's hard to imagine a universe where we would begin to admire base qualities and actions which we now universally condemn, simply because God decided to rearrange. That kind of god could not be called just or good in any meaningful sense. On the other hand, God is not beneath some transcendent standard that is independent of him. To say so would necessarily guarantee that he was not God, but dependent upon another source for his goodness. The orthodox belief is that God himself is the very epitome and essence of goodness. He IS goodness in its purest form. Therefore the standard emanates from him according to his nature and character. And yet his nature is not arbitrary, since we cannot imagine God acting against his own nature, which is goodness itself. The tricky part is that even if we have a universal "sense" of what is good and evil, we can still get it wrong. And that is where authority comes in. In spite of a huge common ground between our derivative sense of morality and God's character, there are unique times when we might be called to simply trust, and accept God's authority. If not, then as you have pointed out Moonbeam, WE become our own standard, telling God what is good and evil. (and interestingly, that is the very definition of 'The Fall' in the garden where the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" represents a sad venture into human autonomy). As to your astute observation that I seemed to duck the question ... perhaps, but not really. The huge amount of common ground I mentioned, is still reliable if one is in serious question about the voice of God. This is not incompatible with the giving of the oracles of God through the Law of Moses, the Ten commandments, the sermon on the Mount, and in a real sense the "law written on our hearts". So there's probably not going to be a wholesale imitation of wicked men, on the part of God. He is not going to command us to play the part of Herod. He's already told us so much that would contradict that command.However, God does reserve the right to test our faithfulness, and our recognition of his authority ... and so you get the unique and interesting account of Abraham who willing offered up for sacrifice his seemingly willing son Isaac. But there's a couple of caveats to keep in mind, when considering this story. First of all, Abraham knew God. It was no first time experience for him to hear God in this intimate way. So I don't think Abraham was relying on content alone to know who he was talking to. He knew who he was talking to. Secondly, the only time in scripture God asks such a bewildering thing of a man, the plans end up being cancelled, and the whole story ends up being a typification of God's most radical love (the very opposite of what the command may have seemed at first glance). For though Abraham felt for a few moments what it might be like for a father to offer up his beloved child in sacrifice, God the Father felt the same kind of pain, only much more, concerning his own son. And this greater sacrifice was not called off by an angel (though 10,000 or so were ready to do so, by some accounts). The depth of Abraham's struggle revealed the greatest depths of God's benevolence to humankind. It only goes to show you that justice and injustice are blurred at the cross, the place of paradox, where the blameless one suffered for unrighteous people like you and me, so that we might have forgiveness and life. Abraham simply had a deep revelation of the cross, from a God he already knew. This story in Genesis is sometimes brought up to cast doubt upon the goodness of God. The irony is that this exceptional interchange between God and Abraham reveals the strange goodness of God in a superlative way. The difference between this, and the counterfeits is this ... in a religious tradition where killing and vengeance is the rule rather than the exception, you can safely know its not God. In a tradition where kindness is the rule, and exceptions are well ... exceptional, God cannot be ruled out. Lastly, its important to note the difference between Abraham being tested, and someone who doesn't (yet) know God, speculating about God appearing out of nowhere and commanding the ludicrous. I imagine our main task (after recognizing and confessing that we never really can) is to try and be good in the ways we do understand. The big benign enigmatic tests that came to the likes of Abraham, aren't likely to come to those who still have their training wheels. It's similar to what C.S. Lewis said about Jesus telling his disciples that they must "hate" mother and father to follow him. It would be dangerous for someone either to embrace or criticize that doctrine too rashly (the doctrine that the love of God takes precedence over even the most beloved human relationships) when they haven't yet learned to really love mother and father and neighbor. (insert alphabet song here) Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch, quote: Because we all know that one: males are superior.  Bob, quote: Yes, I would. But if all I do is pray, and accept the air around me as air, the sky as sky, etc, and don't imagine god, then I may not distinguish any god. But when I imagine god artistically, then I may distinguish a god in my imagination. Moonbeam, quote: No, the point itself was not a paradox.: Being able to make mistakes is an ability too and if God were not able to make mistakes that would be a limitation of his ability. Where it would be a paradox is if you say God is omnipotent, able to be or do everything, but then turn around and say he is not able to make mistakes. That is not what I am saying though. I am saying if he and his will are able to be and do everything, they are also able to make mistakes too. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote:Essorant, isn't that like saying in order for God to be omnipotent, he must be able to be not God, or to be wicked? You have to draw the line somewhere, or you end up in absurdity. Omnipotent may include the enigmatic and paradoxical (as Ron always points out) but I don't think it includes the absurd. (a mitigating truth for my own argument: we are very likely to be mistaken about what is truly absurd from time to time) Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
That is all fascinating stuff Stephen which I simply must come back to you on. I may not have time today, and tomorrow I plan to leave my heart, uh I mean my computer, at home for a day or two and go cook some culinarily incompetent relatives a couple of Christmas lunches. So while I'm tucking into my soya substitute turkey I shall think of lots of awkward questions to ask you. Have a lovely and peaceful Christmas. M |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Yes and also able to undo those mistakes, or more pertinently, as Stephen said, make "bad" = "good". |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
One must make the distinction between permitting evil and causing it. For God to bring good out of evil that he is not directly causative of, is very different than just making up for personal mistakes or foibles. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos & Moon, I am not the one stipulating omnipotence. I am just defending my belief that God is able to make mistakes, or more accurately, that it is not a given one way or the other, and showing you that the belief of omnipotence doesn't rule that out. All beings I know of are able to do both to some extent, and we judge according to the evidence, not according to who it is that is involved. Saying God may not make mistakes because he is God would be the same as saying the president may not make mistakes because he is the president. God being God commanding murders wouldn't make it right anymore than the fact of being president would for the president. We need to judge good and evil by the evidence of the deed, not by who does the deed. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I don't think you understand the implications. If God fails, then he is not living up to a higher standard, which necessarily means he is not only subordinate to something else, but imperfect ... by definition, not God. If you say his perfection is not a given, you're not really saying that God may be imperfect, but that you don't really believe in the biblical God, but something more like a demiurge bound in and subordinate to nature time and circumstance, rather than the other way around. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: Brad, ol' friend, it's been a while since we've gone around the block on this stuff ... I guess my response to this would be that in the Christian faith, there is promised help. And so much has been revealed, that in many ways we don't have to constantly question what is right, though it isn't all spelled out in detailed terms (and it seems that's the way it was meant to be). Of course I recognize that an atheist may still rely on tradition or intuition, and care not whether he has any basis for his moral assumptions. Thoughful Christians would not deny the intractable nature of the existential dilemma (It's actually part of the Theology about fallen life on Earth), but they do think they know something (someone) who mitigates it. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Praying to one's own imagination has been know to yield results. In AA they say you can put the God of Your Understanding in a light bulb, as long as you are willing to consider that light bulb a Higher Power. My understanding, though, was that you wanted to talk with George Burns. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, Do you suspect there have been (are) those in the world who have really known something of God that is not just inside their own cranium ... or do you ever secretly hope for, or concede such a possibility? If you're no hard agnostic (I myself don't know, but perhaps someone else may) then why the ridicule? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: Well that may be true. I don't accept the biblical God that drowned almost every living thing, destroyed whole cities of people, and slaughtered Egyptian newborns, as being "perfect". I think you overlook your morals by far Stephanos to assimilate those into "perfect" because they are in the context of "God" and in the book called "The Holy Bible". A similar principle leads a wife to deny that her husband does anything wrong even if he beats her, because it is in the context of "love" or "marriage", overlooking it for tomorrow's flowers and kisses, or for some notion that it is a given that her husband is perfect no matter what he does. Indeed, far more willing am I to call my cat "perfect" that behaves a lot better than the God of the Old Testament. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, My last post here was to Essorant as a reply to his post # 54 on this thread. I felt that the sort of God that Ess was addressing was not actually anything but some sort of personal linguistic construct. You might review the exchange to get a clearer idea of the back and forth, which was more complex than that. After looking at it, you might agree with me or might not, I can't predict. My own thoughts about my agnosticism are simply that I don't know. I have never tried to tell you that you don't know, or that the basis of your knowledge is insufficient to pass some sort of Turning test of divinity. As far as I'm concerned, you do know, and you live a live as befits a man of belief, and I'm pleased and happy to know you. There is no ridicule intended. I've worked with many many alcoholics where the denial of the existence of God is a major problem in their recovery. Usually it comes down to their inability to admit not so much God but anything at all in the world is grander or more instrumental in the world than they are. The work-around that AA uses in this situation has to do with not focusing on the name of God — blasphemy, anyway, in some religions — but on the admission that the person him/herself isn't the most powerful thing in the world. That their attempts to run their own world have put them in pretty terrible shape. And that they need to admit that there is something that is a Higher Power that they must acknowledge. Once the alcoholic does that, and starts to pray, things almost always improve. It simply has to be something, and the alcoholics joke that it can be a lightbulb. I was making a joke about getting outside one's own head, and looking for a more conventional external notion of God — George Burns, in this case — instead of getting all wrapped up inside one's own head and personal linguistic idiosyncrasies. That is the extent of the humor intended. Certainly no ridicule. Agnostic, yes; that I certainly am. I have no personal knowledge or revelation of God, and I have no clear reason to believe or disbelieve. I resist pressure from either direction that tells me that I do, since I know my own experience and others can, at best, guess or empathize. I find my position reasonable, but you won't hear be try to sell it other places, simply because other people know what their experience is better than I do. I have certainly had spiritual experiences. Does that clarify anything? No disrespect is intended. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: I'm sorry for that Essorant. But that's probably because you don't accept the reality of human sin and iniquity ... nor do you accept the prerogative that God has the right to judge and impose death individually or corporately. And though he offers eternal life to believers, God has not changed in this regard. quote: That's simply because, Essorant, you try to view God as a kind of peer rather than a transcendant Judge. Do you honestly think you're going to die simply because God is beating you like a bad husband? Or do you ever suspect there is something more to death, perhaps related to your own depravity? Don't get me wrong, there is much more to death than that. There are definitely positive strands in death ... death as deliverance, emancipation, and an end to futility (and the prospects of resurrection and new beginning). But one can hardly take comfort in these, if the basic reason for death is denied. Or as Peter Kreeft put it, Death cannot be friend until it be reckoned with as adversary. And it's not just the Old Testament: "For the wages of sin is death ..." (Romans 6:23). And it's not just the Bible either. It is our very World. quote: Well I guess if you expect God to behave on the level of a pet which is subordinate to you (you've let his peer status slip), then such a statement could be reasonably made. But again, there is much you're leaving out of the context, such as the reality of the wickedness of those that God punished and the forbearance with which was given. You must remember too, that what is said in a line of scripture sometimes makes it sound like it happened suddenly ... but the reality is that God is patient and gives opportunity to repent. Pharaoh had many chances to relent. Cities and peoples went hundreds of years before disaster fell. Our own is facing a similar future, I fear, if things don't change. Lastly I think you overstate the difference between Old Testament and New Testament in this regard. Or if I may put it this way ... Mercy and grace is certainly given in greater measure through the New Testament, and yet Justice and Judgement, where that mercy is rejected, is not abated in the least. Consider the New Testament passage below which contrasts an Old Testament economy with the New: "See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, 'Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.' The words 'once more' indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain." (Hebrews 12:25-27) The difficulty with what you're saying Essorant, is that you remain the judge of God. He is at the bar, rather than you. I disagree with your hasty disapproval of God's actions of judgement in the Old Testament ... but the more notable thing to me, is that if God is compared with an abusive husband ... you are implicitly denying that he is God, since he has become subordinate to your standard. In other words, if there is some higher better standard, where does it come from? Where is the authority for it? Who will correct God? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I know this much: Never shall I look up to or encourage anyone else to look up to such a God that leaves examples of murder and torturing as his "perfect" way of dealing with problems such as sin, even (as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah) something that is not even a sin, such as homosexuality. All I may and encourage others to do is admire the good where the good is ,and have sympathy where the outrageous and ridiculous parts are in this mythical portrayal of a "perfect" God. It is like other myths about other gods: in some myths the gods are charming, then in others they are ridiculous, cruel and outrageous. The irony in such ancient myths is that we may greatly appreciate the masterly skill at imaginitive art, but at the same time we admire that art and skill, we face the expression of extremisms and absurdities of mentalities long ago that we often shall not admire, that are far from the understanding of better justice and human rights we have today. None of these myths should be blamed for being "crude" in mentality, and expected to live up to today's much more humane and democratic manners of justice. But I think our weak judgement should be blamed if we don't acknowledge that great difference. The bible's "God" shows that "distance" very clearly. Such a God's manners of justice and punishing are far from being as democratic and respectful to human dignity as those we have today in our society. |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
Okay guys. My thoughts on this is how can we follow something we aren't for sure about? So we would follow blindly into something we're not totally sure about. I wouldn't go killing babies under two.. or any young child for the matter of fact. Sure I believe in God but Satan has tricked humans for years. And it wouldn't surprise me if the Devil lied to you saying he was God. so I'm agreeing with Serenity on this one. -Zach So together but so broken inside |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: All I can say, is that if you think the Bible teaches such means of punishment as "perfect" then you haven't read it all the way through. God's means of punishment in the Old Testament "under law" is plainly said to be provisional and incomplete, until the covenant of Grace came through Jesus Christ. But it was necessary, and underscored something that is universally true ... namely that sin is destined only to cause death and destruction. Secondly, such harsh methods of punishment are still used and endorsed by the majority of Governments on planet Earth today, even if it is reluctantly done as a "necessary evil". It's part of the reason your street is safe in America. But no, its not perfect, and its not the end of the story. But rejecting God's Grace, and change of heart that comes through the gospel, it is all there is, and will never go away simply by being more humanitarian minded toward criminals. quote: According to God, homosexuality is sin. It is against his created order and purpose. By saying it is not a sin, you are merely rejecting the divine standard by which sin may be judged, and setting up your own (which pretty much encompasses the original sin in the Garden), in the same way that some say that adultery isn't sin, or pederasty, or ... quote: A god who never punished the wicked is ridiculous cruel and outrageous. There is an aspect of human nature which identifies with just deserts, as much as in mercy. I've already explained that in God's character this is portrayed as his "strange work" when compared to salvation, and yet provisionally necessary. But the fact that even within yourself, you've likely identified with both feelings at one time or another, tells me it is not at all ridiculous. But I grant that anything that is caricatured by misconception may seem so. I have to deal with the fact that such difficult passages of scripture may be misjudged and used to malign God. The fact that you have to deal with is that up until now, you've identified no authoritative standard by which to judge the evil from the vile, other than ever-fluxing human sensibility. In your approach, who is god but you? quote: Two responses. 1) That's a bit politico/ethno-centric for someone as big as God isn't it? He has to be God by democratic election? 2) Even under the democracy in which you live, men and women are fined, locked up in barred prisons, and even put to death. So you can't use democracy as a shining comparison against Old Testament pre-Christian Theocracy ... Democracy faces the same twisted realities, and in spite of it's Athenian Nobility, has dealt with them in ways that you would doubtlessly call too harsh. If you're going to argue this, you need to argue accurately regarding democratic ideals, which itself does not seek to guarantee happiness, but merely the pursuit. Stephen |
||
|
OwlSA Member Rara Avis
since 2005-11-07
Posts 9347Durban, South Africa |
Though these details are unchronicled, they seem very obvious to me. The ultimate test of Abraham's faith is not that he was prepared to kill his son. It is that he had the unwavering faith that God would let his son live, even if only at the last minute. Owl |
||
|
OwlSA Member Rara Avis
since 2005-11-07
Posts 9347Durban, South Africa |
How much more "indisputable proof" can you get than Christ dying for the sins of the world, in front of hundreds of people? Owl |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm sorry, Stephanos, but what you're saying sounds more and more procrustian as you go on. I understand you believe it, and I understand you have made it work marvelously for yourself and your family, and that it works wonderfully within your community of believers. But near as I can tell, God punishes the innocent as well as the wicked, and allows the wicked as well as the innocent mercy, and that when we pretend to impose understanding upon this, we merely look silly. In order to have this make sense we have imposed contrasting Ptolomaic epicycle on epicycle on the events of the world and on our philosophy. One must be an ardent believer indeed to keep them all straight; anybody who isn't doesn't have the energy or motivation to do so. Being such a believer has many rewards, and I have no wish to sell it short. Anybody who can manage to believe in such a fashion by all means should do so. Threadbear in another forum has praised the deep peace that such belief offers, and I can only echo his words in this regard. No God, however, that I could believe in, would allow the Bible to be used in the fashion that I see you using it, as a sword against those that you should love. The Bible used in this way becomes its own form of idol in the way my heart sees the world, and I don't believe the the Bible or any Holy Book is meant for this sort of use. This is not the sort of discussion I enjoy engaging in, I'm sorry to say, and I'm trying to put it in as respectful a fashion as I can, because I do respect you and the way you lead your life, and because in so many ways I do see you as a model for others. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
BobK: quote: I don't disagree with what you say about God “punishing” his people, or extending mercy to those who are not. Though I would say there is an important Theological distinction between chastisement and condemnation (though that point was not even addressed in the general discussion between Essorant and myself) Nor am I pretending to have all understanding of these dynamics, as I have ever admitted mystery. I was only making the point that faith inevitably involves an element of trust and authority and personal commitment, alongside whatever may be rationally understood. Hence, one can look at Old Testament passages of divine punishment and come to an orthodox understanding, or decide that either God is unjust or that these passages are merely human claims to divine words. I choose to believe that the passages about God’s punishment are as real and as true as those which more obviously set forth his mercy, and that all of it fits within the portrait of divine love. Since pragmatically we all impose punishments, boundaries, or limitations on others to varying degrees and kinds (even sometimes with those most loved by us) my argument is that the concept is not a foreign one, nor one to be rashly condemned ipso facto. In fact, the whole difficulty is imposed by our fallen human nature clashing with divine light. quote: Bob, could you quote something I said that makes you think I’m using the Bible as a sword against “those I should love” (implications of ‘should’ being that I am showing contempt?) I think you’ve slipped off the rail a bit, either in your reading of my replies, or in your perception of my intent, or in your understanding of Biblical Theology. Firstly, even the extreme example of punishment, hell itself, is never portrayed as due to a lack of God's love. But rather, it is the effect that absolute love has on whatever humanity will not ultimately accept grace. Secondly, belief that divine punishment is just, does not mean that I think it is my place to punish. The New Testament did introduce a radical change in what role God's people play in the drama of sin and punishment, not to mention the role of God himself in the incarnation. “Mercy triumphs over judgment.” “And the greatest of these is Love”. If you only knew how pacifist I am. Of course, what I have been opposing in this thread is a specific idea and position, not a person. Don't confuse not maligning God (God as the Biblical text presents) with maligning people. While you may call my Theodicy a rationalization, I would call the view I am addressing as a defamation of character based upon partial information and distortion. If a lack of understanding renders me silly, then know that my main point was to show that defaming God's actions is silly for the same kind of reason. If it comes down to a wager, if our agnosticism says anything about caution and prudence, I’ll be with Pascal on this one. (Though you know I don’t believe it’s all so nebulous to warrant a blind leap ... neither did Blaise). quote: I am the first to admit that Bibliolatry is a real danger, especially when it comes to pet doctrines. But the belief that God is just, even in his punishments, is orthodox to Judaism, and both orthodox and dominical to the Christian Faith. And all we're talking here, Bob, is whether God has been just when he has punished according to the Bible itself ... not whether its okay for me to smite or even insult my enemies (much less my piptalk friends whom I sometimes disagree with). On the latter, we are in harmony. Unless of course you would like to quote me, where specifically you think I've breached your sensibilities?quote: Should I point out that the particular interchange you are responding to (as far as I can tell) was between Essorant and myself? In particular I was responding to Essorant's premise that the Bible has recorded actions on God's part which are less than moral and without justification ... that we should accept the "imperfections", grow past them, and have a more enlightened democratic view of God. I have been responding to that problematic Theological idea only, not maligning Essorant or anyone else. quote: Bob, it is mutual, as far as I can see. Don't feel that you must offer praise on the heels of every sharp disagreement. I already feel and know this respect you give. And it is appreciated, if not altogether deserved. God is good. later, Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-24-2009 12:33 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I've struggled hard for a very long time to see people as wholes, constructed of plusses and minuses that only together show a full and harmonious image. Sometimes my ability to maintain that whole image falls apart, and I'm left with only partial and contrasting images of a person, good and bad, and the result is discordant for me. I've not yet reached the point where I can comfortably say something critical without making a point of including the balancing aspect as a reminder to myself and as a reassurance of what I'm working to maintain in this world. Should I ever get comfortable enough with my ability to hold a person entire in my consciousness, I'd probably be able to skip the second part. I don't mean to be doing what the analysts call "undoing," that is to make a criticism and then take it back a moment later in word or deed. I don't think I've done that. I do mean the critiques; I simply mean them exactly as I state them, and not in larger terms that that, if you follow what I'm saying here. In this case I was speaking about the conjunction of the term "homosexual" and the word "wicked." I find this simply wrong-headed, and I don't particularly care what the bible says about it. It's entirely at odds with the basic message of the gospels, and it speaks to some of the most savage and murderous impulses that people have. It's been used to justify some of the most savage behavior I can imagine. ( I understand that the exchange was between Essorant and yourself. You should understand that the fact of the exchange being between yourself and Essorant is probably a polite fiction, otherwise it would have been via e-mail and nobody else would have been party to it. A public forum is a difficult place to maintain a private exchange, isn't it?) It certainly does fit with the notion of a tribal Judaism whose concerns included making sure that there were enough men for soldiers and to ensure the continuation of the patriarchal blood lines. This they had in common with the Rome of Augustus Caesar, whose thoughts about homosexuals were very close to the most restrictive expressed in the Torah. This would be an example of using the Bible as a sword against those whom you should love. Wicked to my ear is an expression of contempt, unless of course your a Bostonian and can get away with saying, "That's wicked awesome." I can do that, for example, having spent a wicked long time in Boston. For you, however, wicked is pretty much straight Theology. That's a wicked pity, I must say. I am glad by respect for you is appreciated. I maintain that it is entirely deserved. My best to your family. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Owl, seeing as it was me that first mentioned the Abraham story I thought I'd respond briefly and say that I agree with you. But that doesn't detract from the point I was making, in fact it reinforces it. Let me remind you of the question that was being asked in this thread: quote: So presumably if Abraham (and you?) had such unwavering faith, he and you would answer to that question an unequivocal "Yes"? |
||
|
OwlSA Member Rara Avis
since 2005-11-07
Posts 9347Durban, South Africa |
Moonbeam, I would like to believe that I would, believing, as I said above, that God would grant a reprieve. However, I think my faith would waver and that I would disobey, but try to discuss it with God first, in spite of the fact that He requires instant obedience, trust and faith. Owl |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Thanks for coming back on this Owl, I think you are an honest and consistent person M |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: If you don't particularly care what the bible says about it, then I simply remind you that I have been in a discussion with Essorant about Biblical Theodicy, and that you and I are in two different worlds of approach. Though, your following statement made me think you are not ready to altogether abandon Biblical appeal ... quote: What is the message of the gospels to you BobK? It seems (though I could be mistaken in this) that you would portray it as something more like a message of postmodern "tolerance" than a message about how Christ came to save us from sins that are really sins. quote: And that is where the line must be drawn, and where precisely I join your protest. Hatred of a person is not to be conflated with hatred of sin. When that happens, someone's "sin" becomes only an excuse to hate them (which is ironically quite sinful itself). When it comes to straying hearts such as ours, such is the risk involved with truth. We can take a principle that is right and true, and turn it into an evil response. That is no argument, however, for the abused premise being true or not. quote: I don't want to turn this thread into another argument about the nature of homosexuality ... but I would briefly remind you that it also fits with the telos of Genesis, where God created male and female and blessed that union. From this foundational standpoint, homosex is seen as a perversion of God's will. If you don't agree with this, at least you can see that the aversion can be explained in Theological and not just sociological terms. For the orthodox Jew, the non-child-bearing status of homosex was because of its deviance, not vice-versa. It is not only the tribal Jews who considered homosexuality "wicked", but also St. Paul in unequivocal terms, because the telos holds, as is evident by Romans chapter 1. But it's no different than a host of other tendencies, behaviors, practices, states-of-mind, that are mentioned under the rubric of sin. I certainly don't think homosex should be a "pet" sin to pick on, to the exclusion of considering one's own vices. My plank is still more important than a speck I think I see. quote: "Wicked" in terms of a behavior, need not be a sign of contempt ... though If you'll refer back to my particular statement to Essorant, I didn't use that word, but rather the milder word "sin". You may think I'm euphemizing. But sometimes there is something substantial about a choice of words. A trembling woman in fear of judgment is told by Jesus "go and sin no more", while a brazenly defiant people are told by the Prophet "you have polluted the land with your harlotries and wickedness". When I used the word "wicked" it was in context of the end of an extended process of rebellion, as described in Biblical passages of God's punishment, and that according to the Bible's own context and evaluation, which was under scrutiny by Essorant. If I may share something a bit more personal... A close relative of mine (before he became a devoted Christian and repented being wonderfully reconciled to his wife) was an adulterer. His repetitive actions were sinful. I loved him as I do now, and though I fully recognized his folly, contempt for his person was never a part of the equation. Anyway, I hope that clears things up Bob. If you'll closely peruse my former statements, you should be able to make a distinction between the instances where I talked about "wickedness" in the Bible's own words and context, and where I responded to a denial that homosexuality is sinful. respectfully, Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
LMAO quote:  Karen has a few friends. (Several, even!) Tread lightly lovie.  Karen is in total sympathy for her friends who have also remained silent and been misunderstood.  By all means, do continue. Karen, et al. is much amused.  |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
I agree with Ron's theory. I wouldn't believe in a God first of all. God's I think were created to give a sense of hope and morals to those who had none. Create a few rules and tell a couple stories and what do you have? Religion. And to answer your 2 yr. old question. I wouldn't do it. I'm not one to believe that easily. Always ask questions I say. So that "god" would be out of luck coming to me. hahaha -Zach When I see your smile, and I know it’s not for me, that’s when I’ll miss you. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
RE: "If an entity appeared before you offering indisputable evidence that she was god and ordered you to kill every child you see under the age of two, would you?" Which is where this started. If this happened to me, I hope I'd have enough sense left to check myself into a suitable facility for a significant period of time. I'm surprised no one has brought the technical psychiatric term for people who have conversations with The Bearded One, which I believe is "nut-case," but that's more in Bob's province than mine. I've also wondered, when Abraham had this conversation, was it a bit of public discourse? Or was somebody sneakily listening in so they could write it down? On the other hand, it's not a bad metaphor for blind faith or God's capriciousness. God seems to have something of a mean streak. I mean, what did Job do that he deserved all that meshugaas? With Friends like that, boy...! Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: --Andrew Sullivan I think that pretty much answers the question. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The point of the Abrahamic Covenant with God, as I understand it; and the New Covenant as described in the New T., as I understand it, is that there is an agreement made between God and man, binding in both directions. The point of the Original Covenant, and one of the reasons that Judaism, especially Rabbinic Judaism is so focused on The Law, is that God specifically agrees not to do this sort of thing ANY MORE. No more taking people aside and asking them to kill their sons. Nope; never. In return, God gives the Jews "The Law." God says, "Follow this as your part of the deal!" With the coming of Jesus, the Covenant was reportedly spread to all men. As I understand it. Therefore, if you hear somebody who tells you things like this, and you are a believer, you should be comforted to know that no matter what proofs you get, it isn't God giving them. That business has already been taken care of, apparently, and the paradox is one that's brought up by people who enjoy giving you a hard time. Should you wish to participate, enjoy your hard time. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Both the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are described in terms of God fulfilling all by promise, the only condition being belief/trust/faith. Consider this passage: What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." (Romans 4:1-5) quote: Admittedly, I'm only an armchair Theologian, Bob, but I'm having a hard time understanding the Mosaic Covenant (The Covenant of Law) as being given in response to Abraham's experience with the call to sacrifice Isaac. Perhaps there is some Rabbinic interpretation or literature in this direction? I don't see it in the pages of scripture itself. As far as I know, the only reason we are given for the giving of the Law is "so that the trespass might increase" (Romans 5:20), underscoring the need for a covenant of Grace. I still think that the incident with Abraham and Isaac on Mt. Moriah, was a once-for-all calling to reveal God's Grace in a superlative way. It doesn't seem to have to do with Covenant at all, other than to reveal the heart of the New Covenant to come in Christ. My support for this is that it only happened once, was only a test to reveal God's own sacrifice, and scriptures like Jeremiah 7:31 ... "They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.". That's why I think one should take the incident to be totally solitary, and quite exceptional in more ways than one. Either way, it seems you and I may be coming to the same conclusion for different reasons: that we shouldn't have to worry about such a thing being asked of us. And, you are right about the covenant potentially being spread to all the world (not just Jews) in the New Testament. However, it sounded as if you meant that the covenant of Law was extended. I would still stress the one-sided nature of the New Covenant, with the only condition on our part being surrender and trust. "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6) Anyway, Bob, this is something I have grasped from my studies of Biblical Covenants, for your consideration. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Interesting, Stephanos. Traditionally the story of The sacrifice of Isaac is in the Jewish religion taken as the beginning of the rite of circumcision. Circumcision, as you know, is the physical acknowledgement of the Covenant. The nature of the Law comes into being more slowly, over time. The Ten Commandments, for example, only coming in existence, after the exodus, while a great number of other commandments apparently predate them, and a whole body of law from the Babylonian exile and from time following the destruction of the second temple and following the death of Jesus exists as well. Not all law comes from The Torah. Not All Jewish law ends with the Death of Jesus. Using New T. scripture as authority to comment on Old T. sources is logically as dubious as using Koranic sources to give the correct interpretation for the Sermon on The Mount. Smugly satisfying for those who do the quoting, of course, because it is justified by their superior faith, nourishing a white sugar to those from the original faith who hear their understandings corrupted. Bad, probably, for everybody's dental hygiene, for the taste it may leave in one's neighbor's mouth. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Granted. quote: Of course not. quote: As you are so wont to say, logic has very little to do with it. But if you are speaking of coherence (which does apply), I disagree. The Koran, a work written some 600 years after the time of Christ, makes some blatant historical denials about the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels (documents having much better candidacy for being authentic description, than the centuries-later Koran). He really didn't die, etc ... The New Testament, on the other hand, rising up within Jewry, makes no presumptuous denials of its history. Jesus himself in the Gospels seems to take all of the history of the Old Testament for granted. But there is a new interpretive element introduced, and a proclamation of Messianic fulfillment ... but that is not the same as historical revision. quote: I don't think it can be shown from scripture that either Jesus or his apostles dishonored the Law, though that's exactly what they were accused of, and persecuted for, many times over. I guess their primary concern was not to "leave a good taste" in everyone's mouth. Paul did, however, warn the Church in Rome not to be arrogant about the fact that God chose them as the vehicle of a New Covenant: "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in." (Romans 11:25). However, the inadequacy of the Law as a means of "being right" with God, is intractable to Christianity, and irreducible. Also intractable is the belief that Jesus was sent for them ... their Messiah whether they think so or not (thankfully many have and will yet). I get the feeling that it is not necessarily the attitude with which these beliefs are held that offends you, but the beliefs themselves. Concede for a moment it were true ... could you imagine that anyone could believe it without being "smug" as you put it? I for one (though you may doubt this) take seriously what Paul wrote about the folly of being conceited just because the natural branches were broken off, since I myself am only an ingrafted branch, with more disparity with the roots than the natural ones. Such is the nature of grace. Perhaps I'll conclude by pointing out that it was you who mentioned the "New Covenant" choosing to speak of scripture (Old and New Testament) as a narrative whole. You even mentioned Jesus himself, in regard to a change in Covenants. And in that context, I was only saying that the New Covenant is a radical change from the Old, whereas your earlier statement seemed to suggest that it was merely an extension of the same. respectfully, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, The degree to which the New T. arose within the Jewish faith is open to debate. Certainly once Paul began to accept uncircumcised converts, the differences became more and more clear. The degree to which Jesus would have accepted the changes that were made is also open to some question. Adaptation of scriptural OT sources to proved New T assertions is all to obviously Okay with Christians. The acceptability of doing so is almost universally accepted by Christian sources. And Thoreau, when asked about whether on not he was bothered by being a largely local kind of guy stated, "I am widely traveled within Concord." One can hardly quarrel with a mind that open. One may note, however, some of the internal sources that show evidence for the revisionist waves that swept the authors of the New T. when one notes that they do not consider themselves to be Jews in those incidences where they speak of "the Jews" doing this or that in the narrative. As though perhaps there were somebody else doing the writing, perhaps martians, or aliens. These people were being considered as different by the second or third generation of Christians, those who had not been through the actual events of the time. The Pharisees, who were the beginnings of rabbinic Judaism and were essentially unimportant during that first generation when the Temple and the Priestly class were still utmost in importance, get slurs in the New T. Pharisees were rivals for the second and third generation Christians or proto-Christians, and the slurs then would be understandable. I would call this historical revision. I think it may be natural, an outgrowth and accommodation to the politics of the era. To suggest that the structures in religion don't have them, and that the religions themselves aren't enormously affected by them would be in all probability a mistake. For both good and ill and usually both at the same time. In this case, both Christianity and Judaism. Thoughts? Curiously, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: I don't deny that Christianity became less and less "Jewish" with time, seeing that it was in the main rejected and considered at first, a troublesome Jewish sect. With the turning to the Gentiles by the Christian Church, it was inevitable that the divide would deepen. But scholarship is unanimous on the point that Christianity developed from within Jewry, despite its later innovations. My point previously, was that even granting such innovation, we have something more integrally related than a six-centuries-removed Arabic religious commentary about Christ. Whether you think Christianity was a proper outflow of the Judaic Religion or not, you are equating two very different things by suggesting that a Koranic estimation of Christ is essentially the same as a New Testament view of the Old Testament. And you still didn't explain to me why, when you set the context of a continuum of Old/New Covenant, that you protested when I responded in that context? It seems to me that you were saying that the New Covenant was an extension of the Mosaic Covenant to all the world. Maybe that's not what you were saying at all (you haven't responded). I was simply challenging what I perceived you were saying, from the viewpoint of the New Covenant itself. If you expected me to respond from a different perspective, I can't figure out why you commented on the New Covenant at all. quote: I think you're probably mainly referring to the Gospel of John. I don't think such references to "The Jews" warrants the allegation of revisionism. This is especially true if the Christian community, from quite early on, began to acquire a unique religious identity. The Greek word for "Jews" in John's Gospel was also used in three different ways, depending on the context; 1) as the entire Jewish people as an ethnic group 2) The religious leaders and 3) Judeans. I think denying that the authors were Jewish, or seeing anti-semitism in these statements (when the criticisms were not about ethnic generalities at all, but ethical particulars), is wrong, and a difficult case to make. This difficulty is especially exacerbated by Pauline appeals to Jewish integrity in the New Testament. The bottom line is that any contemporaneous Jewish criticism (in the text) can be explained away as anachronistic antisemitism, and any appeal to Jewish integrity as patronization. quote: Whoa, don't be so ambitious there. To say that they were not yet the religious ruling class, and that they were not prominent are two different things. If we can believe Josephus, it was not unheard of for a priest to be a Pharisee, before the advent of Rabbinic Judaism. Besides, if you read the Gospels closely, you'll find no Pharisee described as a political persecutor of Jesus. Rather, it was a Sadducean High Priest and his family who got Jesus arrested. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't have some run-ins with the Pharisees as an influential religious sect, which is exactly what is described. Also, since there are only three sources of information at all about the Pharisees, its quite a hasty thing in my opinion to discount one-third as inauthentic based upon a thin suspicion of prochronism.quote: I'm not suggesting that one's current mindset does not inevitably influence the way past events are described. (Historical Revision is still a more serious allegation than that). What I am suggesting is that that your comparison is somewhat unwarranted, not in spite of, but because of Higher Criticism. As always, thanks for the stimulating discourse, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Alas, Stephanos, I do not believe that anybody could believe in the New T. without feeling smug about it. The feeling of smugness in and of itself is not the problem. Mind you, it should be the problem, but it is not. Given the nature of God as seen by the Peoples of the Book, God might be Feared or Loved, but smugness would indicate your worship is of your status and not your God. It may be better than nothing, or it may be a form of idolatry, which might not be so swell. It surely isn't Love. The problem is that most of the People of the Book share that same smugness about their own definition of the faith, and in the end nobody can stand anybody else's smugness because it implies criticism of their own. Christians have terrible trouble with the smugness of the Muslims and the Jews, Muslims have trouble with the Jews and Christians, the Jews have troubles with the Christians and Muslims and round and round she goes. Within these major groups people have often been willing to go for the throat over issues too small for folks outside that group to quite understand. Over the last hundred years or so the Bahai have been hunted almost to extermination by Muslims, especially in Iraq. There was at least one crusade leading to the extermination of a Christian group in the south of France (lest the Muslims fear that they get all the glory). This particular brand of Monotheism is deeply flawed in this area, exactly where it should be the strongest. The smugness, by the way, is not limited to The New T. You can find it in the Koran and the Torah as well. You suggest that the Christian beliefs, emerging from the Jewish faith as they did, were not highly revisionist very quickly is, I believe, incorrect. My sense is that there was a wide gap that opened very quickly. The nature of that gap had to do with the nature of the Covenant, the circumcision that was the mark of the Covenant among the Jews, and the belief that the Messiah had been born and the various attempts to read scripture after that fashion as a literal and immediate event — the end of the World. The nature of Messianic fulfillment is of course somewhat different for Jews and Christians. Had the coming of the Messiah been pretty much as the current Christians believe it to be, there would have been concern but not so much as there was. The Jewish notion of the Messiah very much includes political and revolutionary elements, and that is something that the Romans kept a very close watch on indeed. Around these issues, a split took place. My reading of the two Covenants was an attempt to talk about what was common between the two religions. My description of the original Covenant is, as I understand it, pretty much an understood element of Jewish belief, though I'd be happy to hear from appropriate Jewish sources that it isn't. In this regard, I don't accept the authority of non-Jewish source material. Nor do I think I should. Perhaps I'm struggling here toward answering some of your fine questions. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I guess the only difference then, Bob, is that your own smugness seems to be rooted in your absolute relativism. If you'll pardon the reduction, what you are saying is that you can't really think you're right and still love someone who is wrong. The only problem for you is that you think you're right about that. I'm feeling unloved today Bob. (not really) Your view here simply doesn't allow anything to be believed with reasonable certainty, without assuming that such belief entails arrogance. Self doubt is always healthy. To doubt there is a truth regarding contrary claims is false humility. Love to God, entails a kind of loyalty that others may always interpret as clannish. The caveat is that Christian devotion to God includes much ado about kindness and good works toward one's neighbors, and a reminder that eternal life is a gift, not earned. It doesn't however make the unreasonable assertion that all contrary beliefs must be affirmed before it can be called real love. quote: I understand that you do. However, I think you have continued to either misunderstand me, or do a kind of bait-and-switch. I made a distinction between historical revision and innovation of interpretation (which I haven't denied in the least regarding the New Testament). The Koranic treatment of the New Testament is a most blatant example of the former, and the New Testament treatment of the Jewish bible the latter. Whether that new interpretation is something you find coherent as regards the Old Testament, is another discussion entirely. Given the person of Jesus himself, I could go into a good bit of detail of why the denial of his claims of Messiah is a mistaken conclusion. The reason I wouldn't want to, and the reason why I think it would be perhaps a waste of time, is that your challenge of my stance wouldn't be from a Jewish perspective either, but from a "We-Are-The-World-Nobody-Should-Think-They're-Right" position (which I am sure is more inconsistent than anything you've described by way of Jewish, Muslim, or Christian thought). Your attempts to show that the Christian Faith was a radical shift, are successful. Your attempts at showing that the New Testament contains historical anachronisms are not. And your attempts to show that all are smug except relativists are not. quote: I would be less concerned with correcting your view of the Mosaic Covenant, than I would be with your statement about the New Covenant as an extension of the Law. Again, did I totally misunderstand you here? But as a Christian who still embraces the Old Testament as God's Word, I am somewhat interested in your take on the Mosaic Covenant. As to your view about the Law being given so that God would never do anything like asking for Abraham's Son... Can you cite me something that would support it, or elaborate? Later, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
There is not a single Old T Covenant, but a series, as I'm sure you know. Noah, Abraham, and Moses. The one I was talking about had to do with the sacrifice of Isaac, and is the Abrahamic Covenant. It's hard to pick up stuff from a Jewish perspective on the net; apparently the Christians are the ones who seem to be doing the publishing, and their interest is somewhat different, but I found what looks to be a decent interview with a Rabbi on the subject. It might open things up a little for you. I was despairing, thinking that maybe my memory had failed me, but apparently it's still doing fairly well. Let me know what you think, please. https://web2.securelytransact.com/~shabbats/site/1/docs/abraham_interview.pdf Hope it's useful for you. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
My own smugness is a terrible character flaw, actually. I am also stuffy; and being a fool, tend to have a terrible time dealing with other people's foolishness. It's easier to dislike when it's out there than when I have to look at it inside. Should Ron be looking at the above statements and nodding his head about armchair psychoanalysis, I'd have to disagree. Real psychoanalysis, and part of the harvest of some ten years work. "Psychoanalysis aims to replace neurotic suffering with ordinary unhappiness." Sigmund Freud. We're all get occasional novocaine injections into the part of us that is able to feel love coming in. Wrong side of the bed, loud neighbors, difficult shifts, ordinary stuff. Sometimes we simply forget to pay attention to the people who love us. The last one's most common for me. You actually are a good witness, even when you're a bit down, simply by being yourself and sharing that. I thank you for that; it's something I've always appreciated. I am an agnostic, not a relativist. In terms of religion or ethics, I'm uncertain what a relativist actually would be. All I hold out for is that I have insufficient knowledge to assert the certainty of the existence of God. At moments of over-weaning arrogance, I'd go so far as to say that at this point in time it's a stretch for anybody to make such an assertion other than on the basis of faith. I admire faith of that sort, being of an existential frame of mind fairly frequently, but I think that faith is a different order of data than proof. You've slotted me in as a relativist a number of times. One gentleman even confused my thinking with that of relativity. Einstein, who was known to become upset at having his theory about space-time, light, mass and possibly geometry being confused with a theory about ethics that he did not particularly agree with was impatient with that confusion. My objection is much more basic: I don't believe everybody is right, as examination of my postings about torture, for example, would let you know. And I have strong biases in favor of human rights and civil rights and democracy. I can only feel chagrined that I have been unsuccessful in communicating the centrality of these things to my sense of values, and of the centrality of my sense that the necessity of love of our fellows should play in our daily lives. These values alone are enough to place me in an ongoing tug of war as they sometimes come in conflict with each other in the ordinary ongoing process of life. The wrestling match between uniqueness and community that the late Nels Ferre spoke of, the tension between wishing not to be locked out and hating to be fenced in. But Relativist? No. I am more thorny than that. My best to you and your family. Affectionately, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (01-29-2009 03:16 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: And if you ever detect it in me, I only ask you to allow me the same folly ... not to ipso facto connect it to a world-view with truth-claims. I've demonstrated many times, I think, that all the way from warfare to simple rudeness, we are all subject to this possibility. (Original sin is not just religious after all)) Whether the epithet "relativist" fits you or not, you don't seem too fond of anything conclusive. And it's just been my experience that a denial of "Truth" can be as absolutist as anything. And by the way, I never really thought you were smug, I only thought you were wrong about whether someone could believe in Christ and still love (God, the Jews, others). I only said you were smug according to your own standards, since it was obvious you thought you were right. quote: Who ever said it wasn't faith? quote: You're right. I would just add that proof is a different order of data than evidence. Faith may be antithetical to the former, but not the latter. And actually, if belief in God has anything to do with love and commitment and other matters of the heart, then the indisputable is out of place don't you think? Still that doesn't leave us with complete fideism. quote: That's good Bob; Nothing disputed here. I guess I would only add that democratic philosophy shouldn't rule out the possibility of conclusions. Christians, no matter how much they love and respect the Jews (our entire religious substructure and heritage comes from them), must still believe that those particular Jews who got a good view of Jesus and rejected him, missed the centrality of their own faith, their promised Messiah. It's unavoidable. Certain views (at their root) are antithetical, even among those who respect democracy and choose love. You've got a point in objecting to the bad examples, though I've never understood why they always come up when a conclusive statement is made ... when I'm probably more pacifist (mostly in an attempt to be true to the pacifism of Christ) than most anyone you'll meet. quote: I've never met a relativist who wasn't. The difference is, you (like myself) admit that you're not. Thanks for the articles by the way. So far they have been very interesting. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
In Christian writing the same word is used to mean something a bit different than the generally understood use of the word in Hebrew; and that's if I understand the issue correctly myself. I may not. The use of the word as Jesus uses it in the New T is more in line with the traditional Jewish meaning of the term, which is much more political and specifically focused on here and now political change in taking back the geography of Israel for the literal people of Israel as they were seen (roughly) at the time of Jesus. It had a political/military meaning more than anything else. It had to do with the end of exile, not the end of times and not a reunion in heaven. Theology of that era is a surprise to me, the more I find out about it. There seems to have been some belief in resurrection at that time that seems to have been played down or vanished from most Jewish doctrine in the meantime. I'm still looking about on that. Two very different views of Messiah. Jesus did not in fact fit the Jewish view of the Messiah. And the Christian view of the Messiah has undergone considerable evolution over the past couple of millennia to arrive at the place where it is today. The Christian message is a good message, but the business about it being not of this earth made it very much at odds with Jewish doctrine. The expectation, even among early Christians, was that Jesus would return at any moment to lead his people to victory and throw the Romans out of Israel. The longer that event was put off, the more the definition of Messiah had to stretch to account of the difference. Would I have rushed to join a rebellion against Rome at that time? I think I'd listen to what Jesus had to say. I'd see him as a religious rather than a military leader, and I'd rather listen to a religious message than get crucified for rebellion. I think I'd back off as he claims to be the messiah got louder, or the louder he allowed other people's claims for him to become. He simply didn't fit as a Jewish Messiah, and the rules had to change considerably for him to become the Messiah he is today. Sorry Stephanos, I disagree with you about this one. This is one of the reasons why the New T allows the use of the term The Jews, as though Jesus wasn't a Jew. The notion of Messiah changed a lot very quickly once a flood of converts with no actual Jewish education and no basic understanding of the Culture were brought in under the influence of St. Paul. In my opinion, I should add, certainly. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Yes, Jesus distanced himself from the contemporary popular understanding of Messiah. From a Christian perspective, he did not deny the office (so to speak), but the misguided understanding of what it meant ... a charismatic warlord. When I say that the Jews who rejected Jesus, missed their Messiah, I am taking a more global view of the corpus of scriptures they possessed. Yes there are triumphal scriptures that speak of the promised one, which could be interpreted in a political fashion (if not eschatological). But there are also Messianic passages that do not fit this category at all, those of the "suffering servant". Hey, I'm not throwing stones. Even the closest of his disciples didn't understand the words they didn't want to understand, concerning his crucifixion. Though the Jewish Messianic scriptures, as a whole, are best explained in the person of Jesus Christ ... I do understand that Jesus was nothing like the contemporary expectation of Messiah. quote: The Old Testament "view" of Messiah is quite broader than the view you describe. We could consider some of the passages I am thinking of. quote: It is more about a disagreement of priority, than the introduction of a Gnostic kind of dualism. Jesus said that whoever wished to "save his life" would lose it, and yet promises life in abundance and corporeal resurrection to boot. It is more of a warning against refusing God in pretense of "living", than a disavowal of living life in this world. The Jews themselves should understand this principle. They believe that God had a purpose for their Captivity. If it were all about "this earth", and not higher purposes, that would make no sense. All along the Jews were called to be "different" than the nations around them, in understanding heavenly things. The message of Jesus was a reiteration of a principle that shouldn't have been altogether foreign to them, notwithstanding their nebulous understanding of resurrection and the life-to-come. quote: Only to the degree that they shared the flawed Messianic expectation (which was not all wrong mind you) of their fellow Jews. There are many instances in the Gospels where this expectation (of some of his closest followers) is opposed and corrected by Jesus himself. The belief that all such corrective elements were anachronistically imposed on the text is difficult to support, except by sheer suspicion. And I guess for some, that is enough. quote: The only place I'm aware of that this occurs is in the book of John, in which the fact that Jesus was Jewish is not obscured in the least. At very most the term "Jews" is described in a religious sense that opposed Jesus himself and the earliest Christians. Much more likely, it was used as a term for the religious leaders themselves, which is a quite natural rendering in the context it is used. This specified use of the word can be documented in the book of John, among other places. If your view is to be plausible, there should be more evidence of the Jewishness of Jesus being hidden or obscured in the New Testament. If there was an antedated attempt by the Christians to distance themselves from a Jewish ethnicity and religious heritage, then it was a very poor job. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: A very poor job from your perspective perhaps, but certainly a good enough job to lay an excellent foundation for some pretty difficult behavior based on exactly this misunderstanding. I do know that it came as a rude shock to most of my schoolmates in Canton, Ohio that Jesus was a Jew and that he'd never pretended to be otherwise. It certainly earned me a black eye or two from classmates who knew better. Certainly nobody was in any hurry to correct them, either. quote: "The flawed messianic expectation [. . .] of their fellow Jews" is not a reasoned turn of phrase because you haven't specified frame of reference. In fact , you find the messianic expectation of those Jews flawed, presuming that you know more about them than they do. I would suggest that this is not so. They would likely have been more expert about themselves and their belief systems than you would be. The Christian judgement would have this to be the case because the Christians have re-written the book on what messianic expectations are. This is not wrong; it's what beliefs tend to do. To impose that belief system on Jews of that time is, however, likely to be revisionist history. Jesus' statements about being the messiah are cagey statements, and have been much interpreted. What is clear is that he was hardly straightforward, but tended to make statements that undercut each other and edge into the elliptical. I bring not peace but the sword and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's can be read any number of different ways. Which, one suspects, is the nature of many a spiritual statement on the one hand, and which is a very non-messianic statement in the traditional Jewish sense of that time in the other. We do have some idea that some attempt was being made to cover the bases with the original doctrine from some of the statements of St. Paul, who tends to give us reason to believe that the followers of Jesus believed and had been lead to believe that the return of Jesus would not be put off for more that 2000 years but was actually likely to come with the next knock on the door. This may well have been the origin of the "better to marry than to burn" business. At any rate, your statement of the case against the two different messianic concepts doesn't seem to me to feel as solid as it does to you. I can't and don't say all elements were imposed later on an intractable text. "All" is something well beyond my competence to consider. Enough to say that not excepting Jesus as the Messiach would be an understandable course of action, at least for many; and I 'd have to say yes, this is understandable to me. To have it result in a man's death, no, this is an abomination to me, and it is and was wrong. Given that in all likelihood the Romans thought him guilty of sedition, I doubt that they would have allowed him to live, whatever the biblical story says. For sedition. crucifixion was the penalty, and the penalty seldom stopped with one. Check with Josephus on that; I believe he gets fairly detailed about what happened to the rebels and their families and their towns and villages. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: That's not always the case Bob. Familiarity sometimes breeds its own set of problems. Ever take your wife for granted? Hindsight can be 20/20 (though I'm certainly open to the fact that I may not be seeing nearly what I should). Surely you're not suggesting that proximity always guarantees the most insight? While I concede the point (I already did unequivocally) that the Christian Church should have no sense of arrogance, it would be wrong to think that outsiders (so to speak) cannot sometimes know better than denizens. Sons who stay home the whole time are not always closest in heart, and don't always get what prodigals do. Jewish thought itself is not without this idea: "...I will make them envious by those who are not a people. I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding." (Deuteronomy 32:21) As far as boasting a greater accomplishment of knowledge on my part, I'm not claiming that at all. What I am claiming is that it is a fact that they focused more on a certain stratum of scriptures, than upon others that also speak into the promise. Triumphalist scriptures about a king reigning in majesty poured for them a blinding golden light. The scriptures about a suffering servant, bearing the weight of sin and grief by the will of God, did not register too much in their Messianic Theology for that reason. Many of them simply didn't understand enough the significance of such scriptures to recognize him when he came ... many of them did. quote: Yes, but my support of the Christian version of "Messianic Scripture" is based upon a wider reading of Jewish scripture than just those scriptures that are easily fitted into images of a political victor. Because of Christ, the Christians interpreted these scriptures in a different way, I grant you. I am arguing that this interpretation makes better sense of the whole, and is in fact fuller, in that it incorporates together what the Jews saw as disparate and unrelated ideas. quote: Bob, they didn't impose the Christian view of Messiah on the Jews, as historical revision. As a matter of fact they plainly reported what you are saying ... that the then current expectation of Messiah was that of a political conqueror of their enemies. In fact in the text, this view is not only criticized in those Jews who vigorously opposed Jesus, but also when it obstinately crops up in those sypathetic with him and even his own disciples. Where is the evidence for historical revision again? quote: I would never attempt to reduce the words and manners of Jesus to a tame little set of aphorisms, easy to file and a cinch to understand. While they hold a profound simplicity on one hand, they are perplexing as well. Still, the pardox is overstated. Context is still the rule of good exegesis of scripture. And those who would interpret the passages about swords in a literal way, are stumped altogether by surrounding context and actions. Jesus was in fact, constantly challenging the tendency of zealotism, leaving us no mystery of what he thought of it ... though perhaps he did sympathize with zealots themselves, and saw something true in their misguided desire for what they thought was freedom. A metaphorical interpretation is more cogent in this case, seeing that Peter was rebuked for using the sword. A sword can be said to divide. And all of this was happening in a time when following Christ could cause much chaos and separation. While these texts are more elastic than many Western Christians would want them to be, they are not eternally accommodating, except by leaving the path of good exegetical sense. quote: You may have something there about the expectation of the earliest Christians. But from the statements of Jesus himself, it is not so simple. Often he spoke not of "The Second Coming" (a later doctrinal description), but of "the coming of the Kingdom in Power". This was fulfilled when he was crucified and resurrected, and when the Spirit was poured out on a nascent Church during the feast of Pentecost. But he also spoke of a consummate "coming" at the end of the present age (such as in the Olivet discourse of Matthew 24). There is no proof whatsoever (from the standpoint of textual scholarship) that these were later addendums to gloss over a different turn of events than was initially described. A much more likely explanation of "better to marry than to burn", is the issue of self control and sin, in light of Jewish teaching about sexual purity. There is absolutely nothing about that particular Pauline text which would demand anything more. quote: I've already admitted two different messianic concepts. But I'm only admitting one body of prophetic data (The Jewish oracles) ... and arguing that one of those concepts makes fuller sense of that data, especially in light of the person of Jesus Christ. quote: Do you forget that the Christian view is not so simplistic as to fail to say the crucifixion was dreadfully wrong? The Christian view is that, in the hands of God, even the most "dreadfully wrong" atrocities of men are not the end of the story. quote: Uh, Bob, all Christians already agree with you on that one. They didn't allow him to live. quote: Why are you referring me to Josephus regarding the efficacy of Roman execution? Do you think that the Christian glory and hope is pinned in the mercy or mishap of the Roman Guards? It has traditionally been the Christians arguing for the certainty of Christ's death, against the "swoon" theorists. I could understand you telling me that you plainly don't believe the Resurrection, but to argue as if Christians believed that Jesus was merely "allowed to live" is baffling. Maybe I misunderstood you. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-31-2009 12:18 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. These guys should've read the New Testament. Their actions and attitudes surely weren't consistent with it. However when you said to them that Jesus didn't pretend to be "otherwise" than a Jew, I wonder what you meant exactly. Did Jesus claim to be nothing more than another pious Jew? Nothing Messianic, nothing about being God's Son? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Jesus wasn't the first Jew to claim to be the Messiah, nor was he the last. You live within the time of the proclamation of the most recent Jewish messiah, Menachim Schneerson, seventh Lubavitcher rebbe, who died in 1994, whose followers proclaimed him the messiah. He certainly presided over a large Jewish community at a time when Jews began to return to Israel and the traditional Passover toast — "Next year in Jerusalem" — became an active possibility, and Schneerson was one of those active in bringing that about. Jesus, on the other had, lived at a time of dispersal. Most of the Jews of his time were unconvinced by his claims and his followers had to radically redefine the concept of what a Jew actually was to gain something that appeared to be a Jewish following. Much of the tension between Jews and Christians has been at the Christian insistence that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah; and, by extension, the Messiah of all of mankind that would accept Him as their personal Savior. It has generally been a sore point that The Jews have not gone along, and have in fact disagreed with the initial part of the statement. The Jewish Messiah is for the Jews to recognize. Nobody else has the requisite qualifications. I happen to think that the message Jesus offers is a great and majestic message, and worthy of founding a magnificent faith upon. In reading the Biography of Maimonides that I've been working through recently, I came upon an interesting distinction that Maimonides made in Guide of the Perplexed that apparently Spinoza made as well some 500 years later. Good and Evil, they say, are socially determined; True and False are scientific issues. I understand that you, Stephanos, believe in only a single correct answer for whether there has been a Christos or not. That will be the case if you say that the Messiah of the Jews was Jesus, because then you put the decision into the hands of the Jews, who generally happen to disagree with you. They disagreed then, and they disagree now and they disagreed pretty much the whole time along the line when somebody wasn't literally holding a gun to their heads or a knife to their throats. Among other things I've learned in doing some reading of the Abraham and Isaac story has to do with the perspective placed on it. In the Torah, the story is about Abraham's relationship with God, at least on the surface. One of the commentators brought up the consequences of the whole thing in terms of Isaac. It passes unremarked on in the text, but after Isaac's reprieve, no mention is ever made of his having contact with Abraham again. That appears to have done it for the father-son connection. Something was sacrificed on that pile of wood up there after all, and there is something to be learned about the nature of love and betrayal from the story, and what may be healed and what may not be healed, that seems to have evaded our scrutiny. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Yes, you are merely restating the current divide (temporary for many many Jews, in my belief). And yet it is intractable to Christian belief, as I stated before. My appeal to you has been to say that Jesus as Messiah makes fuller sense of the entirety of the Jewish body of prophetic scriptures, than views which do not acknowledge those passages about the suffering servant. And your respose is not so much an argument from that data, but rather a charge of incourtesy ... that it is only for the Jews to decide. The only problem with that idea is (as noble and democratic as it sounds) that it doesn't really coincide with Jewish thoughts about the truth in general, and prophecy in particular. The Jewish faith is emphatically God-centered, even though there is human freedom and latitude. Therefore, the Jews would even say themselves that they have minimal determining power in prophecy, that is not cooperatively rooted in God's own determination. Surely that’s why the "remnant" theme is so prevalent and recurring in the Jewish scriptures. They have documented time and again that the larger community is often wrong, and so enter the Prophets. It is not the fifty-one-percent vote, or the social group / community consensus that determines the blessing. If you say that it is still their choice, you only voice a truism about everyone. But if you say that that there are Messianic beliefs more consistent with the Jewish Canon of scripture, you'll have to venture out of a general protest of "how dare a non-Jew tell a Jew what is right" (which misses the irony that both Jesus and Paul were thoroughgoing Jews), into the examination / comparison of scriptures and exegesis. quote: Maybe it has evaded our scrutiny precisely because it isn't there? I usually don't mind a bit of speculative theology, but reading into textual silence can be dangerous. It would be like saying that Joseph must have been a bad husband since he initially had his doubts about Mary, and was never mentioned again after the nativity. Even having not read, I can be fairly certain this "commentator" you speak of is no Jew in a religious sense. Perhaps not even a Theist? You're worried about the Jews being upset at Christians who say Jesus is the Jewish Messiah? How about suggesting to them that the Father of Their Faith committed an base and alienating act, leading to the estrangement of his son Isaac, just by being willing to sacrifice him at God's command? You may think you're being more humane than either myself or the Jews (though I think this misses the larger view of the whole story), but I can promise you that at least now you're as much of a blasphemer as I am. Stephen. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I find everything I was going to say here, I've said better in the next post, so I've cut everything except this pathetic little note. [This message has been edited by Bob K (02-11-2009 02:51 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
. Dear Stephanos, This was the link to the source of the material on Isaac. You might actually have to copy it into google to make the link work. You will notice that the link is Rabbinic. https://web2.securelytransact.com/~shabbats/site/1/docs/abraham_interview.pdf There is an interesting article following the Rabbinic article by a Christian scholar, also covering some of the same Abrahamic material from a slightly different perspective. I thought the pairing of the two articles in the single link would prove useful. This is a re-listing of a link I provided earlier that is more work to follow up on than I knew at the time. I urge you to enter it into google manually if only for the Christian article, which is thoughtful. This doesn’t mean that I’m not a blasphemer, of course. Though, alas, probably not about this. I feel almost slightly diminished in my wickedness. Jesus was a Jew, as you say. Paul may have been. But you mistake me if you think that I am suggesting that it it is an argument due to discourtesy rather than data that I am making. The various incarnations of the Christian religion have been taking it on themselves to say what is correct and what is incorrect Jewish theology now for quite a while. The correct Jewish theology oddly enough is that theology that supports what Christians want to hear. Incorrect Jewish theology is at variance. Telling somebody else what they believe and what they’re values are, to my mind, goes a bit beyond lack of courtesy. When at times you burn their holy books and those caught reading them for the crime of heresy (in their own religion), this seems somewhat more that a lack of courtesy as well. The term that I’ve heard used for this is supercessionism. The fact is that Jews have a right to have their own silly interpretation of scripture, and that it doesn’t have to agree with Christian interpretation. There were messiahs before Jesus, and there were messiahs after and there have been recent messiahs — or those that others have claimed to be the messiah. As much as I tell you Menachem Schneerson, the late seventh generation Lubavitcher rebbe was the Jewish messiah — as indeed a fair number of ultra orthodox Jews today believe — you would not go along. I would agree with you in this, should that be your belief, but I think that you have no right to tell them that you are right and they are wrong. Jewish theology is for Jews to decide. The question is not “How dare a non-Jew tell a Jew what is right?” The question in this form is ambiguous and distorted. The question is “How dare a non-Jew tell a Jew what Jews should think and feel and believe to be right?” Two communities of faith can and often do have different thoughts about what may be right. Right and wrong are matters of consensus; as I recently found out both Miamonides and Spinoza were clear about this, while they felt that true and false were matters open to scientific investigation. If Jews don’t believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, they ought to know. You can discourteously cut their throats, impolitely burn them alive and do all sorts of other things Emily Post might write a chilly note about, but the Jews have been mysteriously stubborn about it when it would have been so much easier for everybody concerned simply to gone along to get along. The truth is, Stehaphanos, they actually don’t believe it. They’re not being wrong headed. I should say “we:” I was born Jewish, and if they every start coming around with the armbands again, even though I think of myself as an agnostic/ taoist, I’ll still get shipped off to those places all Jewish people go, right? We don’t believe it. quote: The reference is below. If you can’t get the link to come up by clicking on it, try feeding into Google by hand. I think the Rabbi is a believer, but they’re tricky you know. My understanding is that when Joseph didn’t have Mary stoned to death, his street creds as an understanding husband were pretty much established. But perhaps you have some gossip I haven’t heard. I know idle chatter is not so good for the sould, but I suspect I’d make an exception about this. ‘fess up and come across; got some great new scoop from the National Inquirer? Inquiring minds want to know. Best wishes, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (02-11-2009 02:49 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Bob, if I only had a dollar for every time you bring up violence or hatred in connection with a Theological point this pacifist makes. I heartily disapprove of whatever has been done against Jews in the past, and Christians who have felt or done otherwise have not acted in accordance with their Lord. Still, that is more of a commentary on sinful human nature, than upon the subject we are discussing. At least it has no bearing upon this pacifist Christian. quote: A term, not derived from Christian Theology, but from the critical outside. What was that you said about doing that, Bob? Anyway ... Not to go too far into Christian Theology about the Jews, but supercession is not exactly true without some elements of dispensationalism thrown in. The New Testament indicates quite clearly that Israel (as Israel, and not just the analogy of the Church) is not rejected by God. Still, it has more to do with belief/unbelief (something that applies to both communities) than with quibbling about what supercession means. quote: Again, Bob, you keep repeating a truism. I never said otherwise. They have a right to their own interpretation, when it happens to be right and when it happens to be wrong. Just like you and me. quote: I have told you already, that belief that Jesus is THE Jewish Messiah is intractable to Christian belief. I guess you're saying I'm wrong? quote: Yes, I'm aware of this. quote: Yes, they ought to know. And smugness is not necessary, in thinking so. There's much that Christians should know concerning Christ too. quote: I already knew that too. quote: Unless of course, they're wrong about it. quote: Whenever right/wrong is about what is true/false, it is not a matter of consensus. Again, Bob, you didn't comment on the theme of the remnant in the Jewish scriptures. There were times when consensus said something quite different than the Prophets. Rather than arguing that you're not right from a philosophical standpoint (which could be done), I'm just telling you that it doesn't sound Jewish (at least regarding their traditional non-secular beliefs). quote: I've got no subscription, since I've tried to cut junkfood from the diet. I guess you'll have to keep getting your 'scoop' from wherever you heard about that neurotic laughing kid and his abusive Dad. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
It is notable that Jewish attempts to untangle the theodicy surrounding the binding of Isaac are not quite convincing as long as there is no lamb in the stead of Isaac. I’ve read apocryphal attempts stating that a challenge was posed by Satan to God (similar to what we read in Job), allowing us to imagine that God would have never asked for Isaac’s death of his own accord, but only in answer to a diabolical challenge concerning the devotion of Abraham. Thus God is relieved of the charge of immediate responsibility. Not complete absolution, but better than nothing I guess. Nothing like "best-I-Can-muster" righteousness, for a Holy God. Others tinker in a different way, and say that Abraham simply heard God wrong, bearing such textual difficulties as the troubling fact that the writer of Genesis clearly thought Abraham heard right, even to the point of ascribing merit not to his correction, but to his initial aural blunder. To me, none of this makes good sense, or resolves much by way of Theodicy, unless there were to be a real historical fulfillment of Abraham's words about God providing himself a sacrificial lamb ... unless there were another scene coming that would involve the death of one wholly innocent (not just relatively innocent by accident of age), that would put God himself in the position of pain and loss. Therefore, like a fleeting shadow, or small photo negative, Abraham's mock sacrifice is duly called off, shown to be not the real thing at all, nearly a Joke even, at which Isaacs everywhere may still laugh, because the cross is the punchline where injustice worked for our good. Seeing the panorama, we can recall words of John the Baptist who said "behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world", and the words of Christ who said "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." Sounds like comedy runs in the family. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
It is notable that Jewish attempts to untangle the theodicy surrounding the binding of Isaac are not quite convincing as long as there is no lamb in the stead of Isaac. Not quite convincing to . . .? Would that be Animists, Buddhists, Bahai, Taoists, Jains, Hindus, agnostics, atheists or any of the rest of the majority of the population of the world? Rationalists, perhaps? Mystics in general? Or are you perhaps using the passive voice to claim general authority for a minority viewpoint? I'd suspect that most of the world could care less, frankly, and that you are trying to smuggle in cosmic authority for the Christian point of view and against a Jewish point of view. I suspect that you may have some nominees for lamb as well that would solve the problem that you say the Jews have very well indeed. The Jews must be overwhelmed by your charity in solving the problem you are convinced they must have. Have you considered asking any of them if they are as yet appropriately grateful? I’ve read apocryphal attempts stating that a challenge was posed by Satan to God (similar to what we read in Job), allowing us to imagine that God would have never asked for Isaac’s death of his own accord, but only in answer to a diabolical challenge concerning the devotion of Abraham. Thus God is relieved of the charge of immediate responsibility. Not complete absolution, but better than nothing I guess. Nothing like "best-I-Can-muster" righteousness, for a Holy God. Others tinker in a different way, and say that Abraham simply heard God wrong, bearing such textual difficulties as the troubling fact that the writer of Genesis clearly thought Abraham heard right, even to the point of ascribing merit not to his correction, but to his initial aural blunder. To me, none of this makes good sense, or resolves much by way of Theodicy, I must say that I agree with you here. I think further, though, that the problem of evil — theodicy, if you want to get fancy — may be in some ways a problem of faith. It assumes that man has a sufficient understanding of a by-definition-Unknowable-God to presume to judge God. To me this would go against the first commandment, against idolatry. If I recall my childhood bible study, in the Early books of the Bible the thing that brought down God's wrath was that thing specifically. About most other things he was a bit lighter hearted — perhaps only a scourge or two. Mayhap I've got that wrong, though. At any rate, to believe that one understands God enough to Judge him is probably missing the point. His understanding of Good and Evil is apparently more complex than humans can follow. If I ever meet Him, though, I do plan to ask searching questions about George Bush. That's a joke, in case you doubted me. In reality, I suspect God will have some searching questions to ask me about George Bush. unless there were to be a real historical fulfillment of Abraham's words about God providing himself a sacrificial lamb ... unless there were another scene coming that would involve the death of one wholly innocent (not just relatively innocent by accident of age), that would put God himself in the position of pain and loss. You of course steer the discussion back to the Christian answer. I suggest to you that there are no "Isaacs everywhere." Survivors, as a rule, may be grateful. I will stress the word MAY. You as a E.R. nurse will know that survivors are not always grateful and, as a rule, are seldom if ever a merry crowd. Being brought close to the brink and then being allowed to live leads most often to shock and bewilderment, and frequently, depending on the circumstances, to life-long consequences. It is not "nearly a joke even," and the Isaacs that I have known may laugh, but they usually don't. I want salvation for those that want it for themselves, and I urge it on those who I think want to give Christianity a try. I have a lot of respect for what the religion can offer and for the good it can and does do. I have also seen chaplains and missionaries work on the psychiatric units where I have worked, and I know they do a great deal of good. I also know that you are being disrespectful with an enormous amount of human suffering that is simply not a joke for the people going through it. Not all suffering is relieved by God saying a quick, last minute, "Just kidding!" Even among seriously committed Christians, who are as capable of intense suffering as any of the rest of us. Therefore, like a fleeting shadow, or small photo negative, Abraham's mock sacrifice is duly called off, shown to be not the real thing at all, nearly a Joke even, at which Isaacs everywhere may still laugh, because the cross is the punchline where injustice worked for our good. Seeing the panorama, we can recall words of John the Baptist who said "behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world", and the words of Christ who said "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." Sounds like comedy runs in the family. I know this thread has been over for a while, but I have been thinking about it. Hope all is well, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Lol. Smuggle in cosmic authority for God? The Sovereignty of God too, Bob, is as intractable to Christian belief, as anti-exclusivism (exclusivism = the doctrine that Truth will not vindicate all views) is to your absolute pluralism. Also, it is simplistic to say that the Christian point of view is "against" the Jewish point of view. Messiah Jesus, thoroughly Jewish, represents a completion and summation of the Jewish view. Setting the Jewish past, and Old Testament Theology over and against the Christian Revelation is not truly Jewish (in the religious sense), any more than Christian agnostics are Christian in the religious sense. And if you don't particularly like that assertion, it is still intractable to Christian belief, regardless of the amount of respect tolerance etc ... Which I gladly extend. Perhaps we'll agree to disagree at this point, else we beat the same burning bush over and over? quote: Yes Bob, I do think you have some of that wrong ... unless you want to say all accepted of God (in the Old Testament) who questioned God, were really idolaters. I know of no examples in the Old Testament where questions stemming from a concern for goodness or justice, resulted in God's wrath. All the examples of punishment that I'm aware of, stemmed from more selfish concerns. I'd be willing to explore any examples you have in mind though. I guess I would sum it up this way ... Theodicy does raise questions which may in turn be raised in defiance ... But it also affords an opportunity for trust and patience to grow within the sphere of tension ... and the realization that God could be even better than we thought he was before the questions assailed our hearts, being able to bring good out of ill. From a Christian perspective, that's what the cross is all about. quote: On the other hand, believing that God is so completely "other" as to transcend good and evil misses the point too. Since we are told by the Jews that God is revelatory, and that he HAS made himself known to his creatures; that he is good is a very real and humanly-meaningful way, the balance is probably somewhere in between the two polar options you are seeing. To defy God is sinful indeed. To question God is human. When my own Children ask "Why?", there are two different hearts behind it which will often determine the kind of answer I give. Sometimes it is totally rhetorical and defiant ... sometimes it is honest, curious, and needful. quote: I'm glad I can at least try to correct your misconception of what I'm saying. When I speak of "Isaacs everywhere", I am alluding to the fact that being sinners, we all deserve death and things worse than death. If Isaac is to be considered innocent, it was by accident of age only. Jesus, the wholly innocent, takes our ultimate punishment, giving us immortality and redemption, and so finally we may laugh. What I said was not a glib disrespectful remark about human suffering, but the point that even our deaths are naught in comparison to what Christ endured (the spiritual torment in addition to the physical) at Golgotha, where the sun itself hid in horror. Kirkegaard once made a statement about Christianity being ultimately a "comedy", because it is the only end at which we may laugh and be at peace. Remember, Bob, that YOU are the one who tells me that theodicy is to be equated with idolatry. The fact that I think theodicy to be not only acceptable (due to the reality of suffering in this world), but ultimately redemptive, ought to clue you in that I am not whisking away human suffering with a chortle. The cross of Christ, ought to clue you in that God isn't either. Yet, all is well that ends well. When analyzing my remarks, you should consider the larger context of what I've already said. Even though you made such a remark about Theodicy being idolatrous, I'll make a deal with you ... I won't accuse you of being glib about suffering (I never did), if you don't accuse me. Agreed? BTW, to correct a trifle, I work in an ICU, not ER. But for your argument's sake, either would have worked just as well. thoughtfully, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, You have not addressed the point I raised here. The point I raised is that through use of the Passive Voice, you have attempted to usurp a position of authority in this discussion that you believe you are entitled to by virtue of your beliefs only. When you use the phrase "not quite convincing" you presume to be speaking from that place. I may not be in any real sense quite convincing in any ultimate sense. That's open to discussion. That you have the right, by not specifying "convincing to whom," to suggest that my statement is ultimately false or misleading within the confines of a discussion of this sort is a position I need to have explained to me. As near as I can tell, you have a right to speak for yourself here, but not to assume a general authority without a clear display of your bone-fides. Call me wild. I do not pretend to absolute pluralism, though you seem to believe I do, and restate this point of view from time to time as though I did believe it, even though I remind you with at least some regularity it is not the case. It is not the case. While I ran into a very nice Satanist lady in a drug store the other day, whom I initially mistook for a Wiccan, and I had a short chat with her that seemed a small high point of my day, I do not believe that Satanism is as likely or as useful a religious avenue as Wicca. Wicca offers much more to open the heart than I believe Satanism does. The Aztec religion is one I find actively repellant, and it is not the only one. Please don't force me into a pluralism that I don't practice of believe in. I do try to be tolerant of most other religious beliefs, since I find that they seem to be helpful on the whole to the people who practice them with any sort of sincerity. Oddly, many practices and insights from across religious lines are very close to each other when it comes time to talk about the actual experience of religious states. Sufi transcendence doesn't seem much different that Yogic transcendence or the transcendence of Meister Eckhardt caught up in his reflections of light off the glinting of a spoon. Any of these experiences would have something in common with San Juan de La Cruz or the Baal Shem Tov. The actual straight pure draught of the pure "stuff" of religion seems to taste delicious and to come from a common spring. Why this is so, I've speculated about often. No, the Christian point of View, at its heart is not "against" the Jewish point of View. The underlayment and the experience are, I think, much the same. And yet, as far as you're concerned, I suspect, the Jews just won't be doing it right until they aren't Jews any more, but Christians, who believe in the Cross and the Christ and who do it your way. Nor, I suspect, will anybody else. If I've got this wrong here, please forgive me, but there are an amazing number of Jews who are absolutely clear that this is exactly the way the world works. Not to mention Buddhists and Muslims and you name it. It's actually sort of offensive to be told that we can be forgiven for being the perfectly regular people we have pretty much always felt ourselves to be. You'd be willing to do that kindness for us and maybe someday we can be as terrific as you are. So while the religious heart of things may be much the same, there's a lot that's simply not all that wonderful. I find it offensive that you would think that Jesus represents a completion of the Jewish point of view. First of all, I don't regard the Jewish point of view as anywhere near complete even today, and you can see that its direction is somewhat different than that of the Christian world view. Secondly, the Christian interest is not in nurturing the Jewish world view, but in bringing it to an end as a precondition for The Second Coming. How Jesus himself would feel about this, I am only too fascinated to hear from non-Jews, who would certainly be the first people to ask. quote: Excuse me? Trying to subsume the Jewish past and a revisionist reading of the Jewish Bible against the Jewish past is truly Christian (in the religious sense) makes much more sense to me. Calling The Jewish Bible pejoratively, "The Old Testament," and calling the Christian Bible "The New Testament" even suggest that the one is better than the other. The word "supercession," which I know you are not fond of, does come to mind here. Grumbling all the way, Bob Kaven P.S. I found some video of the Lubovitcher Rebbe, one of the recent nominees for messiah in this century giving a brief talk while he was still alive. I can think of all sorts of reasons not to listen to it. He doesn't in particular ring my chimes, but I do get something of the charismatic sense of the man coming through. I thought you might like the option of access. It really does have something of a biblical feel to it. http://www.emet.blog-city.com/the_lubavitcher_rebbe_on_daas_torah.htm pps. In noticing the sentence structure above, I have to laugh at myself. Among other things, if the Rebbe had given the talk while he was dead, our conversation would be having a whole different turn, wouldn't it? BK |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: It seems there's a bit of over-analysis going on. The adjective "not convincing" (an estimation not made apart from an appeal to both reason and a body of scripture The only difference, it seems to me, is that your moral certitude has not been shown to be based upon any defense of traditional Judaism, or any such thing. I have appealed to a number of things beyond my own beliefs, which you have not touched upon. The Theodicy of the incident between Abraham and Isaac (the very subject matter of this thread) is unremitted apart from this event preshadowing God's own gift. You are right to say that Theodicy is only a problem within the context of faith ... and in contrasting/comparing Jewish Religion and Christianity, we are dealing with faith. quote: I need not force you into anything. Hey, I didn't say "relativist" did I? Wasn't the pluralism apparent when you earlier suggested that democratic ideals were to be the benchmark for interpreting Jewish scripture? quote: Can I at least call you a syncretist now? You are arguing that most religions are fundamentally the same, and superficially different. But it seems to me this might flow from your philosophy of metaphysical agnosticism (actually I see no other conclusion for a humanitarian agnostic such as yourself). But if there is anything true in the metaphysical sense, the ontology of God, the historicity of the Christian Faith, etc ... etc ..., then religions are superficially the same, and fundamentally different. quote: Nice slip in of "do it your way". Actually I believe many are saved and redeemed who don't do it my way. I don't approve of much that is in Roman Catholic practice and theology, but if they love Jesus Christ and call him God's son, who am I to argue with God about their acceptance? Those Reformed Calvinists are pesky in their beliefs too .. but same answer. My definition of a Christian is still rooted in the sayings and teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles. I am only insisting upon a very basic tenet that he himself spoke "No one comes to the Father except through me". That's a far cry from vaunting "my way", even if I choose to try and make his way mine. quote: Okay, I already knew there is disagreement. What was your point, if not pluralism/ syncretism in spiritual matters? quote: See, religions are fundamentally different! Secular humanism generally flows with the idea that we're not sinners. So you're okay in that camp. But, you'd better check your Jewish Theology again if you think it asserts that we're all pretty good and decent fellows, not in need of sacrifice and atonement. For any who think they're okay in this regard, Jesus did give the kind of answer they might find tasteful ... He only came for those who are in need of forgiveness, who feel themselves to be sinners. Whether this bypassing is by lively choice and concurrence with said personal estimation, or one of patronizing in sad necessity, is another question entirely. I personally think we all need redemption. Before you keep going on about potential anti-semitism, you really should ask which precondition fits the Jewish record better, natural autonomous human goodness, or fallen human nature? Oh, don't misunderstand me Bob, I appreciate day-to-day common decency as much as anyone. But if redemption has anything to do with something else (which it does in both Jewish and Christian Theology), to bring this up as a protest against a need for God's forgiveness is a misapplication. quote: Unless you could fathom that animal sacrifice was a pre-figure, and anticipatory; Unless you can fathom that much that is given by God has been provisional and pro-tempore; unless you can imagine revelation as both regulative and progressive. But if not, then we simply disagree. No need to take too much offense, though some, I understand, is unavoidable. I'm wondering though, if Christ as the fulfillment of atonement offends you, I wonder if your view of natural human goodness would offend an ordthodox Jew, since it essentially denies any need for atonement. quote: Hmmmm. Be specific. In what sense are Christians for the "bringing to an end" of the Jewish world view, as a precondition for the Second Coming? I can't respond to a statement as ambiguous as this. Maybe your explanation will make it easier. quote: Well, a statement of Chronology, or even a statement of consummation in one, and fulfillment in another, may be taken perjoratively. But it need not be so. From a Christian perspective, there is no Old without the New, and there is a deep reverence for the Jewish Scriptures in Christendom. As Gentile believers, we are the ingrafted branches of a very precious tree. You are welcome to use the term "supercession" if you acknowledge that it may be taken to mean something different than "God is through with the Jews". A more dispensational view (which concords with Paul's teaching in the New Testament) tells us that God loves Israel, and is by no means done. It is significant to me (a sign of divine grace) that they are the only scattered and banished people to ever have returned home again, and retain a national identity. See, its about perspective here. You can skew the Christian position to appear antagonistic to the Jewish people (though there's some legitimacy in that, whenever this has truly been the case). But I can think someone is wrong, and still have a personal respect. You're obviously wrong, and I respect you. You obviously think I'm wrong, and you respect me. I've only been pointing out to you that all your grumbling is groundless, if you consider how far afield your own theological views are from Orthodox Jewish. If the truth be known YOU think they're wrong (in a religious sense) as much as I. Having accused Abraham of dishonoring Isaac, suggested that God cannot be known by his creatures, suggested that truth is democratic in nature, and asserted that we're all pretty decent and not in need of atonement for sin ... these are all affronts to Jewish theology, every bit as much as calling Yeshua the only Jewish Messiah. In defending the honor of Jewry, you have not been so willing to discuss or defend their own views of scripture in the process, exegetically. Though this is understandable for a Taoist Agnostic, your pretense of neutrality is getting old, since you've shared your beliefs copiously (if subtly) throughout, even reprimanding me based upon their assumptions. Why don't we let this one go for now, eh? I'll gladly discuss. But the "quit telling the Jews they're not right about their own stuff (and in more reserved tones 'by the way they're not right and neither are you'), is wearying me a bit. To invoke a very Jewish phrase, which might have meant a metrical pause ... "Selah". Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (02-24-2009 12:56 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, quote: {i]You're[/i] a bit weary of it? When it get violent, it must be downright exhausting. Think of all that energy expended! As for the "They're not Right and neither are you," my feelings don't tend to go that way. My feelings are that they're right and so are you. This doesn't mean that I agree with everything that everybody says; clearly I don't. I also tend to feel I'm right as well. When we have enough facts to give the issue some sort of factual evaluation, then I think I'll be able to give some sort of answer that goes beyond "I don't know." In the meantime, The sort of information we have is not factual information, it is information based on belief and revelation and experience. People can die to defend or kill to extend beliefs like this, but so far they haven't been able to supply hard data. Were I to say I disbelieve, I would have to make the same argument. There is an underlying something, near as I can tell, that makes me tend toward the Yeah, probably! side of things. I find the Tao satisfying as an explanation for that. Also "Ground of Being," if you want to get into Christian theology. But I find any attempt to force explanation or doctrine on this diminishes the basic monotheism of it and has us paying attention to idols, phenomena of the world rather that The Nameless, which remains nameless for good reason. If you want my personal theology, there you have it in condensed form. Though as I recall, you didn't ask. I'm not interested in converts, though. Should you wish to discuss Jewish theology with folks, most any Jew will do. Should you wish to discuss exegesis and the movement of Jewish theology, you should chose somebody who has education in these things. I do not hold you responsible for understanding the ins and outs of Calvinist or Reformation Catholic Church history or Theology and the distinct interpretations given the Old Testament by these organizations over their histories. Jewish history is in fact much longer, has many more branches and many more veins of scholarly opinion dealing with interpretation of these texts, and with interpretation of the earlier interpretation. Eight Hundred years ago it was a wonder that anybody was able to master enough of the various branches of the Talmud to be able to write a gloss on the high points and summations of them as pertaining to Jewish doctrine at that time. Maimonides had the text, likely, memorized, and he organized his text in a way that facilitated memorization. If you want to talk exigesis, you would need to talk to somebody who was probably at the least a student of the Torah with some mastery of these things. You should write to somebody at a yeshiva who might be able to send you to a a student or a teacher who might really be able to talk with you about these questions, including giving you the sort of in depth answers you seem to feel you need. I don't know if this would be satisfying for you or not. I did offer you access to a video clip of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe giving one of his talks. This would be the wisdom of a lot of religious study distilled into a little time. It's not loaded down with scriptural references, the Yiddish is translated on screen. The term "supercession" is one I take from the book Constantine's Sword by Paul Carroll, which I believe won the national book award or some such when it was published a few years back and which tells the Catholic Church's somewhat troubling story of its relationship with the Jews. I happen to like his story of the early church in many ways, especially the parts of it that are sympathetic to the formation of the church. The man is a good novelist and a former priest in the Church, though in my opinion it's a sad thing that they had to part directions. Best to you and the family, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: It is impossible for me to respond to your feelings. I can only respond to what you have written. My point, as of late, has been to show that even though you've been quite censorious of the expression of my Christian interpretation of Jewish Scripture, your own views are equally abhorrent to the Orthodox Jew ... and you are equally dogmatic as I, though I feel you would deny it. For while your stance, by its nature, has the fall-back disclaimer "don't know", it is usually executed textually as "can't know". Remember that the axioms of strict empiricism (the belief that things like history, revelation, and experience cannot constitute true knowledge) are accepted on non-empirical terms. I should quote Hume on this if you like, though by Hume's own standards much of what he wrote on the matter should be tossed in the flames. When I make a claim that there is a better interpretation of data, than one being discussed, I usually expect that the strengths/ weaknesses of respective positions are brought up, as relating to the data accepted by both camps. What I've been getting is continual disapprobation, based upon an insistence (overt or not) upon syncretism in religious questions. Doubtless this is because of your views about what constitutes real knowledge or data. But either way, for you these beliefs seem to be in the place of religion as your guiding suppositions. Let's quit the scolding, as if either view is essentially different in the area of commitment. (really, your oration on the dignity of democracy brings to mind a kind of veneration). Rather, let's talk about the issues at hand. You've been slow to get into exegetical discussion. And your suggestion to go to the "experts" is reasonable. But in keeping with a protestant principle (lay people need to know for themselves), and in the nature of a lay-forum such as this, I would rather hear what you think. Well, if you're going to protest my view, its only natural to want to hear your explanation based upon the accepted data of both communities. If not ... if you've got a whole different theory of knowledge, rooted in Pagan Philosophy, then it would be better not to point out too loudly my so-called disrespect of the Jews, since the Orthodox Jews would find your assertion that their God-given scriptures do not constitute good data quite offensive. And I've got no problem with that either, as long as its clear that we're both heretical to the traditional Jewish religion. And while it can rightly be said that your view is not concerned with "converts" (because such a word is religious by nature), it does not detract from the foundational nature of your beliefs nor from your (at least for now) advocacy and commitment to them. I will check out the references you've given. It's been a lively discussion, as always. Stephen. |
||
|
Blood.Wolf Member
since 2009-02-09
Posts 54GA, USA |
I'm answering for the original question. Apologizing in advance if I offend anyone: It depends on the God. There have been evil gods in ancient times, and in special cases like Roman and Greek mythology, the Gods themselves have had human traits. To me, though, I would look further into it. I mean, it is quite impossible to prove one's godliness! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Depending on which strain of orthodoxy we speak of here in the Jewish community, their views may be as abhorrent to each other as mine are. Possibly more so. It doesn’t matter whose side you take, Christian or Jew, there’s no cide like fratricide, and there’s been enough of it an more through the history of both religions. If you suggest that other more orthodox jewish interpretations would find mine offensive, I’d be the first to say you’re right. My wife and I have friend who adopted a wonderful Korean baby around twenty years ago. The husband came from a very Orthodox family. He and his wife were on the more orthodox side of conservative. In adopting the baby, they tried to make the baby’s adoption into the Jewish faith formally acceptable to the husbands parents and in the end were unable to do it after about a year of going through orthodox rabbinical courts and more hoops than could be counted the grandparents would not accept the validity of the child’s conversion. It simply wasn’t “Kosher.” Some orthodox Jews will not eat grain that has not been grown according to special regulation, and which must be ground either under their supervision or under rabbinic supervision. Fields must be allowed to lie fallow at set intervals, and the grinding of grain is a result of an offshoot other rules I could be sure of. It may have to do with interpretations of the rules about the unmuzzled ox who treadeth out the kine. I’m not sure. Most modern Jews wouldn’t fit the definition of Jews laid out by Maimonides. He laid out thirteen things that you must believe or follow. One of these is the notion of bodily resurrection. Most Jews today would not agree to that. “And the dead will be raised incorruptible” does fit in the Hebrew bible for a reason, but most Jews today would not believe that. In the same way, I suppose that there are Christian beliefs that have been laid aside. There is no “the’ Orthodox Jew” any more than there is a the Protestant. Whether the orthodox like me and my point of view or not in general, in this specific they are pretty much in agreement with me, It takes a lot of gall for non-Jews to lecture Jews about what their faith is about and what their scripture says and what their scripture means. If you want to do so, that’s not something we have much say in, but to tell us that our own views are wrong and that these other people know what the right thing is for us to believe, virtually all the orthodox would, I suspect, join me in saying, I don’t think so, thank you very much. A lot of them might have rude things to say about me, mind you. I have a lot of rude things to say about me. But generally about this subject you won’t find much disagreement among Jews. Orthodox Jews pretty much keep to themselves. For me to get an Orthodox Jew steamed with me, I’d probably have to go looking for a debate. I live in one of the few places in the country where one might be found, in the middle of an Orthodox neighborhood which includes a fair number of hassidic Jews. We ignore each other. When I lived in the south, the first thing that happened was that we were barraged by a welcome wagon from several different churches. Each one of them wanted to know what our religion was and wanted to debate it. At the least they pressed us to come to their church. I appreciate this was neighborly. You might appreciate that there was some outreach involved as well. No, I don’t know. I don’t know that I can’t know. We all take our piece out of Hume. Some of us larger than others. I happen to believe that the trees do fall in the forests. Bishop Berkley required God to be there; I don’t. I guess I’ve got round heels that way. I don’t believe that illusion catches us quite that simply. As I said above, Ground of Being or the Tao make sense to me, especially where Lao Tsu says, “The Tao that can be talked about is not the real Tao.” That to me gets at some of the same material that comes in the first commandment about idolatry and having no other gods before the Nameless. Simply naming is a creation of an idol. I do have a wider spiritual belief system than you do. You call it syncretism. I suspect that you say it’s rooted in Pagan Philosophy. I suspect that you aren’t aware of calling me names or of being patronizing. I’d say that my belief system includes some of these things but isn’t limited to them. You haven’t noticed the discounts directed at these particular religious points of view and more than you’ve noticed or taken substantive account of your dealings with Jewish theology. You have on several occasions acknowledged that the Jews may have been poorly treated. I don’t wish to suggest that you haven’t, and I want to acknowledge your willingness to do so here. I thank you for that. There are any number of Jews who would find the notion that Scriptures contain good data in the sense of scientific data somewhat amusing. Jews disagree among themselves about how literally to take the bible, just has do christians. Lumping all Jews together in this fashion is like lumping all Christians together on the nature of many points of theology. You’ve fought wars about these things, haven’t you? I’m really unclear what it would mean to be a Jewish heretic. Jews joke about the differences in practice — “Two Jews, Three Schules.” There are splits all the time. I would be quite acceptable to a good number of Jewish temples across the country. I could walk in and join and be an active member with no problem. I’d be thought eccentric, I’d have conversations with people, I wouldn’t be thought of as non-Jewish if I wanted to identify myself as a Jew. There’s quite an active give and take. Perhaps not two hundred years ago, or even a hundred. In Israel, I’d fit right in. The Orthodox and the ultra Orthodox sometimes find each other heretical. My commitment to my beliefs is a function of my practice of them, which is daily. I do not suggest them to others, at least not often, and in fact suggest Christianity to other far more frequently than any other religious point of view. I believe is has a lot to offer those who can take part in its community of belief and community of faith. I like your faith and commitment, and I think you’re a good man. I simply don’t accept everything you assert about your faith and I don’t like everything that it does in its relationship with other faiths. Were we talking about Muslim of Hindu practice, I might not be able to say so much because my familiarity with them is more limited, but my comments might well be similar. Thank you for being willing to check out the references. Menachem Schneerson is a funny looking guy, isn’t he? And Paul Carroll does have a knack for storytelling. All my best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mr. Wolf, The last couple of mortals probably had to fork over their money and credit cards. Any God who wants to kill two year olds would probably start out with cash first, as — simple observation will show you — they already have. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: A lot of words there. Let me comment, using just two quotes. The "Christian" (for lack of a better word at its inception) challenges that came to the interpretation of Jewish scriptures came initially from a Jew and subsequently his followers. As a Gentile believer in Israel's YHWH, I am merely in agreement with this interpretation, as it makes the best and fullest sense of the prophetic texts, and what is anticipated therein. Unless you are willing to go there with me in exegetical discussion, I'd rather not hear another flat denial of that. In addition to flat denial, you keep charging me with being rude. But interestingly enough I helped you to admit that it was the Christian view itself (a belief in the New Testament) that was the problem in this regard. Which brings us to the same point over and over: Messiah Yeshua is intractable to the Christian Faith. You want to make agnosticism and a disbelief in divine revelation (I'm not speaking of a nebulous pantheism here) sound more acceptable to Judaism, but I have my doubts. Remember my argument has nothing to do with ethnicity, but only concerning the religious beliefs of Jews and Christians. While you bring up endless household skirmishes about ceremonial laws and such, by "Orthodox" I was referring to the most basic rudimentary Theology of the Jewish Religion. Just as there are scores of Christian variances about non-essentials, there is also a core of essentials amounting to Christian "Orthodoxy"; And the majority of Christians will extend the same title to others of differing denominations. I would think that by the basic theology of Jewish Monotheism, you would be considered presently apostate. But then again, I'm just a lowly Gentile, what do I know about that? (Note: I get the feeling that what you're saying is, you could mingle somewhat comfortably in the Jewish religious life simply by not saying too much, rustling feathers, or caring at all about the metaphysics ... another accidental feature of your particular beliefs at the moment.) The interpretation of the Old Testament as relating to Jesus of Nazareth, however, is not Gentile in origin. And whether you think it boorish or not to mention it in this forum, I think we both agree that it is intrinsic to the New Covenant as set out by the New Testament. And so you'll just have to excuse me for something I can't rightly apologize for. If I still think your views are as chaffing to Jewish Monotheism as are mine (notwithstanding the accidental feature of your present philosophy in not passionately opposing or advocating anything Theological) ... and you still think I'm being an ass, I think we'll both be able to live with that. I have some more to comment on, Bob, but for now I will turn in for some shut-eye. blessings, Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, I just wanted to clarify about my reference to "Pagan Philosophy". In context, I was referring to your belief that revelation, scripture, and experience to not constitute "hard data". In fact, you are echoing empiricism, a fairly recent philosophy, which from a Jewish (religious) perspective is Pagan insofar as it is of non-Jewish origin and outright denies Divine Revelation. It was not name calling or patronizing in intent. But to convince you that you're on my level regarding the Jewish Religion I've so offended. Later, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Can't and shouldn't. It's what you believe. You could regard both the Christian and Muslims as Jewish splinter groups for that matter. They certainly act like it. It would certainly account why all three groups are sure that Israel is theirs, and why they're all acting nuts. Nothing quite like a family homecoming to bring out the worst in everybody. Of course that would mean that nobody's quite as special as they would have everybody else think, but when you have a real patriarchal family, what do you expect, everybody treats Dad like God. Or I suppose you could turn that around, couldn't you, to get the full complexity of that patriarchal attitude in ? You do see this sort of thing in families all the time, you know. Pax. BK. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: In a way, Bob, they are. That doesn't make them all right ... Nor does it mean God can't / hasn't set his own parameters of salvation. It does, I concede, create a sense of longing for these estranged brothers to somehow embrace, quite apart from an ecumenism that throws beliefs into the "not-important" category. quote: Given the universality of Christianity, Christians for the most part, recognize that the land/national issue has nothing or little to do with them ... other than a Eschatological belief that God himself will rule the nations beginning with Jerusalem. The focus has mostly been more spiritual, having precedent in Jesus himself who rejected zealotism, nationalistic messiahism and any desire to be "King" of Israel in any worldly sense. quote: In one sense that's quite right. No one is "special" based upon mere ethnicity or nationality ... and certainly not upon works. And if Christians are "special", it is only in the sense of realizing that they are sinners and recipients of a gift that is available to all. As for the Jewish nation ... I would say that the fact that they are the only utterly dispersed nation to have ever returned home with such an identity, is an indicator that they might be more special than you think. Good day, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, quote: Actually, I not only don't (the italics are mine) 'believethat revelation, scripture, and experience to not constitute "hard data", I don't think it as well. The exception I would hold in this case is to that person who has had the revelation, had the experience. To that person, scripture may become the equivalent of hard data. For the person who has actually had the experience, anomalous as it may appear to those who have not experienced it directly, these thing are hard data and in discussion with these people I must take into account their access to information I may not source myself. I cannot discount that information and I will not discount that information. But for most matters of practicality, I do insist on a distinction between belief and thought or thinking, especially scientific sorts of thinking. I will not say that all scientific thinking is true; but, over time, it does set out a body of facts whose significance must be tested in the same way in order to build up hard data about the nature of the world. Until "revelation, scripture, and experience" have been subjected to that sort of examination — and there has been some of this — then that material cannot be thought of as "hard data." Among other things, science seeks new data and new information to transform man's understanding of nature and the world. This is not the primary search for religion. New revelation and new religion are not actively sought to transform our understanding of old spiritual positions. When they come, they are often unwelcome. Their appeal to the world is not on the basis of logic but on the basis of emotional response. Do you have much of an emotional response to teflon? or the transistor? What emotional response do you have to the prospect of a new religious faith coming out of asia that seems to be gathering enormous numbers of converts and that has beliefs that are radically different from your own? Two different impulses running in different directions much of the time, one a conservative impulse, the other an expansive impulse. I wouldn't wish to give up either one; nor would I wish to confuse them. Any religion must find some way of navigating between these poles, even Marxism/Leninism. Cast your mind back a few years to the time when the dictator, Stalin, grew enamored of the theories of Lysenko, who built his science to conform with Marxism/Leninism and not the data. Thank the Lord for us. So too your suggestion that Judaism is against scientific thinking because it denies divine revelation. Usually what I hear said is that God gave man a brain, and that failing to use it was the sin. Follow the Torah, walk humbly, do justice and love mercy and don't be an idiot are all highly regarded precepts in the faith. There's even a special sort of fool who follows the law when there are more important things at hand that take precedence. I wish I could remember the word. I think it's useful proportionately much more frequently than it should be. Even as early as Jesus, in the Babylonian Talmud, if I'm not mistaken, there's a literature on this, though you'd have to go to a scholar to find out what and where. You may even find some reference to it in Guide of The Perplexed. You're supposed to think and question in the Jewish tradition. You're supposed to debate and argue. I for one still feel humiliation about Spinoza's fate at the hands of his congregation, and I suspect I'm not alone. As for Hume, do you judge all philosophers by their most extreme positions? Luther, perhaps, or Calvin or St Bernard? I'd suspect not. Most modern philosophers would leave the extreme positions and take what's useful from him. Most modern readers of Freud don't insist that his theories about Thanatos be given the forward position that Freud wanted to give them. Maybe we can get back to this at another time. Hope all is well with all the folk there, affectionately, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: Another time, are you wanting to quit on me? It's not like you have a life or anything.quote: I suggested no such thing. What I said is, your statement about their categories of history and revelation (both natural and special) not constituting "hard data" (in practical terms meaning, I'm not obligated to believe it) is something they would take issue with. It's not that their monotheism discounts science; but rather that your science seems to discount other modes of knowledge besides what is repeatable and quantitative. Or so it seemed in the course of our discussion. You seem now to suggest otherwise. Thinking and questioning in the Jewish Tradition is different than disbelieving wouldn't you say? I suspect that on that point, a truly religious Judaism differs very little from Christianity. I think I already said that questioning is human, and not antithetical to faith. To answer you question about Hume, no I don't judge all thinkers by their extremes. But sometimes still I think extremes are proliferated and become "not-so-extreme" as the culture acquiesces. The belief that only "science" can claim to be true knowledge is not a fringe belief anymore. We've all been influenced by that particular excess. quote: This is true, inasmuch as human beings are generally resistant to change. But if Divine Revelation has a progressive element as well as a static element (which scripture affirms), then faith is a seeking not so different from science, though its direction is different. Practically speaking, the faithful have been slow and conservative in theological matters ... and at other-times new understanding and change has been sought out quite eagerly. I'm reading a book right now by Alister McGrath called "Christianity's Dangerous Idea" which is about the Reformation; It illustrates this point very well. In short, I think your portrayal of science as dynamic and faith as static, is not quite accurate. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Very interesting! And yet the counter-reformation didn't draw you in, nor did Islam nor did any number of some of the newer religions. All of these religions claim to have a new revelation. In fact they do have new revelations, truth be told, just as Christianity has new revelations that it offers. Yet you do not look forward to hearing new revelations from Dr. Moon or from the Imam visiting from Bagdad. The religious point of view about new revelations is basically conservative, though certainly not entirely so. Look at the speed, for example, with which The Prophet's message sped across the world in only the single lifetime after his death. That was remarkable indeed. But they certainly have not been very open to new revelation, even within the fold of their own religion in the fourteen hundred years since. Christianity and Judaism have been much the same way. Change is not often welcomed. And it is often accompanied by violence simply over the nature of the ideas themselves. I do not, however, try to set religion and science against each other as you seem to imagine. Science is one of the new revelations, one of the new religions that has cropped up over the last few hundred years from Natural Philosophy. I believe that the quarrel between these two different ways of knowing is essentially a quarrel over the way God's word is to be made manifest to man, and the nature of the quarrel is such that each side at its most extreme tends to demonize the other. This is another of those silly religious quarrels. For not only does science come from Natural Philosophy, but it also must be said to come from the church as well and the scholastic tradition that kept knowledge alive during the middle years of Feudal re-organization and contemplation. It is a creation of the monks as much as it is of anybody else. It's part of the hidden history, I think, that connects the deep religious intuitions that stir man's depths and the harnessing of the power of logic and systematic experiment into exploration of the world exterior to man. They are two ends of a single stick. The metaphor gets even more ridiculous and extended than that from this point on, so I won't belabor it further. Basically I'm saying science is another revelation from God. Scientists would rather slit their throats than admit it, but it's probably true. You're competing for the same constituents so everybody makes fun of everybody else's approach to dealing with the world. If either side wins, it'll be a tragedy for the world; the more sources and types of information we have, the more options we are able to create for ourselves and our descendants. That's tonight's thinking in a hand-basket. Yeah, I meant the bad joke. Best to all of you Georgian Folk, Affectionately, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: And yet, all of this cannot be explained as "new revelation" ... lest you live in a world where mutually exclusive truths can marry. Such as the Islamic "Jesus didn't really die at all" versus the Christian "Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate". Me, I believe in a "Great Divorce". Some things are simply mistaken or wrong. In theory you understand this, even if in practice and epistemically you don't see (or accept) how such questions can be resolved. We probably have a very similar view of how science and faith are related. Not really enemies ... more like Jacob's boys, quarrelsome, but destined for some reunion near Goshen. Your Joke was very bad indeed Bob, but I'm sure you had good intentions. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Uh, Bob. I just realized we're the last ones in the auditorium. I think even that Janitor who was sweeping up a while back left, muttering something about us turning out the lights. Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
