This is the continuation to the discussion that began under the topic "Dark Sideof The Bible."
Anonymous [Pixie] said...
Joe: I was recently conversing with an atheist, who for lack of anything better to say, pulled out the old bit about how oppressive the Bible is.
Pix> There are two aspects to this. The first is whether the Bible is morally bad because it oppresses people.
But the second - and I think more important - is whether a book that supports oppression is compatible with the claim that Christianity is true. I would suggest that this is what the atheist was concerned with too.
Unfortunately, your post addresses the former.
Yes but you disprove no 1 as I think I did, no 2 is moote.In other words the book does not support oppression and that was the condition under which the truth of Christianity would be questioned, solve1 that takes care of 2.
Joe: The atheist has to show that belief in God, specifically the Hebrew God, made the situation worse. If it didn't worsen the lot of the people of that era, then where's the blame?
No, we only need to show that the Bible made the world a worse place.
How is that not the same thing? Assuming one could believe in God and not accept the OT then showing the problem with the bible doesn't even invalidate belief in Christian God.
And the verses about slavery surely do that. It is well established that slave-owners in the pre-bellum southern US used the Bible to support their position. If the Bible had not said chattel slavery was allowed, that would take away their arguments. That would surely have reduced their support, even if it did not stop them having slaves themselves.
The bible never uses the phrase chattel slavery, it never says slavery is good. It speaks of it as a fact of life in ANE but it never endorses it. In the NT it pronounces the slave trade to be a major sin which would shut down slavery.Slavery of that era wasnt synonimous with slavery in the antebellum south, slaves in bbile times were mostly captives in war. They did not have a slave raising industry.
However, we can also do as you ask. How God commands the Hebrews to treat a defeated people after a battle:
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
Compare to how the Babylonians treated the Hebrews when they were defeated. The Babylonians did NOT kill every last one of them, instead they exiled the priesthood and the ruling class. Most of the people were allowed to live on as before. The Babylonians were FAR more humane.
You are assuming that the quotes you make are indicative or Biblical norms. They did not always wipe out every one in battle.Even so the canon of OT was not fixed in the time of Christ. It was not closed until AD 90's. That means verses from Tenock may not have been part of what Jesus called Scripture. certainly we are free to ascertain that given passages constitute human input and not divine.
Joe: We can't expect people in the ancient world, who lived prior to the modern western concepts of autonomy, individualism and democracy and expect them to have learned better at Woodstock. They didn't have Woodstock to learn from and they weren't hippies, they had no sexaul revoltuion and they couldnt' go to a corner drug store and read about it in a teen magazine or a tabloid.
But supposedly they had God telling them! Why did God not tell them about the concepts of autonomy, individualism and democracy? I think it is because God is not real...
why did Jesus not introduced antiseptic surgery? Or nuclear power? God is working with human evolution he's not the big monolith from 2001 a space Odyssey.We are acquiring the sensibilities of the good by developing them as we go along.
Joe: But basically God keeps pace with the understanding of people.
Because he is imaginary, and the Christian concept of God changes as society changes. Hence God seems to keep pace with society.
That is not proof that God is not real. Assuming he is real, how do we avoid understanding him through our present state of awareness? We have to screen God's revelation to us through our understanding. What else can we do?
27 comments:
Pix, surely you are aware that "assuming God is real" is for the sake of the argument, that that's what this conversation is about? You can't have this conversation without assuming for the sake of the argument that God is real. And then your responses are almost entirely along the lines of "if we assume God is real, God wouldn't do X or Y, but the Bible indicates that God did X or Y,so God can't be real."
Your main assertion seems to be, if God is real, God's inspired book would have to look like X. Since it doesn't look like X, it can't be God's inspired book, and therefore God isn't real. What I don't get is what your premises about what X should be, are based on.
Anonymous said...
Joe: How is that not the same thing? Assuming one could believe in God and not accept the OT then showing the problem with the bible doesn't even invalidate belief in Christian God.
The relevant bit is "the people of that era". If the Bible is from God, then the era does not matter.
what makes you think that? That seems like a self serving and groundless assumption,
Joe: The bible never uses the phrase chattel slavery, it never says slavery is good. It speaks of it as a fact of life in ANE but it never endorses it.
It does not use the phrase, but it is clear that the Bible allows chattel slavery.
Only because human culture had reached a point where the notion of slavery could be challenged. The Hebrew beliefs helped us to reach that point when God told Moses to make humane protections for slaves.
Lev 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Slaves for life, people as property. That is chattel slavery. Pretty much as in the antebellum south in fact.
I already discussed that, it looks ugly when you get specific but that does not dispute my point, Also notice they don't have a plantation system where they breed slaves and have a vast slave trade based upon breeding them. That makes it different from the southern US.
Joe: In the NT it pronounces the slave trade to be a major sin which would shut down slavery.
But nothing about owning slavery being wrong.
How are you going to own them washout a trade? I already showed they did not breed them,
Joe: You are assuming that the quotes you make are indicative or Biblical norms.
Sure. Why is it in the Bible otherwise? This is supposed to be God's Word.
It was wide open until after Paul's death. where do yu get your criteria for what the word of God should look like?
Joe: what makes you think that? That seems like a self serving and groundless assumption,
Because people use the Bible today.
Are we to suppose it has been superceded? When did God tell us that?
Are we to suppose that morality is cultural? Or it is situational? Are you suggesting chattel slavery was moral before the steam engine was invented because there was no alternative?
Joe: Only because human culture had reached a point where the notion of slavery could be challenged.
Right, because it was humans that challenged slavery, not God.
Joe: The Hebrew beliefs helped us to reach that point when God told Moses to make humane protections for slaves.
Nonsense! For one thing God (supposedly) told Moses to make humane protections for Hebrew slaves - he explicitly excluded gentile slaves. This is just the tribe looking out for its own members and forget everyone else.
If God had said this of all slaves, you would have a point, and I would lose the argument. Ensuring all slaves were well treated would be a vast imprvement on what other cultures of the time did, and would undoubtedly have impacted on how black slaves in the US were treated as well (atleast to some degree).
But that did not happen.
Joe: I already discussed that, it looks ugly when you get specific but that does not dispute my point, Also notice they don't have a plantation system where they breed slaves and have a vast slave trade based upon breeding them. That makes it different from the southern US.
The similarities are greater than the differences. Gentile slaves were property, were slaves for life and could be treated ruthlessly.
Joe: How are you going to own them washout a trade? I already showed they did not breed them,
I think it is talking about slave-traders who kidnap innocent people to enslave them. No one cares about the slaves, but they do worry about getting kidnapped and becoming slaves. The OT also has a prohibition against that. Again, it is protecting members of the tribe.
Joe: It was wide open until after Paul's death. where do yu get your criteria for what the word of God should look like?
I am assuming that if God exists he is sufficiently powerful that he can control what is included in his Holy Book. Am I wrong to do that?
Joe: You should be selling snake oil at carnivals. you dogmatically assert that God is trying to make the bible say this just can't get it. who says that? you are reading in a criteria that helps your view instead of looking honestly at what the text tells us..
I am considering what we should reasonably expect if Christianity is true. God is suipposedly all-powerful. We should then expect he is sufficiently powerful that he can control what is included in his Holy Book.
If what we read in said Holy Book contradicts that, then we have to conclude the intial premise is wrong - Christianity is NOT true.
Joe: ao you do believe in God you just don't like him?
No, the "if" was to indicate a hypothetical.
Pix
Joe: The loogical thing to think is that the Hebrew redactors added the passages as their nationalistic pride especially since they were slaves in Babymoon at the time. The alternative for an unbeliever is to assert God's existence then accuse him of being bad..
We have two options (which is not so say that these are exclusive):
God exists. He is all powerful, and so can control what goes in his Holy Book. He wanted the genocide of the Canaanites to be included because it really happened.
God does not exist. The Hebrews made up the genocides whilst in captivity to boost their nationalistic pride.
I think the second is true. However, if hypothetically the first is true, then that would mean God is less moral tha the Babylonians, who did not slaughter the entire Hebrew people.
Joe: Becasue he values free will, he wants us to be real developed learned beings who choose him for love not fear..
Do you think teaching people slavery is wrong inhibits free will?
Do you think it only inhibits free will if God teaches it? If so, why?
Pix: I think the reason is that God is limited to what mankind has devised for ourselves. Jesus could not introduce antiseptic surgery or abolition of slavery because mankind had not invented them.
Joe: so you accept they really exist you just think you are better than them?
I think God exists in our imagination. Hence, he could not introduce antiseptic surgery until mankind had invented it.
Pix
There is a third option. God exists, and did not choose to have the kind of Holy Book you expect, but instead allowed humans to tell their own stories and work out their own development. That the Bible is the product of interactions between God and humans over thousands of years, with God encouraging human growth, and that was God's intention all along. That God simply didn't want the kind of book that atheists and fundamentalists assume the Bible has to be.
Anonymous said...
Joe: what makes you think that? That seems like a self serving and groundless assumption,
Because people use the Bible today.
Are we to suppose it has been superceded? When did God tell us that?
You are imposing your own presuppositions on it
Are we to suppose that morality is cultural? Or it is situational? Are you suggesting chattel slavery was moral before the steam engine was invented because there was no alternative?
You can't expect individual morality to exceed the cultural constructs of one's time.
Joe: Only because human culture had reached a point where the notion of slavery could be challenged.
Right, because it was humans that challenged slavery, not God.
How do you know it wasn't God. If he knew the people had reached a point where they could see the wrong of it, then he could have motivated them to act.
Joe: The Hebrew beliefs helped us to reach that point when God told Moses to make humane protections for slaves.
Nonsense! For one thing God (supposedly) told Moses to make humane protections for Hebrew slaves - he explicitly excluded gentile slaves. This is just the tribe looking out for its own members and forget everyone else.
No he didn't. Enemies taken in war did not go free after six years but they were protected from abuse. " The other protections afforded Hebrew slaves did apply to foreigners..."https://www.theologyofwork.org/old-testament/exodus-and-work/israel-at-mount-sinai-exodus-191-4038/instructions-about-work-exodus-201-17-and-211-239/case-laws-in-the-book-of-the-covenant-exodus-211-2333/slavery-or-indentured-servitude-exodus-211-11
If God had said this of all slaves, you would have a point, and I would lose the argument. Ensuring all slaves were well treated would be a vast imprvement on what other cultures of the time did, and would undoubtedly have impacted on how black slaves in the US were treated as well (atleast to some degree).
But that did not happen.
I just documented that it did
Joe: I already discussed that, it looks ugly when you get specific but that does not dispute my point, Also notice they don't have a plantation system where they breed slaves and have a vast slave trade based upon breeding them. That makes it different from the southern US.
The similarities are greater than the differences. Gentile slaves were property, were slaves for life and could be treated ruthlessly.
There were no protections for slave in the American south, obviously it's a step in the right direction Like all forms of progress it's not all going to happen at once. It's a process. in steps.
Joe: How are you going to own them washout a trade? I already showed they did not breed them,
I think it is talking about slave-traders who kidnap innocent people to enslave them. No one cares about the slaves, but they do worry about getting kidnapped and becoming slaves. The OT also has a prohibition against that. Again, it is protecting members of the tribe.
You are trying to spin it you can't deny the progressive step it clearly was.
Joe: It was wide open until after Paul's death. where do yu get your criteria for what the word of God should look like?
I am assuming that if God exists he is sufficiently powerful that he can control what is included in his Holy Book. Am I wrong to do that?
It's not a matter of power. He's not writing the Bible for himself, He allows human expression because that will reach people across the centuries,
Joe: You should be selling snake oil at carnivals. you dogmatically assert that God is trying to make the bible say this just can't get it. who says that? you are reading in a criteria that helps your view instead of looking honestly at what the text tells us..
I am considering what we should reasonably expect if Christianity is true.
You can't know that you are going by well trod misconceptions about what Holy book looks like.
God is supposedly all-powerful. We should then expect he is sufficiently powerful that he can control what is included in his Holy Book.
Of course you choose what he should want, I'm sure he thanks you for making up his mind for him. You have no idea what God is about you have no right to assert that can write the Bible for him. You are so certain it's about power but isn't God also powerful enough to allow Human expression? The point is God wants a presoak relationship with you he doesn't want a drone.
If what we read in said Holy Book contradicts that, then we have to conclude the intial premise is wrong - Christianity is NOT true.
Joe: ao you do believe in God you just don't like him?
No, the "if" was to indicate a hypothetical.
No refuse to accept the obvious alternative that humans screw up the record by sticking in their own nationalism. But your assertion assumes is God is real but he wants evil like slavery. you assume he can control the holy books so the evil thigs are he really wants so you believe in God but you don't like him. That is irrational,
1:05 AM
Anonymous said...
Joe: The logical thing to think is that the Hebrew redactors added the passages as their nationalistic pride especially since they were slaves in Babymoon at the time. The alternative for an unbeliever is to assert God's existence then accuse him of being bad..
We have two options (which is not so say that these are exclusive):
God exists. He is all powerful, and so can control what goes in his Holy Book.If he wants to, why would he want to if allowing human expression is his goal?
He wanted the genocide of the Canaanites to be included because it really happened.
That does not mean he ordered it
God does not exist. The Hebrews made up the genocides whilst in captivity to boost their nationalistic pride.
The evidence of God's existence is overwhelming. the only way to explain those passages is to assume they are interpolations,
Kristen: There is a third option. God exists, and did not choose to have the kind of Holy Book you expect, but instead allowed humans to tell their own stories and work out their own development. That the Bible is the product of interactions between God and humans over thousands of years, with God encouraging human growth, and that was God's intention all along. That God simply didn't want the kind of book that atheists and fundamentalists assume the Bible has to be.
So we can just ignore the Bible. It was written by men who may have been writing what God holds to, but just as readily were not. It is no more likely to be right than the Koran or the Vedas. They wrote what they thought was God's word, but I am just as well making it up myself - I am just as likely to get it right as them.
That is not to say you are wrong, but at that point, we have left Christianity. We are all making up our own religions however we think they should be.
Using the Bible to support or refute any argument is nonsense, the answer to the question in the title of the blog post, "Does the Bible support Oppression?" becomes "Who cares what people thought 2000 years ago?"
Pix
Joe: You are imposing your own presuppositions on it
And you are ignoring what it says as and when it suits you.
Joe: You can't expect individual morality to exceed the cultural constructs of one's time.
Why not if that individual is God?
Joe: How do you know it wasn't God. If he knew the people had reached a point where they could see the wrong of it, then he could have motivated them to act.
Because God said chattel slavery is allowed.
Joe: No he didn't. Enemies taken in war did not go free after six years but they were protected from abuse.
WRONG! The Bible is quite explicit.
Lev 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
It is clear that it is specifically Israelite slaves who must not be treated ruthlessly.
Joe: I just documented that it did
No, you found a Christian web site that does its best to justify some of the very worst parts of the Bible. It is notable that the bit you quoted "The other protections afforded Hebrew slaves did apply to foreigner" is not supported by Bible verses.
It is wishful thinking.
Joe: There were no protections for slave in the American south, obviously it's a step in the right direction Like all forms of progress it's not all going to happen at once. It's a process. in steps.
It was some 2500 years from the slavery perpetrated by the Israelites to the slavery in the US. How many steps was that, Joe?
Joe: You are trying to spin it you can't deny the progressive step it clearly was.
Progressive compared to what? You need to show that other cultures were less progressive to make this stand. By the way, the Code of Hammurabi includes "If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death."
Pix
Joe: It's not a matter of power. He's not writing the Bible for himself, He allows human expression because that will reach people across the centuries,
I would have guessed God wanted the Bible to get his message across, so that he was indeed writing it for himself. Apparently not.
So you think an Israelite writing in 700 BC will be able to write text that will mean more to us today than if God write it himself?
Joe: You can't know that you are going by well trod misconceptions about what Holy book looks like.
You seem to take the view that God allowed his followers to write any all guff down in his name, and to then proclaim it as his Holy Word. Okay fine, but then why should anyone give a hoot what the Bible says about anything?
Joe: Of course you choose what he should want, I'm sure he thanks you for making up his mind for him. You have no idea what God is about you have no right to assert that can write the Bible for him.
Either God want his Holy Book to be right, or he does not. If not, it is worthless.
So who cares whether it is oppressive of not?
Joe: You are so certain it's about power but isn't God also powerful enough to allow Human expression? The point is God wants a presoak relationship with you he doesn't want a drone.
Cool. I will just write my own Holy Book, and I can follow that. It is just as good as the Bible, right?
Joe: No refuse to accept the obvious alternative that humans screw up the record by sticking in their own nationalism. But your assertion assumes is God is real but he wants evil like slavery. you assume he can control the holy books so the evil thigs are he really wants so you believe in God but you don't like him. That is irrational,
Either God has made the Bible right OR the Bible is worthless. You can pick which you like.
Joe: That does not mean he ordered it
Sure. Maybe the Bible is largely just made up nonsense. Works for me.
Pix
You would just as soon discard it if it was inspired. The position I am defending is not the only one but it is a position take by scores of liberal scholars. Your insistence that the conservative evangelicals fundamentalist view is the only valid one is just childish.
You keep calling it "the Bible" it is not the Bible for Christians, It is the Bible for Jews but for Christians it's only part. There is no passage in the Bible that tells us how to interpreted the Bible.
What you are really saying is to believe in Christ one must accept fascism, murder, slavery and lies. I say I do not have to do that.
Pix: You seem to take the view that God allowed his followers to write any all guff down in his name, and to then proclaim it as his Holy Word. Okay fine, but then why should anyone give a hoot what the Bible says about anything?
Typical fumdamemtaist thinking, it's all or nothing, Only ,y view is valid for belief. You are just unaware ofay other view so you are rebelling absent them all.
God will not contradict himself. He will not promote things contrary to his character and message. We can explain the text any number of ways as long as we bare this in mind, One way is that God did not commotion the Hebrew text. Many wrote documents of different kinds, The OT is diverse, Some are the the word from on high some are not. They al have an involvement with inspiration but not all in the same way. For me the OT as a whole exists to make the mission of Messiah a meaningful concept. It's the cultural background of Jesus,
I know that voting for Donald Trump is wrong, but I'll do it anyway in 2024.
Joe: You would just as soon discard it if it was inspired.
I discard because it says slavery is allowed. That is enough to tell me it is not inspired.
Joe: The position I am defending is not the only one but it is a position take by scores of liberal scholars. Your insistence that the conservative evangelicals fundamentalist view is the only valid one is just childish.
The position you defend is the only one you can because you are stuck with a Bible that says slavery is allowed.
You therefore have a choice of rejecting it or trying to rationalise it away. And in the end, there is little difference tween the two.
Joe: You keep calling it "the Bible" it is not the Bible for Christians, It is the Bible for Jews but for Christians it's only part. There is no passage in the Bible that tells us how to interpreted the Bible.
What is your point?
Joe: What you are really saying is to believe in Christ one must accept fascism, murder, slavery and lies. I say I do not have to do that.
What I am saying is you have to decide if you think the Bible is true or not.
Pix
"but at that point, we have left Christianity. We are all making up our own religions however we think they should be."
It's kind of amusing that you think any version of historical Christianity other than evangelicalism isn't really Christianity. I think the Pope, Martin Luther, John Wesley, etc, would be kind of surprised to hear that their various views of the Bible are not Christian.
what she said
Anonymous said...
Joe: You would just as soon discard it if it was inspired.
I discard because it says slavery is allowed. That is enough to tell me it is not inspired.
Yes sure that part isn't but then why doesn't "thou shelt not kill" tell you it's true?
Joe: The position I am defending is not the only one but it is a position take by scores of liberal scholars. Your insistence that the conservative evangelicals fundamentalist view is the only valid one is just childish.
The position you defend is the only one you can because you are stuck with a Bible that says slavery is allowed.
what do you mean stuck? Since I explain those parts in a way that does not credit them as sacred I'm not stuck with that part of it.
You therefore have a choice of rejecting it or trying to rationalise it away. And in the end, there is little difference tween the two.
I think I rationalize pretty well. You really are a fundie at heart.
Joe: You keep calling it "the Bible" it is not the Bible for Christians, It is the Bible for Jews but for Christians it's only part. There is no passage in the Bible that tells us how to interpreted the Bible.
What is your point?
The fundie view is not endorsed by the bible
Joe: What you are really saying is to believe in Christ one must accept fascism, murder, slavery and lies. I say I do not have to do that.
What I am saying is you have to decide if you think the Bible is true or not.
why must it be all or nothing?
Kristen: It's kind of amusing that you think any version of historical Christianity other than evangelicalism isn't really Christianity. I think the Pope, Martin Luther, John Wesley, etc, would be kind of surprised to hear that their various views of the Bible are not Christian.
Either we say the Bible is true or we do not. If we all agree it is not true, then the Pope's version is just as valid as Luther's - or indeed the Koran.
And Joe's blog post is just nonsense. Who cares what the Bible says about oppression, if we just assume the bits we do not like are not true?
As for morality, we can just pick and choose the bits we want. Like a Smörgåsbord. Against slavery? No problem, just ignore those verses. Don't like murder? Well, we can pick that bit.
Want to work Saturdays? Just ignore the bit about the sabbath. And now Christian morality is just like atheist morality - we work out what is good and bad for ourselves with bothering with sacred texts. We only use the texts to rationalise our choices after we made them. And to force others to agree with us, of course.
Joe: why must it be all or nothing?
I fully accept some of the Bible is true.
To be clear, when I say the Bible is not true, I mean not totally true, and so not reliably true. A device that predicts the weather is only useful if it reliably predicts the weather. If it gets it right occasionally, that is no use at all.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Kristen: It's kind of amusing that you think any version of historical Christianity other than evangelicalism isn't really Christianity. I think the Pope, Martin Luther, John Wesley, etc, would be kind of surprised to hear that their various views of the Bible are not Christian.
Either we say the Bible is true or we do not. If we all agree it is not true, then the Pope's version is just as valid as Luther's - or indeed the Koran.
You really are a fundamentalist, That's what I've always said about atheists.
And Joe's blog post is just nonsense. Who cares what the Bible says about oppression, if we just assume the bits we do not like are not true?
Chemistry is just add junck and it changes color. simplifying complex ideas is fun.
As for morality, we can just pick and choose the bits we want. Like a Smörgåsbord. Against slavery? No problem, just ignore those verses. Don't like murder? Well, we can pick that bit.
I would expect a fundamentalist Christian to think tis way, I would expect a professor at a major university to have a complex understanding, More than not liking it, things that contradict God's expressed character area problem The Bible is not a Single monolithic work. It's different books compiled centuries apart in some cases. We have a consistent understanding of God's character which is varied by contrast to Jesus character and teachings. We should suspect that it is an addition.
Want to work Saturdays? Just ignore the bit about the sabbath. And now Christian morality is just like atheist morality - we work out what is good and bad for ourselves with bothering with sacred texts. We only use the texts to rationalise our choices after we made them. And to force others to agree with us, of course.
cute. you know we go to school called seminary to learn how to be more discerning than that, My critical faculties are bit more sophisticated than just saying I lie X.
Joe: why must it be all or nothing?
I fully accept some of the Bible is true.
why? how do you tell which part?
To be clear, when I say the Bible is not true, I mean not totally true, and so not reliably true. A device that predicts the weather is only useful if it reliably predicts the weather. If it gets it right occasionally, that is no use at all.
The NT lacks the problems of the old. We have good assurance it's an arcuate portrait of Jesus. So Jesus is the check on our view of the OT..
when I say: "We have a consistent understanding of God's character which is varied by contrast to Jesus character and teachings. We should suspect that it is an addition."
should say "God's character is reverified contrasting to Jesus' character and teachings, When they very we sould suspect there's an interpolation.
"Either we say the Bible is true or we do not." Why? Why the absolute binary? Why not say, as you said elsewhere, that the Bible contains truth? You seem to be working from the assumption that the Bible is either to be used as a rule book for life ( the fundamentalist view) or it isn't. Very well-- it isn't It's a book to be used to grow in wisdom.
I myself have learned to use the Bible as part of an internal dialogue between myself and the Holy Spirit. The main point being growth as a person and in my relationship with God. I don't believe God ever intended us to be in slavish obedience to a book. If that had been what God wanted, God would have given us the type of book you are insisting we should have, if we are going to consider it to be from God. But the God I have experienced in my encounters simply isn't like that.
A friend who lies 25% of the time can no more be trusted than a friend who lies all the time.
When I say the Bible is not true, I mean they bits that are wrong in sufficient number that it cannot be trusted. It is not a reliable source of knowledge.
And bits of it very clearly are rules for living. If you say " I don't believe God ever intended us to be in slavish obedience to a book" you are saying you ignore huge chunks of it. Why have you decided to ignore those bits? The Bible itself does not tell you to. You are deciding what is true first, then selecting the bits of the Bible you want. I do that too - apart from the last bit, which is just a book exercise.
Pix
Yes, my relationship with the Bible is informed by my relationship with God, and not the other way around. There's a passage in the New Testament where Jesus says eternal life is not in the Scriptures, but the Scriptures point to Him, and we should come to Him for eternal life
A friend who lies 25% of the time can no more be trusted than a friend who lies all the time.
Only a child would think if it isn't inspired by God it's a lie. Again no passage in the Bible says this is the Bible its 100% God. So any failure is not a breach of promise.
When I say the Bible is not true, I mean they bits that are wrong in sufficient number that it cannot be trusted. It is not a reliable source of knowledge.
No that is BS.
(1) We are only talking about the OT the NT is perfect.
(2) The job of the OT is to make a cultural background that makes Jesus' mission meaningful.
(3) You have to look at the kind of thing it get's wrong. Not God, not wrong, It's not being moral, not wrong. It's coming messiah that is not wrong. What is wrong having slaves. Wiping out the Amalekites. So don't do that.
(4) The Bible never makes statmeemts about being perfect or even about being a real collection of writings. it is not a monolithic work it is a collection of works of varying digress.
(5) So it's major function is to say the NT is coming. How right does it have to be?
And bits of it very clearly are rules for living. If you say " I don't believe God ever intended us to be in slavish obedience to a book" you are saying you ignore huge chunks of it. Why have you decided to ignore those bits? The Bible itself does not tell you to.
the Bible doesn't tell u to have a Bible. it doesn't say one word about how to interpret itself. Moreover, the Bible does tell us to ignore huge checks. Paul says
"having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross." (Colossians 2:14), The entire Mosaeic law is nailed to the cross.
You are deciding what is true first, then selecting the bits of the Bible you want. I do that too - apart from the last bit, which is just a book exercise.
The criterion that I gave is logical and reasonable. That is we don't accept things that contradict God's character or teachings. We ascertain that by preponderance of the evidence.
"When I say the Bible is not true, I mean they bits that are wrong in sufficient number that it cannot be trusted. It is not a reliable source of knowledge."
The Jewish people have always considered their sacred text a thing to be wrestled with, as Jacob wrestled with the angel. I have heard them say that if you have three Jews in a room discussing Torah, you will have at least four opinions about it. One notable example is that many Jewish people think Abraham was wrong to take Isaac to be sacrificed; that he should have told God "no."
It simply isn't necessary to have a "this is my inerrant rulebook" relationship with a sacred text, for it to be considered sacred or useful in living life.
For me, for instance, nowadays I look at the passage about God telling Joshua and his people how to divide up the captured women and children, and I can say, "here's an example of a group using God's name to support their own agenda. It's enlightening to see how long this sort of thing has been going on," and to think that maybe that's what God wants me to get out of it.
Post a Comment