posted
OK, now that the forum's not glitching any more, let me try that again. (Knocks on wood)
How do you know that suicide is not in your god's plan? After all, as someone is sure to point out every time I mention natural disasters, 'death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person.' Certainly Yahweh has ordered the death of a lot of people, even entire nations, for crimes committed by their ancestors.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's my body and I'll die if I want to, Die if I want to, Die if I want to. You would die too if it happened to you!"
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, actually, it was the nun whose name I don't recall, Bean's mentor, in "Ender's Shadow". But I've seen it quoted hereabouts, too.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was watching "Devil's Advocate" last night. Now, admittedly, it takes a bit of suspension of disbelief to enjoy it, but the end made me wonder.
***Spoilers Below****
Refresher -
Al Pacino is the devil, and Keanu Reeves is his mortal son. In the end, Keanu is faced with the prospect of coupling with his half-sister to have a child (who would become the Anti-Christ). He kills himself instead.
I was wondering, in this instance, does he go to Hell? Suicide is a mortal sin (at least as I learned it), but in this case I wonder. By killing himself he directly prevented the Rapture and the judgements that would follow. Or, if not prevented, at least prolonged.
I think his act was more along the lines of throwing yourself on a grenade in a foxhole. Do you go to Hell for that? That's suicide? I tend to think not, but what about some of the religious people? Where do you stand on this?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chesterton's comments on the suicide and the martyr seem appropriate here...
From "The Flag of the World" in Orthodoxy:
quote:About the same time I read a solemn flippancy by some free thinker: he said that a suicide was only the same as a martyr. The open fallacy of this helped to clear the question. Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end. In other words, the martyr is noble, exactly because (however he renounces the world or execrates all humanity) he confesses this ultimate link with life; he sets his heart outside himself: he dies that something may live. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being: he is a mere destroyer; spiritually, he destroys the universe. And then I remembered the stake and the cross-roads, and the queer fact that Christianity had shown this weird harshness to the suicide. For Christianity had shown a wild encouragement of the martyr. Historic Christianity was accused, not entirely without reason, of carrying martyrdom and asceticism to a point, desolate and pessimistic. The early Christian martyrs talked of death with a horrible happiness. They blasphemed the beautiful duties of the body: they smelt the grave afar off like a field of flowers. All this has seemed to many the very poetry of pessimism. Yet there is the stake at the crossroads to show what Christianity thought of the pessimist.
here is the entire chapter for those who want context.
Edit to add: I think Keanu Qualifies as a martyr in this definition
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Death is not the worst thing that can happen to you, but being compelled to kill someone is, in my opinion. Anyone up for another can of worms?
P.S. In the case of Devil's advocate, I don't understand why killing himself would have been the only option. I didn't see it.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, sometimes you seem generally bewildered when people criticize your posting style. You were just asking a question to try to understand, right?
Let me show you where I think you cross the line from thought-provoking exploration into unnecessary slam:
quote:How do you know that suicide is not in your god's plan? After all, as someone is sure to point out every time I mention natural disasters, 'death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person.'
This is all good. An interesting, open-ended question that could spark a good discussion and lead people to explore their preconceptions.
quote: Certainly Yahweh has ordered the death of a lot of people, even entire nations, for crimes committed by their ancestors.
This is unnecessary to your point. We all get the juxtaposition between suicide and death not being the worst outcome and often even "fated" to happen in the Christian viewpoint. You're not amplifying your point; you are sneering. You are saying, essentially: "dkw, I'd like to hear how you resolve this contradiction, because clearly you are an idiot." If she responds to you, it is because she has the good grace to ignore your childish behavior (literally reminiscent of nothing so much as a young teenager who has just discovered he can get a rise out of people by being obnoxious), because she thinks answering your question is more important than answering your insult.
But if she does, it's more than you deserve.
-o-
You'll probably accuse me of being patronizing, but I think you have a lot to bring to our discussions. You have a point of view which is not terribly vocal here, and a greater variety of viewpoints only adds to our richness. But you are not adding anything positive while you constantly strut and sneer and tell everyone how smart you are and how dumb everyone who sees things differently is.
We can all see through the "Have you stopped kicking your puppy?" type questions.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
mothertree, It wasn't made entirely clear in the movie. My best read was that he knew if he didn't kill himself, Al Pacino would be able to convince him to father the anti-christ. The devil is very convincing. So, essentially, there may have been another way but he was worried he'd be too weak to resist very much longer.
It's a long and dramatic scene (with an exceptional monologue by Pacino).
Jim, I think Keanu's case was both martyrdom and suicide.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I respect about KoM is that he can take back whatever he dishes out. He doesn't get offended. Ever.
I can think of some other posters who dish it out but can't take it back. I have a hard time respecting that.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit that I am curious as to dkw's response for, say, those people who are in a lot of pain with no end in sight. Is it really better to tough it out and suffer? Does this also mean that people who kill or let other people die to end their suffering are committing sin?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, I did tell KoM in another thread that I’d address this question. So it’s not like he’s “calling me out” out of the blue.
It’s very rare that I would say something as bluntly as “God’s plan for you is (or is not) x.” If it were a theological discussion, I would have prefaced my comments with “I believe” or “God, as I understand God” or “according to < a certain bible verse> <traditional Christian teaching> <whatever>.” But this was not a discussion. When someone brings up suicide or suicidal thoughts it changes the rules of engagement that I normally follow in conversation. Tinros and I share enough common ground that I was comfortable speaking to her out of that common belief, without hedging it. And according to that shared faith background, suicide is not God’s will.
Since I don’t believe that God has “ordered the death of a lot of people, even entire nations, for crimes committed by their ancestors,” I can’t address that part of your question.
To preempt what I suspect might be your next question, yes I’m familiar with the Old Testament. I’ve studied it, and I’ve taught sessions on it in graduate school. I do not dismiss it, I hold it to be sacred scripture. But I don’t believe it’s a history book. If you like, I’d be happy to dig out my “different ways Christians understand the Bible” post from a few years back, or I can just tell you that while I take the Bible very seriously, I believe it is a book written by human beings about their experiences of/with God, not a book written by God. Humanity’s understanding of God has developed over time – that progress is visible in the Bible as well as in the traditions and teachings of both Judaism and Christianity since the Biblical books were written. I could never belong to a restorationist church – I have no desire to throw out the last 2000 years in order to “go back” to how the church was in Biblical times, even if it were possible to reconstruct such a thing.
To get back on topic, while I do agree that death is not the worst thing that could happen to a person, I believe that God is sorrowed by a life cut short. And to lose a life to despair must break God’s heart.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suicide prevention rather than theology, I see. I'd like to explore this in two directions, then. First, on what is this based :
quote:And according to that shared faith background, suicide is not God’s will.
Is it a Bible passage that people interpret to forbid suicide; a Church or Papal ruling; tradition of unknown origin; or formal theological reasoning from the premise that Earthly life must have a purpose, or some other premise? If the last, who set this out and when was it generally accepted?
Second, do you believe that there is absolutely no circumstance in which suicide is justified? Going for a moment from the premise that we are here to learn from life, might not one lesson be to, as it were, acquire the ultimate in self control? As a rather extreme example, if Hitler had killed himself in 1923, the world would have been spared rather a lot of grief. (Of course, at that time he was just a failed politican with some far-out views about Jews, so it's not clear how he could have gotten the information that would enable him to draw that lesson.) On a more individual scale, I could see killing yourself if you were strongly tempted towards child abuse, if you had no other way out of that situation.
Obviously, the particular situation that prompted my question is one where suicide would be a rather stupid option. (Though you never know; in principle comrade Tinros could be the next Hitler.) But you would think suicide would be an attractive option for a theist - go to heaven right now! Indeed, suicide bombers operate partly on such a premise. So I'm interested in the theology that blocks off this line of reasoning.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I really love it when you discuss religious stuff. You've inspired me to look up Chesterton. Keep it up.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. That was a fantastically respectful post.
I don't know of any specific scripture, but the leaders of my church have spoken of life being sacred and that we don't get to tamper with it's beginnings and endings inappropriately. Murder and extra-marital sex were two examples given on that occasion (murder: the unlawful ending of life, extra-marital sex, the possible unlawful beginning of life--because it may bring a child into a non-family.) I assume that suicide is considered another form of the unlawful ending of life.
The idea is that because life is sacred, we don't get to decide when it ends.
As for that being scriptural, well, again, I can think of no direct scritpure. It is more an indirect gleaning from multiple things said.
I am fascinated by Dana's thoughts on the Old Testament. They aren't far off from mine. While I hold the Old Testament to be scripture, I think that sometimes people were intepreting events to be caused by God that weren't necessarily, or were misunderstood. I look upon many of the happenings with a suspicious eye because of my belief that God is good and merciful.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we're kind of wandering off the subject of suicide here, but as I recall, the commandments to kill the Midianites were given in exactly the same form as the Ten Commandments : To wit, Moses claimed to have spoken with Yahweh. If you reject the one, surely you need to, at the very least, look rather critically at the other? Moreover, it seems to me that you are cherry picking what you choose to believe in : You are taking only the pleasant parts that make sense to a modern mind. (Incidentally, I should very much like to hear a Jewish and a Moslem perspective on this.)
posted
I'm sure it seems that way to you. To me, my belief is ruled by my conscience, as I said before. The things that strike me as odd, I view with a suspicious eye. That is all.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re-reading what I’ve written in the following post, I realize that I’m not really addressing your post in order, but picking the bits that I have something to say about and responding to them. I apologize for that, but it’s been a long day and I’m not really up for anything more systematic tonight. If I miss something you specifically want me to answer, please point it out.
There are many different reasons that various denominations and individual Christians oppose suicide, so I can’t point you to one thing. I’m not even sure that Tinros (or the teachings of her particular church) and I would agree on why suicide is wrong, but I’m confident that we both believe it is wrong. Re: theology to prevent suicide bombings, you would have to look at the specifics of the theology/tradition that the individual in question comes out of.
quote: But you would think suicide would be an attractive option for a theist - go to heaven right now!
I suspect that the prohibition against suicide found in most branches of Christianity is to forestall exactly that situation.
quote: Going for a moment from the premise that we are here to learn from life, might not one lesson be to, as it were, acquire the ultimate in self control?
I tend to think that the purpose of life is to live it. Learning is certainly a part of life, and a good part, but I’m not ready to concede that it’s the purpose. And I don’t see suicide as “the ultimate in self control.” Learning to control whatever impulse it is that you think you can’t control would be, IMO, more “ultimate.”
quote: On a more individual scale, I could see killing yourself if you were strongly tempted towards child abuse, if you had no other way out of that situation.
In such an artificial dichotomy, maybe. But in the real world, there are other ways out of this situation. They may be harder, and they may be more embarrassing, since they would probably involve enlisting other people’s help in monitoring your behavior and ensuring that you were never alone with children. Choosing to kill yourself might even be easier than admitting this sort of problem and asking for help. But it isn’t the only option.
quote: Second, do you believe that there is absolutely no circumstance in which suicide is justified?
Justified, no. Understandable, maybe. Forgivable, yes. I don’t believe that suicide cuts one off from the love of God. (This is contrary to many years of Christian tradition, but is the position currently taught by my denomination. (And if it wasn’t, I’d believe it anyway.))
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the reasons that suicide isn't viewed as an acceptable option within many Christian denominations is the idea that God, while he will test you throughout in life, he doesn't give you more than you can handle. So if He deems you able to handle what you're going through, then suicide isn't a viable option. I think. I wish I had the exact passage in front of me, but I don't currently have a bible nearby and my Bible Gateway widget isn't helping me out any either...
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somewhat tangential, but I'd just like to say that dkw is once again demonstrating why I, not being christian, could always talk to her about religious issues or ideas. Whereas with our uncle who is also a methodist minister, every time he started talking to me about being saved I pretty much wanted to gnaw my leg off.
posted
Suicide is effectively abdicating your ability to choose good things and improve your life. You are also taking yourself away from others who love and value you and to whom you could have been a support. In that sense, it goes completely against basic Christian thought.
However, to so many people who consider or attempt suicide, those considerations are probably mostly academic. People who commit suicide are most likely suffering extreme emotional stress or considerable mental illness at the time. That, or they have indeed been brainwashed by a ritual that justifies it to them. I don't think it's normal human nature to commit suicide. It's not a casual thing. You either can't stand your "I" existing anymore, or you've been convinced by extreme religious or other ideological teaching that the cause is more important than your life. It's just not something that can be supported by mainstream, "rational" culture.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think that part of the reason that suicide is considered a sin is because of the believe in an afterlife. Many religions believe that our ability to think, feel, and learn are part of our soul, and thus continue after death. A great example of this is in the movie "What Dreams May Come" when Robin Williams' character's wife kills herself.
Since many suicides are the result of depression, for example, the state of mind of a depressed person would not go away with death. Upon finding that suicide did not end the sorrow, this person may become even more depressed, espescially in retrospect of what could be found in life.
I attempted suicide in the 8th grade. Looking back on it, I realize that to find myself trapped (if even for a short time) in that deep of a depression, after death, would have been a personal Hell.
[edited for grammar, spelling, sentence structure, the lot]
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check out the text around Philippians 1:21. It's about the need for living rather than dying; doesn't mention suicide, but should apply.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another reason that suicide is not acceptable in many religions is that it is viewed as murder. Your own murder, yes, but murder none-the-less, as you have chosen to take a human life. And that particular point it covered by the 10 commandments, among other places. Your life belong to God, and it isn't for you to decide to end it.
Murder is a sin, as any other sin, that separates us from God. So God would be opposed to anything that draws us further away from Him instead of closer to Him.
posted
I feel absolutely no need to "justify" the happenings in the old testament. Why is there such a withdrawal from accepting that God could or would sanction war?
This directly stems, I'm sure, from my belief that the Bible is The Word of God and not man. I believe that you can't separate the two testaments. The New Testament clearly indicates the sanctity and upholds the truth of the Old Testament as the Word of God.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
This post wasn't on topic, it's just a response to what I saw as the denial of the OT. I know it is circular to say that the Bible verifies it's own veracity, but it is my opinion that you can't believe the Bible is a good book and believe at the same time that it contains lies and is not really the Word of God. Just like I believe that you can't believe that Jesus was just a good man and not the Son of God and savior of mankind. Good men aren't liars.
That is all... sorry for the interruption.. Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I think George Carlin is a blathering vile-spewing jack***, he does raise a good point about the sanctity of life.
It's something like this:
If everything that is alive will eventually die, and everything that has lived is dead, where's the sacred part?
I wonder myself.
Katarain -
"Good men aren't liars."
I'm sorry, but I absolutely can't let hyperbole like that slide in this thread. If your definition of 'liars' is anyone who's ever lied, then your statement is most certainly false. I don't know anyone who's never told a lie, and I doubt you do either.
And there's a difference between reading the OT and learning from its lessons and believing that every word is from God's mouth to our ears. In fact, a far as I'm concerned the latter is almost ridiculous. It's like playing the game 'telephone', but over 3000 years and in 4 languages.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll go more deeply into the suicides later today, but Katarain, in the OT Yahweh doesn't merely sanction war. He sanctions, indeed orders, the destruction of an entire people, every male down to infants, all non-virgin females, and the virgins are to be kept for the officers of the conquering army to amuse themselves with. (This being the ancient world, that likely means children of 12 or less.) Even if you are going to argue that the Midianites somehow deserved their fate, I hope you won't extend that to the children. And such an argument would be rather loathesome anyway, quite akin to the justifications for the Holocaust.
Bev, there's something I'm not getting here. Numbers 31 starts with the words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses", and goes on to tell how Yahweh orders war on the Midianites. If you believe Moses was either mistaken or lying, why didn't Yahweh correct him? Certainly it wasn't shy about talking to Moses, it spends most of the first five books doing nothing else. Indeed, I seem to recall that when Moses takes credit for finding water in the desert, Yahweh does reproach him and punishes him by forbidding him to enter the promised land. So when Moses lies, he gets hammered. Why do you believe that he could get away with it in this instance, then?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, do you need to refer to God as "it"?
Yeah, we get it. You don't believe in him. But you're presenting material from a source, using Moses's real name, presenting questions which assume the basic premises of the work. Why the need for the sly little digs in what has been a mostly civil discussion?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hope is one of the Cardinal Christian Virtues. Despair (which is certainly relevant to suicide, especially as distinct from martyrdom described above) is complete opposite or absence of hope. In fact, I think the sign over the gates of hell should not be "Abandon Hope all ye who enter here..." but "Enter here all ye who abandon hope."
Also, suicide is the ultimate expression of self hatred. Christianity dogmatically asserts that God made us and loves us. To be hateful of yourself is to be, definitionally, out of God's will, for a Christian.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, is Yahweh male or female? And if either, why? Does it have genitals? Male hormones? A monthly period? Being omnipotent, I suppose it has both the ability to get pregnant, and to make someone pregnant, but 'it' seems a convenient label for hermaphrodite as much as neuter.
In short, it seems to me that gender is an attribute of animals including humans, and Yahweh is no such. Referring to it as 'him' is just a habit from patriarchal days.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katarain, I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe the two testaments are seperable either. When I said "this is how I understand the Bible" I was not refering only to the Old Testament.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It's something like this:
If everything that is alive will eventually die, and everything that has lived is dead, where's the sacred part?
The sacred part, whether you are Atheist or Christian, is that your life, your body, your joy, your pleasure-- your complete existence--- is all GIFT. You did not choose to be... you were made by cosmic forces, whether or not those forces are Personal. The Universe or Its Ruler willed you here and saw fit to grant you the potential for joy. There is suffering as well, to be sure, but the sweet moments are indeed sweet and need never have been so.
The other sacred part is that people are more wildly different and varied than the stars. Even purely genetically speaking there are, what, a billion possible combinations? Add in the almost infinte varieties of experience and it's fairly likely, just based on nature and nurture and leaving the concept of a "soul" out of it, that no two humans are or ever will be alike. Yet we are like enough to all be human, to share common experience and relate to each other at a level below consciousness... a level that can only be called forth by gross bodily images: "in my heart", "gut feeling", "blood brothers", "joined at the hip", and of course, the ultimate connection "I want you inside me".
I submit to you that this stuff, whether there is a God or not, is plainly and simply mystical and miraculous. I never cease to wonder at the beauty of a human life... and the fact that this or that person who so amazes me might easily never have been. Science can explain as many aspects of this as are possible to understand, and it will still be a great mystery. The Great Mystery.
Even more so if you do not believe in God, you should bow down in awe and wonder at the great fact of humanity at large and the greater fact of the human individual walking down the street and waving at you.
In the same book as quoted above, but previous chapter, it is expressed this way:
quote:Every man has had one horrible adventure: as a hidden untimely birth he had not been, as infants that never see the light. Men spoke much in my boyhood of restricted or ruined men of genius: and it was common to say that many a man was a Great Might-Have-Been. To me it is a more solid and startling fact that any man in the street is a Great Might-Not-Have-Been.
quote:Even more so if you do not believe in God, you should bow down in awe and wonder at the great fact of humanity at large and the greater fact of the human individual walking down the street and waving at you.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: And there's a difference between reading the OT and learning from its lessons and believing that every word is from God's mouth to our ears. In fact, a far as I'm concerned the latter is almost ridiculous. It's like playing the game 'telephone', but over 3000 years and in 4 languages.
Gee, thanks. What if I happen to speak fairly passable Hebrew? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My Biblical Hebrew is better than my modern conversational Hebrew, actually.
My cousins tease me when I accidentally use archaic words or verb forms in conversation . . . In any case, Biblical Hebrew is far closer to modern Hebrew than Old English is to modern. More analogous to the relationship between Middle English and modern -- and I can read Chaucer just fine, thanks.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Katarain -
"Good men aren't liars."
I'm sorry, but I absolutely can't let hyperbole like that slide in this thread. If your definition of 'liars' is anyone who's ever lied, then your statement is most certainly false. I don't know anyone who's never told a lie, and I doubt you do either.
And there's a difference between reading the OT and learning from its lessons and believing that every word is from God's mouth to our ears. In fact, a far as I'm concerned the latter is almost ridiculous. It's like playing the game 'telephone', but over 3000 years and in 4 languages.
In that context, a liar would be someone who claims to be God. That's a pretty major lie if it's not actually true.
I don't speak or read Hebrew like rivka, but I do happen to refer to it often by looking up the specific translation of certain words.
Also, it's nice that you think it's ridiculous, but I happen to believe that God is perfectly capable of protecting the Bible.
KoM, I went and read Numbers 31 this morning to get a good context of what you're talking about. From my first reading--without access to any study resources that I like to use to help me understand--I'm not convinced that leaving the virgins alive was God's command--or at least not his original plan. There needs to be a distinction between what God commands, what man commands, and what God changes or allows because of what man asks for.
I don't accept the comparison to the Holocaust. God is the giver of life and death, and He is the only one who has the rightful power over it. It would take further study for me to find out where in the Bible His reasons are given, if they are at all. (I believe they are, and probably have something to do with what He said about the women leading the Hebrew men astray from God.) I also believe that a lot of the strife that the Israelites went through (and indeed are continuing to endure today) are exactly because they failed God's command to kill all the inhabitants of Canaan when He said to. It's too late now.
I'm at work.. So please allow me time to go home and study some more.
quote:I also believe that a lot of the strife that the Israelites went through (and indeed are continuing to endure today) are exactly because they failed God's command to kill all the inhabitants of Canaan when He said to. It's too late now.
Just wanted to say that I'm not familiar with the context but that scares the sh*t out of me! You seriously believe God would demand that?! Ouch... In all honesty I hope a God like that does not exist...
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously the Bible does not and cannot contain all the information regarding every action and decision by everyone.
John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written
In fact, there were many other scrolls that were written containing additional information.
1 Kings 22:45 - Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
God did not feel the need to describe everything that went through his mind when he made a decision. As a result, we get accounts of events that may not make complete sense to us.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bev, there's something I'm not getting here. Numbers 31 starts with the words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses", and goes on to tell how Yahweh orders war on the Midianites. If you believe Moses was either mistaken or lying, why didn't Yahweh correct him? Certainly it wasn't shy about talking to Moses, it spends most of the first five books doing nothing else. Indeed, I seem to recall that when Moses takes credit for finding water in the desert, Yahweh does reproach him and punishes him by forbidding him to enter the promised land. So when Moses lies, he gets hammered. Why do you believe that he could get away with it in this instance, then?
I honestly don't know. But you seem to think it is something I should be losing sleep over. It isn't.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you seem to think it is something I should be losing sleep over.
From KoM's perspective I think it's a matter of having a belief set that is, internally, as logically consistent as possible. That's why he's always harping about "picking and choosing" which parts of scripture someone is choosing to interpret literally or metaphorically.
It reminds me of something rivka said on another thread -- she doesn't have a problem holding two mutually contradictory bits of scripture to be true because she doesn't have god's understanding of scripture, she has a human's (limited) understanding. My take on what KoM has been saying about religion all along is that he thinks that sort of thing is silly -- either you accept it as literally true in all respects or you throw it all out as bunk. I hope I'm not misrepresenting him by saying that.
So that, I think, is why he views this sort of thing as something worth losing sleep over, whereas you're comfortable with accepting that your understanding of scripture is limited and incomplete and/or that the scripture itself contains interpretation/translation artifacts/errors.
Actually, I hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone here. I'm going on my understanding of their posts, so if I'm wrong I'm certainly happy to be corrected. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If some bits of scripture are figurative and other bits are literal, and it's up to anyone's interpretation to figure out which is which, and everyone seems to think that their own or their pastor's interpretation is the only one that makes any sense, then it doesn't lead to a very coherent or useful sense of scripture.
Like was there literally a fellow called Moses? Did he literally get ten commandments on a tablet from g0d? Did he literally shatter them at some point making the ark of the covenant?
Are Christians supposed to literally be able to handle snakes? Are Christians really supposed to heal each other through prayer? And is this really instead of rather than in addition to medicine? Are you really supposed to literally stone disobedient children? Should slaves literally obey their masters in everything?
Now if you're free to call some things literal and other things figurative, then the scriptures can say almost anything you like. If you are free to say this or that is wrong (because of man's mistranslations, misunderstandings, etc), then you can make the scriptures say absolutely anything.
If the scriptures you hold to are holy, then why do you feel so free to disrespect them?
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
In any case, Biblical Hebrew is far closer to modern Hebrew than Old English is to modern. More analogous to the relationship between Middle English and modern -- and I can read Chaucer just fine, thanks.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
You seriously believe God would demand that?! Ouch... In all honesty I hope a God like that does not exist...
