posted
Bob - if there had been no planned element in the story of Job, I'd never have questioned it. If he had lost his family, his servants, his holdings in a natural disaster and yet he loved and thanked God anyway, despite it all, I think it would have been a very inspiring story.
As it's written, Job is a better person than God, a good man working for a callous master.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in original sin as a descriptive mechanism, which preserves the idea that the material world is good, even though sin appears to be universal. The primary alternative view, at the time the doctrine was formulated, was a dualism that held that the reason sin is universal is because the material world is inherently evil and our good spirits are trapped in evil bodies. The doctrine of original sin holds that the material world, including humans, are created good. Sin, as something that comes after creation, may be universal, but it isn’t intrinsic. It’s a distinction that I think is important to hold on to.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. However, since I don't believe the world was created, that's of purely intellectual interest to me.
My own beliefs are, on the surface, similar: I believe that due to man's evolution we are animals with spirituality stuck over the top, like a veneer. When we allow our baser instincts or desires to control our actions we act "sinfully," if I may borrow the term for a moment. When we can overcome our natural impulses to act in such a way as to benefit ourselves and others, we're truly being "human."
Not quite the same thing, one big difference being that I don't believe anyone will suffer eternal torment if they sin. They'll simply remain animals, albeit possibly animals in nice suits, and that, to me, is just as bad.
[ October 07, 2004, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point. I just don't like the all-too-common view of original sin as an STD, so I like to throw out alternative interpretations whenever I get the chance.
Edit: I hope you don’t think I’m in this thread with some thought of “winning you back” to the church or something. I enjoy theological discussion for it’s own sake. If I start to sound missionary-ish, feel free to tell me to knock it off.
posted
Not to worry. I wrestled with these questions for years before deciding, and I'm not fool enough to think I know anything for sure.
Along the same lines, if I sound dismissive or condescending towards Christianity, please do the same. While I don't profess belief, I do recognize the awesome power for good that Christianity, I know that most of the people I admire are Christians, and I'm an ethical agnostic who fully realizes that he might be wrong. Just because I don't believe doesn't mean I don't respect those who do.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Original sin isn't my sticking point, because I viewed it in a pretty symbolic way. Neither are creation, or the thought that we need some kind of redemption for our sins. As far as the Old Testament versus the New Testament, since I never was a believer in the literal truth of scripture, I could look at it as a combinatin of graduated revelation, and the divinely inspired authors coloring what they were given with their own worlviews. (Just as I can still get something out of fifty year old books that show elements of racism.)
But while I am familiar with the history of the idea of an innocent sacrificed (sorry for my short reply before, I just need more time to pull my thoughts together), I view that in a symbolic way too. And so the idea that God the Son had to suffer brutally and die to redeem me . . . it just doesn't make sense. And that's the one thing that you have to believe pretty literally to be a Christian at all, right? That Christ is the Son of God and that His suffering and death served the purpose of paying for our transgressions. I don't get it. If God was in a forgiving mood, why couldn't He simply have forgiven us? What is the real need for this mechanism of suffering by proxy?
(um, am I eliminating myself from the wedding party if I am agnostic? )
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Feel free to try to win me back. For the longest time I struggled with this, because I wanted to believe, but in all honesty could not.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
He would've told you he was a good man because of God.
Remember what his friends said and what he rejected of their pep talks...
Ask yourself...who wrote that part about God's deal with the devil... was someone there? Did God dictate the book? I mean, that's one of those difficult passages that cause more trouble for biblical literalists than for folks who read for the lesson.
Maybe Job felt about God the way you describe -- callous.
But that's not the point of the story. The story is that Job was humble before God because God is God. Everything Job had was God's to do with as God pleased. "God giveth and God taketh away..."
It's an important lesson told well in a compelling story.
There are elements of the story that, I believe, hint at much of it being a legend.
1) The setting for God talking to Satan is a "day when all the sons of God were gathered to present themselves before the Lord" (not quoting any particular version, it's the gist..)
What day is that?
2) Satan and the Lord have a conversation that gets recorded for posterity...by whom?
3) Job is called a man unlike any on Earth. Imagine this as oral tradition -- it's a hero story. Job is unlike anyone who ever lived...on Earth.
I think it's okay to get mad at God here. (I think dkw covered this way better than I ever could). It's sort of the point of the story. If it weren't for that element, this story wouldn't be so powerful.
You have to be in a place where you are angry with God to get the value of this tale. So the people telling the story give you a way to be angry at God.
And still Job's lesson is "who am I compared to God?"
I think we like to think God is our buddy. But maybe the lesson here is that even when God isn't our buddy, we need God.
I don't have a lot of great answers here, of course. I just think the story of Job makes more sense if you look at it with an eye toward why the story would ever be needed. It's there to help grieving people see that it is not a flaw in their behavior. This isn't punishment. The death and destruction isn't always about divine retribution.
And <the people tellikng the story are saying> it's not an excuse to stop believing.
Oh well. I don't think I'm making much sense of this.
posted
No. We knew you were an agnostic, and we both want you there.
It’s funny though, because the atonement stuff is my big wrestling point too. I hate most of the contemporary explanations of it. I did a massive historical study of it in seminary, and I’m planning to go back and eventually write my PhD thesis on it. I think we’re in dire need of some new metaphors. I’m leaning towards medical imagery – blood transfusion, heart transplant type stuff. But I’d also like to write a critique of penal-substitutionary theory from a restorative justice standpoint. So who knows where I’ll end up with it. Should be fun, though. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you seen that LDS video that tries to explain the necessity for Christ's sacrifice? I thought it did a good job. I'm not sure where you can find a copy, though.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, in all the preaching and teaching I’ve done on Job, I’ve always emphasized the theme that it’s okay to be angry at God, but I never thought of the idea that maybe the author is deliberately giving the reader/hearer a reason to be angry, so that they’re in a place to relate to the story.
That’s two I owe you.
I think I should marry you, just for the sermon help.
quote:At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption. By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This, is so to say, the starting point. And herein all are indeed at one. But, when it was attempted to give a more precise account of the nature of the Redemption and the manner of its accomplishment, theological speculation took different courses, some of which were suggested by the various names and figures under which this ineffable mystery is adumbrated in Holy Scripture.
Further:
quote:It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.
# The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.
# The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.
Basically, these say that salvation was obtained throught the Atonement, that the exact mechanism is unknown, and that there are two common mistakes which root the Atonement in wrath and vicarious punishment.
Here's part of my view on it, and I really hope I say this right. Please take this only as my view, since it is my understanding of teachings, not the teachings themselves. It also owes a lot to Lewis.
Part of the designed state of humanity was to live in communion and obedience to God. There are joys that can only be obtained in obedience. It is possible that the full joy of obedience can only be experienced in experiencing a commandment that is not in and of itself obviously beneficial and good.
A major part of the fall was the turning away from God and disobeying him. God can teach many things, but there was no being that God could submit to in willing obedience. Part of the Incarnation was God experiencing human existence in full, including submission and obedience.
Part of the reason for the suffering on the Cross and during His time in Hell was to submit to God's will in a way that was difficult even for the perfect Man that Christ was. Submission and obedience must be severe for a Being that could, at any time, end the suffering. Once Christ, through the Incarnation and Passion, committed the ultimate act of obedience and suffering, he used that to bridge the gap and reconcile humanity with God.
It was not vicarious punishment or scapegoating, but rather a means for God to demonstrate, in his own Person, what perfect obedience and submission mean.
This is only partial, and I don't know it's right. But to me it presents a strong reason why Christ's suffering was necessary and one way in which the Atonement worked. Of course, I don't beleive God does anything for only one reason, and I don't know how to articulate some of the other reasons I have a glimmer of understanding of.
quote:I’m leaning towards medical imagery – blood transfusion, heart transplant type stuff. But I’d also like to write a critique of penal-substitutionary theory from a restorative justice standpoint.
Dana, do you mean by medical imagery to focus on "corrective" action - helping "repair people"? This is the type of thing I was trying to hint at, although not very well.
If this was directed to me, the purpose of the link was merely to demonstrate (to myself more than anyone else) that the specifics of Atonement are still open and there's still room for thinking of new ways to look at it.
The meat of the post was supposed to be my stuff below the quotes.
Not that the link's not good - I just kind of assumed that was familiar to you, at least in passing.
If that wasn't directed at me, please don't read the above.
posted
I am familiar with the source, and with the ideas that, by demeaning Himself to take human form, Christ showed us perfect obedience, humility, what have you. But I'd typically heard that in conjunction with some nebulous scapegoating concept as well (though obviously not called that). So I was talking about your ideas at least as much as the link, and wondering if that by itself was justification enough for calling for a real and brutal death (not that you claimed that it was, by itself). And saying I would think on it, not because I've never heard any of these thoughts, but because I'm not going to immediately convert back, nor would I be intellectually honest if I didn't occasionally reevaluate my position in light of the particular thoughts that other people I respect think are relevant. So, um, I was acknowledging what I perceived to be a response to my first (but not only) sticking point.
posted
The video was sort of told in kind of a parable format. I don't really remember exactly how it went. ***The below is my recollection of the video + my own commentary on the matter as I understand it. Nothing that I write should be taken as the absolute doctrine of anyone except myself at this very moment. I admit I could have misunderstood some of the details.***
The gist of it was that God is just and therefore cannot forgive sins on a whim (because he would therefore cease to be just and as a consequence cease to be God because God IS just.) I think in the video, God was represented as a sort of banker.
Along comes man. Man enters mortality wanting to do good and come out of mortality a better person than when he entered it. I think this was represented in the video by this guy signing a contract with the banker and being loaned some money so he could build a farm.
Unfortunately, we all fail to be completely obedient to God's will. We all sin. This breaks our contract with God that we would use his gifts only to better ourselves and make ourselves more Christ-like. In the video, I think the man sometimes neglected his little farm in favor of more diverting activities. As a result, when the loan came due he didn't have enough to repay the banker. The law states that he must spend time in prison for breaking the contract. The man argues for Mercy. The banker argues for Justice.
There can’t be mercy because no justice would ever be served. What good would a law be if when you went before trial the judge simply said, “well, we didn’t really mean all that stuff about there being a penalty for you’re actions”? That would be ludicrous! On the other hand, there can be no justice. How is it fair to punish someone who is truly sorry when they have done all they could on their own to repair the damage of their crime?
This is the real crux of the video because it basically says that there is one way that both Justice and Mercy can be met and that requires an intermediary or a mediator between the two. It would require someone who had enough of what was required to repay the dept (Christ has infinite goodness and He has divinity so it is possible for him to repay the dept). It would require him to have mercy on the man and pay what was required (I believe that Christ is willing to do so for the repentant because basically, he already did.) But this can only happen IF the man would allow him to (he has to accept his dept to Christ which is basically to serve him and keep his commandments). Only in this way could man be saved from his sins. No amount of work or struggle on the part of man could un-break his contract with God. Only the grace of Christ could save him.
This is about where the video ends, but I’ve sometimes wondered about this contract/debt scenario. When did I sign this supposed contract? What debt have I incurred? After thinking about it awhile, what I’ve come up with is this:
I believe in Justice. I believe that in order for there to be a punishment or reward, there must be a law given or else it is just random and unfair and UNJUST. I believe that in order for there to be justice there must ACTUALLY be a reward given for righteous doing and a punishment for wrong doing. It cannot be just a THREAT of punishment, it has to be real . . . even if the person is really sorry, “could you please overlook past mistakes?”, and does everything they can to correct the error on their own.
Everything we have is God’s. He created the materials, led us to the knowledge of how to use them. He created everything. He gave us everything we have, including ourselves. I think that takes care of the debt part of the story. The debt we owe to God is ourselves, perfect, undamaged and in order to repay that debt, we must return ourselves in a better condition than we got ourselves. I think that if the so called “Original Sin” never occurred, we would be able to remain in our original condition but never improve either. Unfortunately, after original sin, humanity has defects. There is mental illness, there is sin, there is death. I believe these are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of original sin. Just because someone receives forgiveness for something doesn’t remove the natural consequences of the action. But I believe Christ takes (or took) care of these defects through his atonement. It is not Just for us to be punished for the sins of our parents and I don’t believe God can be unjust. Many of us try to fulfill our contract yet fail through our own actions. This is where we have to step in and ask Crist for help. Either we are to pay that debt ourselves (through punishment for a broken contract), or we must accept Christ’s sacrifice.
If you’ve read all of the above, I firmly congratulate you for your endurance. I didn’t really intend for this to turn into a whole thesis or anything it just kind of grew. I hate being preachy so please, if you don’t agree with (or worse yet, are offended by) anything I’ve written, I hope you’ll point it out to me so I can find the flaws in my thinking.
I think I'll go back to lurking now, unless anyone has any questions for me.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I read it, and while I don't know that I agree with it all, it seemed to be well thought out...
and you made sure to say that it worked for you...
That is great, and isn't preachy at all...at least not to me.
As long as you qualify things as such it is intersting...it doesn't become preachy/annoying unless you insist you have all the answers for everyone...or that all my answers are wrong.
posted
The LDS take on Original Sin is described very sucinctly in Article of Faith #2:
quote:We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
And in fact, we even have a verse which says,
quote:Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
LDS Theology concerning The Fall (this leads to an in depth Jeff Lindsay FAQ page concerning The Fall, and a discussion of Original Sin)I find to be completely fascinating, and quite different than many others. But, of course, we do have extra-Biblical sources we draw from as well.
quote: Job's story is what reaffirmed by faith... it's my favorite story in the Bible. I think it is beautiful.
Yep. That and David just about the best. And I'm neither Christian nor Jew.
"Bob - if there had been no planned element in the story of Job, I'd never have questioned it."
Chris, you are thinking in far too obvious terms. It was planned alright, but not by a human being, by God. The story of Job isn't a story of a bet between two jerks up in the sky who have nothing better to do than smoke pot and torture people, it's the story of life. And guess what? It's a story! Even if it's not a metaphor, and it's an attempt at explanation of what happened, it neccessarily falls far short of the truth and leaves much unexplained, because humans do not understand the mind of God. "God does not play dice" -Albert Eienstein (Yes I'm aware that quantam mchanics hasn't been replaced by a better theory yet but I assure you it will be as all things in science are.) God does not make bets, God is all powerful God does not need to make bets, God does not need to torture people. Humans need to suffer in order to learn, more than that in order to simply live, otherwise they really are not living, and the lesson learned in Job is that God is always on your side, no matter how it may seem otherwise, because after all there really is no other side, so yeah it's OK sometimes to be angry with God but if you hate God you hate yourself.
"If he had lost his family, his servants, his holdings in a natural disaster and yet he loved and thanked God anyway, despite it all, I think it would have been a very inspiring story."
Yeah see that's exactly what happened. They were all natural causes. And all natural causes come from God, as well as everything else. Humans know that by instinct and we also know that God is totally good and totally infinite therefore the tendency for us to believe that there is an afterlife, because after all something has to happen after we die, we don't just cease to exist, even if we don't go somewhere else, even if our consciousness fades away, we're quite obviously living in the things and people we have left impressions on here on earth. So when you say: "And, really, is there any reason why God's allowance of the murder of Job's children should be viewed as acceptable or praiseworthy, even as allegory?" I don't think you've studied the Christian faith very well, or are ignoring its tenants, as well as the tenants of the vast majority of religions that have ever existed- which generally have a severe tendancy to believe in life after death. Or are you going out and assuming that God took Job's children and servants and chucked them in eternal hellfire? I assure wherever God put them it was in the right place and it was good for their eternal souls, somehow, in the long run, though to explain it to a human could very well be like Calculus to a one-year-old, because God is infinite, God is perfect and God does not make mistakes; that is the definition of God.
Now, About the garden of Eden, the story everybody's been telling you through the course of your life is crap. This is the story and belief of genesis: Men were once like animals, animals(theoretically) who essentially can do no wrong, and though they therefore only do right, they are all the same limited in their true righteousness because they have little(or at least generally far less) choice in what they do and to lesser responsibility must come lesser credit. Man was given the choice of having great inteligence; the choice to choose. He took it-or, as the case may be She took it, and then he took it too because he knew darned well that once she had it there was no way he was going to get laid without it. And so they chose higher inteligence, and they continue to choose, even to this day, some choose to be wolves some, sheep still others, trees, but some choose higher inteligence, and so choose to be humans. And though they be few, and though they err often and much, and though they die and are killed, they are what they are and they know it, and so they truly live, and they continue upward and on.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or are you going out and assuming that God took Job's children and servants and chucked them in eternal hellfire? I assure wherever God put them it was in the right place and it was good for their eternal souls, somehow, in the long run, though to explain it to a human could very well be like Calculus to a one-year-old....
Let me just point out that here you're saying "it's okay that they died and were replaced by a new set, because the afterlife is niftier than life here on Earth, anyway. I can't prove it to you, or even give you any rational reasons, because God's mind is really, really complicated -- so you'll just have to believe me." This is exactly the mystery of faith that, in other conversations, I have pointed out that I find most frightening, because it justifies murder on a mass scale.
In the whole story of Job, I always felt considerably sorrier for his children, who were presumably never given a chance to curse God at all even as their own lives got quite a bit worse -- terminally worse, in fact -- than his own.
posted
Well, since they're asking you to believe several much more basic things than that without proof, such as God's existence, I'm kind of surprised that your hangup is with the lack of proof about one particular attribute of God.
quote:This is exactly the mystery of faith that, in other conversations, I have pointed out that I find most frightening, because it justifies murder on a mass scale.
Except that it doesn't justify murder by humans - it justifies killing by one who fully understands the consequences.
I know people have used faith to justify killing - I'm not claiming otherwise. They haven't used the tenets of faith you've just described, but different ones.
quote:Let me just point out that here you're saying "it's okay that they died and were replaced by a new set, because the afterlife is niftier than life here on Earth, anyway. I can't prove it to you, or even give you any rational reasons, because God's mind is really, really complicated -- so you'll just have to believe me." This is exactly the mystery of faith that, in other conversations, I have pointed out that I find most frightening, because it justifies murder on a mass scale.
A few points about this:
"so you'll just have to believe me"
Anyone who actually thinks this would, if speaking clearly, insist that you have to believe God, not them. Just a little semantics before we go on.
"I have pointed out that I find most frightening, because it justifies murder on a mass scale"
Of course, if believers are right, it only justifies murder when murder actually is justified. But even more to the point, murder is rarely justified, and I think if you look through the scriptures you (generic you) may find less death than a lot of people are lead to believe is there. All the talk of the wrath of God in the Old Testament, it's almost entirly wrath poured out by God Himself, not given to someone else to take ccare of. So if you don't believe in God, I don't see how anyone could really get upset about the destruction of S&G, or the great flood, no one lifted a finger to kill in these stories, God did it directly, and if God doesn't exist, well then obviously this didn't happen so then there's no problem, and if He does, well He Himself has testified that God Loves his children and always acts for their benefit so we can once again be assured that it wasn't a bad thing, or the total sum of the outcome was positive.
I think what you mean, and this is just my guess here, is that with this faith someone corrupt, someone who claims to get visions, could tell the faithful it was time to go out and slaughter the gentiles, and they would go. I appreciate this fear, it has happened. Of course everyone's favorite example is the crusades, I think that's kind of a bad example since I kind of doubt it was the soldier's faith that motivated them to go out for murder and pillaging, but that's a side point. Heck, I would count Charles Manson and his little vicious gang's killings as being a form of this. So I see and agree with your fear.
My response to it though, is that religion is not The One Ring. It's not necessarily evil, in fact, most of the time, it's a way of keeping a community together, a good way to join to people, to give someone meaning in doing the right thing so that people will sacrifice for the community or for a friend or even for a complete stranger. This is not the only way to get people to do this, I'm not suggesting that anyone without religion can't build communities or act for the greater good, but religion does fill that purpose (and of course, this is assuming unbeleivers, if you're a believer then it's primary function is even more important). Of course someone could twist it, could use it to harm, but you'll notice that 99% of the time people get along, try to follow the precepts they believe in, and for almost all religions these precepts are overall positive.
But after all that, when it comes to the story of Job, I agree with you Tom. Which is why I've always been glad that it's wisdom literature instead of a true story of God's propet or something to that nature, because the killing of the others in the story merely to test Job did seem like it crossed over some lines, big fat red lines with skulls painted on them. When I see it as wisdom literature then I just remember it's a human story, and the best way to interprut it is as the story of Job, not anyone else. Other's deaths are meaningless, the story is enitrley focused on Job, and we can ignore that anyone else's life ended, and just remember that Job's family died. If you see what I mean ...
posted
Tom has a point, though, and it’s the same point that’s being brought up in the bioethics thread.
Before I try to explain, let me clarify how I’m using some terms. As religious believers, we have some things that we believe are revealed. Scripture is among them, with various interpretations on to what degree the actual words used are part of the revelations. And then we have theology and doctrine, which is our (using “our” in a very broad sense, here) reflection on and interpretation of the revelation. Theology is the “drawing out” of the implications of the revelation into a system of doctrine. Hobbes, I don’t know how the words are used by LDS folks. If you believe that doctrines are directly revealed, then where I use “doctrine” substitute “explanations” or whatever word best gets at the idea.
Now, in the same way that bioethicists should be taking into account the implications of their theories for real people’s lives, people who “do theology,” whether it’s the pope or the LDS prophet explaining and interpreting revelation for their communities, an academic theologian proposing a new metaphor for atonement, or a church member giving a talk on love at a Sunday meeting, should be following through on the implications of their words. And if what you say has implications that you didn’t mean, then maybe you need to find a different way to say it.
The stories of the crucifixion have been read and enacted in ways that inflamed people against Jews. Christian teachings about forgiveness have been used to tell battered women they must stay with their husbands. The book of Job has been used to tell people that if they get mad at God when their children die it means they don't have enough faith. Those are all examples of how sloppy Biblical interpretation has hurt real people, and the preaching and teaching they were getting in their churches is partially (in some cases mostly) responsible.
It is not good enough to say, “Oh, we didn’t mean it that way. If your teaching could reasonably be interpreted in “that way” then you have a responsibility to clarify that teaching. Theology is not theoretical – it has real life consequences, not just for believers but also for everyone they come in contact with.
Hobbes, please don’t take any of this as a criticism. You’re doing good stuff with Job here – keep it up.
posted
Well to be honest I'm not sure how I could take it as criticism, so I think that means I didn't understand it. What exactly was the message adressed to me (or what I posted)? I think I'm confused.
quote: When I see it as wisdom literature then I just remember it's a human story, and the best way to interprut it is as the story of Job, not anyone else. Other's deaths are meaningless, the story is enitrley focused on Job, and we can ignore that anyone else's life ended, and just remember that Job's family died.
This reads like, "Since I have decided that this doesn't line up with my idea of God, I will pick and choose what is and isn't important."
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, you not taking it as criticism means you read it the way I intended. I was just afraid that since I posted right after you, you might think it was aimed at you.
Celia, if you rephrased that as “certain interpretations do not fit with the way I understand God from other sources and from personal experience, and therefore, as other reasonable interpretations are available I will choose them,” then I would agree with your statement.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I think I get it. So I'll go ahead and clarify. When I read Job, I see a story entirley about Job, everyone else in the story existed (with the exception of God) to influence Job in some way, and Job had to keep his faith through all these things. I hope I don't look at the story trying to decide what in the story is worth my attention, as scripture I recognize it as all being worth my attention, but my perspetive on the story is unique (compared to most of the rest of Scripture) due to it being wisdom literature. So when I see the story, the whole story line is Job, people died but it's only important in so much as it pained Job, their deaths are unimportant. Of course if this was a literal story, I would agree with Tom, but it's not, and so I feel no issues with viewing it as simply another thing that went wrong with Job.
That's what I was trying to say, I'm not sure I've suceeded a second time any better than I did the first, but hey, at least now you can read it twice.
posted
Here's the thing about that interpretation, Hobbes. It seems perfectly reasonable, but that isn't a measure of the truth of what it was meant to be. See, there are perfectly reasonable, though perhaps not entirely comfortable interpretations of Job as literal history. To someone who accepts a literal interpretation of the Bible, they must accept a literal interpretation of the this text. To someone who accepts a metaphoric interpretation of the Bible, they must accept a metaphoric interpretation of this text. To someone who accepts a mix, they are free to choose what they think did and didn't happen or whatever interpretation of this text they want. The strength in that is that there is wisdom to be found in any story(go ahead and come up with exceptions, the wisdom of those exceptions is that you shouldn't bother reading crap). The weakness is that if it is, in fact, literal truth you're ignoring it in favor of something that makes you feel better. This is a problem I have with a mixed interpretation of the Bible. The essence of what you get out of it is driven more by what you want to get out of it that what truth is. It may serve as comfort to you and for all I know it may be correct. It makes me rather uncomfortable because choosing what is literal and what is figurative is an excellent way of repressing women, homosexuals or any group and justifying just about any action because you can ignore parts of the Bible as metaphore while pursuing actions you justify with other parts of the Bible which are literal.
I think that was a lot of rambling. Maybe I should go to class or something.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Celia, every reading is an interpretation. Even people who claim to interpret the text literally, or go by “the plain sense” of the words are conditioned in what the “plain sense” is by their history and their interpretive community (the people they read and study with and learn from). And everyone has a sort of personal “cannon within the cannon” that they consider central and that they interpret all other texts in light of. It’s not possible to avoid doing so, it’s only a question of whether you’re aware of it or do it unconsciously.
Personally, I’d rather try to be aware of my interpretive bias, so I can question my assumptions, than pretend it doesn’t exist.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
