FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Moral guidance from the old testament (Page 5)

  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
Author Topic: Moral guidance from the old testament
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Not all of us consider "utility" a significant goal.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Quoted for contrast:

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What we call the Old Testament is a record of one people's understanding of God from the perspective of people who lived in a fairly brutal culture.

Why do atheists and agnostics insist on taking the Scriptures more literally than most Christians take them?

quote:
Originally posted by Counter Bean:
The fact of the matter is that so long as the majority of Muslims do nothing, they are not politically significant. They are a null program. If they want to learn from the lessons of history then they need get a handle on their crazy folk before we need to do it ...

As odd as Counter Bean may be, he actually has a point here. Many Christians are amiable people, do not take the scriptures literally, and live peaceful non-offensive lives.
The problem is that they do nothing about their "crazy folk" fundamentalists and do not learn from the lessons of history.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
(edit this resposne was to Tom)

That's your opinion. You are welcome to it. A "New Criticism" approach to Scripture. It goes well with a certain fundamentalist viewpoint that anyone can understand scripture. I think it is foolish, but if your purpose is to argue with fundamentalists (and I suspect that is your purpose) rather than understand Scripture, your approach is probably more useful to you.

Rivka, please explain tiny url?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Makes too-long URLs into shorter ones (which don't "break" the page).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Rivka, how useful! (A case where utility is a good thing!)

I have fixed my post and will bookmark TinyURL for the future. I had seen the term, but since my computer seems to just make the URL "fit", I didn't pay much attention.

Thanks

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Rivka, how useful! (A case where utility is a good thing!)

[Big Grin] Ok, so I really should have added the phrase "in scripture."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
I don't think that's a good analogy. Genocide is not the equivalent of being sent to your room, it's the equivalent of being told to kill your brother or else you're going to get it yourself. The flood is not being sent to bed without supper, it's being hung upside-down in the basement and hit with baseball bats. We would consider such parents evil even if they only did it to their own children.

The analogy doesn't speak to the concrete used. It speaks to the dynamic. I'm surprised to see you make that mistake.

We weren't told "Kill the Midianites or God will kill you." We were told "The Midianites killed you and will do it again, so kill them."

Does a parent have the right to kill his child? To rape it? To dash its head against a stone and be made happy thereby? We recognise limits on parental authority, even though those limits are broader than those on mere adult authority. If those bounds are overstepped, we call the parent evil. A spanking is one thing; we speak here of killing and rape, not being sent to bed without supper.

Touching your defense that they started it, pff. They tried to have a false prophet curse you, and then some of their women slept with some of your teenagers. Big freakin' deal. In exchange for this, your god sends a plague? (And incidentally, that's what I meant by your god threatening you: the Midianites do X, you respond Y, your god sends a plague. The implication is pretty clear. And to then blame the Midianites for the plague is just plain ridiculous - talk about blaming the victim for the crime!) This you call a good act? And then their extermination is demanded? This is not the act of a reasonable and sane person.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Qaz
Member
Member # 10298

 - posted      Profile for Qaz           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I allow for the possibility of metaphor in the Bible because Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold, and it's obvious he didn't mean that he had hinges installed on him and people moved him to let sheep out.
There is a difference between obvious metaphor and/or parable and saying "Oh, that whole story there is a metaphor, even though there's no reason to think so except for its obvious falsehood."
OK. It wasn't clear to me what you meant.

Now that I looked over that fig tree thing I would agree on that too. It's a literal-looking passage surrounded by literal-looking passages. I am sure kmbboots is righta bout there being symbolic meaning we can draw from it but there's nothing to say that it was only symbolic.

Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Nothing, perhaps, in the text itself. That is why useful understanding requires going beyond the text. "Literal-looking" does not always mean literal.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Not all of us consider "utility" a significant goal.
I think your definition of "utility" is broken if you can imagine any situation in which it would not be a significant goal.

quote:
That is why useful understanding requires going beyond the text.
In that case, the text fulfills no useful purpose.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
That is why useful understanding requires going beyond the text.
In that case, the text fulfills no useful purpose.
That's true of a chemistry paper, an engineering specification, and often even works of fiction, but I think it's fair to suggest that the historical context of a collection of ancient stories should be considered. If the author of a text or speech expected it to be interpreted in a certain way because that's how people at a given place and time tended to interpret texts and speeches, we probably ought to consider that when we read it or listen to it millennia after the fact.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
It is not useful because we have to do some work to understand it?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Even those things, twinky. If I pick up an advanced chemistry paper with no knowledge of context, abbreviations, specialized vocabulary, and very little understanding of chemistry would you say that the paper was useless because I didn't properly understand it?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If the author of a text or speech expected it to be interpreted in a certain way because that's how people at a given place and time tended to interpret texts and speeches, we probably ought to consider that when we read it or listen to it millennia after the fact.
But we don't know that's how the author intended it. We're looking at this, concluding that it's inconsistent, and then proceeding from the assumption that there must have been a different authorial intent to justify our desire to reinterpret the written scripture. It's the failing inherent in any analysis of "authorial intent," be it fiction or scripture; the reader's will will always be imposed on the author's in that situation.

quote:
If I pick up an advanced chemistry paper with no knowledge of context, abbreviations, specialized vocabulary, and very little understanding of chemistry would you say that the paper was useless because I didn't properly understand it?
I think it depends on the purpose of the text. What's the point of the Bible?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
That is why useful understanding requires going beyond the text.
In that case, the text fulfills no useful purpose.
"No" useful purpose? Maybe not the useful purpose that you'd assumed, but your conclusion doesn't follow.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
But we can make some educated assumptions to mitigate that. There are things we do know. Biblical scholars do this. Remember those thousands of books? Just because it is beyond your expertise and mine, doesn't mean that human beings can't ever find meaning in it.

And understanding that the "reader's will" will be, to some extent, imposed is an important thing for the reader to know.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Just because it is beyond your expertise and mine, doesn't mean that human beings can't ever find meaning in it.
Human beings can find meaning in anything. When bothering to read God's instructions to His creation, I would prefer that I find His instructions instead of what I choose to bring to the text.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps we could start at the beginning. Can we agree that a text is useless if it is so vague that anyone can read anything at all into it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay. Again. We don't get to read "God's Instructions to His Creation". We get to read what certain people from a certain culture (many people, from many cultures) recorded as their understanding of "God's Instruction to His Creation".

And again. "Takes some work to understand" is not the same thing as vague and without meaning.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Firstly depending, of course, on whether or not you believe that God has had a hand in writing the scriptures.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
First explain what you mean by "had a hand in" and specifically what part of the scriptures.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
You know, boots has been pretty clear in her approach to this and has stated it many times, so much so that I'm beginning to think that Tom is being deliberately obtuse.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And again. "Takes some work to understand" is not the same thing as vague and without meaning.
If this was in response to me, you are defending where I have not attacked. The question was quite general: If a text is so vague that opposing interpretations (that is, "You should do X" and "You should not do X") are equally valid, can we agree that this text is useless? As an example, consider the following pseudo-scripture:

Book of KoM, Chap 31
1. You should kill all theists.
2. Except when it is inconvenient.
3. In fact, it usually is inconvenient.
4. So really, you might as well keep them alive.
5. Or not. Whatever.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You know, boots has been pretty clear in her approach to this and has stated it many times, so much so that I'm beginning to think that Tom is being deliberately obtuse.
Nope. It's just that Kate has said that she believes the Bible is divinely inspired, but that God apparently didn't bother to clear up issues of interpretation when inspiring people. I think that's a major failing of any such inspiration.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
First explain what you mean by "had a hand in" and specifically what part of the scriptures.

Um I dunno how about, 2Peter 1:19-21

and,

St John 14:25-26

It is for that reason that the scriptures are more accurate then what the mere recollections of normal men are capable of, because God himself actually dictated some of the events and words to his prophets who wrote them down. Its why we know so much minute detail of Christ's ministry because even though his apostles wrote after the fact they were promised the Holy Ghost would bring those events and words to their rememberence.

Tom: The scriptures are written to persuade all men to come unto God and to become like him. But hey thats just what I have gleaned from reading them.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
BB, you and I have different ideas of Scripture.

Tom, in my understanding of Scripture, inspired is not the same as dictated.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
No, what she is saying (correct me if I am wrong) is that the writings were products of the culture and times that they were written in and must be understood as such. Also, the writings are records of people's experiences with God/Jesus and his teachings and not what God (edit: explicitly) told them to write.

[ March 21, 2007, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
MrSquicky, pretty much. Though I do think that they were written by people who were inspired by God to write them and by people that had (given that they were human beings etc.) important relationships with God and important understandings of God. I don't want you to think that I am dismissing the importance of Scripture. I do want you to understand that understanding it is not as simple as it seems.

The idea that Scripture could be understood by anybody just as it's written without any special scholarship is a fairly new concept. As I understand it, it grew in 19 century America as a response to what was seen (probably rightly) as an elitist view of religion.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It is for that reason that the scriptures are more accurate then what the mere recollections of normal men are capable of, because God himself actually dictated some of the events and words to his prophets who wrote them down. Its why we know so much minute detail of Christ's ministry because even though his apostles wrote after the fact they were promised the Holy Ghost would bring those events and words to their rememberence.
So that's would be why even the Gospels contradict themselves, then? Or - wait, I know - that's the part your god isn't inspiring?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry to double post but I just realized I never responded to Tom's response of my list, Devil's or Euripides subsequent posts,

Tom: (Bear in mind my answers are from a Mormons POV I believe the ideas are backed by even the Bible but not all those who revere Christ are in agreement on these points. Please do not make me regret being frank with the doctrinal answers to your responses. Pearls before Swine and all that.
quote:
1: Creating humanity - This is an unasked-for boon. Would you say that children should be grateful to their parents for the mere fact of their existence?
We all existed before living on this earth, according to record most of us were extremely pleased to take the next step in emulating God by coming to earth, 1/3rd of God's children were persuaded by Satan to believe otherwise and they chose an alternate path, filled with misery BTW. So yes us being born on earth is a result of our choice that God allowed us to make we should be grateful for the chance to experience mortality.

quote:
2: Giving humanity its agency - Humanity wasn't given agency. Humanity stole it and was punished for it. Most charitably, it can be said that humanity paid for agency.
Dag pointed this out but we did not STEAL our own agency. God put us in a situation where the human parents Adam and Eve could choose to remain in blissful ignorance or experience true joy in knowing good and evil in full and opting for good. It is a mistake to believe they were deceived into making the crucial choice they made.

quote:

3: Instructing the first humans as to what was right and wrong. As well as teaching them a system of speech and written language. - God enumerates what is "right" and "wrong" with no explanation, and goes to some lengths to keep further knowledge from His children. Additionally, He later sees fit to obfuscate speech and written language once mankind gets too uppity. Indian giver.

God does not need to explain what is right and wrong as he himself already follows the righteous code to perfection. He didn't set the rules, he simply knows them. He has stewardship over us and He asks that we trust his superior wisdom and follow his example. As we put our faith in him he enlightens our understanding to the excellency of His way.

I assume you are referring to the tower of Babel, the obfuscation of speech was necessary in God's POV, certainly the people were already disobeying God's will at this point, and how do you know that language was not already diverging at this point? It was hundreds and thousands of years after Adam, plenty of time for bastardizations and even completely new systems. For all we know God simply messed up the languages of the people building and living near the tower, I do not believe the tower of babel is cited as the origin of today's divergent language situation. The Book of Mormon notes a group of people who preserved their language at the tower, centuries later their descendants spoke a language nobody could understand.

quote:

4: Allowed human beings to reject those teachings and learn for themselves what the results of their decisions are. - I think you're restating #2, here.

Perhaps I am. But isn't it one thing to let people make a choice then BANG, intervene, and quite another to let people make choices and observe the long term effects of those choices? We are even allowed to pursue our own preference on a multitude of topics for which there IS no right or wrong answer.

quote:

5: Provided a way for ALL mankind to overcome the ill effects of sinful behavior. - Only after He decided what the ill effects of sinful behavior would be, and then declared what would be sinful behavior -- with full knowledge, mind you, of how many people would commit sinful behavior by His definition and be punished according to His punishments.

Again, incorrect. God did not define what is right and wrong, he exemplifies what is good perfectly and thus anything that does not fall into that example is evil. It says in the scriptures that the natural disposition of men is to be carnal sensual and devilish, but we still have the capacity for greatness and godlike behavior. It is a challenge to choose to pursue that which is excellent and discard that which is easy yet wrong. Yes God knew many of his children would fail and get themselves kicked out of heaven and be in a worse state then they were before they came to earth. But he still had to give us the opportunity to decide what direction we want to go in. According to God there is no static condition, we are always progressing or always falling.

quote:

6: Systematically manifested himself to those who would listen thus preserving these teachings. - But not so systematically that even all the various Judeo-Christian sects agree on them.

It falls back into agency, God does more then enough to make his words known, it is the agency of men that corrupts those teachings and makes them inaccessible to other people. All God has said on this topic is that all will be made right in the end and we will still be able to live lives where we are expected to live according to whatever truth we ARE given.

quote:

7: Saved the ancient patriarchs are their children from famine. - After sending the famine as punishment.

I am referring to Joseph in Egypt who saved the Egyptians and his entire family from famine after being sold into slavery and rising into a position of power. The famine in this instance was not a result of iniquity, at least the Bible does not suggest it was. Rather God knew the famine would occur and positioned Joseph to be a in a situation where he could demonstrate the power of God's wisdom.

quote:

8: Delivered the patriarchs descendants when their hosts the Egyptians plunged them into slavery - After sending them into slavery.

Again God did not command the Egyptians to enslave the Hebrews or command the Hebrews to allow themselves to be enslaved. The Egyptians using that same agency that all men have enslaved the Hebrews and abused them. When the Hebrews asked God to deliver them God listened and sent them deliverance.

quote:

9: Accepted their stubborn and rebellious natures and provided a law wherewith they could be tempered and become a wonderful people. - You think God "accepted" the stubborn rebellion of mankind and "tempered" them into wonderfulness? Or are you speaking purely of the Jews as a chosen people? Bear in mind that we're discussing the Old Testament God, who the last we see of Him is busy driving the Jews out of Israel as punishment for their stubborn rebelliousness.

I am speaking of the Jews in this instance, rather then simply discarding them he carefully crafted a law that would suit them according to their natures/culture. A law that would keep them in constant remembrance of the God who sustained them.

Devil Dreamt:
The Pearl of Great price spells out Satan's fall from grace, but even if we use the Bible,
" Isaiah 14:12-15 (continue reading if you wish to, it certainly says alot about Satan, and that coupled with Peter's description, "Like a lion prowling about seeking whom he can destroy," paints a pretty distinct picture of the devil.

Euripides:
quote:
Why is it unlikely? There are precedents indicating Moses and the Israelites didn't find rape as objectionable as we find it today. Consider for example Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Seems you did not read many of the preceding verses of the ones you quoted. Rape was capital offense in most cases. Only in the instances where the woman (if she was betrothed or married) objected, is the death sentence commuted. And in the verses you quoted it is not clear if the virginal woman is being raped or simply having sex with a man. Making the man pay 50 shekels and marrying the woman he had raped certainly would deter folks rolling around in the hay spontaneously and it would deter quite a few men from acting on their lusts.

quote:

And the Nazis didn't get all the Jews, either.

Oh please, it wasn't for lack of trying Euripides.

quote:

You give god the benefit of the doubt in saying that there could be a complicated higher reason for acting immorally. Would you extend the same possibility to the Nazis?

Um...nope, the Nazis are not perfect and thus do not have a perfect understanding of all that is. If God was directing their actions then yes. God has not informed me that this is the case, so I continue to condemn their actions.

quote:

Because I'm judging god, not bronze age humans.

Bear that in mind the next time somebody says OJ getting off with murder was terrible, your response if you are honest should be, "Sparing people from jail and being executed is a good thing, I am not judging OJ I am judging judge Ito."

quote:

It's very very different. God created those foreign armies and droughts, and knowingly allowing people to be killed does not compare with refusing to loan someone your car.

What? God did not tell the Babylonians, "Hey go take some shots at Israel!" and though God can certainly cause a drought he can also know one is coming and refuse to inform his people while they are acting in a wicked manned, see the example of Joseph I cited for Tom. As for killing not being the same as not letting somebody borrow your car, in my analogy its a difference in magnitude not in kind. God is not obligated to protect people when they do not want his protection. And God killing his own creations is NOT the same thing as you or me killing them. God has stewardship over all humanity, neither of us have that. When we commit murder we are knowingly going against the will of God who has put all men on this earth. Only He (without mistake) can decide when it is best that they live or die. He may or may not delegate part of that responsibility to human beings.

quote:

Do you seriously want to start cataloguing the evils of other religions at the time? Was the law of Moses much better?

Yes, yes it was, much better. The only short coming that I am willing to place on the Law of Moses is that it was a step below what God wished to give the Israelites. But since they were not ready for his more excellent law he prepared them with the Law of Moses.

edited for some clarity and grammatical mistakes.

[ March 21, 2007, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
Perhaps we could start at the beginning. Can we agree that a text is useless if it is so vague that anyone can read anything at all into it?

Yes.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Let me just observe that "Pearls Before Swing" would be the greatest band name ev-ar.

-------

A lot of your responses are from a uniquely Mormon perspective. That's fine, but I've already said that Mormons get a pass on some of these issues -- particularly the classical Problem of Evil -- because they don't believe God created the universe and/or is capable of eliminating Evil. The Mormon view of God is a very limited one, and those limitations reduce the impact of many of the traditional paradoxes.

I would strongly disagree with any attempt to claim the the God of the BoM is a portrayal of the same God portrayed in the Old Testament. Since you probably disagree with me on that point, though, I'll freely concede that the Old Testament portrayal of God is equally consistent with a not-always-reliable account of a God who is largely powerless against evil.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
You know, boots has been pretty clear in her approach to this and has stated it many times, so much so that I'm beginning to think that Tom is being deliberately obtuse.

Beginning. Heh. Tom is like a kitten scratching his favorite post.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
BB, you and I have different ideas of Scripture.

Tom, in my understanding of Scripture, inspired is not the same as dictated.

I shouldn't think they are FAR different, but I would be appreciative if you could explain to me what you believe those two scriptures are saying if not that the Holy Ghost inspired holy men to write what they did.

KOM: First, what contradictions are you talking about? Many folks talk about them like they are a given and then rarely provide good examples. But beyond that see the interpolations of men that I mentioned in my extended post. Its not as if the writings became IMPOSSIBLE to modify in subsequent copies, and indeed changes were certainly made. That is why Mormons believe God created a second record (The Book of Mormon) that when viewed side by side with the Bible clarifies an extraordinary amount of confusion.

Typically the only issues Mormons find possible to disagree on are the ones in which the scriptures do not give significant treatment.

Any REALLY pertinent and important issues that do come up are clarified by our prophet.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Let me just observe that "Pearls Before Swing" would be the greatest band name ev-ar.

lol, I'll agree with you on that. [Big Grin]

Edited my previous post.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Not sure if I should be flattered, insulted, purr, or get out the neosporin.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
None of the above, I'd think.
Really, I'm just trying to explain why people who do not rely on personal instinct for their experiences with God -- which would certainly include atheists, a group which claims no such experiences exist or are possible -- would care about Scripture more than someone who believes Scripture is secondary to their own understanding of God.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Certainly, Scripture is only a part of my understanding of God - and, possibly, not the most important part. To the extent it is important, though, I want to be sure that I am not misinterpreting it.

I can understand why an atheist would find Scripture important. What I don't understand is why an atheist would care about using a method of interpreting Scripture that is likely going to be misleading.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Part of it, of course, is that there is no universal consensus among Christians about the best way to interpret Scripture, which ensures that any method the atheist uses will be considered "misleading" by at least one sizable group of Christians.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
So decide which makes the most sense to you - it is probably more fun to argue with the literalists (I sometimes do it myself for the sport). And you don't have to do any real research. Most mainstream Christians believe in the importance of some study. If you are interested, there are books. Lots of them. If not, at least remember that you aren't arguing about Scripture, you are arguing against one fairly radical, fairly recent method of interpreting Scripture.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, let's do something different. I think we've all talked this out until it's gotten a little boring. So let's switch. KoM and Tom, you take the religious side, and Dag and Kate and I can take the atheist side.

I'll start. "God"? Hah!

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Deleted because (on second thought) it came off as snarky when I intended funny.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Most mainstream Christians believe in the importance of some study.
You do realize that I've done a fair bit of Bible study, right, and disagree with a lot of it? [Wink]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I wasn't actually talking about you, I was talking about the relative popularity among Christians of needing additional sources of information to understand Scripture.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Another thing thats been bugging me about that previous quote, so again quoted for contrast:

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
What we call the Old Testament is a record of one people's understanding of God from the perspective of people who lived in a fairly brutal culture.

Why do atheists and agnostics insist on taking the Scriptures more literally than most Christians take them?

quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Any ideology that separates people into "us" and "them" is guilty of that. Religion is just one very big one. Or rather, one very big set of them.
...
If I wasn't convinced that it was true, I wouldn't have anything to do with it
...
The only justification for religion, in my opinion, is if it is true. Literally true. Otherwise, it's just one more division between people, and one more cause of grief and suffering.

Ironically, Lisa sums up my feelings on why agnostics and atheists probably insist on interpreting the Scriptures literally.

Given how "brutal" the Old Testament is and how it sets up not only a bitter and bloody division between the Jews and rest of the world, but leads to the Bible which further divides us between Christians, Jews, and the rest of the world (and then the Koran, the BoM, etc.). The only possible justification for such a brutal, bloody, and amoral document to exist in our world is if it is true. Literally true.

Thus, I suspect that we insist on taking the Scriptures literally because otherwise, there's no justification for them to be around.

The other point is that you insist on painting people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible as some radical small group. The problem is that its not particularly true, the group is still pretty sizable at about 28% of Americans (link) or about 84 million Americans or so.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Any ideology that separates people into "us" and "them" is guilty of that. Religion is just one very big one. Or rather, one very big set of them.
...
If I wasn't convinced that it was true, I wouldn't have anything to do with it
...
The only justification for religion, in my opinion, is if it is true. Literally true. Otherwise, it's just one more division between people, and one more cause of grief and suffering.

Ironically, Lisa sums up my feelings on why agnostics and atheists probably insist on interpreting the Scriptures literally.
It's not so ironic. I'm an atheist (or agnostic, at the very least) by temperment. I'm not just mouthing platitudes when I say that I'm not like most theists.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DevilDreamt
Member
Member # 10242

 - posted      Profile for DevilDreamt   Email DevilDreamt         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
We all existed before living on this earth, according to record most of us were extremely pleased to take the next step in emulating God by coming to earth, 1/3rd of God's children were persuaded by Satan to believe otherwise and they chose an alternate path, filled with misery BTW.

Filled with misery? I'm interested to know exactly where you got this idea. Even if they willingly condemned themselves to a path filled with misery, maybe you should stop and consider why they would do this and consider the possibility that their sacrifice actually means something, BTW.

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
God does not need to explain what is right and wrong as he himself already follows the righteous code to perfection.

Although you might admit that if God did explain what is right and wrong it would be really really handy for, you know, making our own decisions and stuff.

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

Devil Dreamt:
The Pearl of Great price spells out Satan's fall from grace, but even if we use the Bible,
" Isaiah 14:12-15 (continue reading if you wish to, it certainly says alot about Satan, and that coupled with Peter's description, "Like a lion prowling about seeking whom he can destroy," paints a pretty distinct picture of the devil.

I have read those passages from Isaiah before, and I am pretty certain they are talking about an actual person, not a supernatural being. If you follow the link presented on “Lucifer” it even says that those are all names for the King of Babylon. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I was under the impression he was merely human.

An Idea:
I do not follow a utilitarian school of ethics. I’m not sure if God does or not, although I think that some people here have suggested, either knowingly or unknowingly, that he does.

One of the problems with utilitarianism is that what is defined as "good" for people changes over time and varies from culture to culture. Well, it's not so much a problem in and of itself, but it is a problem when people start trying to nail down a permanent definition for what is good, and they try to apply it to all people, all of the time. This seems to be one of the basic problems we are encountering in this thread.

Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Euripides
Member
Member # 9315

 - posted      Profile for Euripides   Email Euripides         Edit/Delete Post 
Kate,
quote:
The idea that Scripture could be understood by anybody just as it's written without any special scholarship is a fairly new concept. As I understand it, it grew in 19 century America as a response to what was seen (probably rightly) as an elitist view of religion.
Just to be clear, I never said this was the case. However I am not willing to chalk up multitudes of glaring inconsistencies and examples of evil to an 'incomplete understanding.'

quote:
quote:
Because I'm judging god, not bronze age humans.
But the bronze age humans are part of the equation when you judge Scripture. You are judging a "picture" of God drawn by the bronze age humans. Here is a (necessarily imperfect)analogy*. A child who owns two crayons - orange and blue - sees a beautiful flower and draws a picture of it and gives it to you. The child is a remarkable artist for a three year old and the picture is beautiful. But it isn't a photograph. The colours are limited by the crayons that the child has, he only drew three leaves, there is no sense of perspective and depth. You wouldn't assume that, as beautiful as the drawing is, that the whole flower is conveyed accurately and completely by the drawing.
Except that 'picture' contains many unambiguous moral instructions and examples of evil. If the child in your analogy drew a spider next to the flower, would you have grounds for ignoring the spider and seeing only the flower?

I understand your position that the bible can't be taken at face value, and I fully agree. And while your insistence that there are thousands of books out there to explain scripture and that you yourself don't have sufficient understanding to explain which parts are metaphor does smack of 'hiding behind obfuscation,' I can accept that this would be the case because there are plenty of humanists who have a very limited understanding of secular moral philosophy.

What I can't accept is giving that argument a blank cheque and making a conscious effort to ignore the ugly bits and whitewash god (and resolving paradoxes). Were all those plagues metaphor? Did god really mean that you were supposed to stone poeple for doing this and that? Does one really go to hell for sins like speaking blasphemies about the spirit?

The bible needs so much adjustment, correction, and reinterpretation that if it was any other historical text, it's overall validity would be highly suspect.

quote:
quote:
I have asked this before many times too. What parts are to be taken literally, and what parts metaphorically? How do you know?
You could spend years, a lifetime, learning the accumulated scholarly research of centuries. You could study the work of people who have done that. There are probably hundreds of thousands of books that explain scripture. We don't assume that we can understand Shakespeare without some knowledge, study etc. this is considerably more true when reading ancient religious texts.
Again, I understand this and the literary theories which rightly argue that total objectivity in a text is simply impossible. Yet there are moral absolutes in the bible, and even the metaphorical meanings of passages are often ugly. What kind of message is one to draw from Abraham and Isaac's story? You would have to twist rhetoric and manufacture arguments to conclude that it is anything other than that blind obedience to god is the right way.

quote:
Often the writing was hugely symbolic, and Jesus's actions were also symbolic much of the time. One example: when a gospel writer says that "Jesus stood" or "Jesus sat" that is significant to the listener, it is a clue about what is coming next. Body position was symbolic. If I recall, sitting was a teaching position, "Jesus sat" would be a clue to the listener that what comes next is a lesson.
That's fascinating, but are adulters still going to hell?

quote:
For example: The Fig Tree
I don't know much at all about this example. I wasn't the one to bring it up in this thread though. And yes, I understand that understanding certain passages can be extremely complicated.

quote:
*I am not calling Bronze Age (someone tell me if it is indeed Bronze Age) Jews children. I am talking about human understanding of God in general.
If we're refering to Jesus' life time, iron was around for over a millenium in the Middle East. Moses, I can't be sure about, especially since we can't date his existence accurately. IIRC the Hittites were the about the first to introduce iron weapons into the region. Wikipedia says maybe 14th century BCE.

Sorry I've repeated myself in my response. I think the same point of not giving convoluted interpretations a blank cheque applies to most of your examples and arguments.

BlackBlade,
quote:
quote:
Why is it unlikely? There are precedents indicating Moses and the Israelites didn't find rape as objectionable as we find it today. Consider for example Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Seems you did not read many of the preceding verses of the ones you quoted. Rape was capital offense in most cases. Only in the instances where the woman (if she was betrothed or married) objected, is the death sentence commuted. And in the verses you quoted it is not clear if the virginal woman is being raped or simply having sex with a man.
The preceding examples prescribe capital punishment, yes. But can you show me evidence that the actual verses I cited prescribe a fine and an obligation to marry, rather than execution? And yes it is quite clear that it is rape; it is preceded by "lay hold on her" and is one among a list of other rape laws.

quote:
Making the man pay 50 shekels and marrying the woman he had raped certainly would deter folks rolling around in the hay spontaneously and it would deter quite a few men from acting on their lusts.
Do you care about the woman and her choices?

What do you make of the rule regarding rape victims who don't scream loud enough when being "humbled" in the city?

quote:
quote:
And the Nazis didn't get all the Jews, either.
Oh please, it wasn't for lack of trying Euripides.
So it wouldn't be genocide if they made an exception for a certain subset of Jews? Like, say, collaborators?

You argued that the Midianite incident was technically not genocide because the virgins were spared. Is it always intent that defines genocide, or the act of destroying or mostly destroying a people?

quote:
quote:
You give god the benefit of the doubt in saying that there could be a complicated higher reason for acting immorally. Would you extend the same possibility to the Nazis?
Um...nope, the Nazis are not perfect and thus do not have a perfect understanding of all that is. If God was directing their actions then yes. God has not informed me that this is the case, so I continue to condemn their actions.
Can you tell me then; what is the difference between you and a religiously motivated terrorist, except your understanding of god's will?

quote:
quote:
Because I'm judging god, not bronze age humans.
Bear that in mind the next time somebody says OJ getting off with murder was terrible, your response if you are honest should be, "Sparing people from jail and being executed is a good thing, I am not judging OJ I am judging judge Ito."
How does that follow? I claimed that god's decision to smite the Israelites with plagues was evil. The fact that the Israelites acted immorally is not an excuse to me. Especially if god is the arbiter of good and evil, and apparently is all good and no evil.

quote:
What? God did not tell the Babylonians, "Hey go take some shots at Israel!" and though God can certainly cause a drought he can also know one is coming and refuse to inform his people while they are acting in a wicked manned, see the example of Joseph I cited for Tom.
No, he didn't tell the Babylonians to attack. But he created the Babylonians in the first place.

Lisa,
quote:
Also, the Hebrew term that's translated as "fear" means that, but it isn't synonymous with the English word in all its senses and connotations. It also means "awe". It also means "respect", in the sense of respecting and recognizing the relative positions of two or more parties. When we talk about fearing God, we don't mean cowering at an omnipotent being with lightning bolts at his disposal. We're talking about recognizing who God is and what His status is vis a vis us.
Okay, thanks for the information on the lost nuances.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

The preceding examples prescribe capital punishment, yes. But can you show me evidence that the actual verses I cited prescribe a fine and an obligation to marry, rather than execution? And yes it is quite clear that it is rape; it is preceded by "lay hold on her" and is one among a list of other rape laws.

Not sure if I understand what you are asking, the fine/marriage requirement are stated during and right after the verses you stated. Are you a Hebrew linguist? How do you know "lay hold of her" is a synonymous with "against her will?"

quote:

Do you care about the woman and her choices?

What do you make of the rule regarding rape victims who don't scream loud enough when being "humbled" in the city?

Don't ask questions you already know the answer to, of course I care about the woman and her choices, but as stated before the law of moses was not the perfect law of the gospel, it was a preparatory law, (at least to Christians it was.) And it has nothing to do with, "Screaming loud enough" it has to do with objecting to it in the first place. I seriously doubt if you gagged a girl or rendered her unconscious that she could then be liable and executed. Perhaps the oral torah sheds some light on these verses, ask some of our sons/daughters of Abraham hatrackers.

quote:

So it wouldn't be genocide if they made an exception for a certain subset of Jews? Like, say, collaborators?

You argued that the Midianite incident was technically not genocide because the virgins were spared. Is it always intent that defines genocide, or the act of destroying or mostly destroying a people?

Funny, usually intent is what is used to describe an action. Its how murder becomes manslaughter, and mistaken becomes perjury. If you want to cling to what was done, then yes, a people of a specific ethnicity were killed by the Israelites. But if the Midianites were some sort of conglomeration of ethnic groups like say the US the Israelites would have still done what they did. I think intent is more important then just misleadingly dropping the, "genocide" label, especially since genocide is usually used to describe something that was intended, Enders Game notwithstanding.

quote:

Can you tell me then; what is the difference between you and a religiously motivated terrorist, except your understanding of god's will?

What's the difference between you and an atheist who thinks the religious are a dangerous liability that need to be eliminated?

quote:

How does that follow? I claimed that god's decision to smite the Israelites with plagues was evil. The fact that the Israelites acted immorally is not an excuse to me. Especially if god is the arbiter of good and evil, and apparently is all good and no evil.

Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.

quote:

No, he didn't tell the Babylonians to attack. But he created the Babylonians in the first place.

So? As far as we know, He didn't make the Babylonians into the culture they became, that was their own doing. Are you suggesting God should not allow anyone who is not going to live a more or less perfect life to be born? Or else he is liable for the people who make evil choices? Well we are all glad that Jesus fall into that group, looks like the rest of us are screwed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Well good luck with your trying to make normal human beings better without using negative reinforcement at all.
Bear in mind that you're saying this to God. Does He need the luck?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2