cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (06/03/91)
In article <May.30.00.12.11.1991.13903@athos.rutgers.edu>, jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >I am free to make any opinion I choose regarding the 'wrongness' of >Biblical writers. But then I am a non-believer. There seems to be a >certain amount of 'smorgasboard' approaches to Bible writers. My >prejudices are based more on reading the Bible and take essentially >at face value the statements. > So you read the Bible like a fundamentalist, thats fine. >Some conclusions I have come to are that a number of statements of >morality and existentialism that are given in the Bible are WRONG. >However, if one beleives the Bible to be the word of the Diety, one >can not dismiss the statements of one author while holding some >other dear. > I think you misunderstand non-fundamentalist approachs to the Bible. It is not a case of dismissing some statements and loving others on the basis of authorship. Every last word written in the Bible has a ``setting in life'', to borrow a phrase. This means that there are five things which are important which we should understand before we come to the text itself. They are 1. Who wrote it? 2. Where did they write it? 3. When did they write it? 4. To whom did they write it? 5 Why did they write it? Most commentaries that you pick up will address these questions in an introductory section before they come to comment on the text itself. Often they will make further comments on each section as they go along. Once you have an understanding of these questions you are in a much better position to determine whether the passage is directly applicable to your situation now. Another factor to consider is whether the passage is prose or poetry. You should understand a passage differently if the passage is in poetry because the word picture being created is more important that the precise words being used. A problem with the fundamentalist approach, as I have experienced it, is that they treat poetry with the same literalness as prose. A substantial part of the Hebrew scriptures are poetry. > >If you wish to accept a 'canon' which has these writers expunged >then be ready to accept complaints from those who do not agree. > While I often find the ``quote and kill'' methods of fundamentalists hard to take (by that I mean they will quote a verse and expect all discussion of the point to cease) I do respect their right to read the Bible in the manner they do. > >The Bible does teach, for certain classes of people, discrimnation >even genocide. A 'tour' of ancient Israelite history will have at >every turn "Distroy and lay waste" as how to deal with other >non-Israelites. On some occassions certain of the 'enemies' were >granted a stay of execution, "take the un-married women for wives, >but distory the rest". > As you read the Bible like a fundamentalist I can certainly see how you reach your conclusions. There are other ways of reading the Bible which, in my opinion are more valid, which would not lead you to the same conclusion. One is to view the writings as a stuggle to understand God. There are a number of passages in the Old Testament which I read and from my vantage point all I can say is that they got it wrong because we know now that God isn't like that. > >Some of the OT statements have been interpreted to be only for >these ancient Hebrews, but in many cases, such as 'morality' laws, >these are accepted as 'for Christians' as well. Where the 'it >applies to Christians as well' stops has been much debated relative >to setting up earthly kingdoms by force of arms. It seems the only >thing Christians can agree on is that they need not sacrifice >animals or gather at the temple in Jerusalem. >-- There was in the very early church church some agreement on what laws applied to whom. There are a set of seven laws which are known as the laws of Noah which were understood by both Jews and Christians to apply to non-Jews, that is still the position of Jews today. I believe that the majority of christians have never heard of the laws of Noah and so this is why they argue about what is applicable and what is not. The remainder of the legal sections are in a very real sense optional for non-Jews. However, many have found them conveinient to use as expansions of the laws of Noah when examining a detailed situation. Many have found the more detailed moral teachings to be helpful but find such things as the food laws of no direct bearing on their day-to-day life. This is a quite legitimate use of the legal sections of the Bible. Just for the record here are the seven laws. (I use men in an inclusive sense.) 1. Men may not worship idols. 2. Men may not blaspheme God. 3. Men must establish courts of justice. 4. Men may not commit murder. 5. Men may not commit adultery. 6. Men may not steal. 7. Men may not eat flesh cut from a living animal. The last law has often been reinterpreted in modern times to prohibit cruelty to animals. > >John Clark -- ___ Bill Rea (o o) -------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w--- | Bill Rea, University of Canterbury, | E-Mail b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- [The discussion of the Noachic laws is normally connected to Acts 15 --clh]
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/04/91)
In article <Jun.3.00.12.53.1991.28444@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
+
+So you read the Bible like a fundamentalist, thats fine.
+
No I read the Bible as a historical document just as the Iliad is.
There is some 'truth' to the history but there is much fable. There
are mention of a group of people, the Diety of that people, and the
Diety's command to them.
I also read the Bible as a source for much culture in the west,
since nearly 2 millenia have been devoted to it's study and most
philosophical/societal problems and solutions have in someway been
influenced by it in european society.
I also don't feel a great need to believe its tenants on human life
and the existence of a diety. However, if I went through various
portions of the text and picked out the 'good' (being defined by me
or those who agree with me) and left the bad (for those who disagree
with me) does that make me 'Christian'. I believe that if one
subscribes to the name one must take the Bible essentially as it
stands for better or worse. To do otherwise says I've invented a new
religion.
When I read passages which essentially state that the Diety has
commanded that all the inhabitants of a certain place be killed I do
not interpret this as 'an exploration of the nature of Godliness', I
take it to be just what it is, genocide. You may explain or
rationalize such commands away but it still remains that the OT had
a vengful diety. And further if there were only one place where
such comands were issued I could agree that we could discount the
one in view of the many places were the Diety commanded 'accept the
others as brothers'. In the OT there may be few if any (I can't recall
any off hand) commands to 'accept others'. The closest one sees of this
is after the state of Israel and Judah are take into captivity, one
sees a certain 'acceptence' of the other.
I do beleive Christians have some number of texts which indicate
brotherly love, however it would seem that some number are quick to
take up the attitudes of the OT relative to 'others'.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.educctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (06/10/91)
In article <Jun.3.23.59.14.1991.11582@athos.rutgers.edu>, jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >In article <Jun.3.00.12.53.1991.28444@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: >+ >+So you read the Bible like a fundamentalist, thats fine. >+ This could be taken as being derogatory, it was not inteded as such, my apologies if it caused offense. >I also don't feel a great need to believe its tenants on human life >and the existence of a diety. However, if I went through various >portions of the text and picked out the 'good' (being defined by me >or those who agree with me) and left the bad (for those who disagree >with me) does that make me 'Christian'. I assume that you are asking a rhetorical question, but if you are not I would point out that whether a person is a Christian or not is not in any way dependant on their attitude to the Bible. In fact it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and not even be aware of the existence of the Bible. Just ask a missionary who has done pioneering work where the Bible has not been translated in the language of the people being reached. >I believe that if one >subscribes to the name one must take the Bible essentially as it >stands for better or worse. To do otherwise says I've invented a new >religion. As a non-beleiver you are entitled to your opinions and I respect them as such. If as a non-beleiver are trying to tell me as a beleiver how I must take the Bible, then I reject your opinions as not being applicable to me. This new thread arose out of a discussion about whether certain aspects of the Bible were based upon the culture of the time in which it was written and so were not *directly* applicable to all suitations for all time. I would answer yes, there are many things in the Bible which reflect the culture in which it was written and we should be deligent to study the culture and background of the writings to understand them better, and apply them to our lives better. I am opposed to taking New Testament teachings and turning them into laws with which to force people into submission. A cardinal teaching of the New Testament is that we should be lead by the Holy Spirit rather than submit ourselves to a collection of externally formulated laws. Far from being a new religion as you suggest, this is well within the mainstream of Christianity. Many Christians do have an order of authority which they ascribe to the various books of the Bible, many do this unconsiously though. The Hebrew Bible has a clear order of authority. It is 1. The Torah 2. The Prophets 3. The Writings. Since the Christian Bible has jumbled up this order it is hard to see. I partially understand my own ordering of authority and it runs something like this (this is not a rigid ordering). 1. Synoptic Gospels 2. The Torah 3. The Latter Prophets 4. New Testament Letters 5. The Former Prophets 6. The Writings 7. The Acts of the Apostles There are two books which I don't quite know what to do with, they are the Gospel of John and Revelations. For many Christians I know, their number one authority is (are?) the letters of Paul. While I do not agree, I think that we are both well within the mainstream of Christianity. >When I read passages which essentially state that the Diety has >commanded that all the inhabitants of a certain place be killed I do >not interpret this as 'an exploration of the nature of Godliness', I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Come now, lets be reasonable, I didn't say that. >take it to be just what it is, genocide. You may explain or >rationalize such commands away but it still remains that the OT had >a vengful diety. I suspect you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said, but in case you weren't... If you take a single passage and look at it in exclusion of all others you can find a passage that would tell you just about anything. What I was attempting to suggest is that the chosen people grew in their understanding of God as time progressed. Most of the genocidal activity occured early in the Israelite history, even before the rise of the monarchy. It would seem to me that they perceived their God in nationalistic terms and did not fully, maybe not even partially, understand Him as the one and only one God, Lord and creator of the Universe. As time progressed who they understood God to be certainly changed. Isaiahs' vision in the Temple was of God whose glory filled the whole earth. Their understanding of God changed a lot in the time of the exile. The tremendous clash of competeing theologies in the time of Jeremiah and Ezekial was primarily over their understanding of Gods' covenants, and hence His nature. [snip] > >John Clark -- ___ Bill Rea (o o) -------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w--- | Bill Rea, University of Canterbury, | E-Mail b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cole@maverick.uswest.com (Cole Keirsey) (06/11/91)
The following appeared in a dialog between John Clark and Bill Rea. >When I read passages which essentially state that the Diety has >commanded that all the inhabitants of a certain place be killed I do >not interpret this as 'an exploration of the nature of Godliness', I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Come now, lets be reasonable, I didn't say that. >take it to be just what it is, genocide. You may explain or >rationalize such commands away but it still remains that the OT had >a vengful diety. I suspect you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said, but in case you weren't... If you take a single passage and look at it in exclusion of all others you can find a passage that would tell you just about anything. What I was attempting to suggest is that the chosen people grew in their understanding of God as time progressed. Recently, I was reading a work by an anthropologist that discussed the evolution of religion. The author said (I'm paraphrasing roughly) "Even though many modern churches emphasize a God of love who isn't explicitly male, they can't escape the fact that the Judeo-Christian God is a male warrior God." To my way of thinking, that author might as well have said "Even though modern astronomers talk about a round earth and relativistic space, they can't escape the time-honored acedemic tradition of a flat earth at the center of the universe." The fact that humanity's understanding of God has been limited by human nature doesn't imply that God's nature is limited by our understanding. C. C. Keirsey
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (06/11/91)
In article <Jun.9.14.37.24.1991.25007@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
I partially understand my own ordering of authority and it
runs something like this (this is not a rigid ordering).
1. Synoptic Gospels
2. The Torah
3. The Latter Prophets
4. New Testament Letters
5. The Former Prophets
6. The Writings
7. The Acts of the Apostles
There are two books which I don't quite know what to do with, they
are the Gospel of John and Revelations. For many Christians I know,
their number one authority is (are?) the letters of Paul. While I do not
agree, I think that we are both well within the mainstream of Christianity.
Interesting. I'd like to see what other think of this ordering. I
like the concept, and I'd like to present my own ordering of authority
(though I'm not entirely comfortable with that phrase):
1. Synoptic Gospels
2. Latter Prophets, spiritual statements of John, 1 John, and the
authentic Pauline letters (which all have a quite similar feeling)
3. The Writings (though the Psalms are not the words of God, but the
words of people striving to understand God, and not doing so
completely)
4. The Torah, the Former Prophets, Revelation
5. The unauthentic Pauline letters and the Catholic Epistles; the
"historical" accuracy of John
I'm not sure if I could break things down any more than this. The
authentic Pauline letters are taken by me as Romans, 1 and 2
Corinthians, Philippians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon, and
possibly Colossians. The unauthentic letters are then Ephesians, 2
Thessalonians, maybe Colossians, Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy, and of course
Hebrews.
There is a clear preference here for "spiritual" statements and
general forms of guidance over specific laws. Also important to
understand is the hermeneutic I apply. I read the Pauline letters (of
either sort) as advice to specific congregations in a specific time,
and I don't think the details of the advice directly apply to today.
Similarly, I don't accept a Darbyist reading of Revelation. I can't
go into my reading here, because it would be too long. At some point
perhaps I will elaborate on that. Rest assured that I don't read the
text the way Hal Lindsey et. al. do.
-mibjclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/12/91)
In article <Jun.10.23.40.38.1991.1642@athos.rutgers.edu> cole@maverick.uswest.com (Cole Keirsey) writes:
+ "modern theory of the development of the concept of the Diety"...
+To my way of thinking, that author might as well have said "Even though
+modern astronomers talk about a round earth and relativistic space, they
+can't escape the time-honored acedemic tradition of a flat earth at the
+center of the universe."
There are a number of mind sets which we still retain although the
scientific evidence for a completely different view is well known.
The most obvious example is which do you say "Sun's Up" or "the
earth has turned on it's axis to the point that the sun now appears
on the eastern horizon relative to my local coordinate system".
The same seems to be popular in non-religious investigations of the
development of religions (if that's not an oxymoron at all). Such
researchers offer a explanation of why(or how) people develop the
diety concept and of course they are not eoeo-centric'. Which is
probably you real criticism.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edujabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jonathan A Bishop) (06/12/91)
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >In article <Jun.9.14.37.24.1991.25007@athos.rutgers.edu> cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: > I partially understand my own ordering of authority and it > runs something like this (this is not a rigid ordering). > 1. Synoptic Gospels ... > 7. The Acts of the Apostles I don't quite see why Acts is at the bottom. It was written by Luke and intended to accompany Luke's Gospel. -------- jabishop@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
cole@maverick.uswest.com (Cole Keirsey) (06/22/91)
John Clark writes: > >[non-religious] researchers offer a explanation of why(or how) people >develop the diety concept and of course they are not eoeo-centric'. Which is >probably you real criticism. > "Eoeo-centric" is a new one on me -- from context, I take it to mean God-centered. I'm not necessarily critical of of scientific research that isn't God-centered. I think the big bang and the evolution of species are perfectly reasonable theories about the physical universe. (IMHO, creationists are wasting their energy on an argument that isn't very important to faith.) I believe that our relationship to God is spiritual, and we shouldn't look to the physical sciences for direct evidence of that relationship. Of course, many people who have faith see evidence of God's love throughout their experience. When a cultural anthropologist undertakes to explain humanity's relationship to God scientifically, things get complicated. In the case in question, I think the author should have said at the outset "I believe that God exists only as a human concept." Instead, that assumption about God was hidden in the conclusions, which were presented as based solely on the scientific evidence. I criticized the research, not for its humanist point of view, but for dishonesty. By the same token, if a researcher who believed in God were doing the same research, he or she should state that point of view. I see no reason to accept as a matter of course that a researcher's explanation of faith should not be God-centered. One reasonable explanation for people's belief in God is that God exists. I think it's a myth that doing scientific research is incompatible with faith in God.
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/23/91)
In article <Jun.22.00.27.46.1991.6367@athos.rutgers.edu> cole@maverick.uswest.com (Cole Keirsey) writes: +John Clark writes: +>.... >"Eoeo-centric" is a new one on me -- from context, I take it to mean Uh, 'Theo-centric'.... +I see no reason to accept as a matter of course that a +researcher's explanation of faith should not be God-centered. +One reasonable explanation for people's belief in God is that God exists. Another is that people wish that God exists. I also wish that Christians who do not feel a great animosity towards 'non-deistic' scientific explanations would be more vocal relative to the few who have some animosity. Like other religious activities the vocal minority seem to present 1) they have the truth 2) all others are more or less wrong. And further, it is a certain intellectual moral lapse not to state ones own beliefs when reviewing the beliefs of others. However, I amoung others don't always start my posts with 'I'm a non-believer...'. Although that may cut some of the posts that I get I don't I have hidden that fact in what I say. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu