God of the Bible as Flawed Human

my "prediction" that iano would twist his own words was hardly a "prophecy." he was already doing it, and has been doing nothing but twisting words for this entire thread and half the last.recognizing a pattern is not divine inspiration.

---

Arach,My current view is that humans are not rational. We can through circumstance and discipline acquire some rationality but it remains an acquired skill. Rhetorical persuassion, hucksterism, invalid arguments serve strong emotional desires and needs and those needs are frequently of greater value to an organism or group of organisms than are rational conclusions.Ian can read, and can think. It's not that he isn't intelligent it's that his intelligence is not in service to rationality but to satisfying his emotional needs. He's made clear what that is. He needs not only to believe in God but that his God has written an absolutely correct inerrant book for him.Ian is not going to abandon that conclusion. He will use all of his skills to rationalize this conclusion. There is no reasoning with Ian because reason threatens his primary value. He's happy with that value. Why be rational? Rationality is a tool. He can use it for work etc. but when it comes to science, archeology, bibical criticism his intelligence is in the service of protecting his highest values and rationality is of much less value to him.I guess that is what I came to EvC to learn. I hope I've learned it well. If some one wants Genesis to be literally true it's not difficult for them to disregard all the science in the world. If we had a thousand times the information we now have they would still choose YEC over science because rationality is a survival tool and they see their religion as their survival. Rational truth is not only not a value to them it's a threat and the human brain has no problem with that at all. Simply disbelieve what distresses you.In short Ian can and will argue the live long day. He will find a way to always reach his conclusions because those conclusions are what matter to him, not logic, not evidence, but the picture of the world that brings him security. In this he is simply a typical human being who has not made science and rationality a key value. They remain tools that are subject to his emotional preferences.lfen

i think you're right."answer not a fool..."

---

Well, taking that helmet off his head might help. Okay. Like the New Testament. The portrayal could be not accurate.And the portrayal could be propaganda. Now we usually have the idea that "propaganda" means false information. However, in itself that is not necessarily true. There can be true propaganda. There can be an effort to promote that which is true.I am convinced that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are propaganda of the true kind. No dounbt the writers are laboring to promote someone. My persuasion is that that Person whom they are promoting is not the figment of someone's imagination.I think He was someone who had a cataclysmic impact on the lives of those writers. And they gave themselves to write a promotion of this Person who had this powerful impact on their lives. They thought it was, uh, kind of important. They had an inkling that people elsewhere and in other times should really know about this man Jesus of Nazareth.The athiest says "Someone's trying to put one over on me !!!" Sure. You can talk about how you think you know better and that Moses, David, Abraham, Matthew, Luke, Paul, John and many apstles, prophets and witnesses should really come and learn a thing or two about what you know about God.Sure you can do that. I'll even listen for awhile as I have here. Now as for some of your analysis, I find it suspect. Sometimes I find it erroneous. The analysis simply is sometimes not very good. At best it comes off kind of biased. Like one is erecting something that one wants to throw stones at. At other times the analysis is not telling me a lot about the God's character. It is telling me a lot about the person who is analyzing. Often they are just speaking about the strivings of their own souls. Ooooo, bad word! "fundamentalist". Well, one of my early suspicions was that a book as candid as the Bible had to be up with something profound. There are sometimes when the Bible says things as if it knows that someone will object. For instance I don't like that Samuel says "an evil spirit from Jehovah". Now my theology doesn't like that. But he repeats it about five times as if to say "That's right! That's what I said. You heard me."This kind of candid speaking made me suspicious that the Bible was probably valid more than invalid. I like the fact that it rubs everyone the wrong way at least sometime. I don't think the person exists who likes everything written in the Bible. Probably Jesus was an exception with the written Scriptures then.I also was early impressed with the Psalms. There are 150 some of them. Many of them really show things from my perspective. They question God. They sometimes argue with God. They show wavering faith sometimes. They show frustration with enemies. They are so human. It was writings like this that began to make me think that these were authentic interactions with God. I could identify with these things.Also some of the failures recorded about prophets and men and women of God suspicioned me that this was very candid writing. Why would the Jews volunteer that their national king hero murdered a man and conspired to steal his wife ???All in all there is an uncanny candidness to the Bible that I do not see in say, the Quran.As for discreptions of God's character I think it is important to read all the way through. If I stopped at Genesis six I might consider that I knew all there was to know about God's character. But more is revealed in the subsequent books, book by book until you get to "the Word became flesh". Then the fullest revelation of God's character is seen in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ for man's salvation.Unfortunately, I see many skeptical types hone in on a verse or two and ride it forever that, this is all they need to know about God's character. One girl told me "Did you know that Elisha sicked bears on some kids because they called him baldy?" As far as she was concerned that was all she needed to know about the God of the Bible.I don't say that everyone here analyzing is that bad. But some are close. Did I answer your question or meander off? I like to get the whole picture. Paul wisely wrote "Behold the kindness and severity of God ..." (Romans 11:22a).Look not just at the kindness, not just at the severity, but at both together.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : Changed something I said.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Look not just at the kindness, not just at the severity, but at both together.

---

But that's just an extreme version of "Hitler liked dogs" - does the good cancel out the evil? Anyway in some respects that's not the argument - the argument is more about capacity. Is god capable of flawed or evil behaviour - if the bible is true, his own words seem to be "yes,yes and yes".Literalists would says "no,no.no" and that's when we get into silly word games to say a) the bible is the literal word of god but b) this literal bit is not so literal and actually means......It appears to many of us literalists want to have it both ways - to claim the support of a literal bible but to handwave away the bit of a literal bible they don't like and that are "off-message".Edited by CK, : No reason given.

LfenWhilst the discussion between myself and Arach is over, you are welcome to either dismantle the exposition of Pr 26:4/5 (msg 96 is a good place to start) or provide your own analysis of those verses which:a) takes into account all the words in the verses
b) terminates in "a brief pithy saying embodying a truth, a widely held belief or a piece of advice" - for that is what proverbs are.Alternatively, you can continue to post hollow rhetoric. That I will not be responding to.

then i guess the only conclusion we can draw is that lfen's post was not hollow rhetoric, since you responded.

---

and from jaywill, too. i'm quite impressed -- you and i have disagreed on a lot in the past. well, that is arguable. but let's assume (since it's out of the realm of debate for this thread). i believe he was real, and so do you. yes, and the gospels certainly are. they were written to promote early christian religion. the question is, how much of a grain of salt should we take such documents as? for instance, do you neccessarily believe everything you see in a comercial, on television, as the absolute truth? well, there's a problem with this argument, of course. we're not saying that we know better the prophets of the lord. on the contrary, that seems to be iano's position. we are quite literally quoting the prophets. do you think they know god a little better? again, should we take the word of isaiah, or the word of iano?i mean, iano might well know god better than isaiah. we are all children of god, and god reveals himself to whomever he chooses. i realize it looks that way, but that's not the idea. i have a very deep respect of, and love for god. but we're not talking about god -- we're talking about how the bible portrays god. the question we are looking at his how the people wrote the bible -- those great prophets -- understood their relationship with, and similarities to god. i know it's not what you're thinking, but i hope it tells you that i am honest. i am more interested in knowing and understanding what the bible has to say about god, honestly, than trying to play games to get it to line up with my own beliefs and theology.the point that iano (i think) was getting at is that god is benevolent, and loving force, who occasionally uses evil as a tool to accomplish a greater good. it's not the most comforting position, but it's a realistic one. and it's one that i whole heartily agree with. but i am not interested in twisting the bible to make it fit my picture god, and i am not interested in semantics. i'm not interested in taking such a valuable and moving text as the bible, and homogenizing it into something easily palatable.the analogy i've made before is that this would be like taking a gourmet 7-course meal, and putting it into a food processor so we can drink it through a straw. i'd rather chew my meat, and savor the individual flavors. there are people here who approach the bible in a way that elevates it to the level of an idol. the bible is the word of god -- so anything said about the bible applies to god. afterall,

quote:

---

Jhn 1:1 ...the Word was God.

---

i think it is wrong for someone to look in an analysis of the bible and the opinions of its authors and say "you're attacking god!" we're doing no such thing. we're reading the text, and thinking about it. it's not my fault is someone's god happens to be the bible itself. yes, i get similar feelings, that the bible is profound. otherwise, well, i wouldn't study it. i'm more interesting in the way samuel thought of god's relationship to evil, than this modern one that essentially cripples god by definition. you know, i'm not even sure about that. he certainly seemed to emphasize one interpretation over others, and contradicted a few things here and there. well, this is the very thing i think fundamentalism robs the bible of -- its humanity. the psalms (and lamentations) can be very moving testaments of how someone related to their god. the position that they (along with everything in the bible) were written by god himself is not only silly, but destroys that relationship.i think the bible is much more valuable as a human text. to remind us that we are all humans, and we all fail at times. and that god forgives us. i can't comment. i have not read the quran. (when i get around to it, i'll let you know) yes, and if you look back a bit (first of second page) in this thread, that's one of the things i took care to mention. god is portrayed in many, many different ways, by many different people, at many different times, and in many different voices and styles. pidgeonholing god into any one interpretation, and saying "this is how the bible describes god" will probably be wrong. it doesn't matter if it's that god is good, or that god is evil. or if god is perfect, or very human. god is all of those things.maintaining the consistency of the bible robs it of those differences (contradictions, even), and the different interpretations and relationships with god. well, in my opinion, it is every bit as wrong to force god into the other hole. saying god is solely good is also denying large segments of the bible. the more skeptical-types like to bring up examples like that because it specifically counters the equally wrong claims of the fundamentalists. (though, admittedly, alot have very little else on their minds than proving some fundies wrong, lol) sure, agreed. but here we like to split things up a little -- we're looking at one particular interpretation of god that is presented in various places of the bible: that god is every bit as human as we are. it's important that we acknowledge this presentation -- the reason they wrote of god that was because it presented a more identifiable god. one we could understand, and one we knew understood us.but again, very early on in this thread, i also brough up that there are other portrayals too. many, for instance, have god being completely foreign, abstract, and some incredibly holy that we burst into flames from several hundred feet.

---

no no, see.i am a literalist in regards to my opinion that the bible should be read literally. iano and co. are literalists in regards to their opinion that the bible is literally true. they often have to compromise the literal reading to make it appear true -- ie: by removing conflicts, and bending the text a little to get it to fit with itself, or with reality.

---

Had a quick recce to see if responding to this would enable your prophecy to come true. It won't - because it will not be my words I am "twisting" and "distorting" in order to make a point. It will be your words. Opinion. Your starting assumption is that the Bible should be read literally. Fair enough Opinion. My & Co.'s starting assumption is that the Bible is literally true*. Fair enough My question is: what is the problem with me 'compromising' a literal reading of the bible if I don't hold that that is the way the Bible should be read? I am only compromising anothers opinion as to how they think the Bible should be read.It seems to me that a literal reading of the Bible would have us supposing that Jesus appearance, far from being a bit of a mystery, is as plain as day. He would have looked like a loaf of bread for he says "I am the bread of life".*For the record and to offset the discomfort I have with one such as Arach defining my postion for me, I myself would describe myself as a biblical literalist in the following sense of the word literal. The Bible is the word of God (the familiar phrase).
The Bible is physically the word of God.
The Bible really is the word of God.
The Bible is, literally, the word of God.Iano, the Biblical Literalist. Not that I think Jesus looked even remotely like a loaf of bread.

this was essentially what i said. you do not read the bible in a literal fashion, you read in a fashion that is an attempt to make it literally true. quite ironically, you twisted no one's words.other than god's, that is. however, it's pretty clear you don't undertstand the first thing about what "literal" actually means. there is such a thing as being "overliteral." when a person speaks in obvious idioms, obvious metaphors, and parables, they are probably trying to get a symbolic meaning. as i described earlier in this thread, identification of the purpose that drives a verse is part of the literal reading. when the context says that it's a parable, or anthropomorphisation, or whatever the opposite of that is, you don't read that as being literal -- literally true. jesus was not literally a loaf of bread. nobody in the right minds (except maybe catholics) think that.besides, if jesus was bread, it'd be unlevened, not a loaf.

---

Of course it is arguable. The crucifixion proves that. That was an argument. Yes, I believe that He was real and that He is alive and can be known.But even from a non spiritual point of view, I have more reason to believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed then I do that Socrates did or many other famous ancient figures. I certainly have as much reason to believe Jesus lived as I do that Julius Ceasar lived.But of all I believe He lived because I met Jesus myself. Or let me put it this way. When I met God I met Jesus. And when I met Jesus I met God. There is no quetion that the gospels are propoganda. As I said I believe that they are propoganda of the true type. For example to assist my daughter in a book report on the Holocaust I took out some videos from the public library on the subject. They were grim. They were also propoganda. My opinion is that the propoganda was true.I take the New Testament to contain true propoganda. But even more interesting is to take a letter like Second Corinthians and see HOW this figure Jesus effected the daily life of Paul the Apostle. It becomes even more convicing that Christ lived, died, and resurrected to be known in the form of the life giving Spirit - "The last Adam [Christ] became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) I guess to follow you here I should go back and review "iano's position". I was pretty much talking to you.Let me move on on this comment. I'm not saying its not important. My only comment is that "reading the Bible as a literalist" has some problems for me. Obviosly there are things to be taken literally in the Bible and it is also filled with allegories and parables. There are symbols and shadows. There are historical events with symbolic meaning in their details.So I think it takes some time, perhaps a life time, to carefully sort out things and how they should be understood. For example in Genesis one the dry land came up on the third day. I believe from the standpoint of the vision the prophet is discribing that is what he saw. I also believe that it was revealed to him in that way because it points to the Son of God rising from the dead on the third day, which event was not to happen for thousands of years afterwards.So the label "Literalist" has some difficulties for me. It is like a neat way of labeling something which actually involves more. I think I am honest too. But I don't trust myself that much. The Bible tells me that the heart of man is "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked."I confess that my heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. That is one reason why I so desperately need a salvation. And I believe I have found such a salvation in the Savior Christ.Even to this very moment I am willing to tell God that I know that I am a deceived man and that my heart even in reading the Bible and supposedly searching for truth in it, is desperately wicked.Have to go now.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I'm afraid I do understand. If, for example, I read Jesus saying "I am the bread.." I employ various tools (rooted in starting assumptions) to suppose that he is not describing himself in literal terms. And if you don't think he is describing himself in literal terms then presumably you are doing as I am - employing tools rooted in your own starting presumptions. You say as much yourself.. So, neither of us read "I am the bread" in a literal sense. Good. What seems to be occurring in your frequent rubbishing of the way in which I & Co read the Bible is an assumption that your way of arriving at conclusions is the correct one and mine & co's way, the incorrect one. In other words: you assume your starting assumptions to be the correct ones. That is fine insofar as your own personal study goes: assume what you like. But your assumption provides you with no basis for your assuming the higher ground in a debate. Your rubbishing remains, in effect, assertion until something more concrete comes along to indicate why it is your starting assumptions should hold sway.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : Application of Pr 26:4

sounds like a great point, iano, but there's one problem.what starting assumptions do i have?you are trying to pretend that thoughtful analysis of the text is on the same level as forcing a particular view onto it. they just are not. i have demonstrated how many of my views are overturned; you have demonstrated how many of your views overturn the bible.

---

a proper literal reading contains an analysis of the context and function of a text -- so for instance, we can infer quite easily from the context that "the prodigal son" is not a true story in regards to this specific story happening (though similar things likely have). we can tell from the context that it is a device that jesus uses to illustrate a true point. that's part of a good literal reading.on top of the literal reading, we build a teaching, symbolic meanings, etc. but the literal has to come first. ...i don't see it. i think we should also avoid trying to read too much more into the bible, symbolically, than is quickly and reasonably apparent. drawing connections across the bible, and across time and belief, saying "oh, this really means that, and that really means this" usually just leads us to wrong conclusions. heart, not mind. i think it is a fundamental error to not engage our brains in reading the text.

---