Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Between A Rock & A Hard Place
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 6 of 67 (514741)
07-11-2009 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
07-11-2009 10:06 AM


What to Believe
quote:
I don't even know what I believe anymore, except that I know that I DO believe that Jesus is alive, was and is Gods character and died for all of our collective sins and imperfections. I have no problems with Jesus or with God.
You do know what you believe. You've pieced together what you believe from the Christian dogma and traditions you've encountered. You've kept what's comfortable for you.
quote:
I DO have problems with the Bible being inerrant (without any mistakes, errors, or human goofs) chiefly because it just doesn't make sense to me.
What doesn't make sense?
quote:
My critics tell me that my brand of Christianity is flawed because it implies that some people are special. Chosen. Set apart from the rest of humanity. They hint at the fact that this idea is actually a doctrine of humans who sought to control others through this belief.
Judaism was for a chosen set of people. Christianity also presents that those who believe are a chosen people. This concept isn't new. Most tribes thought they were chosen people. That's why they had their own gods. Christianity is a religion that tries to control.
quote:
Additionally, I have been told by more than a few educated scientifically minded critical thinkers that the idea of a Young Earth, a Global Flood, and a literal Talking Snake are just too ridiculous to be embraced by any rational thinker. They hint at the idea that I should question the reasons behind believing in a perfect Bible when evidence clearly shows the Bible and the characters contained within are the fodder of a story and not of actual facts.
Why the need for all or nothing? Why must it be perfect or totally flawed?
The problem is putting unreasonable expectations on ancient writings.
Do you read a current poem and look for facts?
Do you listen to a song and listen for facts?
Do you read fiction looking for facts?
Books and movies based on real events employ creative license to make the story interesting. The ancients are were no different. They had purposes for their writings. What is based on fact and what is creative license is very difficult to discern 2000 years later. That's why we try to discern what the writer's purpose for writing and what the respective writers were trying to tell their audience. We weren't the audience. We weren't meant to understand idioms, slang, humor, etc. of their time.
quote:
The flip side of this is that I also don't believe them when they go so far as to say that religion is all man-made and that the stories are less than perfect. Like I said, I don't know whether to be on one side, the other side, or no side at all. I just know that I need to pray and allow the Holy Spirit to help me sort it all out.
Religion is man-made. You're expecting perfection (a manmade notion) 2000 years later from writings that may have been "perfect" for the audience.
Jay Leno's jokes are for the current audience, not 2000 years in the future.
Red Skelton's jokes were for his time. Anyone listening to his radio show today will not understand the jokes concerning the pop culture or the political issues of the time. Trust me, I've listened to them.
Understand that everything changes with time. Even God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 07-11-2009 10:06 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-12-2009 11:16 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 10 of 67 (514769)
07-12-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Hyroglyphx
07-12-2009 11:16 AM


Re: What to Believe
quote:
It's not his fault. That's how the bible presents itself. The New Testament claimed infallibility for the NT and the OT. As Peg said, it all goes back to the bible. If anything is wrong in it, then the all the pieces come crashing to the ground.
The Bible doesn't present itself. It simply contains various writings collected over may centuries.
Which author or authors claim that the other writings within the Bible are infallible?
Which author or authors claim the idea of all or nothing?
Which author or authors claim the other writings must be viewed as absolutely perfect or absolutely flawed?
The only pieces that come tumbling down are man made dogma and tradition. If the writings in the Bible don't support a current religious teaching, who is really wrong? The writer or the current teacher? I would say the current teacher is wrong.
quote:
They could avoid all that if they simply realized that 70% of the bible is an historical chronicling of the Hebrew people and 30% is poetry and symbolism.
As I said, the writings weren't written for our time. They were written for a specific audience and a specific time.
Edited by purpledawn, : Added thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-12-2009 11:16 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by themasterdebator, posted 07-12-2009 6:39 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-12-2009 7:23 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 22 of 67 (514822)
07-13-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hyroglyphx
07-12-2009 7:23 PM


Re: What to Believe
quote:
So are you saying that the bible itself doesn't teach the doctrine of infallibility, but dogma does?
The Bible doesn't teach. It isn't alive. The authors may have taught through their writings or people teach from the writings within the Bible.
Besides, I asked first? You said that's how the Bible presents itself. You said the New Testament claimed infallibility for the NT and the OT. Show me.
Which author or authors claim that the other writings within the Bible are infallible?
Which author or authors claim the idea of all or nothing?
Which author or authors claim the other writings must be viewed as absolutely perfect or absolutely flawed?
Infallible
If the writings in the Bible don't support a current religious teaching, who is really wrong? The writer or the current teacher? I would say the current teacher is wrong.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-12-2009 7:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2009 5:07 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 24 of 67 (514824)
07-13-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by themasterdebator
07-12-2009 6:39 PM


Re: What to Believe
quote:
So then God did not intend the Bible for all people?
Unfortunately we don't have any writing that gives us God's opinion on the various Biblical canons.
quote:
Only a specific audience and a specific time?
That's what I said. The writers wrote for their own people in their own language, not for people of other languages or in the far future. The redactors and the editors did their work for their time, not the far future.
If the writers in the Bible really intended their manuscripts to be read by me, they would have written it in English and would have stayed away from idioms and slang or explained them.
Writers write for their audience and their time. When I write to someone I know is uncomfortable with the English language, I try not to use slang, catch phrases, or idioms. If I use them, I explain them.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by themasterdebator, posted 07-12-2009 6:39 PM themasterdebator has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 27 of 67 (514849)
07-13-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by caffeine
07-13-2009 6:01 AM


Re: What to Believe
quote:
You could argue this isn't a claim of inerrancy, but the Bible is capable of making reference to itself.
Unfortunately when personifying the Bible today people tend to forget it was a process.
The letter supposedly written by Paul in 2 Timothy (100-150CE) wasn't written by Paul and wasn't referring to itself. The writer would have been referring to the Jewish Canon.
Just because the writings have been clumped together, is it really accurate to say the writer was referring to the compilation that contains his writing or is it better to understand what scriptures the writer was actually referring to?
Due to changes in the presentation of the writings, our view is very different from the writer's.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by caffeine, posted 07-13-2009 6:01 AM caffeine has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 39 of 67 (514936)
07-14-2009 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Peg
07-14-2009 2:46 AM


How can you say in Message 33:
Peg writes:
the bible should be read with the purpose of understanding 'IT'
not with the purpose of understanding the dogma that's being taught.
and then turn around and say:
Peg writes:
According to Jesus, the serpent lied. he called Satan "a liar and the the father of the Lie"
Assuming you are talking about John 8:44, Jesus did not say the snake in the Garden lied to Eve. He also didn't say that Satan was a liar in that verse. Dogma has lumped Satan and the Devil together.
Diabolos means prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely. Since a diabolos is someone who is prone to false statements or lies, what better word to personify than diabolos as the father of the lie?
This is what causes confusion. Our English translations are set up to support dogma, not necessarily what the writer's wrote. This makes it more difficult for the average person to discern what the writer's in the Bible were trying to tell their audience and whether these writings truly support what the clergy or evangelists present as doctrine.
I agree the writings of the Bible should be read to understand what the writer's were trying to tell their target audiences. It should not be read in the light of tradition and dogma of the present. Your posts seem to waffle between the two.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Peg, posted 07-14-2009 2:46 AM Peg has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 54 of 67 (515366)
07-17-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
07-15-2009 11:32 AM


Who is It?
quote:
If you notice Heb. 11:6 does not give you an option of believing or not believing.
It says you "MUST BELIEVE" that "God IS"
It says you "MUST BELIEVE" that "God IS" a "REWARDER" of them that "diligently SEEK HIM"
You're saying that the unknown writer of the letter to the Hebrews tells us that we don't have an option to believe or not believe in God's existence. I disagree.
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him
The statement is common sense. A person who didn't believe God existed wouldn't go to God or worry about pleasing him. It really isn't telling us anything that isn't obvious. It's not telling us we must trust everything told to us about God.
The writer, like many religious writers, is trying to give Christianity a shot in the arm.
The Epistle to the Hebrews - Goodspeed
They must be shown the immense value of the religion they had come to take as a matter of course, and they must be told how awful the consequences of renouncing it would be. Apathy must be cured and apostasy prevented.
It is obvious that one must believe in a god's existence before one can intentionally approach a god, but one doesn't have to believe everything said about any specific god.
That's what we deal with when it comes to dogma, tradition, and the writer's of the Bible. Religious teachers and writers do try to make believers feel they aren't allowed to question the doctrine presented.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 07-15-2009 11:32 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 07-17-2009 10:02 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 58 of 67 (515507)
07-18-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ICANT
07-17-2009 10:02 PM


Re: Who is It?
quote:
The book of Hebrews was written to a specific group of born again believers. It was not written to everybody in general.
I agree. It was written for a specific audience at a specific time.
quote:
The verse I quoated that you requoted says it is impossible to please God.
No the writer said without faith it is impossible to please God. Common sense. Hard to please what one doesn't believe to exist.
As the writer says at the beginning of the chapter: Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
quote:
It says you "MUST BELIEVE" that "God IS"
It says you "MUST BELIEVE" that "God IS" a "REWARDER" of them that "diligently SEEK HIM"
The writer says that those who come to God must believe that he is, etc.
Again common sense. If one doesn't believe that something exists, they don't seek it.
11:39-40
These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
IOW, the writer had to rejuvenate the religion since the kingdom hadn't come as expected and reboot the apocalyptic enthusiasm.
Edgar Goodspeed
Forty years had now passed since Paul had written Romans. The Roman church was in its second generation. Roman Christians had grown up in the faith. It had been familiar to them from childhood. Most of them had never known any other. They came of Christian parents and had never thought of being anything but Christians. But the primitive apocalyptic expectations had waned. The great distinctive values of Christianity had grown dim. The early enthusiasm had evaporated. Christianity was coming to be an old story. Apathy was pervading the church.
The writer is imitating Paul's writing style which means he is building to a point.
12:1
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.
The writer then moves on to basically say hang tough and keep behaving.
12:7 Endure hardship as discipline:...
12:14 Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.
IOW, the writer wants the people trust that God will come through with the promises.
quote:
My congregation can question anything I teach and my people do.My congregation can question anything I teach and my people do.
Just as we have the right to question the writer of Hebrews.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 07-17-2009 10:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024