Originally posted by StarrmanYou really think the Bible is supposed to be like some colour by numbers kiddies book? If Christians were not being selective and thoughtful about these things then you would accuse us of not thinking for ourselves ...
Charlatans and misdirectors, the lot of them.
You play a very well rehearsed game of "heads I win , tails you lose" that has everything to do with cementing your position and nothing to do with any attempt to move beyond kindergarten theology....
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm asking you to pinpoint exactly how it is that every Christian can choose xyr own faith, based upon a selective interpretation of the bible and yet claim that god is A or B etc. What's the difference, for example, between Paul's writings and those of any other theologist? Why do you accept the interpretation you do and under what authority do you claim it to be a correct one? What you see as kindergarten theology is what is clearly your inability to logically reconcile a subjective notion of god with an objective world and the subjective faiths of others.
You really think the Bible is supposed to be like some colour by numbers kiddies book? If Christians were not being selective and thoughtful about these things then you would accuse us of not thinking for ourselves ...
You play a very well rehearsed game of "heads I win , tails you lose" that has everything to do with cementing your position and nothing to do with any attempt to move beyond kindergarten theology....
Originally posted by vistesdIt's that responsibility I'm attacking, and the notion of the set of all Christians each believing in their own god, with their own faith etc. essentially undermining the notion of a Christian as any collective noun.
Jaroslav Pelikan, in his The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (volume 1), notes the following: “There was no early Christian who simultaneously acknowledged the doctrinal authority of the Old Testament and interpreted it literally.” (p. 81)
Neither does rabbinical tradition (which at least pre-dates Jesus) interpret the texts ...[text shortened]... ales they apply. That’s all.
* I did detect a bit of tongue-in-cheek with that statement...
Originally posted by StarrmanYou mean the irresponsibility of those who violate their own stated hermeneutical principles?
It's that responsibility I'm attacking, and the notion of the set of all Christians each believing in their own god, with their own faith etc. essentially undermining the notion of a Christian as any collective noun.
I am becoming more and more convinced that you are correct about the “collective noun.”
My only pet peeve is when atheists (or other non-Christians) accept pro forma the Biblical literalists’ idea that literalism/historicism is somehow the “normative” way of reading the texts. That is a very modern notion.
That is why I step into the breach even with people, such as yourself, that I am normally in agreement with. It really drives me crazy, in a sense, the extent to which we have forgotten how to read—and hence have a tendency to denigrate—symbolic, mythic and allegorical readings. We have lost our sense of mythos. I argued with someone a while back who was convinced that the ignorant Norse really thought that the world was licked into being by a primordial cow!—at least that was his unstated assumption.
How anyone can read, say, Ecclesiastes, or the Yahwist stream of the Torah (the so-called “Book of J” ), or the Gospel of John. with all their literary subtlety and substance—and not recognize the same intelligence (although expressed in mythic and symbolic form) as ours today, is beyond me. By the time our ancestors were able to compose such literature, they were not superstitious “savages.”
In some ways, I think that modern religionists can be far more superstitious than their ancestors on that score. I have a saying: “Trying to read mythology literally only produces fantasy.”
Although he and I have generally disagreed elsewhere, I found KM’s statement on “hermeneutics” to be sane and refreshing.
Sorry, Starr—I’m preaching now, and you are the choir. Time to go. I probably need some more BadZen™!
Originally posted by vistesdI admit, I'm not concerned over the literalist interpretation of the bible. I'll try and state my problem in a clearer way. It it seems to me that the implication of a free interpretive view of it is that at some point the bible garners the notion of faith or knowledge of thigns, but if we can't say at which point that resides on the ladder of the instruction and histories that it offers us, how are we to say anything more than 'I' believe this and 'I' believe that? Unless there is some way of explaining at which point a hermeneutical approach is and isn't correct, surely the meaning is transient and subjective.
You mean the irresponsibility of those who violate their own stated hermeneutical principles?
I am becoming more and more convinced that you are correct about the “collective noun.”
My only pet peeve is when atheists (or other non-Christians) accept pro forma the Biblical literalists’ idea that literalism/historicism is somehow the “normative” w ...[text shortened]... Starr—I’m preaching now, and you are the choir. Time to go. I probably need some more BadZen™!
Time for some BadZen© then: Does the man see the bible, or the bible see the man?
Originally posted by StarrmanBut scientists do this all the time. There are generally accepted ideas and also some disagreements. A little healthy disagreement is good. There are different interpretations of things as well in science and just as in science there is debate about whether certain interpretaions are correct or not. For example , I would argue that the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation is incorrect for several reasons. I would agree with you though that there is a massive spectrum of beliefs out there. I guess it's only to be expected.
It's that responsibility I'm attacking, and the notion of the set of all Christians each believing in their own god, with their own faith etc. essentially undermining the notion of a Christian as any collective noun.
Originally posted by StarrmanQUOTE---------------------------
I'm asking you to pinpoint exactly how it is that every Christian can choose xyr own faith, based upon a selective interpretation of the bible and yet claim that god is A or B etc. What's the difference, for example, between Paul's writings and those of any other theologist? Why do you accept the interpretation you do and under what authority do you claim ...[text shortened]... ncile a subjective notion of god with an objective world and the subjective faiths of others.
What's the difference, for example, between Paul's writings and those of any other theologist? Why do you accept the interpretation you do and under what authority do you claim it to be a correct one?STARMAN
RESPONSE----------------------------------
I don't personally claim any authority other than if one thinks what I am saying makes sense then it will have some authority. It's God that opens our eyes not any person.
With regards to Paul , one of the things that gives him authority in my eyes is this. It's clear to me that within the OT/NT divide God is trying to update and correct the Jewish notion of an exclusive nationalist God who has no time for gentiles , is harsh and judging and is also very legalistic. Jesus does this by challenging the sabbath laws for example and Paul follows this up by challenging things like circumcision. There is a whole lot more of course , but once you understand the context and see what God is trying to do (eg establish a new covenant) then it makes it easier to see Paul in context.
Originally posted by knightmeisterPlease, learn to use the reply and quote function properly, it's agonising reading your replies. If you need it, I'd be glad to help.
QUOTE---------------------------
What's the difference, for example, between Paul's writings and those of any other theologist? Why do you accept the interpretation you do and under what authority do you claim it to be a correct one?STARMAN
RESPONSE----------------------------------
I don't personally claim any authority other than if one thin ...[text shortened]... trying to do (eg establish a new covenant) then it makes it easier to see Paul in context.
The authority you are giving him is based upon your interpretation of both his work and god's, your opinions on which are somewhat speculative.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanI looked again at the way I laid my quote and response in the other post and it looked very clear to me , I don't really see the problem. Your objection to my lay out seems pretty pedantic. I'm not the only one who isolates specific text and then copies and pastes to make specific replies.
Please, learn to use the reply and quote function properly, it's agonising reading your replies. If you need it, I'd be glad to help.
The authority you are giving him is based upon your interpretation of both his work and god's, your opinions on which are somewhat speculative.
Regarding Paul and God , surely everything is interpretive anyway. Your statement is just a truism. Judaism and Christianity are both based on interpretations of Jesus. Judaism is still waiting for the Messiah and sees Christianity as a kind of sect. Christianity thinks he has come and that Judaism has missed the point. I happen to think the latter and feel that I can put up a good argument as to why. All truth is interpreted and we all think our interpretation is correct until someone gives us a better argument. I think my interpretation is correct. I also know that my interpretation is broadly shared by millions of Christians. So what?
Originally posted by eatmybishopI believe you are confused about the subject if you think that having
so you have free will but you still must obey the 10 commandments yeah?
a proper way to behave and free will, if you think one voids the other
when in fact it reveals the reality of free will. Simply having the ability
to choose to obey or not shows you that even in the midst of God's
creation you have the ability to do, or not do what God wants. Simply
having the ability to choose to disobey shows a freedom of will, if it
were not so there would be no need for any commandments 10 or
otherwise since the freedom to do otherwise would not be there.
Kelly
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe difference with science is that there is a standard way of identifying which hypothesis correct or incorrect. Also unless an hypothesis is shown to portray and accurate enough picture of reality to be useful then it is not used for anything of great importance. Most hypothesis are not really taken as fact anyway, even Einsteins Theory's of relativity are a model of the workings of the universe and not necessarily fact.
But scientists do this all the time. There are generally accepted ideas and also some disagreements. A little healthy disagreement is good. There are different interpretations of things as well in science and just as in science there is debate about whether certain interpretaions are correct or not.
The various interpretations of the Bible are as far as I know untestable and there is no standard way to identify the best one and yet most Christians bet their life on the accuracy of their particular interpretation and ask others to do so too.
For example , I would argue that the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation is incorrect for several reasons. I would agree with you though that there is a massive spectrum of beliefs out there. I guess it's only to be expected.
I am sure the Jehovah's Witnesses would say the same about your beliefs.
Originally posted by twhiteheadQUOTE----------------------------
The difference with science is that there is a standard way of identifying which hypothesis correct or incorrect. Also unless an hypothesis is shown to portray and accurate enough picture of reality to be useful then it is not used for anything of great importance. Most hypothesis are not really taken as fact anyway, even Einsteins Theory's of relativity ...[text shortened]... be expected.
I am sure the Jehovah's Witnesses would say the same about your beliefs.[/b]
The various interpretations of the Bible are as far as I know untestable and there is no standard way to identify the best one and yet most Christians bet their life on the accuracy of their particular interpretation and ask others to do so too.
WHITEY
RESPONSE-----------------------
Actually it was Jesus who asked us to bet our lives. He said he who seeks to keep his life will lose it. However , I have spent many hours talking to jehovah's witnesses and they tend to mistranslate the Bible and missunderstand it. Interpretation is one thing , distortion is another. If one interprets Jesus's mission to be to set up a supreme white race and be anti jewish (eg KKK) is this an "interpretation" or just plain lies? I think you know the answer.
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually, there is a way - The Holy Ghost. Another way is through prayer.
The various interpretations of the Bible are as far as I know untestable and there is no standard way to identify the best one and yet most Christians bet their life on the accuracy of their particular interpretation and ask others to do so too.
Originally posted by stepnkevSounds cool. Almost as good as secret decoder rings. The only problem is that the Holy Ghost seems to tell different things to each and every Christian. Or all but one Christian is lying when they say that the Holy Ghost told them something.
Actually, there is a way - The Holy Ghost. Another way is through prayer.