OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Exodus 20:4You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Isn't the "WORD" - which the Bible represents - a form of something (God) in heaven above?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Deuteronomy 5:8You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Same response. Isn't the Bible itself an image/ idol?

The Bible is simply God's message to man presented in a palatable form of written and preservable communication, namely a book. It is not a physical object of worship, even by those who consider it the infallible and direct Word of God.

This is the answer I was suspecting, the Bible is not an idol because its the WORD. On the issue of the Bible being a physical object of worship, I would have to say there are many folks out there who seem to worship the Bible (and certainly more than the God it represents) How can you call the Bible the WORD of God when it is demonstratably true that the Bible we read today is NOT what was written thousands of years ago when it was allegedly delivered. Even if it's merely a human "typo" when transcribing, it is no longer the WORD.

Much like some Muslims who get their shorts in bunches over the Koran being put in a toilet, there are lots of folks who idolize the Bible.

It may not look like it from what I've said here, but thanks for wagering a response. I appreciate it.

 

[BayBuck]

This is the answer I was suspecting, the Bible is not an idol because its the WORD. On the issue of the Bible being a physical object of worship, I would have to say there are many folks out there who seem to worship the Bible (and certainly more than the God it represents) How can you call the Bible the WORD of God when it is demonstratably true that the Bible we read today is NOT what was written thousands of years ago when it was allegedly delivered. Even if it's merely a human "typo" when transcribing, it is no longer the WORD.

The key word in my response above was "physical": the physical object known as the Bible is not worshipped in and of itself, but because it contains the words which represent the communication from God to man. The ideas represented by those words are still valid through the process of translation: I don't know that God is any more a native speaker of Hebrew than English.

Your quote from John demonstrates that the Word does not represent anything other than God himself, but again it is not actually the physical representation of that communication in various printed letters which is being worshipped. I'm sure many Christians would indeed be offended/saddened/horrified by seeing a Bible tossed in the toilet, but I can't really see anyone kneeling down to pray to the book itself.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Isn't the "WORD" - which the Bible represents - a form of something (God) in heaven above?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."



Same response. Isn't the Bible itself an image/ idol?

absolutely not. the Bible isn't an image; the Bible PAINTS the image. too bad most people don't realize that.

This is the answer I was suspecting, the Bible is not an idol because its the WORD. On the issue of the Bible being a physical object of worship, I would have to say there are many folks out there who seem to worship the Bible (and certainly more than the God it represents) How can you call the Bible the WORD of God when it is demonstratably true that the Bible we read today is NOT what was written thousands of years ago when it was allegedly delivered. Even if it's merely a human "typo" when transcribing, it is no longer the WORD.

prove it.

Much like some Muslims who get their shorts in bunches over the Koran being put in a toilet, there are lots of folks who idolize the Bible.

that doesn't make it right, or justify those who defile it. all you've proven is that people screw up.

It may not look like it from what I've said here, but thanks for wagering a response. I appreciate it.

That only works, however, in the theoretical.

did you suddenly forget what thread you were in? from your perspective, based on what you believe, can your views on God be any BUT theoretical?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The key word in my response above was "physical": the physical object known as the Bible is not worshipped in and of itself, but because it contains the words which represent the communication from God to man. The ideas represented by those words are still valid through the process of translation: I don't know that God is any more a native speaker of Hebrew than English.

I didn't say meaning was lost in translation (though I would say it is) I said there are typos. Thats different. A typo changes the meaning(s) entirely.

Your quote from John demonstrates that the Word does not represent anything other than God himself, but again it is not actually the physical representation of that communication in various printed letters which is being worshipped. I'm sure many Christians would indeed be offended/saddened/horrified by seeing a Bible tossed in the toilet, but I can't really see anyone kneeling down to pray to the book itself.

I dont see anyone kneeling down and praying to tattoos either, but they're apparenlty forbidden on account of idol worship fears (see discussion a few pages back). Just seems to me the idol worship stuff is pretty subjective, and while I"m not out to prove any one person worships the Bible itself over the God it represents, I'm more just pointing out that the way some people have to defend the book, I'm made to wonder on occassion what exactly is being worshipped.

absolutely not. the Bible isn't an image; the Bible PAINTS the image. too bad most people don't realize that.

So, if most people don'[t realize that, you agree with me that there are those that do indeed worship the "false idol" of the book itself and not God? Not sure I follow what you're saying.... unless you were making some sort of direct statement to me...

prove it.

You know damn well that I can't prove it to you, primarily because whatever links I might post will be discredited. Suffice to say, you could likewise not prove to me that the Bible has enjoyed 100% exact copying since its first writing.

that doesn't make it right, or justify those who defile it. all you've proven is that people screw up.

Don't think I've set out to prove anything, was simply asking the question of if the Bible is itself an Idol. I thought you already agreed that most people don't understand that it's painting a picture and isn't itslef the picture.. And, I certainly didn't suggest property damage of any kind was "right" or "justified" I can't even comprehend how the quote of me you quote can be taken in such context, truth be told.

did you suddenly forget what thread you were in? from your perspective, based on what you believe, can your views on God be any BUT theoretical?

OK, LV, you got me.... No, they cant. But, when I was using 'theoretical' in the text you quote, I believe I was talking about philosophical gamesmanship as an argument tool.

 

[buckeyegrad]

That only works, however, in the theoretical. I mean to say, if you're studying what adding 1 apple to another apple produces, you will find it is always two. If you add clay to clay you will find you could have 2 balls of clay, or 1 bigger ball. What can you learn from this? Clay is unlike an apple in some way which allows it to become 1 bigger thing under these circumstances. I guess what I'm saying is, intentionally asking the "wrong" question to illustrate a point doesn't get you anywhere here, I think.

How did you determine if it was a wrong question? You can only do so if you dictate the framework in which we operate. I took the situation out of your framework and asked something very different. Doesn't make it wrong, only different. Specifically, we were looking at 1+1=2. You never gave parameters, so I showed at least one instance where it does not equal 2.

Furthermore, the scenario I gave you was not theoretical, but an actual situation told to me by one of my professors when she was a kindegarten teacher. She was teaching basic addition by using balls of clay with the children and while everyone else said 1 ball of clay + 1 ball of clay = 2 balls of clay; one student smashed them together to create 1 bigger ball of clay. Was he wrong? No. He only approached the problem from a different framework.

Not sure if I'm even now getting at what I mean. I suppose it comes down to an assumption on my part - there is a way things really are. There is a "real" reality that exists independent of whatever we might know about it. Philosophical game-playing.. well.. to me, it's just not interesting (or persuasive). I suppose I avoid the "importance" of the "lessons" the gamesmenship is useful for by A) not worrying so much about "right" and "wrong".. or "correct..." whatever and B) by trying to maintain an "infinite" view on things - that is to say, I believe in the infinite, which means that any answer is equal parts "right" as it is "wrong" (talking about physical reality)

I agree that there is a real reality that exists independent of what we know. This is why I do not fall into the postmodern camp (or hypermodern as I call it because I do not believe postmodernism is post-modern). My problem is that I do not believe anyone can know it and so what we end up with is corrupted approximations of reality. Some are closer to describing it than others, but they are ultimately incomplete. Where the Bible comes into play is that by faith I accept it as a priveleged perspective because it is God's rather than men's. Can I prove this? Yes, if the Bible is allowed to provide the framework on which we operate, which is acceptable and rational since I believe it provides the only correct framework in describing reality. Within other frameworks, no, I cannot prove it. I can only make convincing arguments. However, since those other frameworks are flawed because of my earlier contention that all we have are corrupted approximations of reality, they really can't serve as judge of the Bible.

An infinite God may be examined in infinite ways. I suppose to appreciate that remark we'd have to agree that God is infinite, which necessarily includes that God is everything, including (but not limited to) the material world.

Well, there is one of our major divisions as I believe God is beyond the infinite. Hence, material naturalism only allows us to perceive God's creation and not Himself.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Here LV, I couldn't resist. Demonstrated typos..... assuming these Bible collector folks aren't lying.

 

[BayBuck]

I didn't say meaning was lost in translation (though I would say it is) I said there are typos. Thats different. A typo changes the meaning(s) entirely.

True, it may change the received meaning, but it does not change the intended meaning, which can still be discerned by comparison of texts or simply analyzing a particular passage in context.

I dont see anyone kneeling down and praying to tattoos either, but they're apparenlty forbidden on account of idol worship fears (see discussion a few pages back). Just seems to me the idol worship stuff is pretty subjective, and while I"m not out to prove any one person worships the Bible itself over the God it represents, I'm more just pointing out that the way some people have to defend the book, I'm made to wonder on occassion what exactly is being worshipped.

I'm not convinced the Old Testament rules against marking the skin are directly connected to the commandment against idol worship (seems it's more about avoiding the behavior of some other religious cults of the era, unless of course the tattoo is actually of an idol you are worshipping), so I don't actually see that as a valid analogy.

A golden calf built for Baal, that's an idol; the book called the Bible, that's not.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

How did you determine if it was a wrong question? You can only do so if you dictate the framework in which we operate. I took the situation out of your framework and asked something very different. Doesn't make it wrong, only different. Specifically, we were looking at 1+1=2. You never gave parameters, so I showed at least one instance where it does not equal 2.

Furthermore, the scenario I gave you was not theoretical, but an actual situation told to me by one of my professors when she was a kindegarten teacher. She was teaching basic addition by using balls of clay with the children and while everyone else said 1 ball of clay + 1 ball of clay = 2 balls of clay; one student smashed them together to create 1 bigger ball of clay. Was he wrong? No. He only approached the problem from a different framework.

Approaching things differently isn't what I'm taking issue with. What I'm getting at is more someone trying to illustrate a simple point, and maybe being too cavalier about the parameters (1+1 = 2) Philosphical gamesmanship folks have to jump on it for some reason, deflecting what is, of course, the obvious conclusion to everyone (and even the philosphical game player too (that is to say, even YOU think the sun will rise tomorrow.... or that places like your house exist even when you're not there... or that you're not actually a brain in a vat... and so on))

Indeed, approaching problems from different frameworks is something I personally champion and try to challenge my kids to do.. that's not the issue here... When I said intentionally asking the wrong question, I was saying you, specifically, were intentionally asking the wrong question or otherwise changing the parameters of the simply point I was trying to make. That there is such a thing as absolute truth... and that Man can know these truths... at least some of them.

I agree that there is a real reality that exists independent of what we know. This is why I do not fall into the postmodern camp (or hypermodern as I call it because I do not believe postmodernism is post-modern). My problem is that I do not believe anyone can know it and so what we end up with is corrupted approximations of reality. Some are closer to describing it than others, but they are ultimately incomplete. Where the Bible comes into play is that by faith I accept it as a priveleged perspective because it is God's rather than men's. Can I prove this? Yes, if the Bible is allowed to provide the framework on which we operate, which is acceptable and rational since I believe it provides the only correct framework in describing reality. Within other frameworks, no, I cannot prove it. I can only make convincing arguments. However, since those other frameworks are flawed because of my earlier contention that all we have are corrupted approximations of reality, they really can't serve as judge of the Bible.

I've highlighted - and you probably know this - why your decision to view the world in the manner you do is as inherently corrupted as you would contend science's description of reality is. Your Bible is only as correct as you are about it.... and... in as much as you appeal to "faith" you seemingly admit you couldn't possibly prove it. YOu have made a choice to believe something.. you've justyfied why you believe it... but, that doesn't mean it is superior to science or anyone elses framework per se.

Well, there is one of our major divisions as I believe God is beyond the infinite. Hence, material naturalism only allows us to perceive God's creation and not Himself.

I think I have finally figured out why you seem to ignore me when I say I agree God is beyond infinite... it's my fault, as I have used "infinity" loosely to describe everything that is, which would - in the manner I"m using the term, anyway - NECESSARILY include ALL that is - which of course, includes God. I suspect you see this as impossible, to include the whole of God in any construct, so you think I am using the term Infinity to mean something else. I don't have a good word to relay the concept of God in his entirety and over the years have just sorta stumbled in to "infinity" I coudl simply use the phrase "God is" I suppose.. but people wouldn't have any idea what the hell I was trying to get at most the time.

Anyway..... I hope that is helpful for you in dealing with the langauge I use to faciliate understanding of what I'm trying to say. If not, I'll try it again some other way.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

True, it may change the received meaning, but it does not change the intended meaning, which can still be discerned by comparison of texts or simply analyzing a particular passage in context.

Maybe. Any time you have to introduce a team of experts to figure out what something says or means, it seems to me no one has any idea what it says or means.

I'm not convinced the Old Testament rules against marking the skin are directly connected to the commandment against idol worship (seems it's more about avoiding the behavior of some other religious cults of the era, unless of course the tattoo is actually of an idol you are worshipping), so I don't actually see that as a valid analogy.

Well, in the discussion a few pages back we were talking about the rationale for the no tattoos v. the per se application of no tattoos. I happen to be more of the opinion that the 'no tattoo rule' isn't really a Rule from God at all, LV kind of agreed that the no tattoo rule falls in to the category of trying to keep people clean, healthy, whatever. Bgrad, if I'm not mistaken, contended that since it's in the Bible, it must be one of God's rules and he means what he says. (Frankly, I think that part of the discussion just sort of ended up dangling)

Anyway, it seems to me you're saying something similar to what I - and LV - was contending... not everything in the Bible is "per se" or that there is a need to discern the rationale... Yes?

A golden calf built for Baal, that's an idol; the book called the Bible, that's not.

I agree on the former, but I'm not convinced on the later. A lot of Church's I've been to even treat the Bible as if it's somehow exhualted or whatever... proping it up on an alter, open in all it's glory.... implying that what it contains is to be feared (in the "awe" sense) The Bible is made to represent God.... A gold calf is made to represent Baal.... I don't see the difference, although I surely understand that impulse to balk at the notion the Bible is itself an idol (and I am certainly not intending to imply that any particular reader on this thread is falling victim to some biblical ruse of some sort, just thought it would be interesting to talk about).

 

[jwinslow]

The Bible can be made into an idol by individuals, but it is not inherently one, imo (unlike a golden calf).

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The Bible can be made into an idol by individuals, but it is not inherently one, imo (unlike a golden calf).

Fair enough. As should be obvious, I agree that the Bible can be made to be an idol.

Why do you think its inherent nature is unlike a golden calf, though? I don't say this to be accusatory in any manner, just to try and discern the difference.

 

[jwinslow]

Why do you think its inherent nature is unlike a golden calf, though? I don't say this to be accusatory in any manner, just to try and discern the difference.

What is the purpose of a golden calf? To me, you gaze at it's beauty. It draws attention to itself, and doesn't teach me anything about the calf or Baal, other than that it's purdy.

To me, the Bible, while beautiful, redirects our attention to God and serves to instruct. Worshipping the words & teachings rather than God is what JC condemned the Pharisee's for doing.

 

[BayBuck]

Maybe. Any time you have to introduce a team of experts to figure out what something says or means, it seems to me no one has any idea what it says or means. ).

It's not necessary to bring in a team of experts to compare various translations or even to learn some of the original language to parse out the intended meaning of a particular passage. The Bible is meant as much for the individual as for the congregation.

Anyway, it seems to me you're saying something similar to what I - and LV - was contending... not everything in the Bible is "per se" or that there is a need to discern the rationale... Yes?

I don't know if that's really what I'm saying, just that Biblical passages always need to be considered in their context (rather than poached for the purpose of furthering an argument). A particular Old Testament dictate for the Hebrews does not necessarily have the same force for modern Christians, given the way that Jesus in the New Testament established a new covenant between God and man.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

What is the purpose of a golden calf? To me, you gaze at it's beauty. It draws attention to itself, and doesn't teach me anything about the calf or Baal, other than that it's purdy.

To me, the Bible, while beautiful, redirects our attention to God and serves to instruct. Worshipping the words & teachings rather than God is what JC condemned the Pharisee's for doing.

OK. And what of scientologists? Admttedly I'm not well versed in scientology, but if I'm not mistaken, they too point to a book that allegedly explains thinsg for them.

 

[Bob.Barker]

OK. And what of scientologists? Admttedly I'm not well versed in scientology, but if I'm not mistaken, they too point to a book that allegedly explains thinsg for them.

What is your contention? That scientologists worship their book?