OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Jake]

For you to relegate the most famous book in the world, a book of incredible nuance and substance, a book that admittedly can be read on many levels, as ancient history, philosophy, a moral guide, the written essence of the thought and beliefs of the Jewish People, and to some, as the literal word of God to mankind, to so offhandedly dismiss so profound a document, one that for thousands of years has held millions of readers around the world transfixed, and been the sole topic of study for entire lifetimes of some the greatest scholars of history, for you to blithely toss out that it is "silly" to treat that document as more than just another novel of fiction reveals an ignorance of the piece of literature so profound that it is not within my ability to illuminate your error in a way that you'd comprehend.

I'm sorry if you feel criticized. But you should have assumed that possibility when you intentionally threw out your post in the tone that you selected.

There are libraries full of material by scholars, Jewish and Christan and Muslim, who by the body of their work refute your contention that "Treating it as anything more serious than that, however, seems kinda silly...", seeing as there aren't a concomitant number of scholars and libraries from the greatest universities in the world addressing the nuances of LOTF - or any other novel in history - with as great a fervor.

So while it may be that the greatest institutions and scholars of the world are all wrong, and they are silly in pursuing their studies - or - perhaps, Jake's dramatic insight that there are reasons to think that portions of the Bible do not make complete sense in a literal manner is not the end of the usefulness of the Book.

Because your original posting clearly insinuated that one had to be some sort of dim sap to think the Bible worthy of special study, you did not show up wanting a discussion, and you can hardly complain when your goal is achieved. And that utter lack of respect you display is no doubt reflected in my response (as was your purpose), I can only beg your pardon and hope that you come back with something else in mind next time. Being the Ekeen of the Philosophical Musings Board is not what I'd aspire to, but, hey it's your choice.

And anyway, if you can't understand from the totality of my first post where I was trying to go, it's unlikely that you'd get the offerings of St. Thomas Aquinas and Moses Maimonides. Silly men, don't cha know.

Feel better now?

While I realize I can't possibly grasp the intellectual depth of someone like you (despite the fact that basic political and economic issues have proven to be beyond your comprehension on more than one occasion), I'm quite capable of pontificating from a soapbox, just like you.

You spent a lot of time telling me I was wrong without offering any real data to prove that "the greatest institutions and scholars of the world" are actually correct. There's a reason for it: it's not possible. Drop all the names you like but the fact is unless they've been alive for 6000 years they no more know the true origins of the Bible than you, me, or anyone else. At some point, in order to believe this old and popular book is anything more than a book requires faith, and therein lies the logical quandary.

Let me be clear: I don't claim that god exists, or doesn't exist, because I simply don't know. And guess what? You don't know, either. The "greatest institutions and scholars of the world" don't know, either. So while you stick your overconfident nose in the air and talk down to me, you do so in the same state of ignorance of the existence (or lack thereof) of god. The difference between you and I is that I actually know that I don't know.

My real beef is with religion, a man made concept that has been at the center of human conflicts for centuries, and will continue to be so long after we're gone. Any attachments it had to god, if they ever existed, fell away long ago. All we have now are people telling us what god expects of us, as if they actually know. Oh, but I forgot, they have a book that has been translated and edited by man for thousands of years, telling us in explicit detail what god expects of us. After all, "the greatest institutions and scholars of the world" said so...

 

[MaxBuck]

My real beef is with religion, a man made concept that has been at the center of human conflicts for centuries, and will continue to be so long after we're gone ...

I have no argument with this. The real problem is how one separates faith from religion, since the worship of God is difficult to achieve in a corporate way except in some form of organized religion.

 

[Gatorubet]

Feel better now?

I feel great, thanks

While I realize I can't possibly grasp the intellectual depth of someone like you (despite the fact that basic political and economic issues have proven to be beyond your comprehension on more than one occasion), I'm quite capable of pontificating from a soapbox, just like you.

Lots of people have a problem remembering which one has the donkey for a mascot, Mr. Big Shot guy.

You spent a lot of time telling me I was a wrong without offering any real data to prove that "the greatest institutions and scholars of the world" are actually correct. There's a reason for it: it's not possible. Drop all the names you like but the fact is unless they've been alive for 6000 years they no more know the true origins of the Bible than you, me, or anyone else. At some point, in order to believe this old and popular book is anything more than a book requires faith, and therein lies the logical quandary.

Actually, you still don't get the point I was making, which had not one thing to do about the origin of the Bible. It had to do with your ridiculous statement concerning the silliness of maintaining that the Bible was just another book (albeit as interesting as LOTF), but not worthy of any serious inquiry. On one hand, you have the bizarreness of maintaining that position in light of the two thousand year history of in-depth scholarship by minds far superior than yours or mine, and on the other hand you posited your first post that seemed to proclaim a paradigm wherein the Bible only has value if it is the literal Word of God with inerrant factual data, and, as you say it is not, that fact renders it devoid of interest to smart people if the interest is greater than the interest in a good novel.

I mean, this is what you wrote and implied.

I have no idea what you mean by "anything more than a book." Hell, every great revelation about the nature of man or God or love or emotion contained in any piece of literature is "only a book" - and yet there are plenty of reasons to study them. And I see a wide gap between "only a book" and full on belief in the Bible as inerrant. I am likely more in your camp on some issues than others who post here, who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. For instance, I do not think a literal Adam and Eve were created by God in his image, nor do I believe in the Ark and Noah, etc...but that does not diminish the importance of the Bible as a book to be studied. And we can agree about that, and agree about much, but your first post implied that only a bunch of dumb asses could consider the Bible as anything but a good novel.

While it is a discussion board, you have to think that because of the strong religious views held by many here that it would only be polite not to start out with a "c'mon guys - how dim are you?" provocation, when you can read the posters here who have studied the Bible for years and made that study a part of their lives. I mean, I have been insensitive to the LDS faith according to some here, but even if I appeared that way, I always try to find something to say that is positive about their lifestyle and philosophy.

Let me be clear: I don't claim that god exists, or doesn't exist, because I simply don't know. And guess what? You don't know, either.

Never said otherwise.

The "greatest institutions and scholars of the world" don't know, either.

Never said otherwise.

So while you stick your overconfident nose in the air and talk down to me, you do so in the same state of ignorance of the existence (or lack thereof) of god. The difference between you and I is that I actually know that I don't know.

I talk down to you because you made a poor initial post, and I tried to get you to realize that your initial premise of literal Bible or not worth extra study was misguided. And even now you still seem not to get how ridiculous it is to say that studying the Bible as more than just a novel is "silly." The Book is far more than a mere novel. Even if it is not "true" in the literal sense like some believe, that conclusion would have nothing to do with the reason to study the Bible when you look at the enormity its influence has had on our culture.

When we discuss topics on the poli board, many times the positions taken on issues and the many questions surrounding them depend on our religious beliefs, and what impact the Bible has on that belief. See the gay marriage thread or others. That alone makes it a must study.

I recommend God's Secretaries by Adam Nicolson and Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Friedman as must reads.

My real beef is with religion, a man made concept that has been at the center of human conflicts for centuries, and will continue to be so long after we're gone. Any attachments it had to god, if they ever existed, fell away long ago. All we have now are people telling us what god expects of us, as if they actually know. Oh, but I forgot, they have a book that has been translated and edited by man for thousands of years, telling us in explicit detail what god expects of us. After all, "the greatest institutions and scholars of the world" said so...

Feel free to keep misquoting my phrase in a context that it never was made, if it makes you feel better, but for you to proclaim that "Any attachments it had to god, if they ever existed, fell away long ago" - is your opinion. Which is fine, if sad. And while it is true that people have used religion and twisted it into a shallow obscene shell of what it should be, man's quest for spirituality is something that almost defines us as humans. To me, to reject spirituality is to reject our human essence....like sending a child to Athens, Georgia. You could, and could make up good reasons for it, but you would know in your heart that it was wrong at a fundamental ethical level.

If you keep posting I'll likely be on your "side" more often than you'd think.

Sorry if I was too pissy. It happens. But you could do a hell of a lot better job of phrasing your first post, and not jumping on my reply thinking I was trying to justify snake handling per scripture.

I mean - the Bible is just another book? Riiiight.

 

[BuckeyeGanoosh]

I just want to say that I while I agree with much of what you're saying Jake, the Bible is still one of the most influential collections of books in human history. Whether that is a positive influence or not is where some real debate can take place. The books also contain some terrible notions of violence and prejudice. IE; Psalms 68:23, 2nd Chronicles 20:24.

 

[muffler dragon]

I just want to say that I while I agree with much of what you're saying Jake, the Bible is still one of the most influential collections of books in human history. Whether that is a positive influence or not is where some real debate can take place. The books also contain some terrible notions of violence and predujice. IE; Psalms 68:23, 2nd Chronicles 20:24.

Hey BG:

I realize that this Tanakh doesn't always reference things the same as Christian Bibles, but I figure you might be able to tell me what you're seeing as violent and prejudicial. I'll include surrounding verses in case that helps. The Book Chapters are also links to the entire portion if it helps with context.

Psalms 68
20. Blessed is the Lord; every day God lavishes upon us our salvation forever.

21. God is to us the God of salvations, but God the Lord has the ways to death.

22. Indeed God will wound His enemies' head, the hairy pate of him who goes with his guilt.

23. The Lord said, "I shall restore from Bashan; I shall restore from the depths of the sea.

24. In order that your foot may wade through blood; the tongue of your dogs will have its portion from the enemies."


2 Chronicles 20
18. And Jehoshaphat bowed upon his face to the ground, and all the Judeans and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell before the Lord to prostrate themselves to the Lord.

19. And the Levites of the sons of the Kehathites and of the sons of the Korahites arose to praise the Lord, the God of Israel, with an exceedingly loud voice.

20. And they arose early in the morning and went forth to the desert of Tekoa, and when they went forth, Jehoshaphat stood and said, "Hear me, O Judeans and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Believe in the Lord your God, and you will be believed; believe in His prophets, and you will prosper."

21. And he took counsel with the people, and he set up singers to the Lord that they should praise the beauty of holiness, when they went out before the advance guard and said, "Give thanks to the Lord, for His kindness is eternal."

22. And at the time they commenced with song and praise, the Lord placed liers-in-wait against the children of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who were coming to Judah, and they were struck down.

23. And the children of Ammon and Moab rose up against the inhabitants of Mount Seir to destroy and annihilate, and when they finished with the inhabitants of Seir, each one helped his friend to destroy.

24. And the Judeans came upon the place overlooking the desert, and they turned to the multitude, and behold they were corpses falling to the ground, with no survivors.

25. And Jehoshaphat and his people came to plunder the spoils, and they found among them plenty, and belongings and corpses and precious vessels, which they emptied out for themselves to the extent that they could not carry them away, and for three days they were plundering the spoil, because it was so much.

 

[BuckeyeGanoosh]

violent

Psalms 68
20. Blessed is the Lord; every day God lavishes upon us our salvation forever.

21. God is to us the God of salvations, but God the Lord has the ways to death.

22. Indeed God will wound His enemies' head, the hairy pate of him who goes with his guilt.

23. The Lord said, "I shall restore from Bashan; I shall restore from the depths of the sea.

24. In order that your foot may wade through blood; the tongue of your dogs will have its portion from the enemies."


2 Chronicles 20
18. And Jehoshaphat bowed upon his face to the ground, and all the Judeans and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell before the Lord to prostrate themselves to the Lord.

19. And the Levites of the sons of the Kehathites and of the sons of the Korahites arose to praise the Lord, the God of Israel, with an exceedingly loud voice.

20. And they arose early in the morning and went forth to the desert of Tekoa, and when they went forth, Jehoshaphat stood and said, "Hear me, O Judeans and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Believe in the Lord your God, and you will be believed; believe in His prophets, and you will prosper."

21. And he took counsel with the people, and he set up singers to the Lord that they should praise the beauty of holiness, when they went out before the advance guard and said, "Give thanks to the Lord, for His kindness is eternal."

22. And at the time they commenced with song and praise, the Lord placed liers-in-wait against the children of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who were coming to Judah, and they were struck down.

23. And the children of Ammon and Moab rose up against the inhabitants of Mount Seir to destroy and annihilate, and when they finished with the inhabitants of Seir, each one helped his friend to destroy.

24. And the Judeans came upon the place overlooking the desert, and they turned to the multitude, and behold they were corpses falling to the ground, with no survivors.

25. And Jehoshaphat and his people came to plunder the spoils, and they found among them plenty, and belongings and corpses and precious vessels, which they emptied out for themselves to the extent that they could not carry them away, and for three days they were plundering the spoil, because it was so much.

I'll admit that the earlier to verses quoted were not particularly prejudice. The New Testament quotations from Corinthians and Ephesians are particularly treating women differently, however the Tanakh would have the more widely known pain of childbirth, temptation of Eve, original sin, etc. There is a certain overtone to the era that is evident in the early texts that women were not seen as equal members of society.

It is not my intent to attack the Bible as a whole, but rather the belief that none of it can be construed as being negative. [FONT=arial, Helvetica]My attempts here wouldn't be to necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water per se, however I do think that the general idea of divine conviction by fear is not without its psychological damage as well.

I won't argue over the influence of it, I was brought up in a well "versed" childhood and know the positive impact the same tome can bring to some people's lives. My bitter side is conscience empathy for those born outside its influence essentially damned. The guilt tied to the very questions, inevitable in someone as curious as I am, posed by reading it through a couple times. But in all fairness, I really want a good philosophical look into some of the more interesting portions of Biblical text, not just a arguing over accepting as a whole or not. It is the most important text in western civilization.

One of my favorite works in the canon is the Book of Job. It has some very interesting perspective on faith, hardship, and a God convinced to prove Satan otherwise. Shall we not accept good and not evil? This reaches into the very essence of the problem of suffering, one of the root problems with belief in an omniscient being that has been around for centuries. Some of other questions raised would be are we in it (belief) for the goodies in life, or after-life? Say, eternal life, or for the true faith in a Lord God? The story really has nothing to do with Satan's evil, and he is essentially dropped by the end of the narrative. These are the portions of text I find compelling.

The debate on whether it causes positive action or negative is because we have all seen the schisms and conflict between interpretations.
[/FONT]

 

[muffler dragon]

BG:

My apologies for taking too long to get back to you.

I'll admit that the earlier to verses quoted were not particularly prejudice.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

The New Testament quotations from Corinthians and Ephesians are particularly treating women differently, however the Tanakh would have the more widely known pain of childbirth, temptation of Eve, original sin, etc. There is a certain overtone to the era that is evident in the early texts that women were not seen as equal members of society.

I should clarify that the word "TaNaKh" is actually an acronym: T = Torah (Pentateuch), N = Nevi'im (Prophets), K = Ketuvim (Writings). This would also be referred to as the Jewish Bible (sans the Christian testament).

I understand what you mean regarding the tone of Paul's epistles. I don't find that to be the case in the Tanakh, but I'd be more than willing to examine passages with you if you desire.

It is not my intent to attack the Bible as a whole, but rather the belief that none of it can be construed as being negative.

[FONT=arial, Helvetica]My attempts here wouldn't be to necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water per se, however I do think that the general idea of divine conviction by fear is not without its psychological damage as well.

Indeed. I couldn't agree more. In fact, one of the qualities that I admire about the Jewish Bible is that it doesn't hide the negative aspects of the Jewish people nor their conduct.

I won't argue over the influence of it, I was brought up in a well "versed" childhood and know the positive impact the same tome can bring to some people's lives.

Likewise.

[qutoe=BG]My bitter side is conscience empathy for those born outside its influence essentially damned. The guilt tied to the very questions, inevitable in someone as curious as I am, posed by reading it through a couple times.[/quote]

Once again, I agree completely. Interestingly enough, Judaism and the Jewish Bible does not present an eternal damnation such as the Christian hell. I found that refreshing.

But in all fairness, I really want a good philosophical look into some of the more interesting portions of Biblical text, not just a arguing over accepting as a whole or not. It is the most important text in western civilization.

I'm GAME!!! I love those types of discussions.

One of my favorite works in the canon is the Book of Job. It has some very interesting perspective on faith, hardship, and a God convinced to prove Satan otherwise. Shall we not accept good and not evil? This reaches into the very essence of the problem of suffering, one of the root problems with belief in an omniscient being that has been around for centuries. Some of other questions raised would be are we in it (belief) for the goodies in life, or after-life? Say, eternal life, or for the true faith in a Lord God? The story really has nothing to do with Satan's evil, and he is essentially dropped by the end of the narrative. These are the portions of text I find compelling.

Yes, Job is a fascinating book. The historicity of it is also quite interesting. A small tidbit is the Jewish tradition that Job was a contemporary of Moses. It fills in some of the holes. Let me know if you'd like to delve further. I should state beforehand that I am by no means a scholar on Job, I just enjoy the discourse.

The debate on whether it causes positive action or negative is because we have all seen the schisms and conflict between interpretations.

[/FONT]

Undoubtedly.

 

[BuckeyeGanoosh]

Yes, Job is a fascinating book. The historicity of it is also quite interesting. A small tidbit is the Jewish tradition that Job was a contemporary of Moses. It fills in some of the holes. Let me know if you'd like to delve further. I should state beforehand that I am by no means a scholar on Job, I just enjoy the discourse.

I see you tend to prefer some of the more traditionally Jewish perspectives on the books of the Bible, and some of the more interesting differences is within the book of Job. From most Christian points of view, the antagonist is clearly the character of Satan. Ha-Satan was considered more of a prosecutor kind of role in the storyline, which to me alters the underlying theme of the book. Some folks even think that Moses was the author of the book. To me, this sort of historicity is interesting but not fulfilling in terms of understanding the themes that flow throughout the text. For me the most powerful portion is the idea that Job rejected divine punishment for misdeeds, and within that same vein faith is not rewarded by riches. What do we make of proselytization by method of reward of a 'heavenly' afterlife, or especially the televangelists or another behind the pulpit.

 

[muffler dragon]

I see you tend to prefer some of the more traditionally Jewish perspectives on the books of the Bible, and some of the more interesting differences is within the book of Job.

Comes from having been a Christian for over 20 years and then leaving that religion. I am a Noachide, and that is (more or less) a Gentile figuratively sojourning with Israel.

From most Christian points of view, the antagonist is clearly the character of Satan. Ha-Satan was considered more of a prosecutor kind of role in the storyline, which to me alters the underlying theme of the book.

I apologize if this is rudimentary for you (or if you already know), but Ha-Satan is translated as The Adversary. Personifying such a title presents a very intriguing discussion topic.

Some folks even think that Moses was the author of the book.

Yes, I have heard that as well.

To me, this sort of historicity is interesting but not fulfilling in terms of understanding the themes that flow throughout the text.

The only reason why I brought that up in my former post is because the historicity discusses the "why" to the happenings of Job.

For me the most powerful portion is the idea that Job rejected divine punishment for misdeeds, and within that same vein faith is not rewarded by riches.

Would you mind showing some of the passages that reflect your observations? It's been a LONG time since I read Job.

What do we make of proselytization by method of reward of a 'heavenly' afterlife, or especially the televangelists or another behind the pulpit.

For me, they're irrelevant as I don't believe in the Christian "heaven" nor "hell". Thus, to me, they're pontificating about a fabrication in order to scare their fold into submission. That may be too blunt though.

 

[muffler dragon]

Parable Reality?

Periodically, I will think about the parables of Jesus, and re-evaluate them to see if I can decipher the same meaning, a different meaning, or glean anything more from them.

I was washing the dishes two nights ago, and I started thinking about the parable in Matthew 23:

Matthew 23
25"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For (AA)you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26"You blind Pharisee, first (AB)clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.

I understand the distinction being laid out regarding the first portion (v.25); however, I must admit that v.26 makes (at the most) tangential sense. I have never in my life cleaned a cup, a dish, a pot, etc where once I cleaned the inside it was also clean on the outside. I must wash both sides for them to be clean. Which leads me to a question, "are parables supposed to be that much of a stretch?" If so, then that's fine and I will go about my business. I remember struggling in my walk at times with attempting to rationalize statements by Jesus with the reality around me. This is one of those that has never quite gone away.

 

[scooter1369]

Periodically, I will think about the parables of Jesus, and re-evaluate them to see if I can decipher the same meaning, a different meaning, or glean anything more from them.

I was washing the dishes two nights ago, and I started thinking about the parable in Matthew 23:

Matthew 23
25"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For (AA)you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26"You blind Pharisee, first (AB)clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.

I understand the distinction being laid out regarding the first portion (v.25); however, I must admit that v.26 makes (at the most) tangential sense. I have never in my life cleaned a cup, a dish, a pot, etc where once I cleaned the inside it was also clean on the outside. I must wash both sides for them to be clean. Which leads me to a question, "are parables supposed to be that much of a stretch?" If so, then that's fine and I will go about my business. I remember struggling in my walk at times with attempting to rationalize statements by Jesus with the reality around me. This is one of those that has never quite gone away.

That's something that can be translated to health as well as spirituality. Cleansing the systems (digestive and circulatory) can and will have a positive effect on the outside appearance of the body, just as someone who has reached inner peace will have a relaxed glow about them.

 

[muffler dragon]

That's something that can be translated to health as well as spirituality. Cleansing the systems (digestive and circulatory) can and will have a positive effect on the outside appearance of the body, just as someone who has reached inner peace will have a relaxed glow about them.

I completely understand the metaphorical consideration. The part that confuses me is the cleaning of an actual cup or dish on the inside and expecting the outside to be cleaned as well without additional cleaning.

 

[Gatorubet]

Well, the first verse is not a metaphore at all, and the the second verse is just the odd decision to construct a complex metaphore using the same reference as the previous verse for the tenor, (inside of a cup or dish), but with a vehicle lacking tertium comparationis.

 

[muffler dragon]

Well, the first verse is not a metaphore at all, and the the second verse is just the odd decision to construct a complex metaphore using the same reference as the previous verse for the tenor, (inside of a cup or dish), but with a vehicle lacking tertium comparationis.

edit: after googling, I now understand what you're saying. Good call.

 

[MaxBuck]

...a vehicle lacking tertium comparationis.

Now that there is some serious fancy lawyer-talk.