 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/9/2008 10:07 PM (GMT -6) |   | Don't want to make a big deal, but...
1. Cultural Relative Packaging Verses Culturally Relative Teaching?
"I have to grant that this is a strong response -- to the point that I’m not sure how to refute it. Yet, I can’t help but feel like there’s something amiss here. The Psalmist doesn’t claim God told him to smash the heads of Babylonian babies, but Joshua (and others) explicitly claim God told them to slaughter the Canaanites. Indeed, in passages like Deuteronomy 7, God (reportedly) goes to great lengths to make sure they spare no one -- and then gets very irate when they disobediently let some live."
I don't think Greg's reservations address the issue. If we are willing to believe that that these men mixed cultural preconceptions into their perception of divine revelation, what's the issue with believing it got written down? Or even with believing they could premise it with "The Lord said"?
2. Why Couldn’t Yahweh Be Clearer?
"If anything, one might have thought it would have been harder for God to get Joshua and other ancients to see that they weren't to fight out of insecurity and self-interest and harder for God to get them to place all their trust in him alone for victory than it would have been to simply get them to obey his command not to kill people."
What is relatively easy is to adopt a general mindset of loyalty to God. What is harder is to work this out practically. So far as trust in Holy War coincided with self-preservation and political dominance, Israel was very loyal. No surprise. And furthermore, it's not a matter of Yahweh being clear; it is a matter of people being good listeners.
3. The Slippery Slope Argument
"They argued that once one grants that any biblical passage might be mistaken, we have no means of deciding what is and is not the 'true voice of God' in Scripture."
Then let these people prove their negative claim. Jesus is the standard.
4. Jesus’ View of the Old Testament
"[Jesus] uses the expression “Scripture says” and “God says” interchangeably, for example... ...As a follower of Jesus, therefore, I feel compelled to accept his perspective. This doesn’t rule out viewing aspects of the Old Testament as culturally relative, but it does seem to rule out concluding that any scriptural author ever 'got it wrong.' ... ...As compelling as Eller’s argument is, therefore, I feel I have to choose Jesus’ view over his."
Jesus DOES speak of himself as the fulfillment of the scripture and DOES invite us to read the scriptures in a new light. What Jesus does NOT do is make the claim that scriptural authors never "got it wrong" in the sense that Greg means. Greg should quote "Jesus' view" if he wants to ascribe it to him.
5. God’s Use of Violence
"So, it seems there is a rather fine line between God commanding violence and using violence. If we grant that God is willing to engage in the latter, it seems a bit odd to balk too strongly at his willingness to engage in the former."
Since we know that the "command" given to Babylon was to do evil (Hab 2, Is 47), and we also know that God does not tempt anyone or cause anyone to sin (1 John, James 1), we are left to read this anachronistically as figurative language (even if it was not considered figurative at the time).
6. What of God’s Own Violence?
"Think about it. Even if Eller's thesis is accepted, we still have to accept that God wiped out almost the entire human race – including little children – with a violent flood... ...we still have to accept that God incinerated entire cities -- populated with infants and little children"
The exact same reading of mandated violence can be done with direct divine violence.
"Even in the New Testament we find Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, being struck dead by God (Acts 5)!"
This statement is false. In our PRECONCEPTIONS we find them struck dead by God. The New Testament doesn't mention such a thing.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/9/2008 10:10:38 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/10/2008 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Jesus affirmed the Old Testament...it seems very odd to me that Jesus would come and present (as many pacificists assume) what is a very different view of God, yet Jesus himself in no way distances himself from the violence of the Old Testament. Nowhere does Jesus say, "this is not what God is really like. God is not violent at all." He does say he who has seen me as seen the Father, but he never says that anything within the Old Testament is wrong, or that violence itself is wrong, or that we can never use violence in any way. Given that Christ is such a central figure to all Christians and that he in no way addresses the issue that the Old Testament was in any way wrong in its protrayal of God and, given that his one direct statement about the law was that he came not to change it but to fulfill it I have to accept the fact that the protrayal of God in the Old Testament as violent and a warrior is true, given the amount of material in it.
Jesus came to show the Father, in all his ways. The Old Testament is not as unloving as people assume and the New Testament is not as anti-violence and anti-judgmental as people assume.
So what killed A &S? It seems inconceivable that anyone else did, given Jesus' own statement that blamphesy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (quite unloving of God...) and that they lied to the Holy Spirit. I do not add a verse to ACts. I simply take the relevant information and make a logical conclusion.
My point in making the statement that Jesus is not the only standard is that I don't believe taking Jesus' earthy life and funneling all the Old Testament through it (and our own preconceptions of what Jesus was), and changing the meaning of what happened in the Old Testament is an acceptable practice.
But if you want a place in the NT where God kills someone, what about Acts 12, 23-25, where an angel of the Lord infects Herod with worms and he died. I suppose you could say it was the angel acting on his own, or perhaps God didn't really want him to die and simply made a mistake in not stopping the worms...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/11/2008 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | |
Truth Aficionado said...
Sahid said...
Ummm.... No. I am affirming that those were not rhetorical questions. I was asking Feelin to back up his claims. He said Jesus did something. I asked, "When?" Not a argument. A question.
Sorry about the typo, Sahid. I was under heavy enemy sniper fire, a.k.a. sleep deprivation.
Given your knowledge of the Gospels, I still view your two questions as mostly rhetorical. Feelinhole I believe rightly stated that Jesus implicitly affirmed the Old Testament. You seem to be asking him to produce an explicit statement from Jesus, knowing very well there is none.
Let me ask you two questions:
- Do you affirm the three persons of the Trinity?
- Do you affirm the infallibility of the Bible?
If you answer no to either question then your should be made aware that the very violence found in Scripture (that you seem to oppose) typically fell on people that created their own god from the ugly images found in the mirror. They continually rebelled against the True Living God and created false gods of their own liking. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, the false god was called Mammon, still alive and well today mind you. This motif of the dangers of false gods runs through Scripture as a grand narrative and teaching that should not be neglected. From the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation we are warned not to be led down this slippery road, a path that gives rise to false gods of our fancy.
Why do you think we're called to fear God?
Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 4/11/2008 12:04:05 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/11/2008 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Truth: Given your knowledge of the Gospels, I still view your two questions as mostly rhetorical. Feelinhole I believe rightly stated that Jesus implicitly affirmed the Old Testament. You seem to be asking him to produce an explicit statement from Jesus, knowing very well there is none.
Sahid: Feelin made an argument from silence. I merely called him on it. I you want to see how I back up my case, I've already run through this a hundred different ways, the thread with Jeff and me is the most recent. I'm not arguing from silence. I'm arguing from the words and positive claims of the Bible.
Truth: Do you affirm the three persons of the Trinity?
Sahid: Yes.
Truth: Do you affirm the infallibility of the Bible?
Sahid: No. No one has ever given me a good reason to. I'll go with Paul: 2 Tim 3:16 is what I believe.
Truth: If you answer no to either question then your should be made aware that the very violence found in Scripture (that you seem to oppose) typically fell on people that created their own god from the ugly images found in the mirror.
Sahid: Good thing this is NOT AT ALL what I'm doing. I'm not a pacifist who one day decided to find pacifism in the Bible. Far from it.
Truth: They continually rebelled against the True Living God and created false gods of their own liking.
Sahid: Once again, this bears no resemblance to my situation. I struggled with the biblical text for approximately four years before I found answers in open theism and later non-violence. During my struggle, pacifism was the furthest thing from my mind. A "pacifist God" was not to my own liking.
Truth: In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, the false god was called Mammon, still alive and well today mind you. This motif of the dangers of false gods runs through Scripture as a grand narrative and teaching that should not be neglected. From the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation we are warned not to be led down this slippery road, a path that gives rise to false gods of our liking.
Sahid: I agree with all of this. But, respectfully, I think it this very danger that a more "traditional" understanding falls prey to. Quite a bit of our comfort is wrapped up in this traditional picture of God. Augustine's just-war-theory god and Constantine's don't-baptize-your-arm god are alive and well. Whatever our starting points, we must all try to read scripture prayerfully and honestly.
Truth: Why do you think we are called to fear God?
Zach: I don't know what you're looking for. Because it's the beginning of wisdom? Yeah. But if you are trying to make the fear of the Lord the same sort of fear as with fear of spiders... well, let's just say there is more depth to that phrase in the Bible.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/11/2008 2:20 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
A "pacifist God" was not to my own liking. When it comes to pacifism , what type of afflicted pain and suffering do you find most offensive, internal emotional abuse or external physical abuse?
The quintessential mindset of a madman is unveiled in the likes of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 4/11/2008 4:08:02 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/11/2008 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | There is no place within the New Testament where Jesus ever disallowed the God of the Old Testament, nor the violence of the Old Testament. You ask me for a specific example of where Jesus affirmed the Old Testament, I would ask you the same for your view that Jesus did. I would like a specific example where he does. Where he says this is not what God is. Simply giving Sermon on the Mount and the rubing the disciples for a certain situation is not holding yourself to the same standards as you want to hold me to.
Why would Satan kill someone who was serving him? That is a ridiculous and completely baseless answer. Talk about preconceptions!
Jesus never specifically condemned violence (again, this is YOUR preconceptions of him getting in the way). We must remember, as Paul says that when it is within our power to make peace with everyone. Jesus commands us to individuually love our enemies, top do good to those who pesceute us, etc. Of course, Jesus is not wrong! The problem is you have an either-or mentality, as if God must act a certain way in a every situation because that is how you view God funneling him through your preconceptions of who Jesus was. God acts in various ways at various times, because God is free. Jesus is both the Lamb and the Lion. When he was on earth as a human, he came as a sacrifice. That does not mean he will always act that way.
Give me a concrete example in the NT where Jesus says violence is wrong. You asked for a specific affirmation of the OT; I am asking you for a specific one for your view from the NT.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/11/2008 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
I don't know what you're looking for. Because it's the beginning of wisdom? Yeah. But if you are trying to make the fear of the Lord the same sort of fear as with fear of spiders... well, let's just say there is more depth to that phrase in the Bible.
Seriously, grab a shovel and take me to the depths of your "fear in God". I would honestly like to know your interpretation of the motif and how you work it out on a personal level.
Thanks,
Mark
The quintessential mindset of a madman is unveiled in the likes of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 4/11/2008 4:08:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/11/2008 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | I think we can go around and around on this whole OT NT thing, so let me just give a quick summary of my thinking on this point:
Given that , Jesus never said there was anything wrong with the OT as He understood it, given that He never specifically makes a statement clarifying the actions of the God of the OT, makes any specfic statement that violence is wrong when used by God, given that he called the God of the OT his Father, given historically that Jesus is God the Son in the Christian creeds, which would imply that he was a part of the decision making process in the OT and given that he held one, Moses in high regard, yet makes no criticism of any of Moses' actions in the name of God, held Elihija in high regard (given that the one who preceded him came in the spirit of that prophet), the prophet who called down a curse on children for insulting him, given that Jesus said himself that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it and given that his interpretations of the law did not abolish the law, but deepen our view of it, and finally, given that the great body of his believers throughout Church history were not pacificists (while not inspired it is evidence that needs to be weighed in any decision...could so many Christians be wrong?), I believe it is on the shoulders of the pacifists to give us concrete evidence to change our views on this matter. I sincrerely doubt this can be done.
I would like to add this point: Truth makes a great point which I would like to persue a little further. What kind of afflicted pain does one indeed find most offensive. This is where true living comes in.
It is one thing to be a pacifist in a perfect world, or in a world where one is only responsible for oneself. And to be a pacifist in a country that boasts one of the greatest militaries ever, a place where you can debate such ideas free from harm and pain because someone else is risking their life so you do not have to risk yours. It is another to be one in a real world where the defenseless suffer because of a person letting preconceived ideas take the place of common sense. Does any of us truly believe that Jesus would stand by and allow a child to be molested all in the name of some violent ethic? That Jesus would not do all he could to stop a man from sexually assaulting a 5 year girl in the name of non-violence? Love in the real world is much different than the one on these bulletin boards.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/11/2008 9:23 PM (GMT -6) | | T: When it comes to pacifism , what type of afflicted pain and suffering do you find most offensive, internal emotional abuse or external physical abuse?
Z: I don't know. I guess I find them both equally offensive. But who really cares what I find offensive? I thought we were NOT supposed to create a god in our own image.
F: You ask me for a specific example of where Jesus affirmed the Old Testament, I would ask you the same for your view that Jesus did. I would like a specific example where he does. Where he says this is not what God is. Simply giving Sermon on the Mount and the rubing the disciples for a certain situation is not holding yourself to the same standards as you want to hold me to.
Z: What standard did I hold you to? You said Jesus did something, and I asked you where. And you've still not given an answer...
I think the sermon on the mount is authoritative. Don't you? Turn the other cheek is the unqualified command of God. It is based (according to Jesus) on the example of the Father.
Now you both have two options. You can either deny that this is true (I'm using a flawed translation or something) or you can recognize this distinct ethic but choose to follow some other ethic instead. There is no third option, because my position is out of the question to begin with.
F: Why would Satan kill someone who was serving him? That is a ridiculous and completely baseless answer.
Z: Because Satan is mean. Why would the Spirit of God (who "causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous" ) kill his enemies? Sure, God is free. But he's also faithful.
F: Talk about preconceptions!
Z: I already did. I told you that the idea of Satan killing them was a guess. The Bible doesn't say they were killed. You are the one who claims to know better, not me.
F: Jesus never specifically condemned violence (again, this is YOUR preconceptions of him getting in the way).
Z: Getting in the way of what? Your argument from silence?
But he did condemn violence. "Do not resist an evil man." So what is it? Did Jesus (A) get this one wrong, (B) have some unspoken exception which the authors were too dense to include (C) have only that immediate audience in mind... What? How can there be a Christian defense for resisting evil men when Jesus spoke explicitly against it.
And btw, he was not speaking only to comfortable Americans who are disgustingly unappreciative of the safety won by ignoring Matt 5. No. He was also speaking to people in a country that was having it's people oppressed, quite often violently. Jesus was not the first Jew to be crucified and he wouldn't be the last. Jesus taught non-resistance to people who were being physically, financially, and spiritually oppressed.
F: Moses in high regard, yet makes no criticism of any of Moses' actions in the name of God, held Elihija in high regard (given that the one who preceded him came in the spirit of that prophet), the prophet who called down a curse on children for insulting him
Z: You tell me T, how valid is an argument from silence? He also never criticized Moses' teachings on selling daughters like possessions.
F: given that Jesus said himself that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it and given that his interpretations of the law did not abolish the law, but deepen our view of it,
Z: This is exactly my position.
F: Does any of us truly believe that Jesus would stand by and allow a child to be molested all in the name of some violent ethic?
Z: WHAT!?!?! Jesus is alive. Correct? Children are still abused. Correct? Now there may be some question as to WHY Jesus is standing by and letting it happen. But it cannot be denied that he DOES stand by and let it happen. What kind of world do you pretend you live in where Jesus doesn't stand by and let this happen?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/11/2008 9:25:28 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/11/2008 9:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Turn the other cheek is not the unqualified command of God. Nothing in what Jesus said means you should always turn the other cheek. You make it an unqualified command by your interpretation. Read Willard's A Divine Conspirary. As he shows forcefully in that book, Jesus was using these as examples of how a person who follows God acts in certain situations, not in every situation. Do you interpret everything through the Sermon on The Mount? The Sermon on The Mount is not the end all and be all of scripture...one must remember that we are not automaded robots that follow strict rules dictated by scripture...The Sermon on the Mount is a set of examples as to how a person could be expected to follow God in different ways and different times...it is not a rule book by which it rules every moment of every situation. You use it as if there is no other scripture by those three chapters...you have yet to show an example from anywhere else...it sounds as if you hold Jesus's words higher than other parts of scripture, even though Jesus himself did not write them down...
My talking about Jesus standing by was as a man! Duh! If Jesus were here as a man, does anyone really think he would not do everything in his power...
I have already fully explained my position as far as the Old Testament is concerned...perhaps you should read the post again. Again, I have asked from you a specific place where Jesus specifically condemns violence. Since you cannot do that, I assume you are arguing from the silence you claim I am arguing from as well...
"Do not resist an evil man" says nothing about violence...what if the evil man is simply evil by his words...again, it is your preconceptions that are getting in the way...
God kills his enemies because he has the right to judge sin...but that, of course, is in the OT...God apparently doesn't judge anyone anymore.
Finally, the answer about Satan, well, I'll let others judge that one. Suffice it to say, it is a good example of how far one will speculate to get out of the obvious reading of scripture...one must believe what one must believe...
Post Edited (feelinahole) : 4/11/2008 10:14:36 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/13/2008 12:21 AM (GMT -6) | |
feelinahole said...
Jesus never specifically condemned violence (again, this is YOUR preconceptions of him getting in the way). We must remember, as Paul says that when it is within our power to make peace with everyone. Jesus commands us to individually love our enemies, to do good to those who persecutes us, etc. Of course, Jesus is not wrong! The problem is you have an either-or mentality, as if God must act a certain way in every situation because that is how you view God funneling him through your preconceptions of who Jesus was. God acts in various ways at various times, because God is free. Jesus is both the Lamb and the Lion. When he was on earth as a human, he came as a sacrifice. That does not mean he will always act that way.
I believe you’re absolutely right in your assessment, Feelinahole. Jesus the Lamb told Peter to get behind me Satan, to put away your sword, or that he could call on legions of angels to fight for him; but he did none of these things because he was on a specific mission, the cross. He will return again on another specific mission but this time he will look quit different, the Lion.
Sahid wants to deny this other side of God, let’s take a look at what that might look like.
Let’s posit two different images of god. The first god is a strong warrior that can become violent and deadly towards injustice and evil. The second god is a meek passive god that turns the other cheek towards those that wish to perpetrate evil and do harm to others.
Let’s say the first “image of god” takes the caricature form of a deadly spider:
The most deadly spider in the world is the Sydney Funnel-Web Spider. It’s responsible for 13 recorded deaths and many other serious bites. The symptoms of the venom include pain, mouth numbness, vomiting, abdominal pain, sweating and salivation and of course death.
The second “image of god” takes the caricature form of a pacifist spider: 
The friendly Wolf Spider would never hurt a fly or for that matter couldn’t even frighten little Mss Muffet away.
Now, are these two images of god interchangeable? Let’s try a little experiment and see how they hold up. Could either one of these two images of god exclusively fit every instance we find in the sacred text of Scripture?
Lets start off with a little New Testament. Jesus says to fear the Father, who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” - Matthew 10:28
"I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. 5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! - Luke 12:4
Hmmm.... what image of god best fits the text above, Zach?
Let's move on and see what the mother of Jesus has to say about how mercy is for those that fear the mighty arm of God: Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed; 49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. 51 He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. -Luke 1:48
Wow, mama.
Lets move on a take a look at a bad guy, what does he have to say?
"Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." 43 He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise." - Luke 23:43
Hmmm....it looks like Jesus rewards the criminal that affirms the violence of God:
I know, I know, that's all old stuff before the cross, but what about todays church?
The church model is to live in fear of God: Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers. - Acts 9:31
Well that’s enough for me tonight. Sweet dreams and good night, and don’t let the bed bugs bite….or spiders...
to be continued...
The quintessential mindset of a madman is unveiled in the likes of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 4/13/2008 12:48:05 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/13/2008 9:51 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Z: Since we know that the "command" given to Babylon was to do evil (Hab 2, Is 47), and we also know that God does not tempt anyone or cause anyone to sin (1 John, James 1), we are left to read this anachronistically as figurative language (even if it was not considered figurative at the time).
J: People don't do what you're advising, here, for a very simple reason. To infuse meaning into a text that is contrary to the meaning of its author is to admit that the text is wrong. But by your view, we should read the koran and other religious writings and just infuse our own christian theology into them. And non-christians would be right to read their own philosophies into religious texts. And when people sat and listened to Christ giving his Sermon on the Mount, they should have infused their own theology into his words. Because then, the author's meaning is not what's important in determining what words mean, after all. This approach proves too much. Hence, it is fallacious. It provides for no means by which we can determine an outside standard with any significant degree of objectivity.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/13/2008 1:26:32 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 97 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:34 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|