Someone told me the links don't work. . . . I have no idea how to fix them. If you click on Ben Witherington's name on the "Sorry" page it will take you to his blog. There is a six part series entitled. . . . A Detailed Analysis of Jesus Interrupted . . . . from April 2009. It is worth the hunt. . . . with all the talk around here of "critical thinking" it might be beneficial to glean several perspectives to contrast and compare.
Here is an excerpt:
If you actually bother to read ancient biographies (see e.g. Tacitus's Life of Agricola, or Plutarch's famous parallel lives) you will discover that the ancients were not pedants when it comes to the issue of strict chronology as we are today. The ancient biographical or historiographical work operated with the freedom to arrange there material in several different ways, including topically, geographically, chronologically, to mention but three. Yes they had a secondary interest in chronology in broad strokes, but only a secondary interest in that.
If one studies the Fourth Gospel in detail and closely in the Greek, comparing it to other ancient biographies what one learns is that it is a highly schematized and edited product, and the sign narratives are arranged theologically not primarily chronologically. And whilst this might cause a modern person some consternation, it is not a reason to say that John contradicts the Synoptics on this Temple cleansing matter. The Fourth Gospel begins by showing that Jesus replaces the institutions of Judaism with himself—a theological message (he is the Passover lamb, he is the Temple where God's presence dwells etc.). The Synoptic writers are likely presenting a more chronologically apt picture of when this event actually happened. But strict chronology was not the major purpose of the Fourth Evangelist, we should not fault him for not giving us information we might want to have, or for focusing on the theological import of the event, rather than its timing. Such was the freedom, within limits, of ancient biographies and histories. I must disagree with the conclusion then when Bart says "Historically speaking, then, the accounts are not reconcilable." (p. 7). False. This is only so if one insists on a flat modern anachronistic reading of the text which pays no attention to what the authors are attempting.
The Gospel of John probably tells us nothing about this chronological issue, the Synoptics probably do, and judged on their own terms and on the basis of their ancient genre, one cannot draw the conclusion Bart does. Period. And unfortunately, this is a mistake Bart makes over, and over again, judging ancient texts on the basis of modern presuppositions about history writing, and what counts as truth or error. In fact, it is not entirely erroneous to say that Bart reads the Bible with the same sort of flat literalistic hermeneutic that he would have used before he did his scholarly study of the text. And I find this passing strange.
Let's take his next pet example--- the three denials of Christ by Peter, and the cock crows. I quite agree with his critique of those who come up with six denials of Christ by Peter. No Gospel says that, any more than any Gospel mentions two cleansing of the Temple. Bart points to the difference between Matthew and Mark, the latter saying Peter will deny Christ before the cock crows twice, whilst in Matthew it says 'before the cock crows". He then asks--- "which is it?" The assumption is: 1) these Gospel writers were trying to be very precise; and 2) these two options are mutually contradictory; and 3) we should ask these sorts of detail questions of ancient historical documents because we have a right to assume that modern historical ways of analyzing this material will help us to get to the bottom of such matters and find the historical truth.
In the first place let's consider point 2). In fact, if Peter denied Christ three times before the cock crowed at all, then he certainly denied Christ three times before the cock crowed twice!!! But suppose the Gospels writer were not much concerned to give us precise information about the intricate relationship and intercalation between denials and cock crows. Suppose, in terms of historical information they just wanted to make clear that there were three denials and there were cock crows? Of course this is maddening to those who think that we must have precision on such matters, but in fact if an author wants to be general let him be general, and if he wants to be more specific, let him be more specific. Mark may simply have wanted to be more general in his account. And since I think, with most scholars that the First Evangelist is using Mark's account, he probably knew far more about the Markan intent than we do, and decided to be more specific. He edits his Markan account according to his own presentation of things. I could go through Bart's examples one by one explaining how insufficient attention has been paid by him to the ancient conventions of such genre of literature, but I agree with him that over-harmonizing on the basis of modern anachronistic considerations is wrong, just as wrong as claiming there are obvious contradictions based on a modern literalist reading of the same texts. And herein lies a very fundamental problem with the ex-fundamentalist readings of Bart Ehrman.
The Gospels are not, and never were intended to be inspected as if they were ancient photographs of Jesus taken with a high resolution, all seeing lens. On the contrary these documents are much more like portraits, and portraits always are selective, tendentious, perspectival.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
another excerpt.
Not surprisingly, ancient views about 'authorship' are not quite the same as modern views which assume 'individual' authors for almost all documents that aren't collections of essays by some group of scholars. However in ancient collectivistic cultures this was not the norm. Many, if not most ancient documents were anthological in character--- a compilation of traditions from various different persons and ages through time. This was true about collections of laws, proverbs, songs, religious rituals, and stories as well. We should not be surprised in the least in reading through the book of Proverbs that all of a sudden in a book ascribed to Solomon, we have in Prov. 30 the sayings of Agur, or in Prov. 31 the sayings of King Lemuel, whoever he may have been. Or again, the psalms are compilations from various different ages, some are probably songs of David, but some are songs for or dedicated to David, some are composed by others still. It is a mistake to evaluate ancient documents as if they were just like modern documents, and this applies to NT documents as well, in various regards.
For example, the vast majority of scholars are in agreement that the Gospels we call Matthew and Luke are compilations from a variety of sources, including Mark and a sayings collection, and some unique material not found in other Gospels. Of course, this becomes puzzling to modern readers of Matthew because they rightly ask the question--- why would an eyewitness apostle like Matthew need to use secondary sources for events he was present to view? Why indeed. Here is where I say to you that while we must properly answer this question, one also needs to not do what Bart Ehrman does in his chapter on who wrote the Bible when it comes to this issue—which is to suggest that these Gospels were originally anonymous, and labels were added to them later for apologetical purposes, and that when we read of who they are attributed to in an early source like Papias, we can with a wave of the hand simply dismiss such evidence.
If you want to read what a historian of merit has to say indetail about the Papias' traditions I would point you to Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, which is mostly a close reading and explanation of Papias and what he says. It does not in any way agree with Ehrman's analysis of these early traditions. Indeed, most scholars today think there was a collection of the four canonical Gospels together at some point early in the second century in codex form which is when we get the official labels—according to Matthew etc. based on earlier traditions about the sources of these documents (see e,g, the work of Graham Stanton). . . . .
@ both of you: Thank you for the citations. You two are obviously very well-educated about the Bible. Tell me, if I had to read one (scholarly) book -- and one book only -- about the Bible, which would you recommend?
Also, I'm looking for a Bible discussion web site. I can see that there are many knowledgeable posters on this forum but at the same time I realize this is not the main agenda here. Any suggestions?
Bible.org has a good discussion forum. . . . Daniel B Wallace. . . a scholar of some note posts there from time to time. You are free to discuss and question away!! http://forum.bible.org/
It is probably a very good idea to examine some of these issues with others. . . . remember. . . . we ALL came out of a bible worshiping cult. Our recovery and reaction to faith is varied and will also be based in differing degrees on an aberrant understanding of the Christian faith. I include myself in this group. :)
Good to mix it up a bit with those never tainted by what we have endured.
Very insightful posts by Ben Witherington. I like the way he examines Bart Ehrman's work, especially, because I like a lot of what he writes. But since I am not a scholar, I have to weigh what lots of these people write with my own common sense and try to think of what assumptions they begin with to build their arguments.
After reading Ben’s posts, I notice there is still a lot of theology behind his views. It is probably unavoidable. For instance, I think he still begins from the assumption that there is a “personal” God who mysteriously guides situations certain ways. For example, you see this below:
Witherington: “The bigger issue that Bart wants to raise is of course how one could think the Bible as we have it is the inspired Word of God when, 1) this concept is limited to the original autographs of the Bible, and 2) we don’t have them anymore, and anyway 3) the canon of Scripture was compiled by fallible human beings, not by God.
Penworks: The following statements show Ben’s theology kicking in:
Witherington: “For him [bart], the deeper theological problem here is why God would allow us to lose the original manuscripts if it was so important to have the inspired Word of God. This is a perfectly appropriate question, and it deserves a fair answer.”
Penworks: I haven’t read any theological question from Bart. He is a student of historical criticism of the texts, not theology which is the study of God, what or who God is and in so doing, seems to interpret the Bible according to a particular view of what or who God is and what He does. Often, I think theologians forget they are using metaphors to refer to the unknowable (God) and turn that creative, unknowable force into an entity. But that idea stems from the one Israel had in the O.T. about their monotheistic god. For more on this, I suggest the book, A History of God by Karen Armstrong.
Witherington: “If we wanted to give a theological answer, [some of us are not looking for one] we could immediately remind the reader of the problem with golden calves… namely in the hands of fallen human beings they tend to get worshipped. It is entirely believable to me that God allowed things to go as they did in regard to the original manuscripts of the Bible to prevent mistaking the means for the end, and even worshipping the means, by which I mean the original autographs of the Bible. In other words, bibliolatry, the worship of a perfect book, was and is a real possibility for fallen human beings.”
Penworks: I agree that bibliolatry is a huge problem. But Theology is man’s way of slapping an explanation on an event that somehow drags in an invisible God and makes claims about what that God does or does not do, think, or say. My guesses about those matters would be as good as the next guy’s.
Penworks: I don’t agree bibliolatry exists because we are theologically “fallen” because that is a Christian theology type of answer. Who says were “fallen” to begin with? Christians! I think it’s because people are afraid to think for themselves, in general, and so we look to a book to tell us what to do. What better book than one that some say is “inspired by God.” But remember, to believe that, a person must assume at least two major things: 1) there is only one God; hence monotheism is the only way to describe the unknowable 2) there is the sort of God that intervenes with human affairs. If one holds those two ideas as true, then all sorts of “us vs. them” scenarios play out, i.e. which side of a war is God supporting? The list of problems is endless.
Although the problem of bibliolatry is a point well made by Witherington, I think he misses the fact that his own theology is supplying explanations that may be satisfactory to him but leave many of us unsatisfied because we don’t hold the same assumptions about his God that he does.
The Bible, no matter how we got it, no matter how we feel about its authority or lack thereof, still remains a culturally-bound book, and there's no end of ignorance about that fact and its implications - I’ll be the first one to admit I’m still getting educated about that! What I do know from my life experience in TWI and thereafter, and from the evidence of many other people’s stories, is that bibliolatry perpetuated by Christian fundamentalism is a serious issue of enormous importance. Fundamentalist Bible cults will continue to sprout up because the “general public” seems okay with the basis for these groups – a belief that a particular book has all the answers they need in this life. Bibliolatry of necessity involves a denial of anyone else’s differing interpretations of what the book says and means...interpretations offered by none other than...theologians.
The Bible, no matter how we got it, no matter how we feel about its authority or lack thereof, still remains a culturally-bound book, and there's no end of ignorance about that fact and its implications - I’ll be the first one to admit I’m still getting educated about that! What I do know from my life experience in TWI and thereafter, and from the evidence of many other people’s stories, is that bibliolatry perpetuated by Christian fundamentalism is a serious issue of enormous importance. Fundamentalist Bible cults will continue to sprout up because the “general public” seems okay with the basis for these groups – a belief that a particular book has all the answers they need in this life. Bibliolatry of necessity involves a denial of anyone else’s differing interpretations of what the book says and means...interpretations offered by none other than...theologians.
And that ought to be posted on the GSC splash page. Insightful (and perhaps inciteful). Succinct and so very very true.
This is why I say. . . . the existential questions which prompts our search must be part of the mix. They are relevant to the analysis and to theology. . . . . without them we can fall into a familiar pattern of. . . . knowledge for knowledge sake.
I swear there is some residual pride or shame associated with the idea of existential musing. . . . a throwback to TWI . . . or part of our make-up that attracted us in the first place.
What are the questions we at first were seeking to answer?
Why are we here?
What is our purpose?
What happens to us when we die?
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Is there a God? Who is he?
Why am I me?
On and on it goes. . . . .time, space, matter, creation . . . . yada yada
Those are the questions which Christian theology seeks to answer. . . it is not only an exercise in knowledge. . . . and BTW. . . . . Bart does do a great exegesis on the idea of evil and morality. . . no?
You speak of an unknowable God. . . . scripture speaks of a man who came to make Him known, to declare this unknowable God. . . Jesus Christ. . . . . a Palestinian Jew who made outrageous claims and according to scripture . . . . backed them up. . . . . the issue is not inserting a theology. . . . . we have an explanation. We HAVE a theology. A Christian theology from scripture.
The issue becomes is scripture reliable? Can we know? Is it too confused and corrupted to believe? Is that what was really said. Is Jesus misquoted? :) If we take theology out of THAT discussion, we are doing exactly what Dr. Witherington said. . . . assuming a particular single mindset to explain something varied . . . . theology must be part of the discussion as it is really the subject matter. The existential is relevant.
That online version looks pretty awesome. Question: is there a reason you suggested the ESV translation in particular? (I'm getting the Zondervan NIV Study Bible for Christmas. Are you familiar with it?)
I generally don't worry about possible biases or differences in Bible translation because whenever I'm intrigued, puzzled or otherwise interested in a specific verse or verses I always do a parallel reading on Biblos.com or on e-Sword.
I read the NIV because to me it's, well, very readable. Yes, the language in the KJV version is more beautiful and "poetic", if you will, but I don't need to be bogged down by the unfamiliar language. It's the same problem I have with Shakespeare -- I just can't be bothered trying to figure out what they're saying.
I see where you are coming from - Christ is the "answer" for you. We are in different rooms on this...I left the Christianity room awhile ago. What prompted my leaving is a long story but it was prompted when I questioned the authority of the text when I came to see discrepancies in it. I think my story Affinity shows that. But giving up Christianity was a much more complex journey than getting upset over a few Bible contradictions. As I said, Bible study does not have to necessarily be tied to having faith in Christianity or in Judaism, if you’re studying only the Hebrew Bible.
I think in this world, religion may not have been the sole cause of major conflicts but without an academic understanding of it (knowledge for understanding’s sake not knowledge for knowledge’s sake as you pointed out) we’ll have a hard time solving those conflicts.
Regarding faith...I’ve said in other posts that faith and study of the Bible (or any other book) are separate issues to me. People believe all sorts of “spiritual” things, faith in God, faith in Christ being God’s Son or the second person of the trinity, or some other sort of being - without their belief being tied to a verse in any book, or an alternate reading of a verse, or on a Syriac reading instead of a Greek one.
I do want to say I like the description of authorship in ancient times that you copied above:
Not surprisingly, ancient views about 'authorship' are not quite the same as modern views which assume 'individual' authors for almost all documents that aren't collections of essays by some group of scholars. However in ancient collectivistic cultures this was not the norm. Many, if not most ancient documents were anthological in character--- a compilation of traditions from various different persons and ages through time.
That’s a good example of the book being a product of a different way of life (culture) and a different world view.
Inerrancy and resulting bibliolatry has no interest in considerations of this sort, because to acknowledge such things would undercut the basis of their authority...that the Bible is God’s perfect Word (albeit in the originals) and our only rule of faith and practice. That to me is a dangerous world view. I held it for 17 years in TWI. I held a similar view as a Catholic the 18 years before TWI – that the Catholic Church was the one true faith and everyone else was going to hell. That’s just as fundamentalist as TWI in that one regard.
I think we cannot underestimate the important fact that the Bible is a culturally-tied book and the implications of that fact are deep and wide. Faith is a personal matter, some say, and I agree. When it becomes a problem is when we think ours is the right or true one and everyone else’s is of the devil, or at least misguided. Mmmm...there must be a better way...
That online version looks pretty awesome. Question: is there a reason you suggested the ESV translation in particular? (I'm getting the Zondervan NIV Study Bible for Christmas. Are you familiar with it?)
I generally don't worry about possible biases or differences in Bible translation because whenever I'm intrigued, puzzled or otherwise interested in a specific verse or verses I always do a parallel reading on Biblos.com or on e-Sword.
I read the NIV because to me it's, well, very readable. Yes, the language in the KJV version is more beautiful and "poetic", if you will, but I don't need to be bogged down by the unfamiliar language. It's the same problem I have with Shakespeare -- I just can't be bothered trying to figure out what they're saying.
I have the Zondervan NIV. . . . well, my son took it. . . I use the Apologetics bible, the Holman CSB- translation. The ESV study bible is fairly new and it was for the articles and available scholarship that I suggested it. It is a good jumping off point.
Funny, I have been inspired lately to read some Shakespeare. . . . :)
If you want to buy that bible you can get it through Desiring God. . . for under 30 dollars, minus shipping. I really hope you get a chance to check it out!
I see where you are coming from - Christ is the "answer" for you. We are in different rooms on this...I left the Christianity room and headed out the door of the house called Theology awhile ago. Why I left is a long story but it was prompted when I questioned the authority of the text when I came to see discrepancies in it and issues with translations. I think my story Affinity shows that. But giving up Christianity was a much more complex journey than getting upset over a few Bible contradictions. As I said, Bible study does not have to necessarily be tied to having faith in Christianity - or in Judaism, if you're studying only the OT or Hebrew Bible.
Re: your reference to knowledge for knowledge's sake: I think in this world, religion may not have been the sole cause of major conflicts but without an academic understanding of it -knowledge for understanding's sake not knowledge for knowledge's sake - we'll have a harder time solving those conflicts.
Regarding faith...I've said in other posts that faith and study of the Bible (or any other book) are separate issues to me. People believe all sorts of "spiritual" things, faith in God, faith in Christ being God's Son or the second person of the trinity, or some other sort of being - without their belief being tied to a verse in any book, or an alternate reading of a verse, or on a Syriac reading instead of a Greek one.
I do want to say I like the description of authorship in ancient times that you copied above:
"Not surprisingly, ancient views about 'authorship' are not quite the same as modern views which assume 'individual' authors for almost all documents that aren't collections of essays by some group of scholars. However in ancient collectivistic cultures this was not the norm. Many, if not most ancient documents were anthological in character--- a compilation of traditions from various different persons and ages through time."
That's a good example of the Book being a product of a different way of life (culture) and a different world view.
Inerrancy and resulting bibliolatry has no interest in considerations of this sort, because to acknowledge such things would undercut the basis of their authority...that the Bible is God's perfect Word (albeit in the originals) and our only rule of faith and practice. That to me is a dangerous world view. I held it for 17 years in TWI. I held a similar view as a Catholic the 18 years before TWI – that the Catholic Church was the one true faith and everyone else was going to hell. That's just as fundamentalist as TWI in that one regard.
I think we cannot underestimate the important fact that the Bible is a culturally-tied book and the implications of that fact are deep and wide. Faith is a personal matter, some say, and I agree. When it becomes a problem is when we think ours is the right or true one and everyone else's is of the devil, or at least misguided. Mmmm...there must be a better way...
Whoa. . . wait a second. I think you are still making that disconnect here. . . . you seem really hung up on the book. Where does that all or nothing bible craze come from? That perspective? We left the cult, you and I. . . . . .we don't need that jumping off point.
If I can't prove to you it is perfect, then it can't be true?
Do you know where most of these shocking revelations of additions and variants can be found? In the footnotes of any good study bible. They are not secrets.
The book is what holds the explanation. We have to deal with the actual explanation as well as the book. . . as you point out, the book wasn't always around. . . . the explanation has been around awhile. Wouldn't it follow that if the explanation were true. . . . it would be perfect? By definition if something is true. . . it corresponds to a reality and is right. No?
Makes sense to me. . . . but, the bible is not the Qu'ran. Which claims to be the exact representation of God. . . . and should not be translated but read in Arabic.
The Christian scriptures tell about a man who claimed to declare God in His person. He also proclaimed the authority of scripture by, "It is written".
Written by men. . . . inspired by God. One word as good as another, written by men in their own style, from their perspective, giving an explanation. Christians believe in the man and the explanation which comes to us NOW. . . . by way of the book. We believe the explanation, which answers the questions. . . . we believe what is written IN the book.
TWI did us a great disservice. We worshiped that book as God. But, not everyone who believes in the inerrancy of scripture(the explanation) is worshiping the book.
This is one of the reasons why I so hate TWI. . . . we were so conditioned to the extreme it is nearly impossible to get away from it. The aberrant fringe extreme. It still guides what we are drawn to and how we understand things. . . .
Funny thing here. . . you really can't get away from declaring a truth. . . you tell someone they are wrong. . . you must have some authority on what is right. You tell someone they can't know what is true. . . you are declaring that to be true.
Whoa. . . wait a second. I think you are still making that disconnect here. . . . you seem really hung up on the book. Where does that all or nothing bible craze come from? That perspective? We left the cult, you and I. . . . . .we don't need that jumping off point.
If I can't prove to you it is perfect, then it can't be true?
Do you know where most of these shocking revelations of additions and variants can be found? In the footnotes of any good study bible. They are not secrets.
The book is what holds the explanation. We have to deal with the actual explanation as well as the book. . . as you point out, the book wasn't always around. . . . the explanation has been around awhile. Wouldn't it follow that if the explanation were true. . . . it would be perfect? By definition if something is true. . . it corresponds to a reality and is right. No?
Makes sense to me. . . . but, the bible is not the Qu'ran. Which claims to be the exact representation of God. . . . and should not be translated but read in Arabic.
The Christian scriptures tell about a man who claimed to declare God in His person. He also proclaimed the authority of scripture by, "It is written".
Written by men. . . . inspired by God. One word as good as another, written by men in their own style, from their perspective, giving an explanation. Christians believe in the man and the explanation which comes to us NOW. . . . by way of the book. We believe the explanation, which answers the questions. . . . we believe what is written IN the book.
TWI did us a great disservice. We worshiped that book as God. But, not everyone who believes in the inerrancy of scripture(the explanation) is worshiping the book.
This is one of the reasons why I so hate TWI. . . . we were so conditioned to the extreme it is nearly impossible to get away from it. The aberrant fringe extreme. It still guides what we are drawn to and how we understand things. . . .
Funny thing here. . . you really can't get away from declaring a truth. . . you tell someone they are wrong. . . you must have some authority on what is right. You tell someone they can't know what is true. . . you are declaring that to be true.
Same shoe. . . . different foot.
I think we're not connecting very well. I don't believe I have ever said that because the Bible is not perfect it cannot contain any truth. But what those truths are to me may not include the things you think are true. The truths I see are things like the golden rule, the fruit of the spirit, general principles of ethical behavior that are also found elsewhere.
Nor do I believe I ever said a person can't believe in Christ if the Bible is not perfect. People do it all the time. I just chose not to.
Perhaps the problem in our communication here is that there are too many topics tangled up that we may or may not feel differently about. No problem. I try to make every effort not to hold extreme views (what I consider extreme may not be what you think are extreme, though), so where I have done so in my previous posts, point it out clearly so I can address it. I will do my best.
Here's a list of the many topics mashed together, in my opinion. I'm not able to address each one and doing that is really beyond my ability. My interest in these things is more like a hobby than anything else right now, mainly because I'm still working on writing my story and these things play into it:
The Bible's history
The cultures of the writers of the Bible
Textual errors in the Bible
Inerrancy of the Bible
Bibliolatry - the worship of the Bible which to me means placing it as the final authority on everything
Truth - which can be found in and outside the Bible
Theology - the study of God
Interpretations of the scriptures
A belief in Christ that depends on inerrancy
A belief in Christ that does not depend on inerrancy
A belief in Christ that includes bibliolatry
A belief in Christ that does not include bibliolatry
At this point, I guess I'm at a loss as to how to contribute much of anything else to the discussion right now...and since I've been hogging a good deal of the posts today, I'll let others chime in...
I think that is a valid observation. I've known penworks since before the earth's crust cooled. I've known Geisha briefly and only recently but had some nice conversations with her. I think if you two were in the same room with a cup of coffee (or some really good Scotch - say like Laphroig) you'd both get along famously. You both have good analytical skills and are both, clearly, rather intelligent - and perhaps more importantly - regardless of your respective religious beliefs, or lack thereof, you both have a strong sense of ethic and morals. Face to face you might find each other somewhat refreshingly similar.
Consider science - kinda what I do for a living... Science rarely means we all agree during an investigation. The hope is that by cooperative efforts we can uncover little bits at a time - and agree on those little bits. Then, if we get really, really, REALLY lucky - we start to piece those bits together and a picture forms that we can begin to agree on.
In my best Forrest Gump imitation...and that's all I have to say about that.
Back to your respective banter - I'll bow out now and go get some duck ready for roasting.
I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I actually agree with a great deal of what Charlene says. . . so I walk a fine line.
If you notice, it is page 8 and I just spoke up. . . . and it wasn't really in response to her posts. . . . two things caught my attention. . . . I found them so ironic I posted. One, was the idea that someone had spent many years in a cult and offshoot unable to reason out their faith, so therefore it isn't really possible, and somehow that contributes to strife. . . . and two, evidence and reason concerning issues of faith were the product of a lazy and backward mind.
That is why I posted Dr. Collin's lecture. . . . while we were in a cult. . . that lazy mind was co-mapping human DNA.
I posted Dr. Witherington because I recognized much of the history and analysis here and felt it woefully under represented.
Having said that. . . . there is something I really do take issue with. . . .there seems to be a blurring of terms or lines concerning TWI and the Christian faith. As if somehow TWI and VP's bible worship and conditioning are on equal footing with Christianity or those who believe in the inerrancy of scripture. That somehow the term fundamentalist encompasses them all.
Who exactly are these dangerous people? Those with this dangerous mindset? Can we have some clarification? I may agree, but then again. . . . I may qualify.
What am I allowed to believe and speak of before I am termed a fundamentalist?
No joke. If I believe that something is right and is true. . . . I am probably not going to believe another explanation. I may even believe someone is misguided in their perception, and I may not agree there is a better way. Does that really make me dangerous? Because if it does. . . . the person declaring me so is every bit as wedded to a fundamental and equally as dangerous.
I was hanging out tonight in a room full of people we lock up because they are dangerous. . . . as a bible believing Christian. . . . I managed to walk out the front door.
there really seems to be a lot going on in this thread...and some great clarifying trying to happen
a few points to add for discussion, if i may...please pardon the abrupt nature of some of the points...as well as the heavy metaphor...such things are so hard to express in small bites.
...
regardless of where and how "fundamentalism" fits on any sort of fuller spectrum view of christianity (and there does seem to be a fuller spectrum), there seems within even that narrow bandwidth a wider range of qualities possible...from "extremely extreme fundamentalism" to "mildly mild fundamentalism"...or maybe even from "very sick fundamentalism" to "very healthy fundamentalism."
same can be said for any other "-ism"
both TWI and a mainstream church can share the qualities of fundamentalism...yet be very different in many other ways.
and ..."fundamentalism" seems a relatively new and narrow term being applied to a wider older condition. And while it is often used to describe a Christian context, other religious thought and behavior has been described as "fundamentalist."
there are "fundamentalist" buddhists, for example, who might as well be singing "buddha loves me this i know, because the sutras tell me so"
regardless...there seems to be a "pre-existing" pattern of individual and collective human thought and behavior that the term is pointing to...a state or condition that exists regardless of what it is being called at any given time (as with all states or conditions)
another new and broader term that seems to apply is "ethnocentric"
sports fans, corporate culture, celeb/musician fan clubs are all non-religious examples of ethnocentricity.
in terms of developmental stages (cognitively, morally, or otherwise), what we typically call "fundamentalist," "religious," "believer," and "faith", is a perfectly normal stage for pre-pubic children...and/or humanities' anthropological waves of pre-pubic childhood...our very important and irreplaceable "age of myth" that picked up the pieces where a more tyrannical stage failed.
this stage is when our capacity for "inter-subjective shared interiority"...both cult and culture...family and tribe....our shared stories, legends, myths...etc...bloomed (or not) to whatever degrees
as adults, we are not only lost without a healthy sense of this "cultural self"...but we are also quite lost if it is the only note on our flute (or somehow considered the superior note)
the wisest among the ancient (such as the jews) did not have a problem with the sacred scripture being a story. That genesis or Job was a "mere" story made it more important and valuable than if it was fact. More nutritious. More useful. Freer even. We are not to mistake the map for a territory.
from "its not just a story!"
to "its just a story!"
to "its a story!"
This is a difficult position for fundamentalism. For the shared storyline to be realized as less than "absolute truth" is to shed the reliance on an intersubjective worldview. This can be experienced like a death. If "i am my worldview"..."i" certainly dont want it (me) to "die." Which is why mere information that challenges the literalization of a shared myth is often responded to as if one is facing an attack on their life. Particularly as it all pertains to our fear and/or denial of death...such as a need for the resurrection story (and rapture and such) to be literally absolutely true. Our own fear of dying needs it to be literally true...when even deeper and wider figurative truths may have been the more useful point of the resurrection story all along.
...
and too...perhaps worth mentioning...the conflict between "faith and reason" ...between "religion and science" is often somehow painted as a conflict between the only two worldviews worth arguing about. This ignores a much more vibrant range of human thought and experience (in the contexts of both science and religion).
the conflict that rages is typical of the space between two general stages...and quite unresolvable from either position
the rational worldview is not the top of the evolutionary ladder as it tends to claim...but rather a mere "rung up"
and contrary to the claims of either camp...the language of both "science" and "christianity" live on every known rung...morally, cognitively, and otherwise
but ...since objectivity comes after intersubjectivity....intersubjectivity is trying to resist or asurp the role of looming objectivity...while objectivity is still stinging from having just left intersubjectivity behind and tends to focus on debunking it rather than growing more (and facing the dreaded inter-objectivity and such).
...
odd as it may sound...i attribute the abundance of adult fundamentalism today (as with any time) to a lack of sufficient puberty rites...particularly male puberty rites. After a few generations of not replacing our "wise elders" who knew...they basically vanished. All we can do now is re-invent them ("wise elders") in our children.
life simply develops...and development occurs in stages...
faith develops in stages
self-awareness develops in stages
cognition develops in stages
morals develop in stages
consciousness develops in stages
yada yada yada
stages build sequentially on failures of previous stages...all stages eventually run their course (fail)...out of the ashes rise a higher order....such is the wisdom of folly
all are forgiven...all is beautiful, good and true
life is indeed a stage :P
and no matter where one is on jacob's ladder...the ladder goes both up and down from there
hell goes all the way to hell...and heaven goes all the way to heaven
and navigating the space between rungs is more useful than trying to stay on any given rung forever
Jesus seems like one who was dying to get off the ladder...in order to see all the rungs
and Pen's article and this thread highlights a specific rung well...and does so from another rung
...
...yet another very loose sample of a section of the ladder that is in our world today...perhaps to help see where fundamentalism fits...and why it is NOT the whole of Christianity (even though it may be a majority):
- subjective "magical christianity" is focused on personal power of belief, supernatural miracles, and God's personal parental interest in my eternal well-being.
- intersubjective "mythological christianity" is focused on supernatural scripture, purity of interpretation, conversion to elite culture, loyalty, and God's familial interest in our group's exclusive well-being.
- objective "rational christianity" is focused on religious liberty, practical activity and thought, textual histories, and God's observable laws of nature.
- interobjective "social christianity" is focused on universal compassion and understanding, interfaith dialogue, peacemaking, charity and God's grace and mercy.
- aperspectival "contemplative christianity" is focused on a direct experience of God, nature of consciousness, spiritual practices, devotional life, preparation for dying, an integration of all stages.
my guess is that most of the founders, saints and heroes of religious history lived from the last two
...
note: all of these stages not only exist outside in religions other than christianity, but they exist outside of the context of any of the world's religions.
also...our development can and does enter and exit (and re-enter) christian or religious contexts at any stage.
In other words, one could go through a magic stage in an agnostic upbringing, then join a fundamentalist group, then leave the group to become a rational atheist, then become an christian advocate for social justice, then join a buddhist monastery, etc...
Geisha, IMO, adamant fundamentalists like John Hagee, for example [web site above], are dangerous because of the hate-filled speech he spews using the Bible as his authority and source for judgment on others during his T.V. services. Hundreds of people believe him; Id venture to say thousands do. Emotional damage, split-up families, all manner of divisions and hurts can be caused by his teachings - that's what I think makes his mindset dangerous...dangerous to peoples well-being. On the very extreme end of his kind of thinking can be physical violence. I don't think this is news to any of us...
What I use to define Fundamentalism can be found in my article, expressed in the quotes from James Barr and Karen Armstrong. Armstrong's in-depth book, The Battle for God - A History of Fundamentalism, which I list at the end of my article, offers a detailed account of the histories of fundamentalism spawned by the three major monotheistic religions. (she doesn't cover Buddhists or any other group in her book).
Thanks for reminding us of certain developments...we do well to remember these points you made:
simply develops...and development occurs in stages...
faith develops in stages
self-awareness develops in stages
cognition develops in stages
morals develop in stages
consciousness develops in stages
yada yada yada
stages build sequentially on failures of previous stages...all stages eventually run their course (fail)...out of the ashes rise a higher order....such is the wisdom of folly
all are forgiven...all is beautiful, good and true
See, I agree that mindset is problematic((John Hagee), but, just because someone uses scripture to endorse a POV . . . . doesn't mean scripture or God endorses them does it?
I don't have to look at Karen Armstrong or my own experience to understand extreme. Scripture itself reveals that there are people who will use it for political and personal gain. Nor do I need to look further to understand that there are those who use it with contention.
Funny thing. . . . scripture is spot on concerning these people. . . . and if it is true, and it is pretty accurate about them. . . .then there is ultimate justice involved. An authority with the power to execute that justice. Interesting to ponder the concept of justice. Where does that come from?
So, what are we going to do? Legislate theology we don't like? It would just be replaced with something else.
Think about it. . . . religious people got prohibition passed. They saw something that went against their idea of morality. . . . right and wrong. . . . the demon rum. . . .and what happened when they got to decide what was acceptable? They had some valid concerns BTW. . . but, when they were successful, we got organized crime that we are still dealing with today. . . . it opened a flood gate. . . pick your poison.
A group of early Puritans were successful in establishing a powerful political base, which for a time strictly legislated the moral code. . . . what happened? The religious persecution which resulted was greater than that from which they themselves had fled. By the second generation their kids were doing things much worse than what they sought to eradicate!
Scripture tells us about the children of Israel who cried out for a king. . . . they ended up with rulers who were very corrupt and very oppressive. God warned them repeatedly what would happen.
Many in the crowds who followed Jesus were very excited about the prospect of a new king. . . . they thought He would right all the moral wrongs as earthly ruler . . . a new political guy. . . . . . they were ready to join his party and create a new utopia. . . . well, once He started telling them of the personal cost involved in His way . . . . that 5,000 He fed dwindle to a few.
Jesus had serious disdain for religiosity BTW. . . for the John Hagee crowd. . . . you and He are tracking together on this.
I could go on about how He does do this. . . . changes hearts. . . rights the wrongs. . . and works within us. . . I could speak of powerful transformation of the individual. . . . but, you have said it is not for you. I think you are wrong. . . . I think He is exactly the answer you really would appreciate. . . . because. . . .
People like John Hagee are part of the human condition . . . . and no matter how much we speak up . . . or how much we try to control and change things. . . .that condition is going to manifest itself in some form or another. We are not going to stop it and history is replete with examples of us trying.
What if we manage to eradicate what we see as Christian religiosity? What we rightly consider hateful . . . do we get a better world or eventually just a different form of the same thing?
I see it. . . up pops another group. . . yet another people with a better way. . . . to tell us how we should go . . . . didn't you actually write there must be a better way? Well, there are many voices, many paths, and many ways. Scripture even speaks of this. . . Jesus spoke of paths and ways. Part of being human. . .wanting to go our own way.
We can even become extreme on our path in opposition to extreme! :)
The book. . . which is the book that holds the explanation. . . nails this stuff. . . perfectly. . . the guy. . . whom the book is about. . . . got it. . . understood the human condition, and it is downright uncomfortable sometimes to hear Him expose it.
But, He made claims about Himself. . . that He was the way. . . . the answer. . . . that He was the one to set it right. He claimed He had the authority to restore us to the right way.
Hey, He was pretty spot on about what it means to be human.
Justice, evil, forgiveness, restoration, love. . . . all the things that the cry out from the human condition converged in one place in time. . . . on the cross. The explanation about the solution is actually pretty staggering. Scripture explains what happened on that cross. You either accept it as true or you don't.
You can give your life over to Him, let Him transform you from the inside out. . . . have hope in the completion of restoration. . . or you can go another path. What matters is the reality of authority. Is there salvation elsewhere? It is pretty apparent we can't save ourselves.
And I have to say that it breaks my heart into tiny pieces when people twist scripture to their own ends. When they stray from the simplicity and beauty of the gospel. It never surprises me. . . people do this with many, many things.
But, the idea that something can be true for you and not for me. . . . frankly. . . . makes my head nearly explode. Take the blind men and the elephant. . .at the end of the day. . . it is still an elephant who went home.
It is either true or not. . . . it either corresponds to the reality or it doesn't. It is the truth of why we are here . . . . coded with a billion little bits of knowledge. . . . . designed by an intelligent personal Creator. . . . restored for a purpose. . . or not. But, once you start asking the existential questions. . . it is more than a reasonable explanation. . . it is a life altering one that gives peace and really. . . . incredible joy.
I don't care if the explanation came wandering in, written in crayon, on the back of a goat. . . we still deal with the explanation. When John Hagee, VP, me, you, or anyone talk at the explanation instead of letting it speak to us. . . all we really get back is the lonely sound of our own voice.
I realize it was directed at Penworks but, if I may, just two minor points...
You can give your life over to Him, let Him transform you from the inside out. . . . have hope in the completion of restoration. . . or you can go another path.
It seems to me that some people are physically incapable of faith in God. It's not that they don't want to believe in God, it's that their sense of logic and reason won't allow it. And it's not that these individuals don't seek answers -- it's just that for them God isn't it.
Is there salvation elsewhere? It is pretty apparent we can't save ourselves.
Salvation from what? I think you said, or implied, earlier that you're not a Christian anymore (correct me if I'm wrong). But do you still believe in eternal life? (I'm not challenging you, just curious.)
Ghandi also said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ." Fairly profound comment and sobering in its astuteness.
Nice suggestions. . . . I truly mean that, but Number 4 might be a bit too broad and subjective for me. . . . not that I advocate violence, hatred or disdain. . . but, moral codes vary from culture to culture. Many Islamic cultures punish adultery. . . . . . I don't agree with the idea of harsh punishment for adultery . . . . but, I do interpret adultery as wrong according to scripture. What extreme someone reacts to it does not invalidate the scripture or interpretation.
I will spare you the rest. . . you probably have had just about enough of me. . . . I have too BTW. :)
geisha779, excellent post!
I realize it was directed at Penworks but, if I may, just two minor points...
It seems to me that some people are physically incapable of faith in God. It's not that they don't want to believe in God, it's that their sense of logic and reason won't allow it. And it's not that these individuals don't seek answers -- it's just that for them God isn't it.
Salvation from what? I think you said, or implied, earlier that you're not a Christian anymore (correct me if I'm wrong). But do you still believe in eternal life? (I'm not challenging you, just curious.)
I don't think everyone will believe. Do you? Jesus lays out some pretty striking conditions of the human heart. But, people who don't believe in God still take giant leaps of faith everyday. . . . sometimes just getting out of bed. Think about the Anthropic Principle. That is a rather tenuous veneer for faith the sun will rise another day.
There is a mathematician out of Oxford named John Lennox . . . . he is a Christian, a brilliant guy, and he talks about the idea of reasonable faith and probabilities. . . you should google video him. Really fun to listen to.
I am a Christian, but I do not think I became one until after TWI. I do believe in eternal life. . . . :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
39
63
36
Popular Days
Feb 8
30
Nov 3
21
Nov 4
20
Feb 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 43 posts
waysider 39 posts
penworks 63 posts
spectrum49 36 posts
Popular Days
Feb 8 2010
30 posts
Nov 3 2009
21 posts
Nov 4 2009
20 posts
Feb 12 2010
18 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and lo
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it h
geisha779
Someone told me the links don't work. . . . I have no idea how to fix them. If you click on Ben Witherington's name on the "Sorry" page it will take you to his blog. There is a six part series entitled. . . . A Detailed Analysis of Jesus Interrupted . . . . from April 2009. It is worth the hunt. . . . with all the talk around here of "critical thinking" it might be beneficial to glean several perspectives to contrast and compare.
Here is an excerpt:
If you actually bother to read ancient biographies (see e.g. Tacitus's Life of Agricola, or Plutarch's famous parallel lives) you will discover that the ancients were not pedants when it comes to the issue of strict chronology as we are today. The ancient biographical or historiographical work operated with the freedom to arrange there material in several different ways, including topically, geographically, chronologically, to mention but three. Yes they had a secondary interest in chronology in broad strokes, but only a secondary interest in that.
If one studies the Fourth Gospel in detail and closely in the Greek, comparing it to other ancient biographies what one learns is that it is a highly schematized and edited product, and the sign narratives are arranged theologically not primarily chronologically. And whilst this might cause a modern person some consternation, it is not a reason to say that John contradicts the Synoptics on this Temple cleansing matter. The Fourth Gospel begins by showing that Jesus replaces the institutions of Judaism with himself—a theological message (he is the Passover lamb, he is the Temple where God's presence dwells etc.). The Synoptic writers are likely presenting a more chronologically apt picture of when this event actually happened. But strict chronology was not the major purpose of the Fourth Evangelist, we should not fault him for not giving us information we might want to have, or for focusing on the theological import of the event, rather than its timing. Such was the freedom, within limits, of ancient biographies and histories. I must disagree with the conclusion then when Bart says "Historically speaking, then, the accounts are not reconcilable." (p. 7). False. This is only so if one insists on a flat modern anachronistic reading of the text which pays no attention to what the authors are attempting.
The Gospel of John probably tells us nothing about this chronological issue, the Synoptics probably do, and judged on their own terms and on the basis of their ancient genre, one cannot draw the conclusion Bart does. Period. And unfortunately, this is a mistake Bart makes over, and over again, judging ancient texts on the basis of modern presuppositions about history writing, and what counts as truth or error. In fact, it is not entirely erroneous to say that Bart reads the Bible with the same sort of flat literalistic hermeneutic that he would have used before he did his scholarly study of the text. And I find this passing strange.
Let's take his next pet example--- the three denials of Christ by Peter, and the cock crows. I quite agree with his critique of those who come up with six denials of Christ by Peter. No Gospel says that, any more than any Gospel mentions two cleansing of the Temple. Bart points to the difference between Matthew and Mark, the latter saying Peter will deny Christ before the cock crows twice, whilst in Matthew it says 'before the cock crows". He then asks--- "which is it?" The assumption is: 1) these Gospel writers were trying to be very precise; and 2) these two options are mutually contradictory; and 3) we should ask these sorts of detail questions of ancient historical documents because we have a right to assume that modern historical ways of analyzing this material will help us to get to the bottom of such matters and find the historical truth.
In the first place let's consider point 2). In fact, if Peter denied Christ three times before the cock crowed at all, then he certainly denied Christ three times before the cock crowed twice!!! But suppose the Gospels writer were not much concerned to give us precise information about the intricate relationship and intercalation between denials and cock crows. Suppose, in terms of historical information they just wanted to make clear that there were three denials and there were cock crows? Of course this is maddening to those who think that we must have precision on such matters, but in fact if an author wants to be general let him be general, and if he wants to be more specific, let him be more specific. Mark may simply have wanted to be more general in his account. And since I think, with most scholars that the First Evangelist is using Mark's account, he probably knew far more about the Markan intent than we do, and decided to be more specific. He edits his Markan account according to his own presentation of things. I could go through Bart's examples one by one explaining how insufficient attention has been paid by him to the ancient conventions of such genre of literature, but I agree with him that over-harmonizing on the basis of modern anachronistic considerations is wrong, just as wrong as claiming there are obvious contradictions based on a modern literalist reading of the same texts. And herein lies a very fundamental problem with the ex-fundamentalist readings of Bart Ehrman.
The Gospels are not, and never were intended to be inspected as if they were ancient photographs of Jesus taken with a high resolution, all seeing lens. On the contrary these documents are much more like portraits, and portraits always are selective, tendentious, perspectival.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
another excerpt.
Not surprisingly, ancient views about 'authorship' are not quite the same as modern views which assume 'individual' authors for almost all documents that aren't collections of essays by some group of scholars. However in ancient collectivistic cultures this was not the norm. Many, if not most ancient documents were anthological in character--- a compilation of traditions from various different persons and ages through time. This was true about collections of laws, proverbs, songs, religious rituals, and stories as well. We should not be surprised in the least in reading through the book of Proverbs that all of a sudden in a book ascribed to Solomon, we have in Prov. 30 the sayings of Agur, or in Prov. 31 the sayings of King Lemuel, whoever he may have been. Or again, the psalms are compilations from various different ages, some are probably songs of David, but some are songs for or dedicated to David, some are composed by others still. It is a mistake to evaluate ancient documents as if they were just like modern documents, and this applies to NT documents as well, in various regards.
For example, the vast majority of scholars are in agreement that the Gospels we call Matthew and Luke are compilations from a variety of sources, including Mark and a sayings collection, and some unique material not found in other Gospels. Of course, this becomes puzzling to modern readers of Matthew because they rightly ask the question--- why would an eyewitness apostle like Matthew need to use secondary sources for events he was present to view? Why indeed. Here is where I say to you that while we must properly answer this question, one also needs to not do what Bart Ehrman does in his chapter on who wrote the Bible when it comes to this issue—which is to suggest that these Gospels were originally anonymous, and labels were added to them later for apologetical purposes, and that when we read of who they are attributed to in an early source like Papias, we can with a wave of the hand simply dismiss such evidence.
If you want to read what a historian of merit has to say indetail about the Papias' traditions I would point you to Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, which is mostly a close reading and explanation of Papias and what he says. It does not in any way agree with Ehrman's analysis of these early traditions. Indeed, most scholars today think there was a collection of the four canonical Gospels together at some point early in the second century in codex form which is when we get the official labels—according to Matthew etc. based on earlier traditions about the sources of these documents (see e,g, the work of Graham Stanton). . . . .
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
@ geisha779: Great post. Thanks.
@ Penworks: Thanks again.
@ both of you: Thank you for the citations. You two are obviously very well-educated about the Bible. Tell me, if I had to read one (scholarly) book -- and one book only -- about the Bible, which would you recommend?
Also, I'm looking for a Bible discussion web site. I can see that there are many knowledgeable posters on this forum but at the same time I realize this is not the main agenda here. Any suggestions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Soul Searcher,
I would simply buy an ESV study bible. A springboard into bible scholar land. http://www.esvstudybible.org/
Bible.org has a good discussion forum. . . . Daniel B Wallace. . . a scholar of some note posts there from time to time. You are free to discuss and question away!! http://forum.bible.org/
It is probably a very good idea to examine some of these issues with others. . . . remember. . . . we ALL came out of a bible worshiping cult. Our recovery and reaction to faith is varied and will also be based in differing degrees on an aberrant understanding of the Christian faith. I include myself in this group. :)
Good to mix it up a bit with those never tainted by what we have endured.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Very insightful posts by Ben Witherington. I like the way he examines Bart Ehrman's work, especially, because I like a lot of what he writes. But since I am not a scholar, I have to weigh what lots of these people write with my own common sense and try to think of what assumptions they begin with to build their arguments.
After reading Ben’s posts, I notice there is still a lot of theology behind his views. It is probably unavoidable. For instance, I think he still begins from the assumption that there is a “personal” God who mysteriously guides situations certain ways. For example, you see this below:
Witherington: “The bigger issue that Bart wants to raise is of course how one could think the Bible as we have it is the inspired Word of God when, 1) this concept is limited to the original autographs of the Bible, and 2) we don’t have them anymore, and anyway 3) the canon of Scripture was compiled by fallible human beings, not by God.
Penworks: The following statements show Ben’s theology kicking in:
Witherington: “For him [bart], the deeper theological problem here is why God would allow us to lose the original manuscripts if it was so important to have the inspired Word of God. This is a perfectly appropriate question, and it deserves a fair answer.”
Penworks: I haven’t read any theological question from Bart. He is a student of historical criticism of the texts, not theology which is the study of God, what or who God is and in so doing, seems to interpret the Bible according to a particular view of what or who God is and what He does. Often, I think theologians forget they are using metaphors to refer to the unknowable (God) and turn that creative, unknowable force into an entity. But that idea stems from the one Israel had in the O.T. about their monotheistic god. For more on this, I suggest the book, A History of God by Karen Armstrong.
Witherington: “If we wanted to give a theological answer, [some of us are not looking for one] we could immediately remind the reader of the problem with golden calves… namely in the hands of fallen human beings they tend to get worshipped. It is entirely believable to me that God allowed things to go as they did in regard to the original manuscripts of the Bible to prevent mistaking the means for the end, and even worshipping the means, by which I mean the original autographs of the Bible. In other words, bibliolatry, the worship of a perfect book, was and is a real possibility for fallen human beings.”
Penworks: I agree that bibliolatry is a huge problem. But Theology is man’s way of slapping an explanation on an event that somehow drags in an invisible God and makes claims about what that God does or does not do, think, or say. My guesses about those matters would be as good as the next guy’s.
Penworks: I don’t agree bibliolatry exists because we are theologically “fallen” because that is a Christian theology type of answer. Who says were “fallen” to begin with? Christians! I think it’s because people are afraid to think for themselves, in general, and so we look to a book to tell us what to do. What better book than one that some say is “inspired by God.” But remember, to believe that, a person must assume at least two major things: 1) there is only one God; hence monotheism is the only way to describe the unknowable 2) there is the sort of God that intervenes with human affairs. If one holds those two ideas as true, then all sorts of “us vs. them” scenarios play out, i.e. which side of a war is God supporting? The list of problems is endless.
Although the problem of bibliolatry is a point well made by Witherington, I think he misses the fact that his own theology is supplying explanations that may be satisfactory to him but leave many of us unsatisfied because we don’t hold the same assumptions about his God that he does.
The Bible, no matter how we got it, no matter how we feel about its authority or lack thereof, still remains a culturally-bound book, and there's no end of ignorance about that fact and its implications - I’ll be the first one to admit I’m still getting educated about that! What I do know from my life experience in TWI and thereafter, and from the evidence of many other people’s stories, is that bibliolatry perpetuated by Christian fundamentalism is a serious issue of enormous importance. Fundamentalist Bible cults will continue to sprout up because the “general public” seems okay with the basis for these groups – a belief that a particular book has all the answers they need in this life. Bibliolatry of necessity involves a denial of anyone else’s differing interpretations of what the book says and means...interpretations offered by none other than...theologians.
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
And that ought to be posted on the GSC splash page. Insightful (and perhaps inciteful). Succinct and so very very true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Charlene,
This is why I say. . . . the existential questions which prompts our search must be part of the mix. They are relevant to the analysis and to theology. . . . . without them we can fall into a familiar pattern of. . . . knowledge for knowledge sake.
I swear there is some residual pride or shame associated with the idea of existential musing. . . . a throwback to TWI . . . or part of our make-up that attracted us in the first place.
What are the questions we at first were seeking to answer?
Why are we here?
What is our purpose?
What happens to us when we die?
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Is there a God? Who is he?
Why am I me?
On and on it goes. . . . .time, space, matter, creation . . . . yada yada
Those are the questions which Christian theology seeks to answer. . . it is not only an exercise in knowledge. . . . and BTW. . . . . Bart does do a great exegesis on the idea of evil and morality. . . no?
You speak of an unknowable God. . . . scripture speaks of a man who came to make Him known, to declare this unknowable God. . . Jesus Christ. . . . . a Palestinian Jew who made outrageous claims and according to scripture . . . . backed them up. . . . . the issue is not inserting a theology. . . . . we have an explanation. We HAVE a theology. A Christian theology from scripture.
The issue becomes is scripture reliable? Can we know? Is it too confused and corrupted to believe? Is that what was really said. Is Jesus misquoted? :) If we take theology out of THAT discussion, we are doing exactly what Dr. Witherington said. . . . assuming a particular single mindset to explain something varied . . . . theology must be part of the discussion as it is really the subject matter. The existential is relevant.
Are you tracking with me? :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
That online version looks pretty awesome. Question: is there a reason you suggested the ESV translation in particular? (I'm getting the Zondervan NIV Study Bible for Christmas. Are you familiar with it?)
I generally don't worry about possible biases or differences in Bible translation because whenever I'm intrigued, puzzled or otherwise interested in a specific verse or verses I always do a parallel reading on Biblos.com or on e-Sword.
I read the NIV because to me it's, well, very readable. Yes, the language in the KJV version is more beautiful and "poetic", if you will, but I don't need to be bogged down by the unfamiliar language. It's the same problem I have with Shakespeare -- I just can't be bothered trying to figure out what they're saying.
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
I see where you are coming from - Christ is the "answer" for you. We are in different rooms on this...I left the Christianity room awhile ago. What prompted my leaving is a long story but it was prompted when I questioned the authority of the text when I came to see discrepancies in it. I think my story Affinity shows that. But giving up Christianity was a much more complex journey than getting upset over a few Bible contradictions. As I said, Bible study does not have to necessarily be tied to having faith in Christianity or in Judaism, if you’re studying only the Hebrew Bible.
I think in this world, religion may not have been the sole cause of major conflicts but without an academic understanding of it (knowledge for understanding’s sake not knowledge for knowledge’s sake as you pointed out) we’ll have a hard time solving those conflicts.
Regarding faith...I’ve said in other posts that faith and study of the Bible (or any other book) are separate issues to me. People believe all sorts of “spiritual” things, faith in God, faith in Christ being God’s Son or the second person of the trinity, or some other sort of being - without their belief being tied to a verse in any book, or an alternate reading of a verse, or on a Syriac reading instead of a Greek one.
I do want to say I like the description of authorship in ancient times that you copied above:
Not surprisingly, ancient views about 'authorship' are not quite the same as modern views which assume 'individual' authors for almost all documents that aren't collections of essays by some group of scholars. However in ancient collectivistic cultures this was not the norm. Many, if not most ancient documents were anthological in character--- a compilation of traditions from various different persons and ages through time.
That’s a good example of the book being a product of a different way of life (culture) and a different world view.
Inerrancy and resulting bibliolatry has no interest in considerations of this sort, because to acknowledge such things would undercut the basis of their authority...that the Bible is God’s perfect Word (albeit in the originals) and our only rule of faith and practice. That to me is a dangerous world view. I held it for 17 years in TWI. I held a similar view as a Catholic the 18 years before TWI – that the Catholic Church was the one true faith and everyone else was going to hell. That’s just as fundamentalist as TWI in that one regard.
I think we cannot underestimate the important fact that the Bible is a culturally-tied book and the implications of that fact are deep and wide. Faith is a personal matter, some say, and I agree. When it becomes a problem is when we think ours is the right or true one and everyone else’s is of the devil, or at least misguided. Mmmm...there must be a better way...
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I have the Zondervan NIV. . . . well, my son took it. . . I use the Apologetics bible, the Holman CSB- translation. The ESV study bible is fairly new and it was for the articles and available scholarship that I suggested it. It is a good jumping off point.
Funny, I have been inspired lately to read some Shakespeare. . . . :)
If you want to buy that bible you can get it through Desiring God. . . for under 30 dollars, minus shipping. I really hope you get a chance to check it out!
http://www.desiringgod.org/Store/Bibles/ByTopic/All/805_ESV_Study_Bible/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Whoa. . . wait a second. I think you are still making that disconnect here. . . . you seem really hung up on the book. Where does that all or nothing bible craze come from? That perspective? We left the cult, you and I. . . . . .we don't need that jumping off point.
If I can't prove to you it is perfect, then it can't be true?
Do you know where most of these shocking revelations of additions and variants can be found? In the footnotes of any good study bible. They are not secrets.
The book is what holds the explanation. We have to deal with the actual explanation as well as the book. . . as you point out, the book wasn't always around. . . . the explanation has been around awhile. Wouldn't it follow that if the explanation were true. . . . it would be perfect? By definition if something is true. . . it corresponds to a reality and is right. No?
Makes sense to me. . . . but, the bible is not the Qu'ran. Which claims to be the exact representation of God. . . . and should not be translated but read in Arabic.
The Christian scriptures tell about a man who claimed to declare God in His person. He also proclaimed the authority of scripture by, "It is written".
Written by men. . . . inspired by God. One word as good as another, written by men in their own style, from their perspective, giving an explanation. Christians believe in the man and the explanation which comes to us NOW. . . . by way of the book. We believe the explanation, which answers the questions. . . . we believe what is written IN the book.
TWI did us a great disservice. We worshiped that book as God. But, not everyone who believes in the inerrancy of scripture(the explanation) is worshiping the book.
This is one of the reasons why I so hate TWI. . . . we were so conditioned to the extreme it is nearly impossible to get away from it. The aberrant fringe extreme. It still guides what we are drawn to and how we understand things. . . .
Funny thing here. . . you really can't get away from declaring a truth. . . you tell someone they are wrong. . . you must have some authority on what is right. You tell someone they can't know what is true. . . you are declaring that to be true.
Same shoe. . . . different foot.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
I think we're not connecting very well. I don't believe I have ever said that because the Bible is not perfect it cannot contain any truth. But what those truths are to me may not include the things you think are true. The truths I see are things like the golden rule, the fruit of the spirit, general principles of ethical behavior that are also found elsewhere.
Nor do I believe I ever said a person can't believe in Christ if the Bible is not perfect. People do it all the time. I just chose not to.
Perhaps the problem in our communication here is that there are too many topics tangled up that we may or may not feel differently about. No problem. I try to make every effort not to hold extreme views (what I consider extreme may not be what you think are extreme, though), so where I have done so in my previous posts, point it out clearly so I can address it. I will do my best.
Here's a list of the many topics mashed together, in my opinion. I'm not able to address each one and doing that is really beyond my ability. My interest in these things is more like a hobby than anything else right now, mainly because I'm still working on writing my story and these things play into it:
The Bible's history
The cultures of the writers of the Bible
Textual errors in the Bible
Inerrancy of the Bible
Bibliolatry - the worship of the Bible which to me means placing it as the final authority on everything
Truth - which can be found in and outside the Bible
Theology - the study of God
Interpretations of the scriptures
A belief in Christ that depends on inerrancy
A belief in Christ that does not depend on inerrancy
A belief in Christ that includes bibliolatry
A belief in Christ that does not include bibliolatry
At this point, I guess I'm at a loss as to how to contribute much of anything else to the discussion right now...and since I've been hogging a good deal of the posts today, I'll let others chime in...
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
I think that is a valid observation. I've known penworks since before the earth's crust cooled. I've known Geisha briefly and only recently but had some nice conversations with her. I think if you two were in the same room with a cup of coffee (or some really good Scotch - say like Laphroig) you'd both get along famously. You both have good analytical skills and are both, clearly, rather intelligent - and perhaps more importantly - regardless of your respective religious beliefs, or lack thereof, you both have a strong sense of ethic and morals. Face to face you might find each other somewhat refreshingly similar.
Consider science - kinda what I do for a living... Science rarely means we all agree during an investigation. The hope is that by cooperative efforts we can uncover little bits at a time - and agree on those little bits. Then, if we get really, really, REALLY lucky - we start to piece those bits together and a picture forms that we can begin to agree on.
In my best Forrest Gump imitation...and that's all I have to say about that.
Back to your respective banter - I'll bow out now and go get some duck ready for roasting.
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I actually agree with a great deal of what Charlene says. . . so I walk a fine line.
If you notice, it is page 8 and I just spoke up. . . . and it wasn't really in response to her posts. . . . two things caught my attention. . . . I found them so ironic I posted. One, was the idea that someone had spent many years in a cult and offshoot unable to reason out their faith, so therefore it isn't really possible, and somehow that contributes to strife. . . . and two, evidence and reason concerning issues of faith were the product of a lazy and backward mind.
That is why I posted Dr. Collin's lecture. . . . while we were in a cult. . . that lazy mind was co-mapping human DNA.
I posted Dr. Witherington because I recognized much of the history and analysis here and felt it woefully under represented.
Having said that. . . . there is something I really do take issue with. . . .there seems to be a blurring of terms or lines concerning TWI and the Christian faith. As if somehow TWI and VP's bible worship and conditioning are on equal footing with Christianity or those who believe in the inerrancy of scripture. That somehow the term fundamentalist encompasses them all.
Who exactly are these dangerous people? Those with this dangerous mindset? Can we have some clarification? I may agree, but then again. . . . I may qualify.
What am I allowed to believe and speak of before I am termed a fundamentalist?
No joke. If I believe that something is right and is true. . . . I am probably not going to believe another explanation. I may even believe someone is misguided in their perception, and I may not agree there is a better way. Does that really make me dangerous? Because if it does. . . . the person declaring me so is every bit as wedded to a fundamental and equally as dangerous.
I was hanging out tonight in a room full of people we lock up because they are dangerous. . . . as a bible believing Christian. . . . I managed to walk out the front door.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
there really seems to be a lot going on in this thread...and some great clarifying trying to happen
a few points to add for discussion, if i may...please pardon the abrupt nature of some of the points...as well as the heavy metaphor...such things are so hard to express in small bites.
...
regardless of where and how "fundamentalism" fits on any sort of fuller spectrum view of christianity (and there does seem to be a fuller spectrum), there seems within even that narrow bandwidth a wider range of qualities possible...from "extremely extreme fundamentalism" to "mildly mild fundamentalism"...or maybe even from "very sick fundamentalism" to "very healthy fundamentalism."
same can be said for any other "-ism"
both TWI and a mainstream church can share the qualities of fundamentalism...yet be very different in many other ways.
and ..."fundamentalism" seems a relatively new and narrow term being applied to a wider older condition. And while it is often used to describe a Christian context, other religious thought and behavior has been described as "fundamentalist."
there are "fundamentalist" buddhists, for example, who might as well be singing "buddha loves me this i know, because the sutras tell me so"
regardless...there seems to be a "pre-existing" pattern of individual and collective human thought and behavior that the term is pointing to...a state or condition that exists regardless of what it is being called at any given time (as with all states or conditions)
another new and broader term that seems to apply is "ethnocentric"
sports fans, corporate culture, celeb/musician fan clubs are all non-religious examples of ethnocentricity.
in terms of developmental stages (cognitively, morally, or otherwise), what we typically call "fundamentalist," "religious," "believer," and "faith", is a perfectly normal stage for pre-pubic children...and/or humanities' anthropological waves of pre-pubic childhood...our very important and irreplaceable "age of myth" that picked up the pieces where a more tyrannical stage failed.
this stage is when our capacity for "inter-subjective shared interiority"...both cult and culture...family and tribe....our shared stories, legends, myths...etc...bloomed (or not) to whatever degrees
as adults, we are not only lost without a healthy sense of this "cultural self"...but we are also quite lost if it is the only note on our flute (or somehow considered the superior note)
the wisest among the ancient (such as the jews) did not have a problem with the sacred scripture being a story. That genesis or Job was a "mere" story made it more important and valuable than if it was fact. More nutritious. More useful. Freer even. We are not to mistake the map for a territory.
from "its not just a story!"
to "its just a story!"
to "its a story!"
This is a difficult position for fundamentalism. For the shared storyline to be realized as less than "absolute truth" is to shed the reliance on an intersubjective worldview. This can be experienced like a death. If "i am my worldview"..."i" certainly dont want it (me) to "die." Which is why mere information that challenges the literalization of a shared myth is often responded to as if one is facing an attack on their life. Particularly as it all pertains to our fear and/or denial of death...such as a need for the resurrection story (and rapture and such) to be literally absolutely true. Our own fear of dying needs it to be literally true...when even deeper and wider figurative truths may have been the more useful point of the resurrection story all along.
...
and too...perhaps worth mentioning...the conflict between "faith and reason" ...between "religion and science" is often somehow painted as a conflict between the only two worldviews worth arguing about. This ignores a much more vibrant range of human thought and experience (in the contexts of both science and religion).
the conflict that rages is typical of the space between two general stages...and quite unresolvable from either position
the rational worldview is not the top of the evolutionary ladder as it tends to claim...but rather a mere "rung up"
and contrary to the claims of either camp...the language of both "science" and "christianity" live on every known rung...morally, cognitively, and otherwise
but ...since objectivity comes after intersubjectivity....intersubjectivity is trying to resist or asurp the role of looming objectivity...while objectivity is still stinging from having just left intersubjectivity behind and tends to focus on debunking it rather than growing more (and facing the dreaded inter-objectivity and such).
...
odd as it may sound...i attribute the abundance of adult fundamentalism today (as with any time) to a lack of sufficient puberty rites...particularly male puberty rites. After a few generations of not replacing our "wise elders" who knew...they basically vanished. All we can do now is re-invent them ("wise elders") in our children.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
more scrambling for words...
life simply develops...and development occurs in stages...
faith develops in stages
self-awareness develops in stages
cognition develops in stages
morals develop in stages
consciousness develops in stages
yada yada yada
stages build sequentially on failures of previous stages...all stages eventually run their course (fail)...out of the ashes rise a higher order....such is the wisdom of folly
all are forgiven...all is beautiful, good and true
life is indeed a stage :P
and no matter where one is on jacob's ladder...the ladder goes both up and down from there
hell goes all the way to hell...and heaven goes all the way to heaven
and navigating the space between rungs is more useful than trying to stay on any given rung forever
Jesus seems like one who was dying to get off the ladder...in order to see all the rungs
and Pen's article and this thread highlights a specific rung well...and does so from another rung
...
...yet another very loose sample of a section of the ladder that is in our world today...perhaps to help see where fundamentalism fits...and why it is NOT the whole of Christianity (even though it may be a majority):
- subjective "magical christianity" is focused on personal power of belief, supernatural miracles, and God's personal parental interest in my eternal well-being.
- intersubjective "mythological christianity" is focused on supernatural scripture, purity of interpretation, conversion to elite culture, loyalty, and God's familial interest in our group's exclusive well-being.
- objective "rational christianity" is focused on religious liberty, practical activity and thought, textual histories, and God's observable laws of nature.
- interobjective "social christianity" is focused on universal compassion and understanding, interfaith dialogue, peacemaking, charity and God's grace and mercy.
- aperspectival "contemplative christianity" is focused on a direct experience of God, nature of consciousness, spiritual practices, devotional life, preparation for dying, an integration of all stages.
my guess is that most of the founders, saints and heroes of religious history lived from the last two
...
note: all of these stages not only exist outside in religions other than christianity, but they exist outside of the context of any of the world's religions.
also...our development can and does enter and exit (and re-enter) christian or religious contexts at any stage.
In other words, one could go through a magic stage in an agnostic upbringing, then join a fundamentalist group, then leave the group to become a rational atheist, then become an christian advocate for social justice, then join a buddhist monastery, etc...
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Default.asp
Geisha, IMO, adamant fundamentalists like John Hagee, for example [web site above], are dangerous because of the hate-filled speech he spews using the Bible as his authority and source for judgment on others during his T.V. services. Hundreds of people believe him; Id venture to say thousands do. Emotional damage, split-up families, all manner of divisions and hurts can be caused by his teachings - that's what I think makes his mindset dangerous...dangerous to peoples well-being. On the very extreme end of his kind of thinking can be physical violence. I don't think this is news to any of us...
What I use to define Fundamentalism can be found in my article, expressed in the quotes from James Barr and Karen Armstrong. Armstrong's in-depth book, The Battle for God - A History of Fundamentalism, which I list at the end of my article, offers a detailed account of the histories of fundamentalism spawned by the three major monotheistic religions. (she doesn't cover Buddhists or any other group in her book).
Here's another example: Joel Osteen
Cheers!
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Sirguess...
Thanks for reminding us of certain developments...we do well to remember these points you made:
simply develops...and development occurs in stages...
faith develops in stages
self-awareness develops in stages
cognition develops in stages
morals develop in stages
consciousness develops in stages
yada yada yada
stages build sequentially on failures of previous stages...all stages eventually run their course (fail)...out of the ashes rise a higher order....such is the wisdom of folly
all are forgiven...all is beautiful, good and true
life is indeed a stage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Penworks,
See, I agree that mindset is problematic((John Hagee), but, just because someone uses scripture to endorse a POV . . . . doesn't mean scripture or God endorses them does it?
I don't have to look at Karen Armstrong or my own experience to understand extreme. Scripture itself reveals that there are people who will use it for political and personal gain. Nor do I need to look further to understand that there are those who use it with contention.
Funny thing. . . . scripture is spot on concerning these people. . . . and if it is true, and it is pretty accurate about them. . . .then there is ultimate justice involved. An authority with the power to execute that justice. Interesting to ponder the concept of justice. Where does that come from?
So, what are we going to do? Legislate theology we don't like? It would just be replaced with something else.
Think about it. . . . religious people got prohibition passed. They saw something that went against their idea of morality. . . . right and wrong. . . . the demon rum. . . .and what happened when they got to decide what was acceptable? They had some valid concerns BTW. . . but, when they were successful, we got organized crime that we are still dealing with today. . . . it opened a flood gate. . . pick your poison.
A group of early Puritans were successful in establishing a powerful political base, which for a time strictly legislated the moral code. . . . what happened? The religious persecution which resulted was greater than that from which they themselves had fled. By the second generation their kids were doing things much worse than what they sought to eradicate!
Scripture tells us about the children of Israel who cried out for a king. . . . they ended up with rulers who were very corrupt and very oppressive. God warned them repeatedly what would happen.
Many in the crowds who followed Jesus were very excited about the prospect of a new king. . . . they thought He would right all the moral wrongs as earthly ruler . . . a new political guy. . . . . . they were ready to join his party and create a new utopia. . . . well, once He started telling them of the personal cost involved in His way . . . . that 5,000 He fed dwindle to a few.
Jesus had serious disdain for religiosity BTW. . . for the John Hagee crowd. . . . you and He are tracking together on this.
I could go on about how He does do this. . . . changes hearts. . . rights the wrongs. . . and works within us. . . I could speak of powerful transformation of the individual. . . . but, you have said it is not for you. I think you are wrong. . . . I think He is exactly the answer you really would appreciate. . . . because. . . .
People like John Hagee are part of the human condition . . . . and no matter how much we speak up . . . or how much we try to control and change things. . . .that condition is going to manifest itself in some form or another. We are not going to stop it and history is replete with examples of us trying.
What if we manage to eradicate what we see as Christian religiosity? What we rightly consider hateful . . . do we get a better world or eventually just a different form of the same thing?
I see it. . . up pops another group. . . yet another people with a better way. . . . to tell us how we should go . . . . didn't you actually write there must be a better way? Well, there are many voices, many paths, and many ways. Scripture even speaks of this. . . Jesus spoke of paths and ways. Part of being human. . .wanting to go our own way.
We can even become extreme on our path in opposition to extreme! :)
The book. . . which is the book that holds the explanation. . . nails this stuff. . . perfectly. . . the guy. . . whom the book is about. . . . got it. . . understood the human condition, and it is downright uncomfortable sometimes to hear Him expose it.
But, He made claims about Himself. . . that He was the way. . . . the answer. . . . that He was the one to set it right. He claimed He had the authority to restore us to the right way.
Hey, He was pretty spot on about what it means to be human.
Justice, evil, forgiveness, restoration, love. . . . all the things that the cry out from the human condition converged in one place in time. . . . on the cross. The explanation about the solution is actually pretty staggering. Scripture explains what happened on that cross. You either accept it as true or you don't.
You can give your life over to Him, let Him transform you from the inside out. . . . have hope in the completion of restoration. . . or you can go another path. What matters is the reality of authority. Is there salvation elsewhere? It is pretty apparent we can't save ourselves.
And I have to say that it breaks my heart into tiny pieces when people twist scripture to their own ends. When they stray from the simplicity and beauty of the gospel. It never surprises me. . . people do this with many, many things.
But, the idea that something can be true for you and not for me. . . . frankly. . . . makes my head nearly explode. Take the blind men and the elephant. . .at the end of the day. . . it is still an elephant who went home.
It is either true or not. . . . it either corresponds to the reality or it doesn't. It is the truth of why we are here . . . . coded with a billion little bits of knowledge. . . . . designed by an intelligent personal Creator. . . . restored for a purpose. . . or not. But, once you start asking the existential questions. . . it is more than a reasonable explanation. . . it is a life altering one that gives peace and really. . . . incredible joy.
I don't care if the explanation came wandering in, written in crayon, on the back of a goat. . . we still deal with the explanation. When John Hagee, VP, me, you, or anyone talk at the explanation instead of letting it speak to us. . . all we really get back is the lonely sound of our own voice.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
dear sir, i loved your last post. it was so not black and white. and i'm never sure if i'm black or white, and now i don't feel so bad about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Geisha,
In answer to your question, "So, what are we going to do? Legislate theology we don't like? It would just be replaced with something else."
I have a few ideas, and I know that as high as these goals might be, I think we might be able to make a good stab at some of them –
1) Provide the other side of “the story,” for instance here at GSC in regards to TWI.
2) Educate ourselves about the history of the belief systems we hold and try to understand the nature of our beliefs. Ask good questions.
3) Raise awareness of the divisiveness and destructive tendencies of these groups: TWI, offshoots, and similar cults/religions.
4) Speak out and say that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate.
5) Do our best to give the next generation respectful and good information about other traditions, religions and cultures.
6) Do our small part to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity.
7) Think globally and act locally. As Ghandi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”
8) Tell our own stories. If we don’t, someone else will. Stories carry valuable lessons others can relate to.
Some of these ideas are my own; some are included in the recent Charter for Compassion: http://charterforcompassion.org/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
geisha779, excellent post!
I realize it was directed at Penworks but, if I may, just two minor points...
It seems to me that some people are physically incapable of faith in God. It's not that they don't want to believe in God, it's that their sense of logic and reason won't allow it. And it's not that these individuals don't seek answers -- it's just that for them God isn't it.
Salvation from what? I think you said, or implied, earlier that you're not a Christian anymore (correct me if I'm wrong). But do you still believe in eternal life? (I'm not challenging you, just curious.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
do you think (anyone here) love covers a multitude of theologies?
i hope so
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you
in time - It's easy.
All you need is love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Ghandi also said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ." Fairly profound comment and sobering in its astuteness.
Nice suggestions. . . . I truly mean that, but Number 4 might be a bit too broad and subjective for me. . . . not that I advocate violence, hatred or disdain. . . but, moral codes vary from culture to culture. Many Islamic cultures punish adultery. . . . . . I don't agree with the idea of harsh punishment for adultery . . . . but, I do interpret adultery as wrong according to scripture. What extreme someone reacts to it does not invalidate the scripture or interpretation.
I will spare you the rest. . . you probably have had just about enough of me. . . . I have too BTW. :)
I don't think everyone will believe. Do you? Jesus lays out some pretty striking conditions of the human heart. But, people who don't believe in God still take giant leaps of faith everyday. . . . sometimes just getting out of bed. Think about the Anthropic Principle. That is a rather tenuous veneer for faith the sun will rise another day.
There is a mathematician out of Oxford named John Lennox . . . . he is a Christian, a brilliant guy, and he talks about the idea of reasonable faith and probabilities. . . you should google video him. Really fun to listen to.
I am a Christian, but I do not think I became one until after TWI. I do believe in eternal life. . . . :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.