Sunday, October 19, 2014

Amen

"I pray you, never regard that story of the serpent as a fable." It is said, nowadays, that it is a mere allegory. Yet there is nothing in the Book to mark where history ends and parable begins: it all runs on as actual history; and as Bishop Horsley forcibly remarks, “If any part of this narrative be allegorical, no part is naked matter of fact.” It seems to me that if there was only an allegorical serpent, there was an allegorical Paradise, with allegorical rivers, and allegorical trees; and the men and women were both allegorical, and the chapter which speaks of their creation is an allegory; and the only thing that exists is an allegorical heaven and an allegorical earth. If the Book of Genesis be an allegory, it is an allegory all through; and you have an allegorical Abraham, with allegorical circumcision, an allegorical Jacob and an allegorical Judah; and it is not unfair to push the theory onward, and impute to Judah allegorical descendants called Jews. But if you borrow any money of this race, you will not find them allegorical when you have to pay. It is idle to call the narrative of the Fall a mere allegory; one had better say at once that he does not believe the Book. There is something sane about that declaration, although it be folly; but to say, “Oh, yes, it is a venerable volume, and worthy to be studied; but it is padded out with many an allegory,” is to say something which confutes itself, if you come to look into it. The Book is intended to be real history, and it contains some portions which, by the consent of everybody, are real history; but Moses could not be an historian, and yet set mere fables before us as a part of his story. To write a jumble of allegory and of fact causes a man to lose the character of a reliable historian, and we had better repudiate him at once. There was a real serpent, as there was a real Paradise; there was a real Adam and Eve, who stood at the head of our race, and they really sinned, and our race is really fallen. Believe this.

12 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Some rational questions:

Yet there is nothing in the Book to mark where history ends and parable begins:

And there is nothing in the Epic of Gilgamesh to distinguish, "THIS part is loosely historic, but THAT part is imagery..."

So, what? Does that mean that we must insist that the whole of Gilgamesh is literally factual history, simply because it refers to some actual historic places and perhaps people? No, of course not.

It does not rationally follow that, "IF a book sounds like history" that "It must all be literally factual history..."

Am I mistaken? If so, where?

I doubt that you disagree with this principle in general, so why insist on disagreeing with it in regards the Bible?

According to someone you quote, it's...

it all runs on as actual history; and as Bishop Horsley forcibly remarks, “If any part of this narrative be allegorical, no part is naked matter of fact.”

Okay? So?

As a point of fact, you yourself almost certainly do not insist that all of the Bible must be taken as "naked matter of fact." You don't insist that we must kill "men who lay with men..." simply because the line is there or that we must give to ALL who ask of us, just because the line is there (and directly from Jesus, at that).

And even if you personally DID insist that it must all be taken as "naked matter of fact," why? Who says your opinion or the Good Bishop's opinion trumps anyone else's?

more...

Dan Trabue said...

You continue...

If the Book of Genesis be an allegory, it is an allegory all through; and you have an allegorical Abraham, with allegorical circumcision, an allegorical Jacob and an allegorical Judah; and it is not unfair to push the theory onward

Why? Why, if a book passed down from ancient Israel (Genesis - stories passed down from a time before modern history telling as a genre) contains much allegory MUST a book written at the dawn of modern history telling be insisted upon as 100% allegory? You're making a claim with no rational support.

Do any of books themselves insist upon such a claim - that they individually or other books contained within this human collection of "scripture" must be considered 100% literal, factual history? No, they don't. Is there any hard evidence from ANY source that insists upon this? No, there isn't. Has God somewhere insisted upon this? No, God hasn't.

All there is, is the personal opinion that many humans have had over the years that "if any of it is allegory, then it all must be allegory..." But those personal human opinions are not fact, they are unsupported opinions based upon their best guesses.

You (or the Bishop, I'm not clear) go on to say...

The Book is intended to be real history, and it contains some portions which, by the consent of everybody, are real history

Says who? ON what basis is the claim that the "book" (actually, "the books," each written by different people in a variety of styles for all manner of purposes in all manner of contexts) is "intended to be real history..." supportable by anything other than personal human opinion? There is no textual evidence to insist upon such a claim, nor do I know of any hard evidence to support it.

If whoever is saying, "it seems to ME that they were intended to be literal history," then that should be made clear, because that is a different claim than the bald "'it' is intended to be 'real' history..."

Someone goes on to say...

To write a jumble of allegory and of fact causes a man to lose the character of a reliable historian, and we had better repudiate him at once

This is silly and unsupported by the text or real world evidence. In the real world, people in different places and contexts have told stories (historic and otherwise) in a variety of ways. TO insist upon the notion that ancient peoples HAD to pass on stories containing some history as 100% history, told in the modern style, is just a modernist (and rather childish) chauvinism, as if saying, "If someone doesn't tell a story the way I like it, it's not valid..."

Dan T

Craig said...

Since it appears to confuse you, this is a quote from CH Spurgeon. Please take up any issues you have with him.

Dan Trabue said...

"confuses" me, that I don't know who said an uncited quote? No confusion, I'm just not a mind reader, nor am I familiar with the source of every human quote in all of history.

No confusion.

And since Spurgeon is dead, my taking it up with him will have to wait. But since you were citing him and saying, "Amen," I found it reasonable to take it up with you.

If you can't answer my questions or deal with the holes in the reasoning I've pointed to, it's no problem for me. I offer your confusion/inability/unwillingness to deal with these holes/questions in the reasoning to your own conscience.

Dan Trabue said...

"In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam."

http://www.oldearth.org/spurgeon/spurgeon.htm#sthash.dRvZQmS9.dpuf

•“What pride flushes the patriot’s cheek when he remembers that his nation can murder faster than any other people. Ah, foolish generation, ye are groping in the flames of hell to find your heaven, raking amid blood and bones for the foul thing which ye call glory. Killing is not the path to prosperity; huge armaments are a curse to the nation itself as well as to its neighbours.”
•“I wish that Christian men would insist more and more on the unrighteousness of war, believing that Christianity means no sword, no cannon, no bloodshed, and that, if a nation is driven to fight in its own defence, Christianity stands by to weep and to intervene as soon as possible, and not to join in the cruel shouts which celebrate an enemy’s slaughter.”
•“The Church of Christ is continually represented under the figure of an army; yet its Captain is the Prince of Peace; its object is the establishment of peace, and its soldiers are men of a peaceful disposition. The spirit of war is at the extremely opposite point to the spirit of the gospel.”


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2014/09/unexpected-sites-of-christian-pacifism-charles-spurgeon-edition/#ixzz3SbnPB4O5

Take that up with Sturgeon.

Peace.

Dan Trabue said...

SPurgeon, of course.

Craig said...

I have no problem with any of the quote you mined. I agree that war is a horrible thing, that is sometimes necessary. Especially since we don't live in a theocracy. Further, I respect any Christian's right to live as a pacifist, there just isn't the Biblical justification to insist on it as the standard.

As to the Genesis quote. It certainly doesn't support your "genesis is myth" hunch. I also am willing to allow for some latitude in the timing of God's creative process. I don't think either the text or science has enough specifics about origins to be dogmatic, so I'm not. Maybe you should give it a try sometime.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

I agree that war is a horrible thing, that is sometimes necessary. Especially since we don't live in a theocracy. Further, I respect any Christian's right to live as a pacifist, there just isn't the Biblical justification to insist on it as the standard.

"Necessary" according to whom? The Bible? Not in there. Your own human opinion? That's fine with me if you think that.

And it's fine with me if you hold the personal opinion that the Bible endorses Christians going to war as a "sometimes necessary" action. I'm just saying we need to distinguish between personal opinion and "the Bible." or "facts. Or "God's Word."

That is my point.

And I, being one who does not take the Bible as a rulings book, do not insist that you must agree with me on this point, no matter that I think the Bible is more clear on this point than on just about any other point as to what God's ideal is for his God's followers.

I am VERY glad that you respect any Christian's right to live as a pacifist, and to disagree with your personal opinion on this point, allowing them the grace and respect to hold their own personal opinion.

I just would encourage us to do the same thing with EVERY topic. "The Bible" is certainly more clear on what it has to say, over all, about war and peace than it is on driving, pollution, marriage (gay and/or straight) and just about any other topic except for perhaps what we do with our money/how we manage wealth/etc. If you and I can agree that the bible is not a rulings book for this topic or any other and can allow the other to disagree with our personal opinions on this, I would hope you'd have the same grace on other topics as you would like for us to have on this one.

My fear is that you don't/won't show the same grace and respect that I do on this topic. But you tell me.

DT

Craig said...

"And it's fine with me if you hold the personal opinion that the Bible endorses Christians going to war as a "sometimes necessary" action. I'm just saying we need to distinguish between personal opinion and "the Bible." or "facts. Or "God's Word.""

Thank you oh so very much for you graciously allowing me to have my very own opinion on a topic, it's such an awesome display of the grace that marks everything you do.

The problem is that I never even remotely tried to suggest that this is direct from "God's Word". To be clear, there is plenty of folks who have offered up plenty of reasonable Biblical support for Christians engaging in war, and I find those folks persuasive. But, I have never suggested that this is something that is clear and definitively addressed in scripture. So, once again, you find yourself arguing against a point that I NEVER MADE! So congratulations, you just (metaphorically) kicked the crap out of a straw man. All the while, wasting your time in writing your screed, and mine in having to point out the obvious. Well done.

"My fear is that you don't/won't show the same grace and respect that I do on this topic."

Elsewhere, you have made it clear that you believe that anyone who does not hold to your version of pacifism is engaging in sin. Further, I have been on the receiving end of your version of "grace", and I don't find it very palatable, nor particularly demonstrating what most people would consider grace.

I would suggest that we follow the old saying.

In essentials, unity.
In non-essentials liberty
In all things charity.

Very often, it seems like you get way to wound up in what have historically been "non-essentials", while often blithely dismissing what have historically been considered 'essentials" (the resurrection for example), as things about which you just don't care that much.

So, again, if you want to personally commit to being a pacifist or whatever, feel free. It's when you start suggesting that folks who disagree on this are guilty of sin, or that pacifism is normative for Christians, or the the secular government should adopt this one particular religious view, that problems begin.

But, hey, if you want to hang out up on your perch and tell folks who disagree with you how irrational or unreasonable or naive, they are and how the people like you are the reasonable, rational, adults, go right ahead. Just don't pretend that it has anything to do with displaying grace.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

it seems like you get way to wound up in what have historically been "non-essentials"

Irony. I have argued against fundamentalists making "essentials" our of non-essentials, not the other way around.

Disagree with conservatives on marriage for gay folk and, by and large, you are not a Christian. That is, in essence, an essential - for them.

I DO NOT disagree with resurrection or other normal "essentials..." and yet I am regularly dismissed as a heretic.

So, Craig, clarify: Is it okay to disagree about marriage equity for gay folk? Is that a non-essential to you?

If you and I can agree on "on non-esssentials, liberty," that would be a good step in the right direction. You have historically evaded direct answers to questions like this so I honestly do not know what your position is. Feel free to clarify.

Craig...

I have never suggested that this is something that is clear and definitively addressed in scripture. So, once again, you find yourself arguing against a point that I NEVER MADE!

Irony. Deal with my actual point by creating a straw man about me, supposedly making a straw man. Funny.

Where did I make the argument that you just suggested I made? Fact: I didn't.

What I actually said was...

"And it's fine with me if you hold the personal opinion that the Bible endorses Christians going to war as a "sometimes necessary" action. I'm just saying we need to distinguish between personal opinion and "the Bible." or "facts. Or "God's Word."

IF you hold that position, it's fine with me that you do. I am not saying you do or don't. I quite literally and factually said "IF you hold that view..."

See the difference? If you misunderstood my point, I'm sorry you misunderstood.

Craig said...

Dan,

If you want to disagree about marriage equity feel free. I have never seen anyone suggest that marriage equity is an essential, but as always feel free to prove me wrong with evidence.

"You have historically evaded direct answers to questions like this so I honestly do not know what your position is. Feel free to clarify."

Questions like what? Broad sweeping unsupported generalizations much?

"IF you hold that position, it's fine with me that you do."

Except for the fact that you have been clear elsewhere that you consider this position to be sin. Interesting on 2 counts. 1. Because no one would consider the pacifist position outside of the scope of orthodoxy, yet you don't show the same grace for those who subscribe to some position other than strict pacifism. 2. The fact that you have no basis to consider non pacifism a sin.

Interesting that you whine about me accusing you about creating a straw man while ignoring the fact that you still haven't provided any evidence that people actually hold the positions you ascribe to them.

Craig said...

It's also interesting that in the midst of literally hundreds of answers to various questions you've asked that you can, with a straight face apparently, complain about my history of not answering questions.


This leaves aside the fact that after I have addressed your "marriage equity" canard multiple times you pretend as if I haven't.