Sunday, October 12, 2014
This passage seem as though it could be problematic to a number of Christians
44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise[h] from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things.
I saw a tweet this morning that highlighted this verse, and it struck me that folks who are "red letter Christians" might have some trouble with this verse.
1. It implicitly treats the resurrection as historical.
2. It implicitly treats at least part of the OT is historical and accurate.
3. It grounds Jesus message in the OT.
4. It explicitly says that Jesus believed that His death was necessary.
5. It explicitly says that Jesus believed that His death and resurrection was to secure repentance and remission of sins.
6. It explicitly says that the Jesus believed that Gospel to be preached is that Jesus died for the remission of sin.
7. It explicitly says that the Disciples were witnesses.
8. The letters used for this are red.
So many folks like to write off the OT as "myth" or "legend", while minimizing the miraculous works of Jesus. Many of these same folks like to focus on the more "feel good" teachings of Jesus, while minimizing His focus on sin and repentance. I'm not sure how these folks would deal with this, but I'm sure taking it as a clear. literal saying of Jesus is probably not high on the list.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
72 comments:
Craig...
So many folks like to write off the OT as "myth" or "legend", while minimizing the miraculous works of Jesus. Many of these same folks like to focus on the more "feel good" teachings of Jesus, while minimizing His focus on sin and repentance.
If you're speaking of people like myself, then you are not understanding our goals or motives.
We/I absolutely do NOT "write off" a single line of Scripture for any reason. I look at various texts and say, "That one appears to be parable," and "This one appears to be more mythic," and "that one fits mostly as a poem..." ...that is, we strive earnestly and seriously to understand the literary genres and tropes being used so as to best understand a passage. This has nothing to do with "writing off" scripture as if we devalue it, and everything to do with honoring the text for the sacred writings we believe it to be.
You insult those who merely disagree with Craig's noble personal opinions to denigrate our efforts at Bible study in this manner, and marginalize yourself as being motivated by ignorance and misunderstanding, at best, and hatefulness and gracelessness at worst. You shouldn't do that, agreed?
Similarly, we look to ALL of Jesus' teachings and don't think of them as "feel good" or hard, but just as Jesus' teachings. Believing strongly that Jesus taught us to love, stand with, assist, defend the poor, the mentally ill, the marginalized has absolutely nothing to do with "feel good" teachings. You work with the poor, you should know it's not always an easy thing to do.
Advocating peacemaking and being prepared to take beatings and abuse at the hands of the enemies can hardly be described as "feel good..." As a human being, it certainly would oftentimes feel good to punch back rather than turn the other cheek, but we embrace these HARD teachings of Jesus exactly because we take the bible seriously.
Feel free to disagree with our interpretations and opinions, but don't do something as silly as to denigrate and misrepresent our serious and earnest efforts as mere appeals to human comfort and ease... not when the road we're following is such a difficult one. You're only embarrassing yourself and marginalizing yourself when you do so.
Dan
Craig...
it struck me that folks who are "red letter Christians" might have some trouble with this verse.
You are mistaken, at least as far as it concerns me and folk like me. No, I have no concerns with that passage. I MIGHT have some concerns about how people like you interpret these words, but that is a problem with your personal human interpretation, not the passage...
1. It implicitly treats the resurrection as historical.
I don't have a problem with that.
2. It implicitly treats at least part of the OT is historical and accurate.
That is your personal human interpretation. It is not explicitly spelled out. As I often note, I and folk like me will all the time refer to Jonah's story or the Passover without saying, "But we don't think that each part of this story represents literal history..."
Referencing a story is not an automatic endorsement of a wholly literal historic interpretation. It just isn't, factually. I offer me and mine as evidence.
3. It grounds Jesus message in the OT.
Of course, Jesus' message is grounded in/informed by the OT. No problem there.
4. It explicitly says that Jesus believed that His death was necessary.
Okay, so?
And on it goes. That I disagree with your human interpretations sometimes is no evidence to say that I would have a problem with the text. The suggestion that it might is an indication that you fail to understand what it is we object to.
Hint: It's not the Bible.
~Dan
Craig...
Many of these same folks like to focus on the more "feel good" teachings of Jesus, while minimizing His focus on sin and repentance.
Just another clarification: We talk about Jesus' talking about sin. Jesus talked about the sins of the Pharisees. The arrogance, pride and lack of grace in the religious elite of his day. The lack of acceptance for all.
Jesus presented a different notion of the Kingdom of God than the Pharisees did... their kingdom was elite and kept the dirty, the impure, the foreign, the sinners out. Jesus invited all - specifically the least of these and the marginalized - to come to the feast, and rebuked the Pharisees for their exclusiveness.
Jesus spoke, as the prophets did, of the sins of oppression, of the deadliness of warring and the need for repentance and peacemaking... of the dangers of wealth and the need for simplicity and sharing.
Oh, yes, we talk about sins, striving to do so in much the same vein as Jesus. It's just that the sins we speak of are not the ones in vogue with the fundamentalists of today, but rather, the sins of greed, oppression, arrogance and war that Jesus spoke of.
But that's not the same - at all - as "minimizing his focus on sin and repentance..." Indeed, it is the conservatives who deemphasize the sins that Jesus spoke of, way too often.
One man's view.
Regarding your point 6
It explicitly says that the Jesus believed that Gospel to be preached is that Jesus died for the remission of sin.
That is not explicitly in the text. At all. I don't see it as even implied.
The text does say, literally...
He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
But he literally does not say that this is the Gospel/good news that they had been preaching and, when you look at the places in the gospels where it talks of Jesus sending out the disciples or of his own preaching, there is not the first suggestion that the gospel he was/they were preaching was specifically about his "death to make a literal payment for human sin..." Not one time.
Rather, when Jesus spoke of his pending death, he spoke of it in terms of "this is what happens WHEN you preach the good news of the kingdom of God..." ie, that the arrest and capitol punishment was a result of preaching good news of the kingdom, not that it was the good news.
Jesus predicts his death about three times in the Gospels, Mark 8, Mark 9 and Matthew 20 (there may be some synoptic overlap and I may be missing one or two, but at least roughly.)
In each of the three instances, they are following Jesus work with the sick, the poor, the marginalized and he says, as he does in Mark 8...
He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
There is no mention of "I must die as a mechanism to "pay" for your sins..." And yet the Gospel was preached by Jesus and the disciples repeatedly and never a single mention of this until the passage you cite from Luke 24, after Jesus' death.
There frankly is not a single shred of evidence that "Jesus must die to literally pay for our sins..." in reference to the gospel being preached throughout the gospels.
Agreed? If not, please cite the support, as I am unaware of it.
"44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures."
So we clearly have Jesus relating what He told His disciples to what was written in the Jewish Scriptures. This leads naturally to a couple of conclusions.
1. That Jesus considered the OT prophecy as something that was accurate, and something that referred directly to Him, as well as something He fulfilled.
2. It makes it clear that there was an established canon of Jewish scripture that was accepted.
3. He explicitly affirms the writings of Moses and the Prophets.
4. He explains the scriptures to the disciples, which presumes they were able to understand and comprehend His explanation.
"46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise[h] from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Again some conclusions that can be drawn.
1. Again, He is directly referencing the established canon of Jewish Scripture as accurate and authoritative.
2. He is also clearly teaching that His death was related to repentance and remission of sins.
3. The message of repentance and remission was not just for the Jews, but everyone.
So, while it is possible to read into the text things that might or might not be there.
The simple fact is that this text militates against those who wish to minimize the miraculous nature of Jesus ministry. It also militates against that blanket dismissal of large swaths of the Jewish Scripture as anything but what it appears to be.
Anyway I realize it's possible to rationalize and read into the text, the problem is is it necessary.
I'd advise you against reading into the text what is not necessary, yes.
Thanks for the advice. Fortunately reading what is clear in the text, isn't reading anything into anything.
Because, you certainly would never, ever, ever, read anything into the text. Nor would you ever place your own reason over that plain reading of the text.
Thanks, I certainly strive to stay away from reading things into the text.
Using our reason, on the other hand, is wise and biblical, seems to me. Without your reason, what else you got? An irrational reading of the text? That helps no one.
"Using our reason, on the other hand, is wise and biblical, seems to me."
Please, oh please, provide some Biblical support for this claim of fact. Please.
Especially the part where Reason is the supreme determination of things.
Please.
"An irrational reading of the text?"
This is, of course, and unsupported opinion, based on a faulty presumption.
Unless, of course, you are simply saying that it is possible to use our understanding of language to read what the text clearly says which does require some degree of ability to use reason to grasp the rules of language.
Craig...
Please, oh please, provide some Biblical support for this claim of fact.
You need me to give you a biblical support for the claim that using our reason is wise and biblical?
"Come, let us reason together."
"When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things."
"because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
"So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present."
"And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks."
"always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence"
Are you seriously going to argue that using our reason is unbiblical? Is that a rational place to stand?
It would explain a lot, I guess.
Well, done and done.
Especially the part where Reason is the supreme determination of things
What do you, praytell, think is the "supreme determination" of things?
I, for one, did not say that reason is the supreme determination of things. I have made, however, the rational claim that we do and must use our reason to sort things out, to weigh ideas and opinions (like your many opinions about what "the Bible teaches..."). But by all means, tell me what you use in place of your reason to sort ideas out?
Craig...
"An irrational reading of the text?"
This is, of course, and unsupported opinion, based on a faulty presumption.
Unless, of course, you are simply saying that it is possible to use our understanding of language to read what the text clearly says which does require some degree of ability to use reason to grasp the rules of language.
First, you left off the first half of what I asked you, which was...
Without your reason, what else you got?
What is your answer to that question?
And to the latter part of what you said, yes, we use our reason to "read what the text clearly says" AND we use our reason to strive to understand literary genre, literary devices, imagery vs literal language, understand the history and context of what was said... we use our reason every step along the way.
Or at least I do.
What do you use?
Of course we all use our reasoning, so I don't see that you are bitching for any great purpose other than to bitch and moan. I can't imagine that you are solidly coming out against using reason, in which case, there is no disagreement.
But you tell me.
Or don't.
"Are you seriously going to argue that using our reason is unbiblical? Is that a rational place to stand?"
No, I'm suggesting that your use of reason to reason your way to an understanding of Biblical texts that is contrary to the plain meaning is faulty. I'm further suggesting that to place "Reason" as some sort of objective standard and to exclude other options is also faulty.
"What do you, praytell, think is the "supreme determination" of things?"
Call me strange, but I'd say God. Not Dan's reason.
"I, for one, did not say that reason is the supreme determination of things."
So, you were unable to use your reason to determine that was me using hyperbole. Gotcha.
"Without your reason, what else you got?"
I'd suggest that we start with the text, then move on to the hundreds of years of study and consensus on the meaning of the text, as a start. However, there remains a problem with your position that you might be able to clear up.
1. Is "reason" an objective standard?
2. If so, then who objectively defines what is objectively reasonable?
3. If it is not, then how does one adjudicate the reasonableness of two opposing claims?
4. If ones reason draws one to a conclusion that is opposite of the source material used, how does one explain that?
5. Is reason static?
6. If a group of people at one place and time in history decide that behavior A is reasonable, yet a different group of people in a different place and time decide it is unreasonable, are they both correct? Or which one is incorrect?
1. Is "reason" an objective standard?
No. Not my reason, not your reason.
2. If so, then who objectively defines what is objectively reasonable?
It's not.
3. If it is not, then how does one adjudicate the reasonableness of two opposing claims?
The best we can. What do you think? What else is there?
If you say, "The Bible!" then the question is, WHOSE interpretation of the bible?
It ALWAYS comes back to reason, it's what we've got, bud, like it or not.
What else is there?
4. If ones reason draws one to a conclusion that is opposite of the source material used, how does one explain that?
Because the source material may not be a reasonable starting place.
Because the interpretation of the source material may be mistaken.
If the source material is a Bicycle Repair manual and someone is trying to use it to fix their computer, they have grabbed the wrong source material and are using it in an inapproprate way, thus any conclusions they reach will likely not be sound.
I think the Creationists have drawn a conclusion opposite/contrary to the source material found in the bible. How do YOU explain that?
5. Is reason static?
No.
6. If a group of people at one place and time in history decide that behavior A is reasonable, yet a different group of people in a different place and time decide it is unreasonable, are they both correct? Or which one is incorrect?
First of all, probably most of us can agree that if there is harm being caused, then the one causing harm is incorrect.
Otherwise, we have no objective source to say, "Yes, this person is correct."
If you say, "Ah, but we do! The bible!" we're right back to WHOSE interpretation of the Bible? Are they/you using the Bible correctly? IS the Bible intended (by whom?) to be a source for deciding between two moral options? Says who?
If you say GOD! I would certainly agree, BUT, how do we objectively go on to say, "...and THIS is what God wants!"? We're right back to the same rational problem with trying to claim that there is an objective source.
I answered each of your questions clearly and directly. I hope you'll do the same for me.
Let me clarify something... you asked and I answered...
1. Is "reason" an objective standard?
No. Not my reason, not your reason.
I think one can make the case that "our human reasoning" is one thing (and that's what I'm speaking about above that is not an objective standard). Then one could say there is cold, calculated reason: The stating of demonstrable facts as matter of facts.
Reason in this sense might be called objective.
1+1 DOES equal 2;
If you jump off a building on earth with nothing below you, you WILL fall until you hit the ground below you;
We do NOT demonstrably know if a God exists and what that God's exact nature is;
We CAN demonstrably know that a God does not exist;
etc. Each of these are objective facts that we can reason our way to, just looking at demonstrable facts. In that sense, cold reason is objective, insofar as its speaking of simple demonstrable facts.
Now, that doesn't mean that, in my last example
Sorry, that last one should have been "We CAN'T demonstrably know that a God does not exist."
"I think the Creationists have drawn a conclusion opposite/contrary to the source material found in the bible."
I'd be much more interested n how you would demonstrate that "Creationists" (I guess you'd have to define that word first), have come to a conclusion that is "opposite/contrary" to that found in the Bible.
"First of all, probably most of us can agree that if there is harm being caused, then the one causing harm is incorrect."
Really, is this a hard and fast objective standard? What is the basis for your opinion?
"If you jump off a building on earth with nothing below you, you WILL fall until you hit the ground below you;"
No, in the formulation above, you will quite clearly hit nothing.
"We do NOT demonstrably know if a God exists..."
Are you omniscient? How can you prove this to a 100% certainty? What would it take to disprove your opinion?
It is a simple fact statement, Craig. WE do not demonstrably know, provably so, that God exists.
We may FEEL like we know it.
We may have sufficient evidence to believe it.
But as a point of fact, we do not demonstrably, provably "know" God exists.
What would it take for someone to disprove that statement? To demonstrably prove God exists.
By all means, prove me wrong. Being a God-believer, I'd love to be able to prove it, demonstrably, objectively.
You can't.
I answered your questions, will you answer mine?
"WE do not demonstrably know, provably so, that God exists."
Let's be clear. First, the only completely 100% accurate statement is that "YOU do not...", unless you feel qualified to speak for others.
Having said that.
1. Nothing in your statement has any bearing on whether it is possible to know that God exists.
2. Your statement hinges on what appears to be an unreasonable standard of proof.
3. Nothing in your statement has any bearing on the actual existence of God.
If you accept that the only possible proof is the "Doubting Thomas" level, then you are correct. If you are willing to accept that it is possible to prove things using other accepted methods, then it seems more realistic.
Many people believe that Darwinian (macor) evolution is a proven fact. Yet, there is no place you can send me that can show incontrovertible proof of a female dog giving birth to a cat. Those who accept evolution as a "proven fact" seem to find it reasonable that "The final probability of getting a functional protein composed of 100 amino acids is 1 in 10^125. Even if you fill the universe with pre-biotic soup, and react amino acids at Planck time (very fast!) for 14 billion years, you are probably not going to get even 1 such protein. And you need at least 100 of them for minimal life functions, plus DNA and RNA.". I don't know, maybe you are someone who accepts Darwinian evolutionary theory as proven fact. Can you show me the experiment where a single protein has been created with no human intervention.
There are plenty of things that people accept as proven fact, without being able to meet the standard you seem to want.
Why the different standard for God, tha Darwin?
"...will you answer mine?"
I'm not sure what specific questions I haven't answered at least to some degree.
But as I usually do, I'll keep after it.
"Before we answer this question, we must distinguish five questions that are often confused.
First, there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not.
Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.)
Third, there is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many Christians think God's existence is like that.
Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists, amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. For instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable.
Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by the scientific method, i.e., by experiment, observation, and measurement? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs.
I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to the fifth. God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.
There are many arguments for God's existence, but most of them have the same logical structure, which is the basic structure of any deductive argument. First, there is a major premise, or general principle. Then, a minor premise states some particular data in our experience that come under that principle. Finally, the conclusion follows from applying the general principle to the particular case.
In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are different. The arguments are like roads, from different starting points, all aiming at the same goal of God. In subsequent essays we will explore the arguments from cause and effect, from conscience, from history, and from Pascal's Wager. The next essay explores the Argument from Design."
As long as you insist on a standard of "scientific proof", even though I suspect there are plenty of facts for which you don't expect this "scientific" standard, and are unwilling to admit that other forms of proof are possible, then my attempting to answer your question will be pointless and frustrating.
So, first you need to come to grips with what proof is (not simply the MW definition) but how it operates in real life. Second you would need to prove that your standard of proof is the only possible realistic standard. Third you would have to prove that you have or demand the same level of proof for things like evolution, history, etc. Forth, you have to prove that the scientific method is the appropriate way to even go about proving God because obviously science has limits.
http://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/5-proofs.html
Obviously, I could copy paste the entire text in a lengthy series of comments, but that would be silly.
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm
Think about what constitutes proof of God's existence, take a look at some of the classical arguments for the existence for God, demonstrate their flaws, then we might be able to move on.
I suspect you'll probably complain about copy/paste or posting links as if you'd be happier with me paraphrasing the arguments. So, if the only thing stopping you from considering these possibilities is my lack of typing them, then I'm sorry.
"You are mistaken, at least as far as it concerns me and folk like me."
I just caught this.
Are you so arrogant that you really think everything is about you?
Or, are you really so arrogant as to presume that you and your views represent a constituency larger than yourself and your small community?
Craig...
I'm not sure what specific questions I haven't answered at least to some degree.
Let me help you...
1. The best we can. What do you think? What else is there?
2. If you say, "The Bible!" then the question is, WHOSE interpretation of the bible?
It ALWAYS comes back to reason, it's what we've got, bud, like it or not.
3. What else is there?
4. First of all, probably most of us can agree that if there is harm being caused, then the one causing harm is incorrect.
Otherwise, we have no objective source to say, "Yes, this person is correct."
If you say, "Ah, but we do! The bible!" we're right back to WHOSE interpretation of the Bible? Are they/you using the Bible correctly? IS the Bible intended (by whom?) to be a source for deciding between two moral options? Says who?
5. If you say GOD! I would certainly agree, BUT, how do we objectively go on to say, "...and THIS is what God wants!"?
Craig...
As long as you insist on a standard of "scientific proof", even though I suspect there are plenty of facts for which you don't expect this "scientific" standard, and are unwilling to admit that other forms of proof are possible, then my attempting to answer your question will be pointless and frustrating.
Another question/request:
Just give me one proof, something to demonstrate objectively to all reasonable observers - including atheists - that God exists.
At some point in the past, you dismissed this by saying (appearing to say... I think I asked for clarification and you passed) that all atheists were not reasonable, so you didn't need to prove it to them.
Is that what you're saying?
Craig...
"You are mistaken, at least as far as it concerns me and folk like me."
I just caught this.
Are you so arrogant that you really think everything is about you?
No. I'm factually not. You can tell that by the way I intentionally spelled out my response: IN SO FAR as your point goes for "red letter Christians" like myself and all my community of friends and believers, you are mistaken.
I can only speak for myself and the people I know well and that is my very direct and clear response. What is arrogant about speaking for myself and my community?
To remind you of the context of YOUR words and my response, you said...
I saw a tweet this morning that highlighted this verse, and it struck me that folks who are "red letter Christians" might have some trouble with this verse.
And I responded...
If you're speaking of people like myself, then you are not understanding our goals or motives.
I am part of the group that you might characterize as Red Letter Christians (ie, we are followers of Jesus and look to his words especially and specifically in trying to follow Jesus - crazy, I know!) that you spoke broadly about. In response to that, I said you were mistaken at least as far as it concerns the subset of "red letter Christians" like me and my community
No need to get in a huff about everything. Instead of getting all huffy, a more prudent and humble response may have been, "Well, that's good to hear that at least some RLC don't think as I was guessing... perhaps I'm mistaken in general..."
"1. The best we can. What do you think? What else is there?"
I'd start with the plain text, then I'd look at what it seems to mean to me, then I'd compare my thoughts against the 2000+ year history of the people of God reasoning together. I would not assume that interpretation lives in a vacuum and the the consensus of the community of believers throughout history has less weight than mine. This is, based on what seems clear from Jesus that we are designed to live and do Christian life in community.
"2. If you say, "The Bible!" then the question is, WHOSE interpretation of the bible?"
Again, I look to the basic principles of hermeneutics, and start with the plain text in context. Then I would appeal to the 2000+ years of sincere, intelligent, followers of God who have reasoned together and formulated some constructs that seem reasonable and in accordance with the scripture. I would not presume to think that my individual thoughts are intrinsically superior to the collective wisdom of the body of Christ.
"It ALWAYS comes back to reason, it's what we've got, bud, like it or not."
This is your unproven opinion. It is a statement, not a question.
"3. What else is there?"
Do you think asking the same question multiple times is an any way helpful or productive?
"4. First of all, probably most of us can agree that if there is harm being caused, then the one causing harm is incorrect."
Again, this is a statement, not a question. So, excuse me if I don't answer your statement. I will say that I addressed this issue earlier, so perhaps you could reference that.
Obviously,your presumption presumes that there is a single agreed upon definition of harm that is universally understood and applied.
It also presumes that all things that might cause harm are automatically bad.
"Otherwise, we have no objective source to say, "Yes, this person is correct.""
Once again, not a question.
"If you say, "Ah, but we do! The bible!" we're right back to WHOSE interpretation of the Bible? Are they/you using the Bible correctly? IS the Bible intended (by whom?) to be a source for deciding between two moral options? Says who?"
Given the reasonable conclusion that we are to live Christian life in community, then it seems that one looks to the consensus of the community. It seems as though (In my opinion) the beauty of community in this instance is that it will naturally tend to (Not always, and not always as quickly as we would like)self correct when things go out of whack.
It's not perfect, but it's at least as good as the every man for himself construct you seem to be so attached to.
"5. If you say GOD! I would certainly agree, BUT, how do we objectively go on to say, "...and THIS is what God wants!"?"
In some cases scripture is clear enough to be pretty objective "Thou shalt not...".
In other cases, we look to the reasoning together of the community throughout history and say this is our best conclusion. Of course we would hope that the Holy Spirit would be involved in that community and provide guidance in the right direction.
"Just give me one proof, something to demonstrate objectively to all reasonable observers - including atheists - that God exists."
I've given you several options and links, which you seem to have ignored.
Again, this is a case that absolutely no matter what I provide for you, you will automatically dismiss it for some reason.
The first rule (of my personal rules about these kinds of conversations), is that it is an absolutely horrible idea to have this conversation with someone who you are not involved in a personal relationship/friendship.
The second is, that it is absolutely stupid to engage in this kind of conversation electronically.
The third is, the person has to at least have the pretense of being open minded.
So, I see no reason to even attempt this in this forum.
I realize this will open me up to more examples of your way of grace, possibly including scorn, name calling, and personal attacks.
"Is that what you're saying?"
No, although I'm quite sure that not all of any group are reasonable, so I'm not sure why atheists are any different.
Beyond that, I would be thrilled to engage in an ongoing, face to face, friendship with anyone (atheist or whatever) that would allow these kinds of conversations to develop naturally and in a context of relationship. It seems as though this is a horrible medium for this kind of thing.
"I can only speak for myself and the people I know well and that is my very direct and clear response. What is arrogant about speaking for myself and my community?"
Maybe the fact that you assumed this was aimed at your and your community.
Again, I asked a question.
"No need to get in a huff about everything."
Because you, of course, never get in a huff about anything right?
Chill out and don't always jump to conclusions.
Craig...
Again, I look to the basic principles of hermeneutics, and start with the plain text in context. Then I would appeal to the 2000+ years of sincere, intelligent, followers of God who have reasoned together and formulated some constructs that seem reasonable and in accordance with the scripture. I would not presume to think that my individual thoughts are intrinsically superior to the collective wisdom of the body of Christ.
Nor would I. And I do all of that, as well. Now, we are STILL back to your interpretation - given all of that - and MY interpretation.
So, still open questions:
Whose interpretation wins?
On what basis?
Who is speaking authoritatively as the "right" interpreter?
On what basis?
Craig...
Do you think asking the same question multiple times is an any way helpful or productive?
Do you think not answering the underlying question multiple times is somehow helpful or productive?
YOU look at the text.
I look at the text.
YOU consider the apparent meaning.
I consider the apparent meaning.
YOU consider others' interpretations.
I consider others' interpretations.
And still we come up with differing conclusions. On what basis is your interpretation able to be called the "authoritative" one? (Repeated question, I know, I'm still looking for the answer).
Craig...
Given the reasonable conclusion that we are to live Christian life in community, then it seems that one looks to the consensus of the community. It seems as though (In my opinion) the beauty of community in this instance is that it will naturally tend to (Not always, and not always as quickly as we would like)self correct when things go out of whack.
Good answer, and we both DO look to the community of believers and scholars. But you look to one subset of believers and think their understanding is best. I look to another subset of believers. Which community of believers? "Consensus" could imply majority... is that what you're saying? That group A believes 1, 2 and 3 about topic X and group B believes 2, 3 and 6 about topic X (and, of course, there are other Groups, C, D, etc)... are you saying that whichever group has the most members, that is the "authoritative" answer? If so, you are appealing to a majority of human believers, this is not the same as God's Answer, and God's Word is the Authoritative one, not humans.
You appear to recognize the problem with this, because you go on to say...
It's not perfect, but it's at least as good as the every man for himself construct you seem to be so attached to.
No, it is not perfect, and it is not supportive of Authoritative, if your support for on what bases do we "know" one answer right over the other is an appeal to human numbers.
And, to be clear, while I agree with the Baptist/Anabaptist notion of the priesthood of believers, that is not the same as every person for themselves, and that is not what I'm calling for.
"Whose interpretation wins?"
I've addressed this in an earlier answer, do you really need me to repeat myself this soon?
"On what basis?"
"I've addressed this in an earlier answer, do you really need me to repeat myself this soon?"
"Who is speaking authoritatively as the "right" interpreter?"
As I suggested earlier, this is part of why Christianity is a faith based in community. Ultimately, there are two related answers.
1. God is speaking through the scriptures and through the historic community of His Church.
2. The community of believers is speaking with some degree of authority.
Now, those are in my view two different things although both have some degree of value.
"On what basis?"
On the basis that I've already addressed this, and see no reason to do so again.
"Do you think not answering the underlying question multiple times is somehow helpful or productive?"
A. I've answered these (or similar) questions before.
B. This misses the point. You asked the same question at least twice in the same comment. I could understand if you had asked, and I hadn't responded. But you asked the second time before I even had a chance to respond.
So, once again, do you think it is somehow helpful to ask the same question over and over? Especially without even allowing for the possibility of a response.
"On what basis is your interpretation able to be called the "authoritative" one?"
I've never, ever, not even one time said or even hinted that my interpretation is authoritative. So, do you think it's helpful to ask questions that ...... oh never mind, I'm not going to get you to stop asking stupid, leading questions based on false assumptions.
"But you look to one subset of believers and think their understanding is best. I look to another subset of believers. Which community of believers?"
I would suggest that your assumptions about me looking at a "subset" is projecting how you operate onto me. Yet, you have no way to judge what I look at.
"Consensus" could imply majority... is that what you're saying?"
It could, but not in a majority decides right and wrong sense. More in the sense that through the years different aberrant beliefs or questions come up the community deals with them through prayer and study (reasoning together) and comes to consensus. Again, I assume that the Holy Spirit is involved in guiding this process. I think the nature of community and consensus acts as a sort of check and balance against one person coming up with some unique obscure interpretation by subjecting them to the study of the community.
"That group A believes 1, 2 and 3 about topic X and group B believes 2, 3 and 6 about topic X (and, of course, there are other Groups, C, D, etc)... are you saying that whichever group has the most members, that is the "authoritative" answer?"
No, you can tell this by not getting confused about what is authoritative. I have said earlier, that I agree with Wright (although I suspect he loses you on this) that ultimately God is the authority and scripture is the most consistent means for Him to communicate His authority.
"If so, you are appealing to a majority of human believers, this is not the same as God's Answer, and God's Word is the Authoritative one, not humans."
You see, had you waited for me to answer, instead of spewing different versions of the same questions out all at once, you would know the answer.
Although, had you actually red my earlier answers carefully, you probably would have had a pretty good idea.
"No, it is not perfect, and it is not supportive of Authoritative, if your support for on what bases do we "know" one answer right over the other is an appeal to human numbers."
This statement is incoherent. In addition is is another example of you asking the same question multiple times without giving me a chance to answer.
"...and that is not what I'm calling for."
Yet, you continue to assert that what you personally believe is somehow what best corresponds to reality. Or that your opinions are rational while others are not. So, while you probably wouldn't actually say "every man for himself", in practice that is exactly what you appear to be doing.
I know that the likelihood of this happening between us in miniscule, but what would it take for you to entertain the idea that Genesis is not myth? What would it take for you to seriously consider the possibility that the information in Genesis is communicated accurately?
I know you'll say "proof", but be serious. You have never shown any inkling that you would seriously consider any proof offered in this forum.
So, in all seriousness, is there some person or group of people who could come to you and call you out on this who you would take seriously?
OK I've answered your recent questions, when do you plan to return the courtesy?
Craig...
you can tell this by not getting confused about what is authoritative. I have said earlier, that I agree with Wright (although I suspect he loses you on this) that ultimately God is the authority...
This has been my position all along.
...and scripture is the most consistent means for Him to communicate His authority.
1. I'm not sure that this is Wright's position.
2. "Consistent" is not the same as "authoritative." I might could agree that Scripture is a good way for us to understand God's Way (you know, like the Bible says, "all scripture is inspired and useful for teaching, etc"), but "consistent" and "useful" are not the same as "authoritative" or "the primary source..."
Agreed?
3.Whatever Wright believes or doesn't believe, as a point of fact, the Bible does not call itself authoritative and certainly not "the primary source of authority..."
"1. I'm not sure that this is Wright's position."
I've read quite a bit of Wright, including a number of his commentaries, I'm pretty sure about this one. If you can produce a definitive quote showing something else please do. Part of the problem with Wright, is that he sometimes uses terms differently (something he acknowledges when he does so), and it's easy to take something out of the context of his entire body of work. Having said that, as much as I appreciate Wright, there are things I disagree with him about.
"2. "Consistent" is not the same as "authoritative.""
I didn't say it was. Consistent means that we have the same scriptural text today, that we have had for thousands of years. Lots of things have changed, but the text of the scriptures we have today virtually hasn't. You're right, that is not the same as authority, but it is saying that IF scripture is actually God breathed, then we have what He breathed, the way it was written.
"3.Whatever Wright believes or doesn't believe, as a point of fact, the Bible does not call itself authoritative and certainly not "the primary source of authority...""
You need to notice a couple of things.
1. I'm almost positive I've not said the Bible is the "primary source of authority". So, If you're going to attribute a quote to me please make sure it is one I actually used. If you are using quotes to suggest that the quote represents my position, but not my actual words, then please accurately express my position.
2. I was quite clear earlier when I said "...that ultimately God is the authority...". I would have thought the by saying that "God is the authority", it would have been clear that I was referring to God, not the Bible.
3. Since Wright (and I) have both clearly said the "God" is the authority, not the Bible, one wonders why you would argue against something that no one has actually said.
Perhaps you are confused by the term "Biblical Authority". I think that most use the term to indicate that the Bible is the best means we have to understand how God's authority plays out. I will try to get you some links and stuff to help you understand the actual position.
And since it has always been MY argument that God is the authority, one wonders what you are disagreeing with me about.
So, are we in agreement?
God is the authority.
The bible is a book, not the authority, not the primary source of authority, not the sole authority, it is a book that we humans consider "as scripture" and, thus, good for teaching, correcting, etc, naught else?
That humans can and do disagree about interpreting biblical passages and, just because you think a passage is abundantly clear is not evidence that anyone or everyone else agrees, and vice versa, and thus, when we disagree about passages, it is one human disagreeing with another, naught else.
Do we agree on all that?
If so, then perhaps we can set aside the misunderstanding that we disagree. As I've said all along, "surely you don't believe..." because I have to believe that, since I'm just stating reality, you must surely agree with me.
But you tell me. If we disagree on these principles, where specifically?
"God is the authority."
I only had to repeat myself 2 or 3 times before you figured it out, but sure.
Now, what does that mean to you?
"The bible is a book, not the authority, not the primary source of authority, not the sole authority, it is a book that we humans consider "as scripture" and, thus, good for teaching, correcting, etc, naught else?"
I'm not sure that you have the standing to limit what the Bible may or may not be for. Further, if the Bible is NOT a rule book and it is NOT authoritative, then how could it possibly be of value for "correcting"? If there are no specific clear teachings, then why would you suggest that there is anything that can be shown to "correct" error?
"...it is one human disagreeing with another, naught else."
No, it could be one human disagreeing with millions of others, or with the community if you prefer. Further, the mere presence of disagreement bears no relation to the clarity or lack thereof of the object of the disagreement. This is an assumption on your part, that is not supported by fact. In other words, there is no reason to suspect that scripture is so confusing that there MUST be disagreement.
"Do we agree on all that?"
"But you tell me. If we disagree on these principles, where specifically?"
When you choose to use the term "principles" you seem to be elevating your opinions (unproven/unsupported) to a level of some authority. As you have most vehemently argued against any sort of authority, I find this position strange. It's almost like you wanted to try to establish your opinions as principles, so as to provide you some sort of perceived advantage in the future.
No, it could be one human disagreeing with millions of others, or with the community if you prefer.
In fact, it is many people (number unknown) disagreeing with many other people (number unknown) or, if you prefer, many communities disagreeing with many other communities.
What of it?
Further, the mere presence of disagreement bears no relation to the clarity or lack thereof of the object of the disagreement.
I agree entirely. I don’t think your argument is nearly as clear as mine on many points. I don’t think that just because we have two different opinions (mine and yours, or my community and yours) does not make the arguments equal in weight, clarity or validity. And so, I agree with this point.
This is an assumption on your part, that is not supported by fact.
WHAT is an assumption on my part?
In other words, there is no reason to suspect that scripture is so confusing that there MUST be disagreement.
Well, here I am just looking at reality. I happen to not find “scripture” all that confusing at all. I think the themes and meanings and ideals behind Scripture are pretty reasonable and understandable and clear. So, if you are suggesting that I think Scripture is confusing, I don’t and you are mistaken.
No, I’m not suggesting it’s confusing. I’m pointing out the reality that people/groups disagree, even when both/all sides think the meaning is pretty or abundantly clear. That IS a reality, we agree on that, don’t we?
So, I’m not sure of your point here, but perhaps you were just misunderstanding MY position and, if so, hopefully you understand now.
When you choose to use the term "principles" you seem to be elevating your opinions (unproven/unsupported) to a level of some authority. As you have most vehemently argued against any sort of authority, I find this position strange
Then you are misunderstanding my words, again.
When I use principle I mean it in the sense as defined by MW…
a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption
That is, you and I both seem to agree on some comprehensive and fundamental assumptions:
1. God is the ultimate authority (in our opinions)
2. Thus, the Bible is NOT the ultimate authority (see 1.)
3. Nonetheless, the Bible is useful for teaching and understanding about grace and God’s Way
4. With the caveat that ALL human interpretation/understanding is fallible
5. So, when humans interpret the Bible (which is useful for teaching – 3 – but not the ultimate authority – 1), we can and do sometimes fail to adequately understand the Bible and God’s Ways
6. Given all of that, short of God (1) telling us directly, we have no fool-proof way of saying, “Yes, THIS is the demonstrably God-approved Way, as a point of fact…” because, as noted, humans are fallible (4)
So these are some underlying assumptions, or principles, that you and I share, it appears. I was merely asking you that, if we DON’T agree on these principles, where exactly am I misunderstanding your opinion?
And so, no, I am not elevating my (OR your) personal opinions to some level of authority, I’m saying we seem to share some underlying assumptions, or principles. Am I mistaken?
"...a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption..."
So you are presenting your opinion as a "comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine or assumption".
OK.
I told you that if you asked the same question more than once without giving me a chance to answer I would delete that comment.
You chose to do what you said you wouldn't, I chose to so what I said I would.
"I agree entirely."
"What of it?"
I've explained the role of community in this process, I see no reason to repeat myself.
"In fact, it is many people (number unknown) disagreeing..." You assume "many", without providing proof of anyone besides yourself or defining "many".
"...many other people (number unknown)..."
If we are talking about the folks who support the Historic Orthodox position, then we do have a pretty good idea of numbers as we have 2000 years of writings etc to support the position.
"Well, here I am just looking at reality."
Well, here we are with you claiming to represent "reality".
"I happen to not find “scripture” all that confusing at all."
Yet, when I posited that it was possible to agree on the premise of the verse "Jesus wept" (which is as simple and unambiguous as possible, you promptly began spinning fanciful scenarios to obscure the plain text.
oh nos. Craig deleted me. I am undone!
So you are presenting your opinion as a "comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine or assumption".
I explained it once. If you are worried about me repeating myself, don't make me explain myself multiple times.
Here it is, again:
That is, you and I both seem to agree on some comprehensive and fundamental assumptions.
You and I share some fundamental assumptions. THOSE principles are the ones to which I alluded.
Do you understand now?
Am I mistaken? Are these NOT shared principles (or assumptions, if you prefer)?
Craig...
Well, here we are with you claiming to represent "reality".
The reality is, Craig, that there is and always has been a range of beliefs within the church on a range of topics. Different communities believing different things.
Do you seriously disagree with that reality?
"oh nos. Craig deleted me. I am undone!"
Not at all, just unable to stop doing what I asked you not to do.
"The reality is, Craig, that there is and always has been a range of beliefs within the church on a range of topics."
So what, this bit of trivia does not speak to the quality of those beliefs and how they align with scripture.
The simple existence of disagreement means nothing.
You have yet to demonstrate that your hunch is a) correct, b) more correct than any other c) directly supported Biblically d) supported by anyone other than yourself (and perhaps some people you know). So, in the absence of support for your hunch, why would anyone take it even the least bit seriously.
If you don't see the rational nature of my claims, then YOU should not pay attention to them, any more than I pay attention to your opinions when they appear irrational to me.
So, go in peace with your opinions, I'm fine with that. Just don't say that others can't, in good faith, disagree with your hunches or that they are not Christians or "good" Christians if they do.
If that isn't you, then we're at a place of resolution, are we not?
And we appear to agree on some underlying assumptions:
That is, you and I both seem to agree on some comprehensive and fundamental assumptions:
1. God is the ultimate authority (in our opinions)
2. Thus, the Bible is NOT the ultimate authority (see 1.)
3. Nonetheless, the Bible is useful for teaching and understanding about grace and God’s Way
4. With the caveat that ALL human interpretation/understanding is fallible
5. So, when humans interpret the Bible (which is useful for teaching – 3 – but not the ultimate authority – 1), we can and do sometimes fail to adequately understand the Bible and God’s Ways
6. Given all of that, short of God (1) telling us directly, we have no fool-proof way of saying, “Yes, THIS is the demonstrably God-approved Way, as a point of fact…” because, as noted, humans are fallible (4)
So, good on us for having some agreement on principle (ie, underlying assumptions) if not conclusions.
On March 5 @ 9:51 you wrote that the Bible is.
"good for teaching, correcting"
I have heard you say this enough other times to think that it is safe to say that this is a position that you hold, correct?
So, let's look at what "teaching" and "correcting" might involve.
"Correcting"
to set or make true, accurate, or right; remove the errors or faults from
to point out or mark the errors in
to scold, rebuke, or punish in order to improve
conforming to fact or truth; free from error; accurate
in accordance with an acknowledged or accepted standard; proper
Teach (I'm using teach since the definition of teaching is essentially to teach)
to cause to know something
to impart the knowledge of
to instruct by precept, example, or experience
Know (since know and knowledge are part of the concept of teach)
o perceive directly : have direct cognition of
to be aware of the truth or factuality of
to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty
Given the definitions of the words "correct" and "teach", as well as "know" one must wonder, how it is possible to use a document without authority to teach or correct?
It certainly seems that implicit (if not explicit) in the concept of teaching and correction is having some standard to measure against, isn't it?
So how can anything be useful for teaching and correcting, if it does not contain the Truth to be taught or the correct answer?
"3. Nonetheless, the Bible is useful for teaching and understanding about grace and God’s Way."
I could be wrong, but it seems strange that you left out correcting since I raised some concerns about it earlier. Oh, I seems as though since you didn't respond to the concerns and questions about the suitability of a "non authoritative" Bible when I brought them up several days ago. But, you decided to just leave out "correcting" as if it would pass unnoticed and save you from having to answer.
Nice try.
So how can anything be useful for teaching and correcting, if it does not contain the Truth to be taught or the correct answer?
I read the story of an oppressed Israel and a God who is concerned for the plight of the oppressed and I learn about the nature of God.
I read about the errors of the Pharisees and I learn about the way of Grace.
It's not a specific rulings book that we look up God-certified answers in, it's a book of truths, found in stories of ancient peoples, their mistakes and triumphs and about God's way of love and grace. That's how.
That is, we don't use it to get rulings on this behavior or that behavior, in a way that the Pharisees did. We use it to teach and correct about living the way of grace.
Anything wrong with that?
Put another way: It's a collection of stories showing good and bad examples, not literal specific rulings about what to do in a given situation.
We read Leviticus as a whole and we glean, "Oh, look at this story, look at how God was concerned about Israel being seduced by unhealthy practices in the surrounding cultures... we can be taught and corrected based on that... that we should be wary of getting caught up in unhealthy, oppressive practices..."
That is what we can be taught in reading Leviticus, NOT "hey, here's a bunch of rules that ancient Israel embraced (or didn't), let's apply them (or some of them) to us today!"
BOTH instances of learning and correcting from biblical stories. One is more rational and biblical to me - the way of example and story - and perhaps the other is more helpful to others, but clearly, my way IS a way of being taught and corrected by Scripture, without letting it be reduced to a rulings book or giving the book an undue authority, rather than God.
That IS a good question that you asked, though. I hope my answer helps you see my point better.
"We use it to teach and correct about living the way of grace."
Well. it doesn't fit the definition of the word "teach" or "correct". It also doesn't define this "way of grace" (I can certainly see how well it's taught you to follow the "way of grace").
"Anything wrong with that?"
See above.
If that's what you choose to believe, fine.
"I hope my answer helps you see my point better."
I see your point just fine, now that you've explained it. It just doesn't really fit with what the words teach and correct mean.
It also seems that your version of "teach" and "correct" is limited to one person reading the Bible individually and gleaning whatever they will from the stories. So, it really just all comes back to opinion, doesn't it? This construct certainly doesn't give you any standing to tell someone (Although you haven't let that stop you) that something is "sin". Maybe, you should dial that back a little.
Teach - verb - MW:
: to cause or help (someone) to learn about a subject by giving lessons
: to give lessons about (a particular subject) to a person or group
: to cause or help (a person or animal) to learn how to do something by giving lessons, showing how it is done, etc.
We can learn about a subject (life, living in the way of Grace, living in God's Realm) by receiving lessons on what worked in other people's stories... it does not matter if the stories are fictional, semi-fictional or factual, we can still learn lessons from those stories.
Thus, learning lessons from the Bible as my tribe understands it does fit the very definition of teach, contrary to your claim.
Correct - verb - MW:
: to change (something) so that it is right, true, proper, etc. : to make (something) correct
: to mark the errors on (something that a person has written)
: to deal with or take care of (a problem, bad situation, etc.) successfully
So, when we learn lessons (by being "taught") from stories found in the Bible, from these life lessons, we are able to make changes so that our path is more right, true, proper.
I look at the stories of Jesus and the pharisees and I learn about how NOT to live a life of grace, and I can make changes or corrections based on that. I can point my children to the story of Jonah and help correct an attitude of ingratitude, for instance, or correct a tendency to take the path of least resistence, because we learn those lessons in Jonah's story.
It does not matter if it literally happened or not.
Thus, learning lessons from the Bible as we understand it DOES (or can) help us correct our paths, contrary to your claim.
I'm not at all sure what you mean when you suggest that teaching/correcting can't be done if you view the Bible the way I do. Clearly, we can and do teach and correct.
Care to clarify?
Craig...
It also doesn't define this "way of grace"
Nor does the Bible define "this way of grace..."
Is it the case that your problem with noting this reality is that you want black/white answers and, if there aren't any black/white "straight from God" answers, then the faith is not valid?
We are not assured of black and white answers, anywhere Craig. In life, in the Bible, in simple reason... we are never assured, "you will always have b/w answers..." So, hopefully that's not the problem you're having, I'm sure it's not, but you tell me.
To be certain, I am an imperfect man, not always living out the way of grace we are called to live in, but I certainly strive to, by God's grace, follow in the steps of Jesus, my Lord, however imperfectly. My apologies for my failures.
Thank God that this way of grace is not a way of perfectly following a set of rules... who'd ever make that path?!
I will note, though, that calling out people for, for instance, bearing false witness... calling a false charge "BS," for instance... is not a sign of unsuccessfully living a life of grace. Living a life of grace is not the same as being a pushover, especially on behalf of others. Standing up in defense of others who have been slandered or misrepresented is not failing to live into grace.
Agreed?
"...we can still learn lessons from those stories."
So, you are suggesting that "teach" and "learn" mean the same things?
"...IS right, true, proper, etc. : to make (something) correct..."
I note that you posted the definition, then you modified the definition to attempt to make your point.
It does not say "more" right or "more" true, or "more" proper, or "more" correct.
But, even if one grants that your addition is accurate, it still makes the same point. There IS something that IS "right", "true", "proper" and "correct", so even if you are satisfied with half measures (settling for slightly more "true" instead of True), there is still some objective standard against which things can be measured.
In other words, you can't have "more true" without True. Further, your position presumes that there is an something between "True" and "False", the elusive and undefined "more true".
"...contrary to your claim."
What claim?
Again, your entire position is still asserting that there is a "True" (or whatever) and that we can individually interpret Biblical stories in such a way to lead us to our own "more true".
"Agreed?"
I completely agree that there are great inconsistencies between the "way of grace" you expect from others and the "way of grace" you exemplify? But, I expect that.
"...everyone’s duty to seek the Right for themselves."
Interesting that you are very straightforward in affirming that "the Right" exists.
You seem to follow that by suggesting that "the Right" might (will) be different for different people.
You also seem to be saying that the effort to "seek the Right" is enough.
Can you define (at least somewhat precisely) what "the Right" is?
Can you clarify if you mean that there is one "the Right" (usually that is what using "the" before something means, but I have to clarify)for everyone, or is there one "the Right" per person?
you are suggesting that "teach" and "learn" mean the same things?
No. If one learns, one has been taught. Why?
there is still some objective standard against which things can be measured.
As a point of fact, the only thing close to a truly objective standard is "do no harm." All other opinions about what is moral or right are matters of human opinion. Am I mistaken?
Now, I know you might want to say "GOD" is our objective standard and I am fine with that. BUT, how do we know objective God's Will? OUR subjective human opinion. Short of having God authenticate a matter for us, we are left with our subjective human opinions.
And if you say, "BIBLE!" we're right back to human interpretation and human interpretation is prone to error.
Where am I mistaken?
your entire position is still asserting that there is a "True" (or whatever) and that we can individually interpret Biblical stories in such a way to lead us to our own "more true".
I do believe there are True things. Am I wrong to believe that?
I do believe we can individually interpret the Bible to lead us, by God's grace and Spirit, to a more true, more right way. Am I wrong to believe that?
I'm not sure what your complaint is here.
I suspect it is that you want to say we have an objective source and that is the Bible that we can somehow, given our human nature, perfectly interpret God's will and thus "know" we are objectively "right..." but I see no proof for that, if that is what you're saying.
Can you define (at least somewhat precisely) what "the Right" is?
Do no harm, love your neighbor, everyone is your neighbor... these are my best shot.
Can you define "some what precisely" what "the Right" is?
Can you clarify if you mean that there is one "the Right" (usually that is what using "the" before something means, but I have to clarify)for everyone, or is there one "the Right" per person?
Sigh.
God, no doubt, has the perfect understanding of the Right ways to live.
We humans can strive, by God's grace and revelation/Spirit, to understand the Right ways the best we can, but unfortunately, we are not perfect in our understanding and sometimes we will fail.
Surely you agree?
As to is there only one Right way or does it depend on the individual, I would say that the Right way is the way of love, of grace, of forgiveness, of peacemaking, of justice... and that can be acted out in all manner of ways, different for each person.
The Right Way is not a set of rules, it is an ideal, a Way, seems to me.
Do you disagree? Okay.
"If one learns, one has been taught..."
So, learn and teach are synonyms?
"As a point of fact, the only thing close to a truly objective standard is "do no harm.""
Can you please demonstrate why this standard is "close to truly objective"? What is your authority for making this claim? Can you objectively define harm? Can you objectively explain why "harm" is always bad? (or even close to objectively would be fine)
"Where am I mistaken?"
A. In suggesting a "close to objective" standard without proof.
B. Trying to speak for me.
"I do believe there are True things."
Such as?
"Am I wrong to believe that?"
I have no idea.
A) Your response presumes that there is "A Right way". Can you prove objectively that there IS "A Right way", and what that "Right way" is?
B) If there IS "A Right way" then why would you be satisfied with less?
C) If there is "A Right way", then there must be "A Wrong way", correct?
D) If you have no standard to determine "A Right way" as opposed to "A Wrong way", how does one know that they are actually on the "Right way"?
E) Is the "Right way" the same "Right way" for everyone?
"I suspect it is that you want to..."
Why don't you stop suspecting and presuming what you think I want you to say and just answer the questions honestly?
"Can you define "some what precisely" what "the Right" is?"
I have nor specifically asserted that there is a "the Right" way. So, for you to ask me to define a term I haven't asserted, is pointless. You used the term, it's reasonable to ask you to define it.
"As to is there only one Right way or does it depend on the individual,..."
And the answer to the question I asked is...?
You seem to be saying that there is one "Right way", but that is different for each individual.
I had said...
As a point of fact, the only thing close to a truly objective standard is "do no harm." All other opinions about what is moral or right are matters of human opinion. Am I mistaken?
To which you respond...
Can you please demonstrate why this standard is "close to truly objective"?
Because harm is something that is reasonably measurable. If someone breaks into my home and takes my guitars and my camera, they've harmed with the value of those things, they've forcibly removed my liberty to own my own things.
If someone rapes or kills someone else, they have caused definitive, measurable harm, they have forcibly removed someone's life and liberty.
Do you disagree? Do you think these ideas are not measurable or objectively wrong?
Craig...
What is your authority for making this claim?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... I do believe that causing harm objectively interferes with these self-evident rights.
Do you disagree?
Craig...
Can you objectively define harm?
Sure. Harm, MW: physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc.
Can you objectively explain why "harm" is always bad? (or even close to objectively would be fine)
Because it interferes with our self-evident rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
DO you disagree? Or are you just trying to be divisive and argumentative over something you agree with?
"Do you disagree? Do you think these ideas are not measurable or objectively wrong?"
I think that you have mentioned a laundry list of things that you believe to be "harmful" and therefore wrong. This is nowhere near an objective standard.
Further, if the hypothetical guy who stole your stuff sold it to feed his family, is it still "harmful"? If you have insurance have you really been harmed?
Again, you have not demonstrated an objective standard.
Is harm always wrong?
"Do you disagree?"
So, your authority is the founding documents of the US? What about other places? Or, is your authority "their Creator"? If it is "their Creator", then how did said Creator communicate this message authoritatively?
"DO you disagree?"
With what?
That you haven't established an objective standard?
That harm is always wrong?
Post a Comment