tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post5905498230847987560..comments2023-07-27T05:49:05.756-07:00Comments on C. Orthodoxy: What Does It Mean to Trust the Bible?Ken Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08014885672703727636noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-4451835788225205102009-05-18T04:01:00.000-07:002009-05-18T04:01:00.000-07:00Well-reasoned argument... one I'm glad to find, si...Well-reasoned argument... one I'm glad to find, since it voices my own views on how to interpret the truth of the bible. I liked your example of Jeremiah, and how he was showing the corrupt Jewish society that to truly follow God is to carry that out in their day-to-day lives- and pointing out the oppression of the poor. <br />This stuck with me:<br />"The Bible places far more emphasis on laws which promote love and community; it highlights prophets who bravely condemned God’s own people when they clung to dead rituals and pious platitudes while ignoring justice and mercy; it tells the story of a God who loves the unlovable and constantly takes us back when we rebel; it even incorporates psalms and wisdom literature which question God’s own justice and faithfulness. But above all, it points to Jesus Christ, who calls us to self-sacrificing love as the only true and final answer to the evil we find in both the world and in the Bible, and who himself demonstrated the power and divinity of self-sacrifice through his death. To trust the Bible is to trust that God, not without question, but in the midst of our questions."Sophiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17997903454991705824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-24695581964450672292008-08-11T07:41:00.000-07:002008-08-11T07:41:00.000-07:00jeb said... which ones should we emulate, which on...jeb said... which ones should we emulate, which ones should we deny, and why?<BR/>----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Well?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-32763885107887122752008-08-11T07:38:00.000-07:002008-08-11T07:38:00.000-07:00majorsteve said... Hugh, why do you insist that I ...majorsteve said... <BR/>Hugh, why do you insist that I call God, Pat?<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>This is the response to Ken's theory that all gods are more or less false representations of the one true god. Since Christians call their god 'God', it is necessary to find a name for this one true god who is not Yahweh, God, Allah or any of the million others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-22631908560425061182008-08-10T17:41:00.000-07:002008-08-10T17:41:00.000-07:00Hugh, why do you insist that I call God, Pat? Only...Hugh, why do you insist that I call God, Pat? Only pat is Pat.majorstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00797963894653739547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-44214043275193875882008-08-10T14:51:00.000-07:002008-08-10T14:51:00.000-07:00What else is there to provide the instincts which ...<I>What else is there to provide the instincts which are the basis of our development as social animals? As primates, our instincts to care for the young, for example, are like those of our fellow primates. A mother baboon, given her more limited intellect and material means, is not so different from a human mother. The point is that neither human nor baboon mothers have to scratch their heads and wait for instructions from the supernatural human or baboon mother in the sky before deciding whether to bash out the brains of the baby or nurture them. It's decided by instinct.</I><BR/><BR/>Er...you still haven't really answered my question. you're correct in describing what is, i.e human beings and other primates are run by instinct, but you haven't described why this state of affairs is 'better' than the alternatives, whatever they may be.<BR/><BR/><I>"These basic instincts have been refined and their efficiency increased many times by thousands of years of civilization. We are guided by the ethics and law that have been developed within out society." </I><BR/><BR/>refined to what end? their efficiency increased by what measure? different societies have been guided by different ethics and laws in different times and places. which ones should we emulate, which ones should we deny, and why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-84374456854252497512008-08-10T12:19:00.000-07:002008-08-10T12:19:00.000-07:00Ken Brown said... some instincts must be held in c...Ken Brown said... some instincts must be held in check. <BR/>--------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Exactly. "These basic instincts have been refined and their efficiency increased many times by thousands of years of civilization. We are guided by the ethics and law that have been developed within out society." <BR/><BR/>On the subject of abortion, Christians are divided on whether they condemn women who make that choice. The Bible, as far as I know, offers no clear guidance on the subject. Sanctimonious sermonising is not the most effecive means of reducing abortion rates and the availability of contraception is the important factor. Once again, Pat, or whatever you'd like to call your pet god, is completely useless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-58441525613788969322008-08-10T10:12:00.000-07:002008-08-10T10:12:00.000-07:00Hugh,What else is there to provide the instincts w...Hugh,<BR/><I>What else is there to provide the instincts which are the basis of our development as social animals? As primates, our instincts to care for the young, for example, are like those of our fellow primates.</I><BR/><BR/>It is also "instinct" for male primates to attack (or even kill) sexual rivals and steal one another's mates. Judging by the number of domestic violence incidents our police forces respond to, this tends to be our "instinct" unfortunately often. Judging by our history, it also appears to be "instinct" for <I>homo sapiens</I> to kill members of rival groups when it serves our purposes. Rape appears to be “instinct” for a small portion of our numbers, as does mass murder for another small portion. We do not reject these practices because of “instinct,” but because we have come to recognize that some instincts must be held in check. <BR/><BR/><I>The point is that neither human nor baboon mothers have to scratch their heads and wait for instructions from the supernatural human or baboon mother in the sky before deciding whether to bash out the brains of the baby or nurture them. It's decided by instinct.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you should inform the millions of people who have chosen to murder their unborn children (via, it turns out, "bashing out the brains," then sucking them out with a vacuum). Their “instinct” appears to be rather different than yours, and I would note that it has largely been Christians who have stood up to call that practice abhorrent.<BR/><BR/>Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason God appears such a “poor communicator” is because we tend to be such poor listeners?Ken Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014885672703727636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-56309688560493161782008-08-10T07:34:00.000-07:002008-08-10T07:34:00.000-07:00majorsteve said... anything that exists must do s...majorsteve said... <BR/> anything that exists must do so by some cause or force. For me, that initial cause is God.<BR/>----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>What created the god called Pat? Please don't call it 'God'. It's very confusing to call a god 'God' with a capital 'g'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-40030483329464529092008-08-10T07:31:00.000-07:002008-08-10T07:31:00.000-07:00Jeb, we'd be 'better' to 'rely on the tools suppli...Jeb,<BR/> we'd be 'better' to 'rely on the tools supplied by evolutionary biology.' ?<BR/>----------------------------------<BR/>What else is there to provide the instincts which are the basis of our development as social animals? As primates, our instincts to care for the young, for example, are like those of our fellow primates. A mother baboon, given her more limited intellect and material means, is not so different from a human mother. The point is that neither human nor baboon mothers have to scratch their heads and wait for instructions from the supernatural human or baboon mother in the sky before deciding whether to bash out the brains of the baby or nurture them. It's decided by instinct.<BR/><BR/>If the instincts of some creatures is different from those of mammals, the principle still holds. It's instinct and not a communication from the god of baboons, humans or spiders which programs them to act as they do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-51952569650337780492008-08-09T17:20:00.000-07:002008-08-09T17:20:00.000-07:00Care to argue the point?not really, no. i'm merely...<I>Care to argue the point?</I><BR/><BR/>not really, no. i'm merely curious as to why you think we'd be 'better' to 'rely on the tools supplied by evolutionary biology.' like i said, in what sense? i don't really care to argue with you or prove you wrong or whatever, i'm just wondering where you're coming from.<BR/><BR/><I>The animals to which the argument is relevant.</I><BR/><BR/>why is it relevant to some and not others? <BR/><BR/>i'm actually not trying to troll or annoy you with these questions, nor do I have any real interest in convincing you of the truth of any given religion and/or your own worldview is right or wrong. like i said, i'm merely curious in regards to the particulars of your argument. If you really find that to be so tiresome, you don't have to answer, of course. like i said, not trying to troll or pick a fight with you or anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-13206522254293223802008-08-09T17:13:00.000-07:002008-08-09T17:13:00.000-07:00Assuming there exists a set of gods, rather than a...Assuming there exists a set of gods, rather than a single god, means that those gods were created, or "came to exist". But anything that exists must do so by some cause or force. For me, that initial cause is God. Perhaps we all have a different definition of God, but the nature of God happens to be singular by definition. There is one Universe and one God. To argue otherwise simple means you have a different definition.majorstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00797963894653739547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-37101076082680932952008-08-09T15:13:00.000-07:002008-08-09T15:13:00.000-07:00jeb said... in what sense would it be "better?"---...jeb said... <BR/>in what sense would it be "better?"<BR/>----------------------------------<BR/>Care to argue the point?<BR/><BR/>jeb said... <BR/>which animals? <BR/>----------------------------------<BR/>The animals to which the argument is relevant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-913941073962881932008-08-09T12:47:00.000-07:002008-08-09T12:47:00.000-07:00objectively speaking, we would be better to rely o...<I>objectively speaking, we would be better to rely on the tools supplied by evolutionary biology.</I><BR/><BR/>in what sense would it be "better?"<BR/><BR/><I>You don't have to ask Pat whether to bash you children's brains out or love and nurture them. You are programmed, like other animals, to care for them.</I><BR/><BR/>which animals? catfish, spiders, and a surprisingly wide variety of other creatures are not known for taking particularly good care of their offspring.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-38328988546984638572008-08-09T06:29:00.000-07:002008-08-09T06:29:00.000-07:00Ken,Yahweh, God and Allah, according to your thesi...Ken,<BR/><BR/>Yahweh, God and Allah, according to your thesis, are more or less inaccurate representations of the one, true god. Let us call this one, true god Pat, to avoid confusing it with the counterfeits. <BR/><BR/>What is right is what Pat says. However, Pat is a lousy communicator. For thousands of years he allowed us to believe that he ordained human sacrifice. Turned out he meant the opposite. Let's cut out the middleman or, in this case, the god whose garbled communications lead us astray. I know you have a soft spot for this incompetent bungler but, objectively speaking, we would be better to rely on the tools supplied by evolutionary biology. You don't have to ask Pat whether to bash you children's brains out or love and nurture them. You are programmed, like other animals, to care for them. These basic instincts have been refined and their efficiency increased many times by thousands of years of civilization. We are guided by the ethics and law that have been developed within out society.<BR/><BR/>Quitting religion and joining the billion non-religious people on the planet is probably too big a step for you. You might consider Buddhism. It's quite fashionable, has no god in it, in the more intellectual version of it, and is on the way to the enlightenment of godless humanism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-73511936334721107842008-08-08T10:47:00.000-07:002008-08-08T10:47:00.000-07:00Hugh,Ultimate reality is what it is. It isn't as t...Hugh,<BR/>Ultimate reality is what it is. It isn't as though different religions each follow different gods which all exist side-by-side; rather different religions make claims about what ultimate reality <I>is</I> (some of which are mutually exclusive, but that's a separate matter). The names we use are not the important thing, rather it is the claims we make <I>about</I> God that matter (after all, Jews and Christians alone have used countless names to identify the same God). <BR/><BR/>It isn't a matter of choosing Yahweh or Allah, as though both exist and we must choose between them (or as though neither exist and we are just making things up). Rather, we are all trying to determine what God is like, so we ask whether the Muslim claims about God are more accurate than the Christian ones, or vice versa, or whether some aspects of God are better understood by one group, and others better by another group. <BR/><BR/>The same is true, as this post tried to explain, within the Bible. Older views of the biblical God are rejected, not because the later biblical authors believed in a <I>different god</I>, but because they believed <I>different things</I> about the God of their fathers. That is to say, their continuing experience taught them that some things their ancestors believed about God were mistaken, even abhorrent. An illustration of this would be the biblical view of child sacrifice, cf. <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022:29;&version=47;" REL="nofollow">Exodus 22:29</A> with <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2019:5;&version=47;" REL="nofollow">Jeremiah 19:5</A> (this example is discussed at length <I>The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity</I>, written by Jon Levenson [a non-Christian Jew], which I happen to be reading at the moment).Ken Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014885672703727636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-69737851777342850152008-08-08T03:19:00.000-07:002008-08-08T03:19:00.000-07:00majorsteve, set of all sets-----------------------...majorsteve, set of all sets<BR/>----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>All existing things are either gods or not gods. (a)The set of all gods is not itself a god. (b) The set of all non-gods is not itself a god. (c) Hence, the set of all sets is not a god.<BR/> <BR/>You been misled by the fact that Christians call their god, God. The gods have many other names. If, for some reason, you want to give a mathematical theorem a divine name, you might as well call it Allah, Zeus, Huitzilopochtli, Osiris, Hanuman -- the list is endless. Why not just call it Steve (or to avoid sexism) Pat?<BR/><BR/>Also, you should let the Pope know about this (and all other religious leaders). The proper acolyte of a mathematical theorem would be the the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences or somebody like that. It's going to be a very small Church if you needed and advanced mathematical degree to get in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-51646470498802576112008-08-07T17:31:00.000-07:002008-08-07T17:31:00.000-07:00thoughtful and well-thought out post, ken. i've ap...thoughtful and well-thought out post, ken. i've appreciated your posts on this subject and discussed them often with others. as always, you make my brain hurt--but i'm sure that says more about me than you :)Carmen Andreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16611988330284931136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-25641559949557536632008-08-07T12:31:00.000-07:002008-08-07T12:31:00.000-07:00Ken I really liked this post about the Holy Bible....Ken I really liked this post about the Holy Bible. It really says what I've been thinking and feelling all my life about this important collection of writings that were obviously inspired by something. Whether one believes that the inspiration was Divine or not simply depends on what one believes. I remain agnostic on this particular subject. <BR/><BR/>With regards to Hugh's comments, there are many things to debate about theology, however, there is only one God (i.e. the set of all sets), just like there is only one Universe. Yeah yeah I know; quantum physicis can explain multiple universes mathematically, but wouldn't all of these "universes" still be part of The Universe? And the use of the word "pusillanimous" made me chuckle. Damn! is that guy smart or what?majorstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00797963894653739547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-50550551964120525702008-08-07T12:04:00.000-07:002008-08-07T12:04:00.000-07:00Ken,There are a great many gods. If you find the J...Ken,<BR/><BR/>There are a great many gods. If you find the Jewish tribal god a revolting character, you could choose another one. As it is, you seem to have decided to fabricate one which suits your tastes. Why bother?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-53890737341211458602008-08-07T11:42:00.000-07:002008-08-07T11:42:00.000-07:00Hugh,The whole point of this post is to reject the...Hugh,<BR/>The whole point of this post is to reject the Fundamentalists' claim that the Bible provides unmediated access to Truth. You seem to be maintaining the same dichotomy between timeless Revelation and mere fiction, as though God is either everything the Bible claims, or a figment of our imaginations. The point is that just because some of the biblical God's earliest followers (entrenched in a violent and tribalistic ancient near eastern world) believed God supported their violent policies does not mean they were right, and it doesn't negate the fact that further experience and reflection (as described in the Bible itself) led to a clearer view of God. As I said, the Bible does not ask that we accept its every claim unquestioningly, but that we join it in its ongoing drive to understand God and ourselves better.Ken Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014885672703727636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-50938402235444151482008-08-07T07:47:00.000-07:002008-08-07T07:47:00.000-07:00Ryan,The argument is bold in admitting the obvious...Ryan,<BR/><BR/>The argument is bold in admitting the obvious, that horrible events are recorded in the Old Testament. It is on the pusillanimous side in not admitting that the Jewish tribal god was responsible for mass murder, genocide, capricious tyranny and unfathomable evil and deserves the same condemnation as Hitler and Stalin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4065406139986258489.post-53477964153023999652008-08-06T22:20:00.000-07:002008-08-06T22:20:00.000-07:00Thanks for this Ken - a very well-written and well...Thanks for this Ken - a very well-written and well-reasoned argument about an important subject. I especially appreciated your perspective at the end:<BR/><BR/>"For despite what some seem to think, the horrific parts of the Bible, like the horrific parts of life, are not given the last word."<BR/><BR/>An important reminder - thanks again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com