Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Nov 2001 22:39:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
726 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
>
> > I'd offer that one shouldn't read a great deal of Old Testament history with a
> > literal eye. Much of the ancient work has a very folklorish quality from which
> > we are meant to learn certain truths (such as the folly of pride in the case
> > of Babel) from a story with fantastical (and/or fantastically simple)
> > precepts. The tower of Babel may imply certain things about what the people
> > who told the story believed about God, but I think that we would be in error
> > to disregard many centuries of religious experience, scholarship, and
> > educated doctrinal development that have led Christiandom to firmly believe
> > that God is not in fact spiteful.
>
> But that puts us squarely back in the "is it all true or not" debate, and
> how does one distinguish biblical truth from biblical falsehood?
Learning, common sense, reason, faith, and experience, all in good measure, are
the best approach to ascertaining Christianity's *validity*. Since we can't
absolutely prove it to be true using empirical methods--nor can we prove it to
be false--the ultimate question seems to me not to hinge upon articles of
absolute evidence, but, rather, questions of internal consistency and
liveability. I can tell you from experience that Christianity is not a recipe
book that shall yield a loaf of bread if only we can get the measures right. We
shall never find, based on the books of scriptures now assembled into our
cannon, a harmony of scriptures in which are found no inconsistencies. This is,
after all, a book written by humans over many centuries, and mistakes and
historical divergences should be expected -- instances of divine inspiration
notwithstanding. Biblical truth (with a small "t") is that which careful study
leads a resonable well-intentioned, well-informed, and well-lived man down the
path that most squares with the character of God believed by Christians to have
been revealed in Christ. Our understanding of God as revealed in the myth of
Babel (a myth, however, which is meant for our instruction) is much refined and
enlightened by our understanding of God as revealed in the Sermon on the Mount.
Biblical Truth (with a capital "T" is that which God objectively is, and which
may be revealed to us after death.)
> I'm not
> putting this forth as an all-or-nothing question, and I'm delighted to
> accept the assertion that some of the bible is wrong and some is right, but
> I need to hear the criteria for how this is determined.
The criterion cannot (at least in this Christian's opinion) be given chapter and
verse, so to speak. Christianity is a thing meant to be lived, and not just
known. A lifetime of experience as a Christian may teach you the criterion. I,
at least, have not yet learned it. "Now faith...is the art of holding on to
things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods." C.S.
Lewis. I'd offer that faith tutors reason, just as reason tutors faith--yet,
the best education is lifelong. One may find a wisdom pertaining to the "T" and
"t" of biblical truth after many long years of practice; but I doubt that such
wisdom shall come before we start on the road.
> Someone here on OT.Debate (actually, it might have been you) suggested
> that the New and Everlasting Covenant trumps the Old Testament, but even if
> that's the case, the God of the OT is still portrayed undeniably as a
> vindictive, petty, and spiteful being.
Indeed. And no doubt ancient Jews understood Him to be so. Fortunately, the
revelation of his character didn't end 3,000 years ago.
> If the OT God is the same as the NT
> God, how do we explain His change of heart?
Look at it from another angle. Our understanding of God is now viewed through
the lens of his character revealed through Christ. That may be a lot for a non-
believer to swallow, but this idea is absolutely fundamental to our view of God,
Christ, justice, morality...indeed, the whole matter may rest in this point. We
humans have learned much over the past several thousand years. Why, a
priori(1),
should we expect that our understanding of God would not so develop?
> Further, there are enough
> fundamentalists quoting the OT that one can reasonably assert that, for some
> folks at least, the OT is still in full effect.
As a believer (who became a Christian in a fundamentalist church, but has since
rejected much of its theology/Christology), I still nevertheless assert that
there is much, from a position of faith, that is imminently quotable from the
OT. Even the wicked verses, can, with the right perspective, be used for our
instruction in regards to matters of pride and hypocrisy. My argument is not to
deny that some people believe that Babel and the Garden and the Flood,etc.
happened word for word; rather, my thesis is that one can practice a very
internally consistent and orthodox faith without taking a needlessly hard line
on some of these issues.
> Even if it's not, and even
> if the New Covenant trumps parts of the OT, how does one determine which
> bits are trumped and which are not?
Christianity requires scholarship. That is why the office of Pastor/Priest is
so essential; the body of believers must have educated and trustworthy people
who have devoted their lives to the well-reasoned study of scripture and,
therefore, whose opinions we may defer to with some measure of confindence and/
or reliance. I trust my geography professor (though not unconditionally)
because I respect his greater education and experience. Same principle.
> You mention "religious experience, scholarship, and educated doctrinal
> development" leading to a conclusion that God isn't spiteful. I won't ask
> you to document these experiences or developments, but I would ask how such
> evolution of faith is tangibly different (from the perspective of a
> non-believer) from an evolving sales pitch designed to fit a changing market.
Some thoughts:
1) Would you not scoff that I required the absurd if I asserted that one must
adopt the worldview/mindset of a 15th century monastic to become a Christian?
From my perspective, it seems that you find the idea of experiential
developments in Christianity peculiarly unpalatable (or perhaps untrustworthy),
though no doubt accepting change and refinements in the other humanities as
quite ordinary and respectable. What would you prefer? (And indeed, you *can*
legitimately have the better of the two.)
2) The market has changed, if by market we mean the developed moral
sensibilities and expanded scientific knowledge of 21st century man over, say,
14th century B.C. man, or, 18th century A.D. man.) We sell cars because we no
longer ride donkeys, to coin a bad--though perhaps workable--analogy (2).
james
(1) Frankly, I just like to use the term "a priori" whenever possible.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
