Jump to content

Review Of Book Ten Wrong Things....


BeachOfEden

Recommended Posts

Darby, you've used the word "discard" several times in different posts as in "discard all the verses of the Bible dealing with (usually hell, fear, etc.).

 

I know you won't buy this but let me word this a bit differently since you are still here (amazingly and happily). The way I see it is this: I am not "discarding" ANY Bible verses, but viewing all of them as written within a cultural historical context. Most of us do not believe the Bible was written or dictated by God, it was written by people. And since it was written by people it was written at a specific time and thru specific periods in history. Parts of the Bible describe God as very wrathful. I don't "discard" that, but think of it as that was what that writer, in that period thought. Another example, when Jesus healed the person with epilepsy. I don't personally feel that I ( I have epilepsy) have "demons", this is an abnormal brain wave pattern, but people back in that period thought disease was the result of demons. So the epilepsy was viewed as cured so the demons left him. Today if such a thing happened the person would be just said to be healed. (and maybe the next day he had an EEG and it was normal! :-)). Also we see diffences in the Gospels. If you took out Matthew you would lose practically all references to hell in the NT. To me it says more about Matthew, than what Jesus may or may not have said. (Luke, otoh, puts much emphasis on Jesus' ministry to non-Jews. It is believed that he was either not Jewish or a Hellenized Jew. Of course, his writings were based on his background and his desire to show Christianity as applicable to non-Jews.)

 

However, in no sense do I feel this makes the Bible "untrue". For example the birth stories (actually two different ones!). I don't think they factually happened. But the truths contain might be summed up in some sentences like: pay attention to the one we are talking about-- he is REALLY important (the virgin birth, etc point him out as special) !!; the star (LIGHT) shines on this man's words and works; if we follow the star (LIGHT) we will find these truths; this is a topsy turvy story as this man is born under in a humble way (and died in a humble way) but brings us very great truths. etc etc. etc.

 

Even if I regarded NO verses as literally true, I wouldn't necessarily be "discarding them". I think they are part of the writers cultural and historical background. Even Leviticus, well Leviticus was writing a set of Laws-- I don't consider these too applicable to our world (do you wear blended fabrics??) But these laws served to set aside Jews from others (and might be argued to have saved a few lives with the food restrictions-- so some at least might have been based on observations-- they didn't know then that some things needed to be cooked a long time).

 

 

--des

 

 

 

Beach, I understand that fear can be greatly abused.  I'm just not willing to discard all the verses (both old and new test) that talk about fear of God, hell, hellfire, etc.  I am open to discussing verses, meanings, etc., but I do not take the liberty of passing over verses I don't agree with in my flesh.  I know I hold the Bible more literally than you, so that is where our disagreement is.  And I realize you have been hurt by those who, IMO, have completely misused/abused "fear" and it's correct connotations.  As I've said before, I'm sorry for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

des- don't have long tonight (putting the kids to bed!)

 

I can buy your argument, although you know I have a different take. I guess my issue is that it appears that most of what many on this board see through "cultural experience" are verses on hell, hellfire, sin, wrath, exclusivity, etc. Essentially, the unpleasant verses, that make all of us squirm. But then, aren't other verses on sharing, giving, loving neighbor as self, etc. up for grabs as well? Why are they more historically dependable, or believable, or whatever? What is the guideline, if any, to decide what is acceptable, or what Jesus actually said, etc.?

It becomes very easy for us to just pick and choose, as each sees fit, IMO.

 

I think someone on a post long ago summed up my outlook...I don't take the Bible always literally, but try to interpret it as written. I won't take liberties, etc. that I don't see the Bible giving me.

 

As always, I enjoy the dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>des- don't have long tonight (putting the kids to bed!)

 

Nighty night daddy! :-)

 

>darby said:

I can buy your argument, although you know I have a different take. I guess my issue is that it appears that most of what many on this board see through "cultural experience" are verses on hell, hellfire, sin, wrath, exclusivity, etc. Essentially, the unpleasant verses, that make all of us squirm. But then, aren't other verses on sharing, giving, loving neighbor as self, etc. up for grabs as well? Why are they more historically dependable, or believable, or whatever? What is the guideline, if any, to decide what is acceptable, or what Jesus actually said, etc.?

 

Well the stuff on sharing, loving thy neighbor, etc. is NOT less culturally dependent. We know that the wonderful verses in Luke, after all, are based partly on Luke as the non-Jew attempting to reach a non-Jewish audience. They aren't *more believable* as to what Jesus might have actually said or done. (I'm sure *some* of what Jesus said or did is in the synoptic Gospels, Acts or Paul, the thing is that all of these were written after the fact. The factual basis isn't too important-- but the "reality of the myth" is.) For example, did Jesus really tell the story of the Good Samaritan? Did this really happen? But the parable definitely answers the question, "who is my neighbor?" This all is usable to me in my day to day experiences, as are many other things.

 

I take the hell, hellfire, wrath stuff in terms of the times, that that was the prevailing viewpt. (at least of Matthew, in the Gospels). I don't take it as anymore or less factual than anything else. That said, how do I evaluate it as mythos? Can I use this in my experience in some meaningful way? About the only way I can transfer this to my own times and cultural background is to take it as "separation from God is a very bad thing". What is separation like? Can you imagine being totally separate from any love, etc. That's more or less my take on it. I don't take it any more or less literally than the nicer views of a land overflowing with milk and honey (might be sticky :-)). About any other interpretation I see of this and you would need to insert a belief in a physical heaven and hell.

 

As for a non-wrathful or a more wrathful God, that's our own projection of what we think God is. It makes little sense, in our present world-- I think, though maybe it makes sense to others-- to think of a God that would say, destroy whole cities (or the entire world in a flood) for the presense of sinful people, say. But it makes sense that early peoples would make these determinations. Something bad happens, a tsunami say, and God must have caused it. They didn't know about tectonic plates or cycles of rainfall and drought say. So it made sense in their worldview to think God was the cause. (Perhaps it still makes sense to some people, but it doesn't to me. Even many conservatives dont' think that God caused the tsunami due to people's sins. And why them? We aren't any better or worse are we?)

 

>I think someone on a post long ago summed up my outlook...I don't take the Bible always literally, but try to interpret it as written. I won't take liberties, etc. that I don't see the Bible giving me.

 

I actually agree with this, I guess we just might not agree with "what taking liberties" might be.

 

>As always, I enjoy the dialogue.

 

Me too.

 

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record....

 

I was thinking of many of my recent posts, and I want to make sure you all understand that I am not hung up on wrath, hell, damnation, sin, etc. I know that is a common perception of conservative Christians, and my posts have played into that perhaps.

 

I, like most of you, believe just as strongly in love, mercy, grace, redemption, peace, selflessness, etc. I think I talk about some of the other ideas HERE just to provide a balance to the discussion. If I was on a fundamental, hellfire and brimstone forum, I'd challenge them on the mercy, love, grace, etc. issues. As I've said before, it's not an "either/or" thing for me.

 

Just want to make sure you guys know I'm not just a doom and gloom guy. My goal in life is to "walk as He walked," in all His fullness, putting my own desires, tendencies, likes/dislikes, aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my issue is that it appears that most of what many on this board see through "cultural experience" are verses on hell, hellfire, sin, wrath, exclusivity, etc.  Essentially, the unpleasant verses, that make all of us squirm.

Just a little something to think about... When Jesus says that I must completely die to myself in order to live, frankly that is very unpleasant, and makes me squirm. I don't like it, but to the best of my knowledge and my understanding of how to interpret the Bible, that's what it means, and so I accept that I must do it. I don't say this to sound special (I fail miserably at it most of the time), but merely to say that, just because I'm a progressive Christian doesn't mean I take what I like from the Bible and leave the rest.

 

Just some food for thought. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points darby, re: that you are not the total fire and brimstone sort of guy. I think you are a-ok! :-)

 

As for you statements Fred, I would guess that is one fo those more unpleasant ideas that I see how to accept and interpret, even if I might not like it. :-) I couldn't think of any others, but maybe I am not working too hard at that. Most of the hell fire type things, I don't see how we can reconcile them with modernity, science, etc. The only way to understand them is to just think about the idea that separation is very bad... and maybe it is hell. Certainly war is described pretty accurately as hell, there is even fire (and perhaps some degree of brimstone). Individuals can experience hell on earth. But aside from that....

 

 

Another statement might be the one about hating your family (basically). Well I am quite sure that Jesus didn't use the words "hate". I understand that from a mythos standpoint as putting God first. Whether I can do it or not? Well that's part of the "squirm" factor isn't it?

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service