Jump to content

God's Sovereignty And Free Will


BillM

Recommended Posts

To me it seems the Bible is interpreted differently by generation after generation. Clearly the Christianity practised today (morally speaking) is a far cry from the moral practices adhered to a thousand years ago. What changed? I believe societies and cultures continued to develop, evolve, grow, shrink - and along with all these changes comes changes in thinking, application of morals, and biblical interpretation.

 

Anarchy may be appropriate if it means overthrowing an evil government that harms its people. That's why absolute morals never exist. What is considered immoral yesterday may be considered moral today because we have a better understanding of human nature, of our evolutionary background, of other people's point of view. All of these things have seen morals changed and adapted throughout the generations.

 

It is only through dualistic thinking that we come to the conclusion that there must be a right and a wrong. We do not need a resolution - the result will be what it will be - but we like to have a favourable resolution because that is how we think a lot of the time (largely due to our conditioning).

 

Rusty, I'm not sure about the logic you use to argue that because one is arguing against something that therefore it must exist. I'm pretty certain you could mount an argument against the existence of purple flying unicorns but do you actually think for a moment they exist? But really the argument isn't against absolute morality as though it exists, but rather it is an argument explaining why it can't and doesn't exist. That is a completely different thing to arguing against it's alleged reality.

 

Personally I don't see Bible God as a moral monster because I think all of those atrocities attributed ere actually committed by men who mistakenly or otherwise thought they were doing what their God wanted them too, or it is how those events were later interpreted. But they are only called atrocities because that's how I morally assess them. People on the other side of the fence don't see it the same way. I think there alone is your evidence that morals are not absolute but that often they are in the eye of the beholder. That might not be very nice, but it is a reality

 

 

 

 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect the same goes for the Quran.

Nope. There are eight schools of Islamic tafseer which are interpreted legalistically in the extreme and all interpretation demands exacting precedence. Originality and change in Qu'ranic interpretation has been strictly prohibited and persecuted since Caliph Uthman redacted the various chapters of the Qu'ran into a single volume.

 

Muslims believe God dictated the Qu'ran directly via the Archangel Gabriel and the entire point is to keep interpretation changeless through every generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. There are eight schools of Islamic tafseer which are interpreted legalistically in the extreme and all interpretation demands exacting precedence. Originality and change in Qu'ranic interpretation has been strictly prohibited and persecuted since Caliph Uthman redacted the various chapters of the Qu'ran into a single volume.

 

Muslims believe God dictated the Qu'ran directly via the Archangel Gabriel and the entire point is to keep interpretation changeless through every generation.

 

I don't know about all that Burl but I can only observe that there are vastly different interpretations of the Quran hence the different sects of Islam - Sunni, Shi`ite, Sufis, Baha'is and Ahmadiyyas to name just a few.

 

Another observation is that different Muslim cultures seem to have different dress standards for women. Some countries require women to wear the burka, whilst others are now designing Muslim bathers and many committed Muslim women wear little different to non-muslims other than a head scarf. I imagine this comes down to interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, some Muslims belonging to ISIS interpret the Quran as requiring them to conduct a jihad and wipe the 'infidels' off the face of the earth. Thankfully, the vast majority of Muslims in my country (Australia) don't interpret the Quran in such a strict fashion and indeed are happy to live in peace with non-believers. Clearly there are interpretation changes going on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The various branches of Islam have nothing to do with different interpretations of the Qu'ran. They are related to the acceptance/nonacceptance and the numerous hadith, or recorded sayings of Muhammad.

 

They are also cultural and political differences unrelated to the Qu'ran or any theology. Interviews with ISIS fighters reveal they don't know much about Islam.

 

Islam is much more than the Qu'ran just like Christianity is much more than the Bible.

Edited by Burl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simple Google search will show you that many, many Muslims interpret the Quaran in different ways. Like the Bible, the Quaran is widely interpreted differently by the different sects and indeed individual Muslims. There is no single interpretation, although I'm sure each sect will argue their interpretation is correct.

 

As for ISIS, sure there are some that aren't strong in their Islamic knowledge, but there are many, particular the clerics and some leaders of ISIS who are religious scholars and well-versed Muslims in their understanding of Islam and the Quaran. I can point to a number of Christian that know little about the Bible but I'm sure you wouldn't say they are representative of Christianity.

 

Here’s just a couple of easy to find examples of Muslims who believe the Quran is interpreted differently by others:

It Is the Right for Every Muslim to Interpret the Quran for Themselves - https://en.qantara.de/content/interview-with-asma-barlas-it-is-the-right-for-every-muslim-to-interpret-the-quran-for

A consistent feature of Quranic interpretation throughout the last fifteen hundred years of Islamic history has been its multiplicity of interpretations - http://www.themosqueinmorgantown.com/forum/tag/interpreting-the-quran/

How do the Sunni and Shiite interpretations of the Qur'an differ? - https://www.quora.com/How-do-the-Sunni-and-Shiite-interpretations-of-the-Quran-differ

Edited by PaulS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement was that Bible interpretation changes generation after generation. These were major changes and complete reversals of position on capital punishment, homosexuality, the treatment of women, slavery, etc. Traditional biblical interpretation was completely discarded.

 

Quranic interpretation is essentially unchanged with no such major growth spurts. Yes, the Quran says homosexuals should be killed by having a wall collapsed upon them. Now they are hung or beheaded, so I guess you are right and some change in interpretation has occurred but these are only minor modifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, my statement was that biblical interpretation changes from generation to generation, but I think it is your assumption that such were major changes and complete reversals of position, I think it is far from conclusive that positions on capital punishment, homosexuality, treatment of women, slavery etc have been reversed by all Christians. Certainly many 3rd world Christians still adhere to a traditional interpretation of these.and I think it is really only western countries that may have made such major changes to interpretation (and even then there are those amongst us that think all gays should be killed!)

 

Similarly, whilst some Muslims still adhere to an old school interpretation of the Quran, you are wrong to suggest that there haven't been major reversals of position in Islam also. It's a nonsense and disingenuous to say that Muslims now only call for the hanging or beheading of gays instead of collapsing walls on them. Sure, some countries and sects may, but many have modernised and progressed and now interpret the Quran modernly, particularly westernised Islam. I'd go so far to suggest that many Christians would support a similar punishment if their government allowed them too.

 

And in relation to Christianity, it is hardly the case that any reversals in position came rapidly and conclusively. Changes were teased out over generations and really it has only been the last few hundred years of secular governments that have overseen and driven these different, more just, interpretations.

 

I think if you spoke with some Modern, western Muslims or learnt a little about their modern interpretation of the Quran you would find that they hold the Quran just as holy and relevant today under their interpretation, which was my main point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, you are triangulating your main point, which was the progressiveness of biblical interpretation.

 

You are being unnecessarily argumentative. I agreed with your statement that biblical interpretation was progressively relevatory.

 

How much fuss do you want to make about a mutual agreement? Why are you turning an agreement into an argument?

Edited by Burl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, you are triangulating your main point, which was the progressiveness of biblical interpretation.

 

You are being unnecessarily argumentative. I agreed with your statement that biblical interpretation was progressively relevatory.

 

How much fuss do you want to make about a mutual agreement? Why are you turning an agreement into an argument?

 

Burl,

 

Unnecessarily argumentative? I thought we were debating whether differing interpretations of the Quaran existed. You initially came out strongly saying that interpretation was set in stone. I was trying to point out to you that that was far from the case. But I never saw it as an argument in a negative sense - we were each debating our points of view.

 

I didn't actually see much of a mutual agreement in our discussion until towards the end when you seemed to swing toward their being some different interpretations of some things in the Quaran (execution styles of homosexuals aside).

 

I didn't see any of the preceding as a fuss myself, but as you did please know that to me this was debating and not arguing.

 

Cheers

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I probably look at it as more of a debate when two people who are exchanging opinions are trying to express their views with some sort of external support, but I'm happy to call it a conversation too. You sat tomato, I say tomato. No harm intended or done hopefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No harm, no foul. Internet communications are a peculiar mix of written and conversational styles. Combine that with the way we project imaginary personalities onto each other and misunderstandings become the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So therefore PaulS, would it be fair to say that you regard morals (what is right and what is wrong) as being a subjective decision/perspective of the individual or people-group? If that is so, then what may be morally reprehensible to one (eg cannibalism) may be a valid option for other people. What is right for me may not be right for you and what is wrong to me is okay to be right for you. It has to be that way simply because it all comes down to personal opinion. Do we force our morals then on someone who holds the opposite view about cannibalism?

 

Also, historical manuscripts etc show way beyond any other document that the Bible has not changed in all the 2,000 years that it has existed.Biblical interpretation has changed, but that is what people do and decide. There are doctrinal absolutes that have never really changed, such as salvation is only through the atoning work of Christ. Yes there have been groups that taught otherwise but historically those who believed this have always been there. They have suffered arrest, torture and being burned at the stake. The death penalty was introduced by God as an act of mercy to then make it so the offender was arrested, punished etc and the rest of his/her family were then not subject to retaliation. Homosexuality has not changed, yes there are those who have changed their doctrinal position but then there are many who have retained to the biblical position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So therefore PaulS, would it be fair to say that you regard morals (what is right and what is wrong) as being a subjective decision/perspective of the individual or people-group? If that is so, then what may be morally reprehensible to one (eg cannibalism) may be a valid option for other people. What is right for me may not be right for you and what is wrong to me is okay to be right for you. It has to be that way simply because it all comes down to personal opinion. Do we force our morals then on someone who holds the opposite view about cannibalism?

 

Also, historical manuscripts etc show way beyond any other document that the Bible has not changed in all the 2,000 years that it has existed.Biblical interpretation has changed, but that is what people do and decide. There are doctrinal absolutes that have never really changed, such as salvation is only through the atoning work of Christ. Yes there have been groups that taught otherwise but historically those who believed this have always been there. They have suffered arrest, torture and being burned at the stake. The death penalty was introduced by God as an act of mercy to then make it so the offender was arrested, punished etc and the rest of his/her family were then not subject to retaliation. Homosexuality has not changed, yes there are those who have changed their doctrinal position but then there are many who have retained to the biblical position.

 

In short, yes. A good example might be the rape and genocide that is attributed as ordered by God in the Old testament, whereas today we find such action morally reprehensible. Our views, reasons, and supporting arguments can change over time concerning our morality. Sometimes little things (like whether women should wear dresses above the knees or not) and sometimes majorly like in the initial example I provided. We are still quite primitive on the evolutionary scale of things and so sometimes we find our morals in conflict with others either in our community or in other societies.

 

Do I think it's 'right' to force my morals on others? Well, I don't think there is necessarily a 'right' but sometimes there are examples where a moral change might be better for a community. For instance, if there was a culture that thought marrying children at say 14 and having sex with them was okay, I would strongly suggest that the scientific evidence available shows the mental and physical harm this causes to children. I would strongly support action to prevent such practices because it would benefit their community in the long run. But I appreciate the other side might not see it that way.

 

As for evidence that the bible has not changed in 2000 years, I'm not sure what evidence you can provide to support that assertion. The oldest copy of the New testament we have is the Codex Sinaiticus which dates back to about 325-360CE. We have a fragment of the Gospel of John dating to about 125CE. We have no original writings - only alleged copies. Frankly, who knows what was actually written about Jesus in the couple of hundred years after his death. People didn't start to agree on what writings the New testament should comprise of until about the mid-300s.

 

When you say there are doctrinal absolutes that have never really changed, such as salvation is only through the atoning work of Christ, are you considering writings from the diverse early Christian groups that didn't think of Jesus this way, or only the ones who's writings were finally adopted as doctrine in the 300s? You may be surprised to know that there were many different takes on Christianity in the early centuries after Jesus died and there are a lot of writings to support that these alternate views were held. However, eventually, one side won and so we have what is now called orthodox doctrine. It could just have easily been a different orthodox doctrine if one of the other groups had dominated.

 

Indeed many people have been prepared to die for this doctrine but I don't know what your point is there, People were also prepared to die for Adolph Hitler, Jim Jones, and the King of England as well.

 

Your comments about the death penalty and homosexuality bear the natural hallmarks of human interpretation. There is nothing in the bible which supports what you say about the death penalty and it is only interpretation that gives it that meaning to you. There are about 4 passages in the bible that either mention homosexuality or are interpreted as being against homosexuality. Given that these same writers thought the earth was flat, that the moon gave off it's own light, that the atmosphere was actually a roof that God opened up hatches of to allow the rain through, makes me think that as strong as their views were in their day, they are the antiquated writings of ignorant desert people who didn't have the advantage of living in a modern society which has learnt more respect for people's sexuality and to love all people regardless of their perfectly natural sexual orientation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty,

I have to agree with Paul. Society as a whole sets the moral standards. The Bible allowed slavery and its followers did not take exception.. So was having concubines and more than one wife. Are they absolutes? There are all kind of laws in the Bible (Leviticus) that were supposedly absolute moral standards at least at the time and they are now rejected as not applicable. Morals, to me, seem to have little to do with God and more to the current whims of society.

Joseph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the 'Golden Rule"? This is pretty close to being an objective morality.

 

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the 'Golden Rule"? This is pretty close to being an objective morality.

 

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

How about its negative form ...

Do not do unto others what you would not want to be done to you

or

Do unto others what they would like.

 

Of course each of these forms has a problems associated with them.

 

At best these are guidelines ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about its negative form ...

Do not do unto others what you would not want to be done to you

or

Do unto others what they would like.

 

Of course each of these forms has a problems associated with them.

 

At best these are guidelines ...

That is not what it says, and I do not accept your strawman argument. Obviously you are unable to deal with the text as written. Rephrasing and turning the text inside out just so you can fuss about it is invalid, and it is sophistry and is not criticism.

 

But this a quibble within the overall discussion. The Golden Rule in one form or another is universal in almost all religions and in atheism. Satanists object, claiming 'Do what thy wilt shall be the whole of the law' but humanity in general has adopted this almost 100% as a moral and ethical standard.

Edited by Burl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You completely misunderstand Burl.

 

I never claimed it was what you said what I said was.

So please stop debating and lets have a conversation. :)

 

Hillel's Golden Rule ... "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...if the Golden Rule has been almost 100% universally accepted as a moral and ethical standard, why is it that so few people actually "practice" it? At least from my observation, it doesn't seem that most people give it much thought at all. But, I guess that's the problem with standards, they are hard to live up to. I used to have plenty of standards, but very few principles.

 

I also think that even if people practiced the Golden Rule, the manner in which they want to be treated might differ widely from the desires of others. And there also seems like there might be a kind of "quid pro quo" thing implicit in the Golden Rule that could be flawed. You can't really expect anything in return for offering cooperation, kindness and generosity.

 

I'm wondering if there is a "natural disposition" that would arise in people, assuming that they had navigated the purgative path necessary for the beginnings of illumination and character traits like wisdom and compassion to manifest. If that's the case, there wouldn't need to be any "standard" by which to engage reality. There would just be this idea called the Golden Rule, but it would eventually be forgotten.

 

I think that there might be a definite need for such purgation before anyone counsels adherence to the Golden Rule. But then, I 've always been a bit of a John of the Cross fan, so I suppose I'm prejudiced.

 

Steve

Edited by SteveS55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not debating, and I do enjoy your intelligent comments. Debate in Christian fora is a formal, classical debate between two persons in a sharply defined and limited structure. I'm not tacking any theses upon your church door.

 

This was not meant as a personal criticism. I know what you post does not define who you are, and that you are not a bible scholar. I am making the point that one must respect the text exactly as translated when discussing English Bible. Mere prepositions are often critical to understanding, and if you ever wondered why 'non-progressive' Christians develop strange and superstitious ideas, it usually starts with a overly loose reading of the text.

 

Are you aware of the 'pistis Christou' controversy? The entire understanding of Christian salvation hinges on the the interpretation of the word 'of'! In Koine Greek! It would Clintonesque if eternal life did not weigh in the balance. Small misreadings can have immense consequences, and an overtly Christian discussion board needs to be as textually accurate as possible.

 

***

 

So, does Rabbi Hillel proclaim a universal morality? I believe he does. I also believe he infers God's will as the source of righteousness; righteousness being the missing concept in this conversation.

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