jbernier

Yes, you are indeed wrong. I meant the latter sentence. I am not at all sure how one could possibly arrive at the former meaning given my discussion of my hermeneutical approaches (which, as I recall, I only wrote to satisfy your demands). I never said anything about flawed observations or ignorance.

Nope. That is exactly what I mean.

Aside from the questionable dichtonomy between "God" and the "world" (are not all of God's dealing with the world located within the world, by definition?) I am not at all sure what your warrant for saying that the only way to get at what the text means is "ground one's knowledge in God" (whatever the heck such an esoteric and vague statement may mean). The problem is what if the people who wrote the text did not intend for the text to be "inerrant" in the way that 21st century evangelicals demands? If that is the case than such a demand is reading the text is a fundamentally different way than the people who wrote the text wrote. And there is compelling evidence that the notion of an absolutely fixed text did not appear within Jewish until perhaps the 2nd century (it may have shown up slightly earlier for the Torah itself but it was probably not an universal view before the 1st century BCE). There appears to have been no major problem with editing already existing texts (take, for instance, the complex relationship between Mark, Matthew and Mark); variant readings of sections from the Tanakh were valued into the 1st century CE. The Biblical writers do not seem to consider the text sacrosanct as "originally" received; they do not seem to think that changing the text automatically removed its authority. That is a problem for the inerrancy argument: If the people who were writing texts were not overly worried about exact wording and precision then how can we demand that of the texts that they produced?

jbernier

What self-serving purposes? Please elaborate, giving evidence to support your ad hominen attack. If by "self-serving purposes" you mean "an honest attempt to understand what the text really says and than understand what that means for contemporary Christians living on the other side of Christendom and the Shoah" I plead guilty as charged.

No, those are not my words. Those are your words. Let us not confuse you and I. My argument was that Paul had a radical, ethical, vision as a result of his Damascus road encounter with Christ. However, in some areas it was too radical even for him; he was unable to bring himself to the logical conclusion of that vision in certain areas of human life. No surprise there; like all human beings Paul was a man of his times.

Again, I do no such thing. Either way, it is irrelevant to the question of "Why assume inerrancy." It is an ad hominen. If you want to critique my arguments then by all means critique my arguments. If the best you can do is say "You don't submit to God" then I guess that my argument is just too much for you to handle.

Actually (and I have gotten into this) my theology is deeply influenced by Quaker thought and it is grounded much more in the "Inner Light of Christ" notion - that, following John 1:9, the Word is the light come into the world that enlightens us all. Thus I have no problem believing that one is partially illuminated by the Light that is Christ, the Word in one's efforts to understand God and the Biblical texts. However, that does not change the fact that the text cannot possibly be what the text cannot possibly be. The text is a set of historical documents and therefore must be read as one would read any other historical documents.

That is so Spanish Inquisition.

Actually, the former is a statement about a category of people ("atheist" does not equal "atheism") whereas the latter is a statement about a particular doctrinal traditional. Now, I will acknowledge that what I said was a generalization; however it was not in any sense ad hominen since I said nothing about any hominen.

No, you have not demonstrated that your epistemology is self-authenticating. The most that you have shown is that the Biblical texts make a few references to God knowing pretty much everything. Point one: That is not "epistemology", that is the text. Point two: I could call myself a ham sandwich but that does not make me a ham sandwich; I can say that I know everything but that does not mean I know everything.

I do not know how cultural studies could lead one to certainty. One of the first thing one realizes in any sort of cultural studies is the vast range of human cultural diversity and complexity. One realizes that one's lifeway is just one possibility among a functionally infinite range of possible lifeways. How this can lead to certainty is beyond me.

The very nature of God as understood as a result of Greek thought. What? Do you not think that our thoughts about God have a history? That they just popped out of the sky one day. Of course not. We cannot separate our ideas from "the world" because they exist within the world.

Either way, one is still confronted with the text. Does the text conform to the "inerrancy hypothesis"? Is it free from internal contradiction? Does it always conform with what we know from external sources? The answer is clearly "No" and one would only answer "Yes" if one presupposes inerrancy - and then one has to do some clever footwork to make that "Yes" work.

I see what you are saying but you make an unwarranted leap. Let us assume that Paul et. al. understood God as perfect. That does not warrant the conclusion that the Biblical texts, written by human hands recording the revelation of God, are inerrant. Where is the human in your hermeneutic? They become just a transcriber, a stenographer, not an active participant in the texts that they themselves wrote!

Huh? I did that previously, in response to your demands. It seems like I am damned if I do, damned if I don't here.

jbernier

Robert:

I have been thinking and I see no further reason to continue our discussion. In my experience once the discussion degenerates into "You obviously cannot be a Christian because you hold views different from mine" we have stepped out of discussion mode and into kids-in-a-sandbox mode. This argument is going in pointless circles and I have no interest in debating whether or not I, the person, am a Christian or not.

Cross Examiner

1. So you do not say, from personal reasons, that we misread St. Paul?
2. So you do not say that St. Paul got it wrong?
But you say here that:
[2] Which is not unreasonably taken to mean by Robert, myself or any other that you believe "St. Paul got it wrong." That you hide behind the fact that you did not use this phrase verbatim is telling. [1] And you clearly make it known that you do have personal reasons to claim that Christians have misread Paul. Is this a witch-hunt or is it the Spanish Inquisition, as you say? Not at all. Please note that if I knew these to be only the first instances of evasiveness I would not have gone to this extent to make it known.

Regards,
BGic

blt to go

Saw this and realized that we have never moved. Not from day one. Not from square one.

I am tempted to write it in big letters with different colored fonts. Like the occasional drive-by screachers (combination of "screamers" and "preachers") that pass through.

I am tempted to simply give up and not respond. Instead I will try it one more time--simply, quietly and as easily as possible.




That's it. What I see in this quote is a statement of inerrancy that regardless of the facts, regardless of the proofs, regardless of anything at all, will never, never, NEVER change.

I have always admitted that I approach every text (of any sort) with a presumption of inerrancy. A presumption that changes upon demonstration of error. Clutch freely admitted that errors are prima facia evidence of errancy, but ONLY prima facia and open to change upon proof.

This simple statement of yours, RobertLW, has revealed more than anything that I and the rest (or the dictionary) have been completely unclear.

For the benefit of any lurkers, I will address a few strings.

Hmmm. Two points:

1) Jude. Peter. Book of Enoch.
2) If neither Christ nor the Apostles quote from a book, can we throw it out? What if they only quoted from a portion of the book? Can we throw the rest out?

"If God is perfect would not the creation of God also [be] perfect?"
"God is perfect. Therefore his creation would be perfect."

Do you see how one does NOT follow from the other?

blt to go

BGic - I found your title of "nailing jello" humerous. Many is the time I have thought about putting that in a title in reponse to some of your arguments.

Let's see how jbernier does in explaning his position. I have stated before I understand his arguments, so let us see how right I am.

jbernier is not stating that Paul got it "wrong." He is simply stating that Paul did not take his belief to the logical conclusion, based upon either his own prejudices or the society's ability to accept such statements.

Paul stated there was neither jew, nor greek, nor male nor female in christianity. In what jbernier would include the entire Chrisitan community, this statement (logically) should continue, "nor homosexual, nor heterosexual..."

jbernier is stating to look at the concept behind Paul, not the literal word for word statements of Paul. jbernier is treating the bible as a living, breathing document, not a rigid list of do's and don'ts.

(There, jbernier. If I am wrong, please point it out. But I doubt it.)

Curiously enough, BGic, do you, on the contrary, state that Paul got it "right?"

If so, I would assume you do not wear gold or pearls. That every time you pray you lift your hands. That you do not have long hair. That you believe women should cover their heads when they pray? That you drink wine (NOT beer, NOT liquor) occasionally?

Cross Examiner

If in y years from now the consensus of group g becomes that homosexuality (or insert any heretofore sinful behavior b) is largely a matter of choice will he then recant his present view and say St. Paul did get it right? Can we even say there is truth if the text by which we test propositions for truthfulness is read in light of ever-changing personal feeling or public opinion? He jumps into our worldview when it is convenient for objective truth to exist and jumps back into his own (whatever that is) when he thinks it best that 'truth' be a rather subjective thing. Like all relativists/subjectivists/pragmatists (e.g. the 'waffling' Clintons and Kerrys of the world), they shuffle to and fro when the winds of change blow (and they always blow). Like the house built on sand, rather than upon the Rock, we know their end. I too once lacked principled, objective views and was rightly called a subjectivist and pragmatist until I had a change of heart. Not a change of mind but of heart. Horse. Cart. The intellect of man is just another tool of the will of man. And it is the will of man that will be judged for wanting what it wanted. Take heart, in the end everyone gets what they want: autonomy from God (i.e. the essence of Hell) or dependence upon God (i.e. the essence of Heaven) -- simple, elegant, symmetrical binary –- just like the God of order and reason in whom we live and move and have our being.

Regards,
BGic

jbernier

No, I do not. I made a reference to Protestantism, not Protestants.

Actually, I did use that phrase in an off-hand manner quite a few weeks ago. I never said that I did not. What I did say is that the following quote from Robert - "By your very own words, you (and you alone) determine what Paul got right and what Paul got wrong and you do so arbitrarily" - is incorrect as those are not my very own words. They are words put into my mouth by Robert. I have not claimed that I and I alone determine what Paul got right and what Paul got wrong. What I did suggestions - here and in the post from several weeks ago in which I made those original comments - is that Paul was not able to carry out the full implications of his ethical vision. That is not the same as selectively determining what I like and do not like in Paul; it is an attempt to deal with a tension in the Pauline text (between his radical egalitarian ethic and his less than egalitarian comments about people of certain genders) in a hermeneutically consistent manner - one which, incidentally, does not contort the text to fit into a preconceived box of inerrancy.

I am not aware of any instances in which I have been evasive in our discussion. As with Robert, if you are going to stoop to the level of ad hominen then there is no point in continuing the discussion. This thread is about inerrancy not about challenging my character or Christian devotion. If that is the game you want to play, fine; however you and Robert will be playing it without me.

jbernier

Whoa...who has been talking about homosexuality being a choice or not a choice here? That is irrelevant to anything I have said here.

Who is talking about public opinion here? Let us take Paul's comments about "there being no male or female in Christ Jesus." This is an egalitarian ethic: That in Christ Jesus there is no distinction between men and women. Now Jesus and Paul were all about practicalities and, in their thought, if men and women were indistinct in Christ Jesus it should play out that way in the social world. However, we elsewhere see Paul shrinking back from this, making clear distinctions of practice between men and women. This is a tension in the text that must be resolved. I am arguing that he was a man of his time and unable to fully escape those times in under to live up to the demands of his own ethics. In other words, he was human. Alternatively, we can see Paul only coming to the egalitarian conclusion later in life. Either way, we must deal with the tension within the text.

jbernier

To the moderators,

This conversation seems to be going in circles and, imo, many of the comments are becoming much too personal. Maybe it is time to close the thread and for everyone to agree to disagree on the issues at hand?