-Jay-

There are those that would argue that this is precisely what the early Christians did. The term "cultural theft" has been used here recently.

Actually it proves nothing of the sort. It merely proves that when part of one group decides it wants to interpret the Bible differently than the main group, it splits off. The Eastern and Western Churches had done this by the 10th Century (though the roots of the split started growing much earlier), the Protestant Reformation was a split from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th Century, and each of the groups that emerged from that split have subsequently split into the now nearly innumerable denominations (and I'm using the term "denomination" to include all the groups that refer to themselves as non-denominational but still follow a fairly common set of core doctrines).

Speaking only for myself, I believe that if God were in the business of directly transmitting His words to mankind, he would do a much clearer job of it. I come from a fairly liberal Catholic background, and growing up there was never an implication that the Bible was anything other than the inspired (in the conventional sense of the term) work of human authors - there was no sense that God manipulated the fingers of the writers. (Caveat - I'm well aware that not all Catholic communities are as liberal as what I grew up in.) In my particular case, the Bible was a tool that one used to get closer to God. This view is actually not far from your statement about the spirit giving it life, so I suppose from the perspective of my background, I agree with you there.

Now, this is where one has to ask how it is that the Holy Ghost can "teacheth" one thing to one person reading Scripture, and something completely different to someone else reading the same Scripture. In fact, it's not unreasonable to say that there are as many different messages to any given passage of Scripture as there are people reading it. Again, I would expect that if God had a message, he'd be much more direct and explicit in its delivery.


The Bible also contains messages of God-sanctioned genocide, slavery, rape, polygamy, incest, sexual power plays (sex is a big deal...) and all sorts of other unsavory things. Cast as a literary work (even an inspired one) of a rather harsh and barbaric period of history, replete with origin myths and political posturing, these things make sense. Cast as the direct word of an ostensibly benevolent deity, not so much.


What you seem to be claiming here is that God allows people to make uninformed choices, at the potential peril of their soul. If I sold you a car that had been in a serious wreck and failed to disclose that information to you, I'm acting at best in an unethical and underhanded way, and you'd be well justified in calling me on it. It's no different with the notion of a God who deliberately sends an obfuscated message and then holds everyone accountable for interpretting it correctly. It's one thing to know what the message is and then to deliberately choose to ignore it - it's another thing entirely to be deceived about the message and then condemned for not interpretting it correctly.

regards,

NinJay

sky4it

I agree in part with you about the spliting off thing. Not all spin offs are necesarily bad. Sometimes its just a difference of emphaisis. The Penatacostal movement is the best illustration, where groups were just less disingenuous but held many of the same core values, and pershaps wanted to be more free for gifts of the spirit and so forth. (Most of that movement has been reaborbed back into denominations today anyway) I am talking more about, NinJay, there real weird stuff, like The Way International. Jehovah's Witness, which has been held to be a cult by mainstream for years is another group that is very heavy into utilization of Greek words. Interestingly, the JW's are not really wierd people and in fact teach some things that are very interesting. Still, to teach that to the exclusion of others, one possess's a sort of superhighway that no one else has, I think is just flat out bad. (JW's are pretty cool people tho, honest descent people)

I certainly agree with a small part of what you are saying here, but certainly not to the extent you indicate. If there were as many different messages as readers, no one would agree on anything. For me it's not unlike science in one perspective, that your knowledge of something can grow. When I was about 18, I was horribly confused, so many different denominations who is correct or more correct? I don't think I ever really answered that question. It's sufficient for me that some people look at life in a little different prism. For me its kind of like driving a car to a big city, there may be may different roads to get there, but they all go to one city. Once again, NinJay you highlight part of the problem. Do differences of view have to be ubiguitous and conflicting all the time? I dont think so. Many Catholics and Protestants today, see each other more along agreeable venues. It's also sufficient for me that if I need to know something, I will learn it. Thus, I have peace with what are apparent contradictions of views of ohters.

I an not sure I wannna go through all this now. Over on a thread in Evolution/Creation we talked somewhat about some of this toward the end,(Gwen and I) and the thread was now locked. Polygammy was worldwide. There were no employer-employee relationships, no time cards etc. The relationship was Master/Servant and there were laws governing it, providing protection etc al. The word slave is used 2 twice in my stongs concordance. Another time for the rest probably.

I think the text of the message is very clear. Your uniformed choices thing is noted which is why I think Calvinsim is so barbaric. Had some long discussion of this over at Greasespot. What about the uniformed? Its pretty clear from Romans 2 that they are judged based on there conscience. We all kind of have a sense of right and wrong. We all kind of understand taking our neighbors wife is wrong, murdering is wrong etc al. A Hindu convert named Sundar Sing (one of my favorite writers) one time wrote a small book called Christians without Christ and Nonchristians who possess Christ. The title very telling that those who behave a certain way, can be greater possessers of Christ without having all the hoopy dee doo. Since he died in 1930, and information is much greater now, the concept is probably less applicable because most people have available the resources to read. However not lost is the beauty of what he was really saying.

Regards,

Sky4it

Joan of Bark

It's sufficient for me that some people look at life in a little different prism

Like, whether or not it's permissable to drop bombs on thousands of innocent people to achieve a political goal? C'mon, Sky4it, Christians can't even agree on the most basic principles of behaviour.

sky4it

I guess I kinda missed your point there Joanofbark. You talking about the war in Iraq? Maybe we should go talk on political thread. Other than health care and my anti-immorality stance, I am kind of apolitical as in NOT political. Actually, in my life time I think Jimmy Carter was my favorite president.
anywhooooo lets not do the political thing. PS Both Ann Colther and to a lessor degree Nancy Pelosi rock.

Joan of Bark

No, sky, I was not referring to Iraq specifically, but to war generally, and this comment of yours in response to Ninjays comment on the different interpretations of the Bible: If there were as many different messages as readers, no one would agree on anything

My point is, if Christians all agree on something, why wouldn't it be something as important as mass killing? Wouldn't the Holy Ghost be clear on this?

sky4it

Well I certainly dont know of any provisions in New Testament dynamics under which we operate that have declaring war consequences. There are no stipulations to act in a killing manner. I think that is fairly clear by omission and by the fact how one is suppose to conduct themselves. Obviously, we live in a Republic in the USA.

I suppose that we have to realize war is necessary for survival under certain conditions. ie(World War II) If your naming war mongers, well there have always been a few Jimmy Baker's and Swaggerts too, so I dunno or see how that impacts people reading the bible.

Joan of Bark

The NT is basically peace-oriented (although Jesus does say: "Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword") but the OT is full of pro-war statements ... especially in Joshua. Christians can cite these to justify all kinds of wars and atrocities.

-Jay-

Well, back in the earlier parts of the Bible, you've got these stone tablets with these commandments written on them. One of them is the apparently unambiguous "Thou shalt not kill" (or murder, depending on the version of the Bible you're looking at). That's about as clear as the Bible gets (and even then you have the nuanced differences between "kill" and "murder"), and still you have considerable debate over what it really means. (Note - I'm not disagreeing that sometimes war is necessary, or that under some circumstances killing another might be the "right" answer - that's not relevant here.) The point that I was originally attempting to make, and that Joan was attempting to emphasize, is that messages that we should reasonably expect to be clear and unambiguous in the Bible aren't. That people who claim to be interpretting with the assistance of the same spirit get wildly different messages out of the same text is very significant - in implies that the message depends on the reader.

It's precisely what we should expect to observe from humans using their human intellects to interpret human writings in light of their human needs, desires, and expectations, and not what we should expect from some extrinsic spirit guiding us towards the transcendent truths embedded in a divinely managed text.

regards,

NinJay

sky4it

I don't deny that this happens.(But this happens in other thought process's as well. ie(People interpret the Constitution differently)) Back in the 1980's it was not uncommon for some to say "The Lord told me etc. al" Some of it was harmless, some of it wasn't. When I indicate harmful, simply in context of creating confusion and control in a Christian environment. In fact, to this day there are people who have been pistol whipped by people like that. What has the outcome of that been? Mainly that, in a Christian atmosphere, people get kind of wise to these sort of people. Furthermore, some people simply after a while grow up.
Now I am not saying God can't do that, but to assert ones authority based on it is rather lame, and also fairly telling of someone who is a controller. I think we are fortunate that basically we have had harmony between most people of faith and otherwise. Why bring this up in context of interpreting scripture? Because people who are in weird territory have to go off the page to get it to work. Except for guys like John Calvin, he was considerably more barbaric. In addition, this is why we have a judicial system to evaluate wack stuff, and the bible tells people to judge a message, if is correct or not.

I think you make an excellent point, NinJay that sometimes "spiritual" people may look unpractical. (I think this means that you would NOT be a pupil of old time Pentacostalists. ) The same point also flows to new agers who & Wiccans and so forth, who have practices that look even more bizzare.

Let me give you an illustration of one area that I see as lacking. You know how the bible says to "Praise the Lord." frequently. Then you see people with arms raised and exploding out. (I am not saying there is anything wrong with this either) What I am saying is that perhaps we (people of faith) have lost some of the practical side of what this means. Meaning simply that, having a heart or mind full of greatfullness towards you know who, for a job well done. Personally, I think this is way more significant. For me, its not unlike being appreciative to someone who has done a job rather profoundly well. Anywhooo, my point is simply that we (people of faith) have our issues too.

Stereotyping peoples behavioral modes is a bad thing. For example, Jeffery Dahlmer cited evolution from his prison cell as a casual factor. For me to extrapolate that to the entire population of evolutionists, is simply baseless. Same thing applies about extrapolating from some "hand picked Christians" to the population as a whole. Unfortunately, for you and me, this gets done more often than what we would like and it really adds to the confusion and disharmony.

Joan of Bark

But no-one claims the constitution is the divinely inspired, perfect word of God.

But we haven't! If you study medieval Europe you will see that almost everyone was Catholic -- save for a tiny minority of Jews and heretics (who were also Christian), and Muslims in Spain. Yet over a thousand years there were wars and killings galore. Many of the killings were initiated by the Vatican -- which today condemns almost all such activities. Has the Bible changed since the middle ages? Then there is the issue of capital punishment. Do Christians agree on this issue? Isn't the Bible clear?

Apparently not.