The Economics of Biblical Literalism - or...

[prisonchaplain]

Stop your carping and buy a dictionary:

Magic: ...invokes supernatural powers to influence events; any mysterious or extraordinary quality or power.

It's not all about you Gatorman.

The Bible is full of magic and myths. Because I largely am a literalist in my interpretations, I believe the magic were miracles and the myths can be understood broadly as history (yes, not exactly the historiography we demand today). Ironically, my 12th grade high school teacher tried to goad us students by speaking about creation myths and Old Testament myths. She seemed greatly disappointed that none of us bit. So, she tweeked a little harder, "Does nobody have a problem with me calling Bible stories myths." One student answered, "Why should we? I believe them by faith, but they can't all be proven historically."

[Snow]

A difference then. I see Heavenly Father's abilities as natural, not super natural. However, I am well aware of your knowledge of our language and your use of it to state exactly what you want.

I think you are just playing with the words:

Natural: occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural

Supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent.

Natural things are observable, testable, subject to the senses. If you believe that events, such as making a human being out of the rib of another human being or making a human being out of dust is natural as opposed to supernatural, could you please explain the process?

... and just as an aside here Gatorman. The world is full of people who don't question and don't care. This stuff is uninteresting to them. That doesn't make them bad or dumb, just ambivalent. I appreciate that despite your disagreements, you are curious enough to talk it through.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

The Bible is full of magic and myths. Because I largely am a literalist in my interpretations, I believe the magic were miracles and the myths can be understood broadly as history (yes, not exactly the historiography we demand today). Ironically, my 12th grade high school teacher tried to goad us students by speaking about creation myths and Old Testament myths. She seemed greatly disappointed that none of us bit. So, she tweeked a little harder, "Does nobody have a problem with me calling Bible stories myths." One student answered, "Why should we? I believe them by faith, but they can't all be proven historically."

Why do you suppose that miracles only happened so far in the past that can't be checked instead of happening today when we can test them and observe them?

I grant that people believe that miracles happen today - but they are the garden variety type of small miracles - healings and the like - not the big ones like, the earth stopping spinning of animals getting on a boat and after the boat ride, disseminating across all the world's land mass?

[prisonchaplain]

Roughly 100 years ago some Bible students got together and looked through the Book of Acts, and asked the same question--why doesn't this stuff happen today? But, instead of trying to find reasons, they took a different approach. They prayed that it would start happening again. And, we believe it has, in wonderful ways. Considering that the Bible tells stories that cover some 1600 years, the frequency of truly supernatural events of large proportion, weren't so common, either.

So...rather than wondering about a seeming lack of big miracles, if I really discerned that we needed them, maybe I'd be better off praying for them.

[Snow]

Roughly 100 years ago some Bible students got together and looked through the Book of Acts, and asked the same question--why doesn't this stuff happen today? But, instead of trying to find reasons, they took a different approach. They prayed that it would start happening again. And, we believe it has, in wonderful ways. Considering that the Bible tells stories that cover some 1600 years, the frequency of truly supernatural events of large proportion, weren't so common, either.

So...rather than wondering about a seeming lack of big miracles, if I really discerned that we needed them, maybe I'd be better off praying for them.

You're nothing if not a politician pc, but let's get down to brass tacks. Name a couple of these wonderful miracles.

Note: I'm not asking for some subjective warm and fuzzy wonderful thing - like say the hearts of men being opened to receive the gospel. I'm talking a legit big time demonstrable miracle - like Lake Michigan parting.

[Dravin]

If you believe that events, such as making a human being out of the rib of another human being or making a human being out of dust is natural as opposed to supernatural, could you please explain the process?

Random pointless rambling thought alert!

Depends how you mean out of a rib, I imagine the DNA extracted from a human rib could be used for cloning. However when applied to Genesis it runs into problems. When we consider that while you could make a genetic copy using the DNA extracted from the rib of an individual to create another through natural (or non-supernatural processes) the story you are basing your question off of did not involved the creation of a genetic clone, Eve was quite different from Adam. Other issues are also present, such as Steve, Adam's clone, would start out as an infant and you have the issue of who's egg and womb are you using. So you could make another human being from the rib of another via cloning but I doubt you could make it match any account of Genesis I've read.

As far as created from the dust of the earth, if we take it to mean abiogenesis, could be applied to a natural (or non-supernatural process) that ends up in a human. Of course that will also run into fatal flaws to harmonize with Genesis as a literal account.

P.S. I warned you it was pointless and rambling, but you read it anyway.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Dravin

[prisonchaplain]

You're nothing if not a politician pc, but let's get down to brass tacks. Name a couple of these wonderful miracles.

Note: I'm not asking for some subjective warm and fuzzy wonderful thing - like say the hearts of men being opened to receive the gospel. I'm talking a legit big time demonstrable miracle - like Lake Michigan parting.

That's just it...Moses needed the sea to part. Jonah needed a great fish to save him from drowning, and then the miracle of expulsion. IMHO, the greatest miracle I've noted in the past 100 years is a small ragtag band of religious fanatics claiming that apparent gibberish is a restoration of a 2000 year old miracle, and that today nearly 600 million have bought into this. But, today's believers have not needed such miracles, nor have we really sought them. Why not? What's happened? Good questions without answers. My fundamentalist friends will tell you miracles ceased because the Bible was compiled. Most thoughtful theologians quickly dismiss such simplistic conclusions. On the other hand, looking back and saying supernatural miracles never happened would be just as overdrawn...at least from my desk's vantage point.

[Snow]

That's just it...Moses needed the sea to part. Jonah needed a great fish to save him from drowning, and then the miracle of expulsion. IMHO, the greatest miracle I've noted in the past 100 years is a small ragtag band of religious fanatics claiming that apparent gibberish is a restoration of a 2000 year old miracle, and that today nearly 600 million have bought into this. But, today's believers have not needed such miracles, nor have we really sought them. Why not? What's happened? Good questions without answers. My fundamentalist friends will tell you miracles ceased because the Bible was compiled. Most thoughtful theologians quickly dismiss such simplistic conclusions. On the other hand, looking back and saying supernatural miracles never happened would be just as overdrawn...at least from my desk's vantage point.

It was really a rhetorical question. I knew that you wouldn't have any concrete examples to offer but for the record, Moses didn't need the sea to part. That was just the way the story was written. Moses probably just escaped through the marshes of "The Sea of Reeds." But, if a miracle was needed, God could have just made the Egyptians march slower.

Do you ever wonder why God killed all those innocent Egyptian children?

btw, the example you offered need not be a miracle at all. People join religious movements every single day without presupposing that God supernaturally made it happen.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Snow

[Gatorman]

Snow - Which miracles do you believe actually occurred versus are simple story? How do you tell the difference? Like, did Jesus walk on water? Did Mary have an 'immaculate' conception? Did Moses, or Heavenly Father, part the sea for the Israelites? Did a Donkey talk? Did a burning bush speak to Moses? Which do you believe occurred and which do you believe are hooey?

[Dravin]

Snow - Which miracles do you believe actually occurred versus are simple story? How do you tell the difference? Like, did Jesus walk on water? Did Mary have an 'immaculate' conception? Did Moses, or Heavenly Father, part the sea for the Israelites? Did a Donkey talk? Did a burning bush speak to Moses? Which do you believe occurred and which do you believe are hooey?

Unless I'm mistaken Snow in the past has drawn a line between those necessary for salvation and key to doctrine and those that aren't. So Christ's paternity, atonement and resurrection would be examples of miraculous happenings that a belief in affect his salvation and are key points of doctrine. Actually that's a pretty good question, aside from those I'm not sure what other ones he might consider such. I've never tried to sit down and decide which miracles and Bible stories are actually key points of doctrine and/or that a belief in could possibly effect salvation. Well, besides just now but I'm pretty sure Snow has put more thought into it than I have.

Or am I misremembering/misinterpreting your past statements and positions Snow?

Edited October 18, 2009 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

Sounds like an attempt to justify barbaric behavior by saying God made us do it. A few days ago a number of people here were asserting that God is bound by the rules that he sets, ie. "He would cease to be God". If you believe that, then the command to not kill should be a nonnegotiable two way street.

.

This is a non sequitur. God may follow laws that are different than those given to mankind. Thou Shalt Not Kill has exceptions, as we see in Nephi's case. God is the one who determines life and death, according to the laws he is bound by.

If all death is barbaric, regardless of why, then we cannot explain any of the death or disasters that occur in life. It all makes God either barbaric, or nonexistent. However, if this life's tragedies are explained as LDS teach: that it is a test for us to overcome and needed to save and exalt us, THEN it is justifiable by God.

God slew many in the Flood (whether global or regional). Yet he provided the gospel to them in the Spirit Prison, according to Peter. We as humans cannot grasp the extra dimension that this gives, but God can.

[prisonchaplain]

It was really a rhetorical question. I knew that you wouldn't have any concrete examples to offer but for the record, Moses didn't need the sea to part. That was just the way the story was written. Moses probably just escaped through the marshes of "The Sea of Reeds." But, if a miracle was needed, God could have just made the Egyptians march slower.

OK...Moses needed a miracle, and God chose that one.

Do you ever wonder why God killed all those innocent Egyptian children?

Both of our churches believe in the Age of Accountability, so God may have done them a big favor. I don't recommend slaughtering children, to get them to heaven, but if my presupposition is that God is merciful and just, then his doing so in this instance might well have been an act of mercy.

We could go on, speaking of the children in the Great Flood, the children of the various Caananite lands that were masquered, etc. If we approach scripture with a skepticism about God's goodness, and an absolute objectivity towards the Writings, then I'd probably have to end up believing most of the hard stuff was human sinfulness couched in religious language. But, if God really inspired the canon, then I approach it to see what God will teach me. Questions still arise, but I approach to learn how to serve God, not to continually question his character.

btw, the example you offered need not be a miracle at all. People join religious movements every single day without presupposing that God supernaturally made it happen.

Even as a wrote it I thought of the Nazis and the Communists of Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. Nevertheless, we're doing better, and have had more staying power.

[Seminarysnoozer]

A miracle is only a miracle when there is a lack of understanding of how that thing happened. All miracles will cease to be 'miracles' after we have a full knowledge of how they came about. To a person of Jesus' time, a man flying would be a miracle. But if I say I flew to New York this weekend, nobody here would think I am talking about a miracle. To me, Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon is a modern miracle until someday, probably in the next life, I will learn all the "science" or natural methods behind how that happened. Until then, I call it a miracle. There are many stories in the Bible that I don't know how they happened so they fall under the category of miracle, that doesn't mean there is a perfectly good explanation under natural laws that we are just not told, that doesn't take away from it being a 'miracle'.

[Moksha]

This is a non sequitur. God may follow laws that are different than those given to mankind. Thou Shalt Not Kill has exceptions, as we see in Nephi's case. God is the one who determines life and death, according to the laws he is bound by.

Having to label murderous misdeeds as a mystery of God, rather than entertain the notion that some terrible events have been wrongly attributed to God seems more like a non-sequitur if that term was really applicable to the parameters of this discussion. Personally I would rather attribute all desirable qualities to God and leave the traits which would be prosecutable in a court of law out of the description of God. It seems much more understandable to me, that Man has used God's name as get out of jail free card for those misdeeds.

If the Inquisition was written into scripture as being ordered by God, would you feel a need to defend it with a reference to not understanding the mysteries of God?

:)

[prisonchaplain]

Moksha, I figured you were the "Episcopalian" in my analogy. But, if we ascribe all undesirable activity to the failures of humanity, who then cloaked their misdeeds in religious lanugage, the Scripture study becomes little more that religious literary criticism. Further, there is a danger of the reader creating a god in her own image, since only personally appealing attributes are assigned to God. I'd personally much rather grapple with a few difficult passages in the Bible, than to leave to my own whim and fancy what I'll take to heart and what I'll reject as human folly.

[Moksha]

Chaplain, maybe for you, but if my own qualities where used then it would resemble a malfunctioning glob of Silly Putty more than a Celestial being.

[prisonchaplain]

Or a very rotund penguine?

[Moksha]

Thinking back to Snow's original idea, I remember as a child hearing the saying, "God is great, God is good" and taking it to heart.

I still be believe that God is great and good. However, I do know that Man can sometimes be rotten and will try to excuse his rottenness by blaming it on others.

When seemingly bad deeds are presented as coming from God (the actions of David Koresh, Ervil LeBaron and Jim Jones come to mind) I imagine very few of us are willing to buy into it. Why? Because it boggles our mind that such actions would ever come from the God we worship.

When even more horrendous actions stem from Scriptures, does it compel us to alter our perceptions of the goodness of God? Given the nature of Man and God, how does one go about believing these horrendous actions stem more from God rather than Man assigning the blame for their own ill actions on to God? This seems to be a dilemma for me.

[Gatorman]

So, then the bible is not inspired. It is merely a collection of writings by people? Heavenly Father would not leave lies in his inspired work, right? Especially lies that attempt to paint him as anything other than he is.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Not to beat it into the ground but there are three options:

-God is not just

-The story is false

-The story is not accurate or complete.

... then there is simply appealing to mystery - in this matter a wholly unappealing tact.

Snow, I think you make a good point which is reinforced by reading this whole thread, that without ongoing revelation the story is incomplete and confusing. I choose number 3 above.

A religion without ongoing revelation has to take the written word as complete and unalterable and leans towards literalism. Islam is a good example of this, the Qur'an has to be accepted as a complete work because they believe Muhammad was the last prophet. To say there is no further revelation worthy of becoming written scripture is to say that what we have, in the Bible for example, is complete.

[john doe]

So, then the bible is not inspired. It is merely a collection of writings by people? Heavenly Father would not leave lies in his inspired work, right? Especially lies that attempt to paint him as anything other than he is.

That might be your interpretation of things, but that's not my take on the issue.

[rameumptom]

Having to label murderous misdeeds as a mystery of God, rather than entertain the notion that some terrible events have been wrongly attributed to God seems more like a non-sequitur if that term was really applicable to the parameters of this discussion. Personally I would rather attribute all desirable qualities to God and leave the traits which would be prosecutable in a court of law out of the description of God. It seems much more understandable to me, that Man has used God's name as get out of jail free card for those misdeeds.

If the Inquisition was written into scripture as being ordered by God, would you feel a need to defend it with a reference to not understanding the mysteries of God?

:)

So, Nephi wasn't really commanded of God to slay Laban? He just wrote it that way in order to make himself look good in his own biography?

You and Snow are really being ridiculous on this. You insist that God cannot do such and such, yet show no evidence of it. But then insist evidence from PC and others!

This is an LDS forum. We believe that Nephi was commanded of God to slay Laban. Most probably believe that God commanded Moses to lay waste to the cities of Israel's enemies. What you insist on has no basis, except your own predilections against violence.

Are you to suggest then that when Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem in 70/135AD (or Lehi/Jeremiah/Isaiah before) that it was not God's will? God could never approve the deaths of all the innocent children within the city, and so it wasn't in God's plan to actually do this; rather it was just the Romans acting on their own, and the prophets were just being political allies of the bigger army?

Hemi gave a quote that stated the Hebrew word used in Elisha's cursing the "little children" more than likely meant "youth", and PC quoted several Christian and Jewish scholars on the same. Wasn't that evidence enough? Of course not. Nothing seems to be sufficient for the naysayers. How about some real discourse from you and Snow, rather than a childish: "yes it is"/"No it isn't"?

[rameumptom]

A miracle is only a miracle when there is a lack of understanding of how that thing happened. All miracles will cease to be 'miracles' after we have a full knowledge of how they came about.

Do you think that once we fully understand the atonement and resurrection that they will no longer seem miraculous to us? I think that miracles continue to be miracles, even when we understand how God does them. I may understand how a healing works, but it is a miracle, nonetheless. And for the person who is miraculously healed, they are going to consider it a miracle, even if the science behind it is explained to them.

[rameumptom]

Snow, I think you make a good point which is reinforced by reading this whole thread, that without ongoing revelation the story is incomplete and confusing. I choose number 3 above.

A religion without ongoing revelation has to take the written word as complete and unalterable and leans towards literalism. Islam is a good example of this, the Qur'an has to be accepted as a complete work because they believe Muhammad was the last prophet. To say there is no further revelation worthy of becoming written scripture is to say that what we have, in the Bible for example, is complete.

The problem lies in the points made by Snow and Moksha that even modern prophets are not infallible. How do we know that they are actually telling us the truth, and not spinning fables?

Example: Was Joseph F. and Joseph Fielding Smith telling the truth of God, when they insisted there was no evolution?

If we throw out the entire Bible as potentially spurious, then we need to do the same with modern prophets, as well.

OTOH, we can realize that the Bible is not infallible, and we must study it in light of the Holy Spirit and continued revelation, realizing that this is the best we have - and it is still not perfect.

Otherwise, as I stated before, just how does Snow/Moksha/et al, suggest we accept some miracles and reject others? We reject Moses dividing the Red Sea, but it is okay for Jesus to atone for our sins? Where do you really draw the line between atheist and believer? After all, this is not an issue of science versus religion - as science can explain away most of the miracles claimed in the Bible. It is an issue of whether one believes in the miracles or not. And it is an issue of: if I cannot accept miracle X, then why should I accept miracle Y? If I reject Moses' miracles, then why should I believe in Jesus Christ's miracles? Or Joseph Smith's revelations?

It is also a problem in imposing upon ancient cultures and upon God, our "supreme" modern analysis. How do you know that God doesn't slay children for his own purposes? How do you know that God cannot make a donkey speak? In the book of Moses, God tells Enoch that he was going to destroy the world by Flood-does this make Enoch a liar, because it couldn't have been a global phenomenon, and God would not kill innocent children?. Nephi insisted that God let Moses divide the Red Sea. He didn't mention them sloshing through the marshes, as Snow implies was the reality. Are we then saying that the Book of Mormon is also unreliable? If so, then what of Joseph Smith stating it is the most correct book on earth? Is Joseph Smith also unreliable, then? Isn't this a slippery slope you've derived?

This is an extremely slippery slope that some will find themselves upon. To question certain statements or passages in the Bible for accuracy is one thing. To begin a descent into disbelieving anything and everything, is another.

Edited October 19, 2009 by rameumptom

[Moksha]

. To question certain statements or passages in the Bible for accuracy is one thing. To begin a descent into disbelieving anything and everything, is another.

You are right about them being two separate things. :)