The Economics of Biblical Literalism - or...

[prisonchaplain]

But is his Prius more scientifically true than your allegorical Buick? And does it have a nicer ride?

Ram, his Prius gets more miles per gallon of academic input, and it's quieter in a church setting. On the other hand, my Buick has much more comfort (the Comforter?), tends to be reliable to both the text and intent, and older more experienced drivers like 'em.

[JohnnyRudick]

I guess you all know where I stand.

Rom. 3:4

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar. . .

[Snow]

I guess you all know where I stand.

Rom. 3:4

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar. . .

So let me ask you - why do you think God killed innocent Egyptian babies because he was unhappy with Pharaoh?

Why not just kill the guilty Pharaoh?

[Snow]

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.

I see this kind of nonsense from other posters but I am surprised to see it from you... so God did the innocent babies a favor by first causing them to be born into an evil society and then killing them so they wouldn't have to live in that evil society. Think a minute about the kind of behavior you are attributing to a just God.

[prisonchaplain]

I see this kind of nonsense from other posters but I am surprised to see it from you

Just when that Towncar ride was getting comfortable, cozy and smooth--along comes the pesky Prius, looking to drag. SIGH

... so God did the innocent babies a favor by first causing them to be born into an evil society and then killing them so they wouldn't have to live in that evil society. Think a minute about the kind of behavior you are attributing to a just God.

I'm not the one putting God on trial, here. My presuppositions are that God is good, just and merciful. So, I see what happened, with God striking down the firstborn in Egypt, and ask, "Why did God do this? How does this show mercy and goodness? How do I explain the justice of it?" Since I know God is all these things, and I'm convinced that Moses was a prophet of God, and I believe he wrote these things...I'm left to come up with some explanations for inquiring minds.

Now, when I'm studying the Bible, meditating, seeking God's face--my study of this passage would most likely center on God's message of faithfulness to his people, and judgement for God's enemies. I would not need to defend or explain God--and I doubt Moses had any such intentions. But, you asked for a possible explanation, and I gave it to you.

[JohnnyRudick]

Sure sturred that one up again huh:p

[Snow]

J

I'm not the one putting God on trial, here.

No one is putting God on trial. What is at issue a belief system or interpretation methodology that believes such extreme things

My presuppositions are that God is good, just and merciful. So, I see what happened, with God striking down the firstborn in Egypt, and ask, "Why did God do this? How does this show mercy and goodness? How do I explain the justice of it?" Since I know God is all these things, and I'm convinced that Moses was a prophet of God, and I believe he wrote these things...I'm left to come up with some explanations for inquiring minds.

Now, when I'm studying the Bible, meditating, seeking God's face--my study of this passage would most likely center on God's message of faithfulness to his people, and judgement for God's enemies. I would not need to defend or explain God--and I doubt Moses had any such intentions. But, you asked for a possible explanation, and I gave it to you.

You believe that God is just and merciful but you attribute to God the most unjust and unmerciful behaviors. Oh, I know that you claim that killing innocent babies because He is mad at a guilty Pharaoh is merciful and just but you can't say HOW it is merciful and just, You simply have to appeal to mystery. Why would God create a theology has so many inconsistencies and illogicalities that it is impossible to understand or reconcile.

[Snow]

I suppose the thing that is hard to take in about your "methodology" and maybe others have the same feeling is that I see no room for the process of faith in your methodology. Please tell me how faith fits into this system of yours.

That's wrong and people only think that because they get emotional and can't think rationally. Think about it - I don't believe that God colludes with Satan to kill families of his servants and I don't believe he kills innocent babies because he is mad at other guilty people and I don't believe in talking donkeys ergo people conclude that I don't have faith????

That's whack.

[prisonchaplain]

No one is putting God on trial. What is at issue a belief system or interpretation methodology that believes such extreme things

As you said previously, accepting the Bible as literal does sometimes lead us to work harder at explaining events the good book describes. Such is the history of Bible instruction. We take up that work. The result may not always result in surface-level readings. Sometimes context must be considered, including references to history, culture, other biblical events, even original languages. Our Bibles are written at a 7th-grade reading level (NIV, anyway), yet we do employ scholars who spend their whole lives studying the above. They help us with the type of problems you raise. Again, the result is not always the obvious one, but given our presuppositions, and the inherent complexity of a book that was concluded 1900 years ago, was written over a 1400 year period, in three languages, by a wide variety of authors, I'd say we do pretty well.

You believe that God is just and merciful but you attribute to God the most unjust and unmerciful behaviors. Oh, I know that you claim that killing innocent babies because He is mad at a guilty Pharaoh is merciful and just but you can't say HOW it is merciful and just, You simply have to appeal to mystery. Why would God create a theology has so many inconsistencies and illogicalities that it is impossible to understand or reconcile.

I'm fairly certain you have read some of the common explications of these events. There is a wide body of writings that deal with Bible ethics and difficulties. Many of these are written by those who are broadly literalists. You may find some of their answers less satisfying. They are not thoughtless, though. Neither are they superstitious.

Likewise, I'm aware that there are very intelligent people, who have their faith in God, but who consider the Bible to be inspired literature, rather than holy writ. By doing so, they can fashion God as they imagine him to be. Yes, it's easier. But, I'd rather wrestle with the "Bible difficulties," than take the interpretation of God into my own hands.

[Snow]

Likewise, I'm aware that there are very intelligent people, who have their faith in God, but who consider the Bible to be inspired literature, rather than holy writ. By doing so, they can fashion God as they imagine him to be. Yes, it's easier. But, I'd rather wrestle with the "Bible difficulties," than take the interpretation of God into my own hands.

But that's exactly what you do - take the interpretation of God into your own hands by deciding what you will consider scripture - "holy writ." You, like everyone - me included - pick and choose what writings they consider scripture and what writings they exclude - and, likewise, you keep matters in your own hands by deciding how you will interpret that holy writ. Certain parts of the Bible, mainly the events it seems, you interpret literally and other things, some doctrinal claims of the Bible, you do not interpret literally.

In short, you do, like all of us, do exactly what you say others do.

[Justice]

In short, there is only downside to a literalistic view and nothing but upside, utility and faith promotion to a non-literalist view.

I believe scriptures are both literal and symbolic. Can I make a list of which stories are which? Probably not. I don't feel it matters, really.

I do believe men spoke and mountains were removed. I believe Christ spoke and the winds and sea were calmed. I believe the sea was parted so the Children of Israel crossed on dry ground (winds blew all night).

I believe all these events have their symbolic meaning, but were actual events.

Are all the stories in the Bible actual events? Probably not. I don't even want to wager on which are which.

Talking donkey? I honestly don't know. Infants speaking? I have no idea.

The creation, fall, and atonement? Actual events.

[prisonchaplain]

But that's exactly what you do - take the interpretation of God into your own hands by deciding what you will consider scripture - "holy writ."

I suppose you can say that. But, not according to my own whims, nor my own preconceived notions of how God should be. I accept the historic books of the Bible, and agree with my Protestant bretheren that the intertestamental books of the Catholic Bible do not warrant inclusion. Those decisions are not based merely on doctrine, but upon church history, and some very reasonable standards. In addition, I have the consensus of Jewish scholarship and leadership on my side with that exclusion.

You, like everyone - me included - pick and choose what writings they consider scripture and what writings they exclude -

I'd suggest that individually excluding passages of scripture that do not seem to make common sense, or seem reasonable, is a far cry from joining in with the historic consensus of the church.

and, likewise, you keep matters in your own hands by deciding how you will interpret that holy writ. Certain parts of the Bible, mainly the events it seems, you interpret literally and other things, some doctrinal claims of the Bible, you do not interpret literally.

Protestant literal-leaning interpretations of Scripture are heavily vetted. We cannot, whilly nilly, just come up with stuff that meets our fancy. By granting yourself the authority to dismiss any passages that don't seem reasonable, it does seem to me that you permit yourself to do so.

Edited October 25, 2009 by prisonchaplain
clarification

[Seminarysnoozer]

That's wrong and people only think that because they get emotional and can't think rationally. Think about it - I don't believe that God colludes with Satan to kill families of his servants and I don't believe he kills innocent babies because he is mad at other guilty people and I don't believe in talking donkeys ergo people conclude that I don't have faith????

That's whack.

The purest form of learning the gospel and the lessons from our Lord is not through reason and algorithms, it is by being touched by the spirit through an open heart. So it is a fine complement to say we get emotional and not try to let rational thoughts cloud our learning. I can get rational when the thought requires rationality but I realize that most of the gospel requires emotion, an open heart, the spirit, faith, whatever you want to call it.

The gospel and especially written scripture will never be fully understood by creating some algorithm or computer-program-like list of rules that one can plug in every story and determine the veracity or the lesson thereof, at least until Jesus returns. One can't prove a belief based in faith or feelings of the heart. The gospel requires belief through faith and an open heart. And therefore the gospel and all of its associated stories and lessons as a whole are not provable. The only way to "prove" the gospel is letting someone live it and work with faith to feel it on their own, it is not done through a list of rational thoughts.

The scripture and the gospel were meant to work through the spirit, or the heart as some people say. That isn't "whack" that's just the way it is. And the scripture can have different meanings for different people with the same words, for some "cast into the lake of fire" is literal and they need to hear it that way and understand it that way to motivate them, and to others "cast into the lake of fire" is a metaphor to understand how bad it's going to hurt. The scriptures alone cannot give us perfect understanding of God. They are there for our growth, meaning we don't have all the answers.

3 Nephi 19: "32 And tongue cannot speak the words which he prayed, neither can be written by man the words which he prayed.

33 And the multitude did hear and do bear record; and their hearts were open and they did understand in their hearts the words which he prayed.

34 Nevertheless, so great and marvelous were the words which he prayed that they cannot be written, neither can they be uttered by man.

35 And it came to pass that when Jesus had made an end of praying he came again to the disciples, and said unto them: So great faith have I never seen among all the Jews; wherefore I could not show unto them so great miracles, because of their unbelief."

And yes, one would show faith by saying "I don't understand how that is possible" instead of "I don't believe in ...." By saying "I don't believe in ..." instead of being contrite and having an open heart one cuts off faith to even have a chance to work the answer in.

I believe God has the power to change one donkey's anatomy to be able to talk and yet I don't understand the story fully or understand how that happened. So for that story, at least, I would never say, "I don't believe it." I can only say "I don't understand for now even when my rational thoughts lead me in one direction." And for the list of rules you gave, you left no place for "I don't understand but I will believe through faith for now until I have a knowledge." ... so you left no room for faith. That is not whack!!!

[rameumptom]

But that's exactly what you do - take the interpretation of God into your own hands by deciding what you will consider scripture - "holy writ." You, like everyone - me included - pick and choose what writings they consider scripture and what writings they exclude - and, likewise, you keep matters in your own hands by deciding how you will interpret that holy writ. Certain parts of the Bible, mainly the events it seems, you interpret literally and other things, some doctrinal claims of the Bible, you do not interpret literally.

In short, you do, like all of us, do exactly what you say others do.

But don't we do the same with science? Do you, Snow, not pick and choose what scientific evidence you accept/reject? Do you believe the atonement was historical? (I gather that you do). If so, then you reject "scientific evidence" that shows it is unlikely to occur, that Jesus did not consider himself the Messiah, and that the concept of resurrection was added later by Paul and others to the early Christian-Jewish sect.

Let's make sure that if we make a claim against historicity or faith, we also ensure we do the same for science.

[rameumptom]

So let me ask you - why do you think God killed innocent Egyptian babies because he was unhappy with Pharaoh?

Why not just kill the guilty Pharaoh?

Maybe because God thinks in ancient Middle Eastern fashion, and not like a 21st century materialist?

[cleanvisit]

But that's exactly what you do - take the interpretation of God into your own hands by deciding what you will consider scripture - "holy writ." You, like everyone - me included - pick and choose what writings they consider scripture and what writings they exclude - and, likewise, you keep matters in your own hands by deciding how you will interpret that holy writ. Certain parts of the Bible, mainly the events it seems, you interpret literally and other things, some doctrinal claims of the Bible, you do not interpret literally.

In short, you do, like all of us, do exactly what you say others do.

Snow, haven't you just answered the question for yourself. Because of all of the things that the Bible can "Be," now, more than ever, we need a living Prophet who can interpret, explain, and predict what the Bible really teaches.

I guess I lack all of the scholarly authority that some on this forum have, but to me, it is as simple as saying, a modern-day, living Prophet knows what we need to do to return and live with God again.

For me, this is enough....for now :)