What more can be said?
Lots more could be heard. If we would have ears to hear.
The bible can obstruct Truth.
Own the original drawing.
Check out my books that are full of cartoons.
sheep and headphones
Leave a Reply
-
My name is David Hayward, and I am the nakedpastor. I am a graffiti artist on the walls of religion.
-
-
Ryan – “A contradiction cannot exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole, so I can either choose complete acceptance or complete rejection based on reason.”
Sorry Ryan…but this is pure nonsense IMO. Nothing but fundy rhetoric (a mere man made absolute which is NOT backed up by scripture) and completely worthless for true faith.
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/inerrant.html#Introduction
Ryan – “Our modern day fallacy: “We have decided not to live by the full council of scripture, just pieces of it, & our human reasoning has dictated what is applicable to us”.”
Actually Ryan…our “modern day fallacy” is the belief in biblical inerrancy. It is relatively new in the history of the church and represents a tragic diversion from the true faith.
Gary – so you embrace a contradictional book as a basis for your Faith? Do you just black out the parts you don’t like? How do you pick and choose…is it based on your feelings/voices in your head? How can you believe any of it some of it is a lie or “kinda true”?
A contradiction cannot exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole, so I can either choose complete acceptance or complete rejection based on reason.
2 Timothy 3:16 ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Yes Ryan…I have heard all of the rhetoric before. It is all based on a simple logical fallacy. Obviously you did not read anything from the link I provided or you would not ask me such silly questions.
I have a tremendous respect for the bible and believe it to be divinely inspired by a perfect God who chose to work through imperfect men…then just as He does now. To elevate it to a divine status is pure blasphemy.
You can put your head in the sand and pretend that contradictions do not exist. (Of course you have to disconnect yourself from all reasoning to do so) Or you can let your faith mature enough to accept the bible for the purpose God intended it to serve.
Of course your scripture reference you have given twice now does not refer to the bible you presently hold in your hands. The NT was not yet written and certainly not compiled for several centuries. If you believe it does…then you have to pick and choose which version of the bible it is referring to. How do you do this? Do you just black out the parts you reject but others accept? (Baruch? Tobit? 1 & 2 Macabees? etc.) Is your version of “perfection” based on your feelings or perhaps the voices in your head?
sigh
I would prefer to worship Gandalf the Gray or Aslan than embrace a theology based on “We have decided not to live by the full council of scripture, just pieces of it, & our human reasoning has dictated what is applicable to us”.
Matthew 10:34 Jesus said “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
Is your bible only 4 book long?
Nice dodge…LOL
Well…not really a good dodge…but a dodge none the less.
Your silly proof texting has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. It most certainly does not lend credibility to your position, or for that matter address it at all.
I was not nibbling on your move to discuss Canon. I am interested on how you come to form a belief structure around 4 short books of the New Testament when the subject of those books references/confirms over and over again the Old Covenant.
Taken by themselves those four books make a fantastic fairy tale though! Like Harry Potter there are some terrific life lessons in love, friendship and sacrifice.
@Brigitte,
“Christine, you seem determined to pin this slavery thing on the Bible.”
I never at any moment attempted to *blame* slavery on the bible. I never claimed nor implied that the bible *caused* slavery. What I *said* if you care to read it, is that, if we were to strictly follow what the bible says, we would have no justification for abolishing slavery and slaves who attempt to follow the bible would not seek their freedom.
It takes some heavy *reinterpretation* to say that the bible opposes slavery – can be done, but it’s not the straight-forward literal approach fundies would advocate – it isn’t compatible with a view of the bible as divine or infallible.
This is what *some* Christians were doing when they supported abolition. And I agree it was the right approach. My *point* was that you can’t accept this as legitimate on the issue of slavery, but then insist on principle that it is an illegitimate approach on all other issues.
I indicated that Christians were on *both* sides of the issue – so illustrating that some were on the side of abolishing is actually inherent in what I said. You should also admit that it was *parts* of the church who were among the last to relinquish the idea of slavery as natural and some elements are still quite racist.
Ryan,
Oh I think I was confused. I thought at first you were proclaiming biblical perfection. Now I see you are merely attacking Christian faith all together. Either way your logical fallacy is silly.
So then…never mind.
Christine, we know that Christians, or so-called Christians have often done wrong and often do wrong. One of the things they do is twist scripture to fit their a priori understanding or needs. This does not mean that scripture endorses slavery, as you have conceded. Paul is very clear that though we may have different roles we all have the same value and dignity. Slavery is reprehensible and the way it was practiced in the American South is beyond comprehension: sexual abuse of the women, splitting up of couples and parents from their children. Completely despicable. I’ve read some Oprah picks and cried through them. Unfortunately the cruelty of man to man is beyond pale. However, it’s always easy to go with the crowd or custom or profit.
Brigitte – “…or so-called Christians have often done wrong and often do wrong.”
And there is the perfect example of the cancer that affects the fundy mind. A focus on wrongs and questioning the salvation of others based on those wrongs.
Guess what…we ALL do wrong. And believe it or not, sometimes even terrible wrongs are committed by people with a clean conscience due to screwed up thinking. Fortunately, God forgives.
I always love when people start accusing those who they disagree with of twisting scripture to fit their needs. LOL Surely you know that the most devout and sincere followers can and do come to diametrically opposing views of the meaning of scripture all the time. And to further complicate the issue scripture sometimes provides confusing and opposite instructions, making it possible to select whichever “proof text” fits one’s agenda. This is why I believe the purpose of scripture is to point us to the truth…not to be the ultimate truth. This is why Jesus sent the Spirit of Truth…not the bible.
The proof-texting is a problem, Gary, you’re right. Pick and chose your text, even like a horoscope at random. Yup. This is where a decent systematic theology comes in. Scripture interpreting scripture… and various principles.
A parallel cartoon might be made of a charismatic Christian thinking he’s hearing Jesus’ voice. Instead of Biblicism, you might call that one Anuerism. In each case there’s those who side with Biblicism and those who side with their own personal Jesus inside their heads. Even employing both the Bible and your own personal Jesus, how does that proves one’s case to “what God is really saying to humanity?”
Agreed Brigitte…and yet we have hundreds of denominations each of which feel like they are doing this “decent systematic theology” correctly yet coming to dramatically different conclusions.
That is my point…no amount of systematic study will resolve this problem.
Too much allegiance to the bible does not bring us together…it drives us apart.
@Brigitte,
“One of the things they do is twist scripture to fit their a priori understanding or needs.”
Brigitte, I am saying the twisting comes in saying that the bible does *not* endorse slavery, not the other way around.
“This does not mean that scripture endorses slavery, as you have conceded.”
I said no such thing whatsoever.
“Paul is very clear that though we may have different roles we all have the same value and dignity.”
But is clear that being a slave is one of those roles. Having the same dignity and value, in Paul’s mind, does not mean slaves should be freed.
“Slavery is reprehensible and the way it was practiced in the American South is beyond comprehension: sexual abuse of the women, splitting up of couples and parents from their children. Completely despicable. I’ve read some Oprah picks and cried through them. Unfortunately the cruelty of man to man is beyond pale. However, it’s always easy to go with the crowd or custom or profit.”
Agreed. And?
To “cause” is to make happen or bring about.
To “endorse” is to “approve, support or sustain”.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/endorse)
Something can endorse a practice without be the cause of it.
Christine, it’s a little bit like something we had a long time ago, regarding Mother Theresa. As you probably know, our departed Christopher Hitchens, for example, had many unflattering things to say about Mother Theresa, extremely rude and outragous, actually, and some on this blog echoed the sentiment. She was faulted for keeping the poor down, accepting their poverty or getting them to accept it.
I said then: well, what else was she supposed to to single-handedly on top of what she did do??? Run for prime-minister, throw over the cast system, establish Mother Theresa’s dictatorship… Paul would have gladly kept Onesimus. He turned around Onesimus’ attitude and he was a new man and a dear friend. But under the system it was right that he return to work but the “owner” was to treat him well. It was also right that Onesimus and Philemon estalbish a new relationship and put the past behind them. If the church had aimed at secular government it would be able to change all this. And when the church has secular power, it’s not the right thing either. Theocracy is not to be desired. A secular ruler should aim to establish secular justice. Within the church love should rule in all established ranks.
This is not what happened in America. Nor should a democracy with many Christians in it establish or maintain slavery. Profitability and in many places inhumanity ruled not justice, which is indeed a stain.
Hi Brigitte,
I’m happy to discuss I’ll you have said – I just want you to take a moment and recognize that none of that actually changes that the bible condones slavery (and not just in that one specific example in Acts).
Indeed, Paul’s influence and ability to change the existing system were quite limited. His recommendations – in many instances – I agree were clearly aimed at what could be done within that framework, which he was powerless to change. Slavery could easily be seen as one of those instances. There is also a strong theme in Paul’s writing about not overthrowing the estbalished order (so that, while Christian slave owners were to treat their slaves well, Christian slaves were to unquestioningly obey even harsh masters).
If – a big “if” – we keep in mind that Paul was a limited, fallible, context-bound human being, then all of this is fine. We can then say, that was then, this is now. We have a democracy, we have influence, we have a better understanding of human rights, slavery is far from a societal necessity – let’s abolish it. If Paul were around today, I feel confident he would agree that was a the right decision.
But, if – a more likely “if” – we view the bible as the “living, breathing Word of God”, then the idea that it (i.e. God) was entirely context-bound and it (i.e. God) settled for things we now view as horrendous and evil and it (i.e. God) accepted and condone injustice because it (i.e. God) was extremely limited in what it could achieve, then we have a massive theological problem.
But getting back to my original point…
When we can say all this about Paul, the bible and slavery, why is it that people who adamantly oppose slavery refuse to take this approach on many other issues where Paul, or the bible generally, was also speaking to the present context?
I have the Bible in an “incarnational” understanding. We have God’s word in Paul, who writes. So Paul is not a pen, who just writes as he is dictated. The whole thing is to make sense in context, as if I were writing a letter you.
@Brigitte,
Thanks. Then, to what extent is it God’s if it is culture-bound and limited and overly compromising? Are you admitting the possibility for fallability? Or wide a wide (wide, wide) berth for interpretation.
And you didn’t address my comment about why you interpret this way for slavery and not for other things.
And can you post the link again for that document we were discussing earlier? (Don’t remember which thread we discussed it on.) I want to go back to how that document continues to justify slavery and other injustices in a modern context.
Steve is softer on infallibility than I am. While not a Biblicist in some people’s sense, I take the text very seriously. Luther always said that it was the Holy Scriptures and the words of the Spirit. Luther was also big on the “living word” which is also our speech together, especially proclamation of forgiveness of sins and reconciliation. This comes even before the written word.
When something is taken in context or as poetry, metaphorical there is some justification in the text. Paul and others will make an appeal to their authority as apostles when necessary, or they will say it is a custom, or a hymn; it’s not that hard, really, when anyone reads the whole thing instead of just verses.
This is the link to the small catechism with explanations.
http://www.mtolivelutheran.info/uploads/5/9/1/6/5916933/explanation.pdf
If you lose it again, it’s on my sidebar. If there are questions I have the official version in hardcopy at home.
“Steve is softer on infallibility than I am.”
Why do I find this very hard to believe…?
So, to rephrase, you think something that is context-bound, settles for things we view as horrendous and evil, and accepts and condones injustice because it is extremely limited in what it can achieve qualifies as being infallible?
“When something is taken in context or as poetry, metaphorical there is some justification in the text. Paul and others will make an appeal to their authority as apostles when necessary, or they will say it is a custom, or a hymn; it’s not that hard, really, when anyone reads the whole thing instead of just verses.”
Is this directed at my question about consistency? If I understand you correctly, you mean to say that you can easily tell which things should be reinterpreted based on context and which shouldn’t? And by that do you mean that slavery is the only instance where such reinterpretation should happen?
Excellent Christine, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading what you have posted here.
As I said above…Too much allegiance to the bible does not bring us together…it drives us apart. I found it interesting that Brigitte decided to totally sidestep my point of there being so many differences of sincere and well studied opinions on the meaning of so much of the bible. So many denominations all believing they have got it figured out and judging all others for not interpreting the scripture the same way they do.
This is what happens when we determine that a book represents ultimate truth. If it does then it MUST be perfect…divine. As such IT requires our ultimate allegiance. And those who hold it in such blasphemous esteem…will continue to splinter and divide over it.
Sorry, Christine, your “rephrase” does not make sense to me. Try once more, but I did tell you that I am trying to stay out of discussions because of company.
Gary, of course, I disagree with you, but I didn’t think you would want to hear my answer. But perhaps you would.
So here: as confessional Lutheran I subscribe to the entire Book of Concord (on-line), which is supposed to be a thoroughly Biblical systematic treatment going through all the controversies, reposing the questions, giving the points in the affirmative and the negative, and so on. I think it is the Christian middle of the road and properly focused on Christ and his work. If the Roman Catholics could come from their corner to the middle and the Calvinists could come from their corner to the middle, we’d have it. That’s what I think.
@Brigitte,
I made those comments about the bible in my post above, saying is problematic when we equate this with God. I understood you as saying you didn’t equate it directly with God, but you did think it was infallible. So, I substituted infallible into my question instead.
In that last paragraph, do you mean the same document you linked to earlier? Are you really saying you think that *the middle of the road* in Christian theology???
@Brigitte,
it might be a mid-way point between extreme fundamentalist Calvinists and extreme fundamentalist Catholics… but you know that there’s more to Christianity that the extreme fundamentalist factions, right?
From the (unofficial) small catechism:
“The Tenth Commandment
[God's Gift of Contentment]
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or
donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
“What does this mean?
“We should fear and love God so that we do not entice or force away our neighbor’s
wife, workers, or animals, or turn them against him, but urge them to stay and do
their duty.
“66. What coveting does God forbid in the Tenth Commandment?
“God forbids every sinful desire to take from our neighbor that person’s spouse or
workers…
“67. What does God require of us in the Tenth Commandment?
“We should be content with the helpers God has given us and encourage our
neighbor’s helpers to be faithful to our neighbor.”
First off, this document is an interpretation written in 1991. No argument about the effects of the culture of first century Palestine excuses anything said in this document.
Second, the document supports, reaffirms even, the implication that wives and workers are owned. That people can belong to other people and owe them solely by virtue or their servitude, their status in which they likely had no choice (as slaves don’t and women didn’t).
The really disturbing part comes on urging workers and spouses to stay with their “owner”. There are absolutely no caveats that say this doesn’t apply to situations of servitude, slavery or abuse.
I was willing to give the writers the benefit of the doubt, that they didn’t realize the implications, but for two things:
1. What else would they mean by this? That a Christian should never encourage someone to quit a job under any circumstances? The non-servitude, non-slavery modern equivalent here completely escapes me.
2. This is the reference they use to support their premise: “Bible narrative: Paul returned a runaway slave to his master Philemon (Philemon)”. So, they definitely got the slavery implication.
What would be modern reality that would stem from this interpretation? On the wives part, men could apply for divorce but women couldn’t. People who found themselves victim to the underground sex trade would be urged not to seek their freedom. Anyone in substantial amounts of debt should work even for no pay – bankruptcy would be prohibited even in cases where one could never pay their debts in full.
This sections follows shortly after the above. Tell me this isn’t works-based:
“God threatens to punish all who break these commandments. Therefore, we should
fear His wrath and not do anything against them. But He promises grace and every
blessing to all who keep these commandments. Therefore, we should also love and
trust in Him and gladly do what He commands”
Thanks, Gary.
The coveting commandments are different from the others in terms of their speaking about the attitude, not just doing or not doing. Scheming in itself is already a sin. i.e. watch your heart. Also because divorce was lawful for men, you could “legally” divorce your wife and entice away someone else’s and thereby break up a marriage. It is about being duplicitous. Under the divorce law you are really committing adultery. The underhandedness of it all, and the pretense, is what is coming under condemnation. i.e. don’t think that you are acting righteously just because you could cloak your deed somehow. The problem is with the scheming involved and the lie.
Yes, the law is the law. This is part of the proper way of dealing with law and gospel. Jesus said that he does not abolish the law. i.e. moral behavior is expected and we should continue to fear God. That’s why we keep talking about forgiveness. And we will never be so perfect that we don’t keep needing to go through this cycle. In Christ, however, there is a freedom from the law, in that we turn to him in hope and keep looking to him. It’s not a once and for all. Now I am saved, I’ll do as I please. There is the daily repentance and renewal.
My problem with Lutheranism is that it elevates Romans and justification, etc., to a new level of law. It is glorified and wonderful, but it has become another way for humanity to attempt to perfect itself. Lutheranism’s exactness in how one attains and maintains relationship with God is a mirror of Old Testament law with a new spin.
@Brigitte: The document you link to is talking specifically about what you should proactively urge others to do – whether or not it would have any affect on you personally financially or otherwise. And it talks about ownership, which you didn’t address at all. And it was written in 1991 (how many times do I have to say that?), so the culture of OT times shouldn’t be an excuse for their interpretation.
No where is anyone saying we should be moral. I’m saying that the document is advocating something that isn’t moral.
Your response has nothing to do with anything I said, or that the document says.
@NP: I read someone say that if Paul could see how we’ve turned his words into the new laws, he would be rolling in his grave.
Correction: “Nowhere is anyone saying we shouldn’t be moral.” Whether or not people should be moral is not under discussion.
Just to be absolutely clear, Brigitte:
I’m not criticizing the tenth commandment; I’m criticizing the small catechism that you previously offered as an example of the theological basics that all Christians could agree on. Specifically, I am trying to illustrate why I think this document is condoning, if not promoting, slavery. It’s thoughts on slavery just happen to appear in its interpretation of the tenth commandment.
Christine, I have no idea how you don’t see that what I’ve said has nothing to do with what you’ve said. We keep having these communication troubles. But we can work on it.
NP, ” Lutheranism’s exactness in how one attains and maintains relationship with God is a mirror of Old Testament law with a new spin.” That’s kind of a vague. Salvation is in the cross in which you place your trust. You enter the covenant via baptism. You live a Christian life as morally as you can, receiving forgiveness for your repented of shortcomings along the way, remaining in Christ in this way and receiving assurance of forgiveness for you personally in the supper, Christ body and blood, given and shed for you.
Actually Brigitte, I was hoping you would respond to my point rather than simply provide another rehash of what a good Lutheran believes.
David! Thanks for this, lol. I love it. If you have a second have a look at my complimentary essay to your drawing : http://wreckyourself.org/sermon-on-the-mount/
@Brigitte: I made comments about a particular document’s treatment of a subject… then you made comments about that subject generally without speaking to the document at all… I clarified to say that I’m not addressing the subject, but the document itself… and you comment that you don’t know why your comment, which had nothing to do with the document, would have nothing to do with the comments I made…
If you can’t tell the difference between a subject and a particular document’s treatment of a subject… well, that would explain the “communication troubles”.