Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do Christians deal with the violence in the Bible?
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 151 of 221 (229704)
08-04-2005 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
08-04-2005 11:09 AM


Re: OT types of Christ
Just about. However, if you look at such notables and James, the brother of Jesus, and such.. he remained a Jew... and didn't accept
his half-brother as being god.
Look at the difference between how faith and works are handled by the Pauline philosphy, and James. James is very work oriented. The paulines are very faith oriented. That shows a signifigent shift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 11:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 11:25 AM ramoss has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 152 of 221 (229710)
08-04-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by ramoss
08-04-2005 11:15 AM


Re: OT types of Christ
James did accept his brother as being God or he was not a Christian and would not have had the position he had. Jude was also Jesus' brother. At first glance James' emphasis on good works appears to be at odds with Paul's emphasis on faith, but they simply address different theological problems. Paul never denies works, merely that works alone can save. His theology is that faith is the foundation and works must issue from faith. James is addressing the opposite problem, the misunderstanding that faith does not require works at all. Together they make the complete gospel -- salvation by faith which leads to good works or it's not true faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 11:15 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 12:24 PM Faith has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 153 of 221 (229717)
08-04-2005 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
08-04-2005 10:54 AM


Re: One last thought
Its the THEOLOGIANS I distrust the most. You can't separate the theologians from the excesses of the traditional Church. They were part and parcel of it and provided the theological backing for the various inquisitions and crusades. The theologians were supposedly scholarly learned people who should have challenged the Roman apostacy. But did they? No. It was Catholic theologins who fought the reforms proposed by Martin Luther. Ia am sorry, but hanging your hopes on the theologians will carry no weight with me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 10:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 11:47 AM deerbreh has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 154 of 221 (229720)
08-04-2005 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by deerbreh
08-04-2005 11:35 AM


Re: One last thought
I'm sure we're thinking of different theologians. I utterly reject everything about the Roman church, the Inquisition, the works. Those who maintained the light of true doctrine continued to defend it down through the centuries despite the Roman church. I am going to have to do a study of who was carrying the torch during the period of Roman apostacy because I tend to jump from Augustine to Luther with only a bunch of true semi-protestant evangelistic groups who lived apart from the Roman Church in between. There were also many true hearted Catholics though. What was the Reformation but Catholics who saw the light? The point is the true doctrine has never died though it has gone through many variations and differences of emphasis and if everybody thinks they can read the Bible for themselves without regard for the history of the church, there is simply no more Christian faith, it's just a bunch of fragmented disjointed contradictory beliefs.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 11:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 11:35 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 12:26 PM Faith has replied
 Message 157 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 12:36 PM Faith has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 155 of 221 (229752)
08-04-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
08-04-2005 11:25 AM


Re: OT types of Christ
That is yoru claim. Now, prove it.
Remember, most scholars think the Epsistal of James is a pseudographical work. (see Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 11:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 2:12 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 156 of 221 (229756)
08-04-2005 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
08-04-2005 11:47 AM


Re: One last thought
Luthor?? Luthor?? This is the guy who wrote 'Jews and their lies', right.
I just want to knwo where you are coming from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 11:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 2:23 PM ramoss has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 157 of 221 (229761)
08-04-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
08-04-2005 11:47 AM


Re: One last thought
Faith writes:
If everybody thinks they can read the Bible for themselves without regard for the history of the church, there is simply no more Christian faith, it's just a bunch of fragmented disjointed contradictory beliefs.
First, that's pretty much what the Catholic theologins told Luther, the Waldensians, and the Anabaptists. They didn't want people reading the Bible on their own, they wanted people to depend on the Church canon and the catechism.
Secondly, I am saying the Bible MUST be read in the CONTEXT of the history of the church - with all of its disputes, negotiations, political deals, rewrites, translations, retranslations, etc. before a "Bible" emerged. You make it sound like the Bible was dictated by God to some scribes who faithfully wrote it down word for word and then had it all bound together into a book with Holy Bible stamped on the front of it and the words of Jesus in red. No, that is not how it happened. Different parts were written over a long period of time. In most cases the original author(s) are unknown but authorship was "assigned" to certain individuals with varying quality of academic evidence. Many Gospels were written, few were chosen. Which books were chosen depended partly on the political climate at the time and the particular church tradition. Whole books and parts of books were dropped and added.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 11:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 2:19 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 158 of 221 (229774)
08-04-2005 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by ramoss
08-04-2005 12:24 PM


Re: OT types of Christ
That is yoru claim. Now, prove it.
Well, here are some sites that give the basic view that I just gave, first two about the supposed conflict between James and Paul and the second two about James believing in Jesus as the Son of God.
404 Error - Page Not Found | Desiring God
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jamesvspaul.html
http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/1999/jun/page5.shtml
http://www.1way2god.net/bio_jamesbrotherofjesus.html
Remember, most scholars think the Epsistal of James is a pseudographical work. (see Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3)
Who is the author and who published it?
There is some controversy about the authorship of the Letter of James but the main opinion is that it was written by the brother of Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 12:24 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 159 of 221 (229775)
08-04-2005 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by deerbreh
08-04-2005 12:36 PM


Re: One last thought
I'm on the side of Luther, the Waldensians and the Anabaptists and don't mean that we aren't to read the Bible on our own, of course we are, but not without help from God-appointed leaders in the church.
The fact that there have always been controversies in the church doesn't keep God from preserving His word to us. He is quite capable of making sure we get the truth through His Holy Spirit. No need to rely on our own flimsy selves to figure it all out.
What do you think was "written over a long period of time?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 12:36 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 160 of 221 (229777)
08-04-2005 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by ramoss
08-04-2005 12:26 PM


Re: One last thought
Luthor?? Luthor?? This is the guy who wrote 'Jews and their lies', right.
I just want to knwo where you are coming from.
Luther is known for starting the Reformation, not for the Lies of the Jews, which most repudiate. He is known for such works as his Commentary on Romans and Commentary on Galatians and The Babylonian Captivity of the Church among other things. TheLies of the Jewswas repudiated by his own colleagues at the time and not taken seriously by the churches at all.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 02:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 12:26 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 6:37 PM Faith has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 161 of 221 (229808)
08-04-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
07-28-2005 7:10 PM


Can God get it wrong?
The post copied below was written in response to a thread in Intelligent Design forum which could (in a roundabout way) be taken to imply that imperfection in design is evidence for the non-existance of God. It may have some application here.
iano writes:
Anybody with even a passing knowledge of what God (if he exists) is supposed to be like, would know that words like: omnipotent,omniescent, eternal, transcedent, immutable, unique apply to him. If he did create all this then such words would only go a limited way in quantifying him (if he existed). In other words God (if he exists) is BIG. Much bigger than the human imagination could ever hope to get a handle on. Bigger in every way: creativity, knowledge, wisdom, means, ability, skill,resourcefulness,foresight etc. He is possibly similar in his ways(if he exists - I'll stop saying this now and assume you'll place it in yourself when necessary)when he created as to us when we create things. The most obvious of these similarities would, I imagine, be purpose. That's the first reason that anyone creates anything, for a purpose.
Similar is not the same as 'same' though. If God, then in order to know why he did what he did we would have to know something about him and his ways. We would never however,get to know all his ways - for that to happen we would have to be as all-knowing as he is. We would have to be God ourselves. And to date, a created thing has never been of the same order as the thing that created it.
It seems obvious then, that the less we know about God the less we can hope to understand why he did what he did. If we don't know God at all then we couldn't suppose to know anything at all about why he did what he did. If we don't know God (at all), his purpose will not make any sense to us because we have no grasp (at all) about what his version of sense is. It is safe to suppose they differ significantly, as different as we are in every way from him. Needless to say, when it comes to whose sense carries the most weight then it will be his. Like, are YOU going to debate God?
There's no point in examining his creation with a view to establishing one way or the other, whether what he did was perfect or not. To do that you'd have to know what his idea of perfect is - in order to measure his creation against it. Similarily, there is (logically) no way to decide for/against a creator based on perceived imperfections in his design.
If you had to take a educated guess, then I suppose it is safe to assume the being who designed a heart,lung or kidney is capable of making sure they are able to withstand the attack of diseases - or to make sure the diseases don't exist in the first place.
If someone really wanted to know then the best person to ask is obviously him (if he existed)
I would apply the same thinking to make the claim that people who don't know God (if he exists etc...) are not in a position to discuss the merits and demerits of violence in the Bible. At least not in any objective way. The Bible indicates he exists and carries out a personal relationship with those who have, so to speak, met his "terms and conditions" to qualify for such a personal relationship. It follows that those who don't have such a relationship can't have a clue as to why and how he does what he does. They may feel they can have, but the best they can do is their own interpretation, be it from the Bible or how they themselves feel things ought to operate. But as I pointed out above, who are we (whether we have a personal relationship with him or not) to say how it should be - we're not God.
Personal relationship doesn't mean total understanding by any means, but insight and understanding (and yes, even agreement) as to "how and why" he does what he does is logically probable.
A person who knows God may attempt to explain why God does what he does but whether or not the explanation is accurate or understood matters little. God does what God does and it matters not whether we agree with him or understand his reasons. If he exists, he is the one who decides what's right and wrong. Disagreeing with him is pointless if he's the one who defines the goalposts. Whats right and why it's right is right because he decides so. He's not under any obligation to tell us why (although he does). If it was any other way then he wouldn't be much of a God now, would he?
Personally speaking, I quite like it that way...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 07-28-2005 7:10 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2005 7:19 PM iano has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 162 of 221 (229861)
08-04-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
08-04-2005 2:23 PM


Re: One last thought
He also changed some translations.. and came added the word 'Alone' when
talking about 'BY faith'. When that was pointed out, he supposedly said 'Well, they shoudl have'.
I don't take Luthor very serious. Of course, I don't take the concept of 'salvation' as in the christian sense very seriously either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 2:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 6:50 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 163 of 221 (229870)
08-04-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by ramoss
08-04-2005 6:37 PM


Re: Luther
Perhaps a nitpicking point in a way, but Luther wouldn't have been in the position to CHANGE "some translations." He did DO a translation of his own into German, so do you mean he added the word "alone" in that translation? That's acceptable for a translator, whose job is to bring out the meaning of the text as he understands it. A perfectly literal translation from any language to any other language isn't really possible -- there's always an element of interpretation involved.
But I'm just guessing you are referring to his German translation as I haven't heard anything else about this incident. That "alone" has become a slogan in Reformed churches now, however, thanks to Luther and the other Reformers: "faith alone, Christ alone, scripture alone, grace alone, to God alone be the glory."
May I ask: do you practice Judaism, and which kind if so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 6:37 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 164 of 221 (229883)
08-04-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by iano
08-04-2005 4:31 PM


Re: Can God get it wrong?
I would apply the same thinking to make the claim that people who don't know God (if he exists etc...) are not in a position to discuss the merits and demerits of violence in the Bible.
"If you don't think like me then you can't disagree with me."
What?!
I am a Christian. I interpret the Bible non-literally, partially because I don;t believe God was as violent and horrible as some parts of the Bible say. I believe that I have a personal relationship with God - in fact, I base my entire faith on that, rather than a strict interpretation of the Bible. I place my faith in God, not in a book. My faith does not rest on the Bible being true in its entirety.
he Bible indicates he exists and carries out a personal relationship with those who have, so to speak, met his "terms and conditions" to qualify for such a personal relationship. It follows that those who don't have such a relationship can't have a clue as to why and how he does what he does. They may feel they can have, but the best they can do is their own interpretation, be it from the Bible or how they themselves feel things ought to operate. But as I pointed out above, who are we (whether we have a personal relationship with him or not) to say how it should be - we're not God.
Personal relationship doesn't mean total understanding by any means, but insight and understanding (and yes, even agreement) as to "how and why" he does what he does is logically probable.
I think God is very understandable. I think that even an atheist can get a basic picture of God if he reads the entire Bible and understands that it is not all literally true.
A person who knows God may attempt to explain why God does what he does but whether or not the explanation is accurate or understood matters little. God does what God does and it matters not whether we agree with him or understand his reasons. If he exists, he is the one who decides what's right and wrong. Disagreeing with him is pointless if he's the one who defines the goalposts. Whats right and why it's right is right because he decides so. He's not under any obligation to tell us why (although he does). If it was any other way then he wouldn't be much of a God now, would he?
So, you are saying that even otherwise evil actions, such as genocide, are justified if commanded by God, becuase those actions are then magically made good.
I disagree. Did you know that Hitler used Christian rhetoric (including a book by Martin Luther - "The Jews and their Lies," if I recall) to justify the Holocaust? He claimed to be on a holy mission from God. IF he was (obviously not the case), would the Holocaust have been justified, since God would have told him to do it?
In the same way, I think that most of the violence in the Bible was done by everyday monsters and misguided individuals, who then claimed that what they had done was God's Will. The same thing that still happens today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by iano, posted 08-04-2005 4:31 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by iano, posted 08-05-2005 5:58 AM Rahvin has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 165 of 221 (230030)
08-05-2005 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Rahvin
08-04-2005 7:19 PM


Re: Can God get it wrong?
Rahvin writes:
"If you don't think like me then you can't disagree with me."
The above was in quotes which you obviously don't assign to me but put in presumably, to paraphrase what I say. Your entitled to do so of course but I haven't said that nor do I say that. I've put up what seems a logical position and it's the logic that needs to be examined. My personal opinion one way or the other is not part of it
I am a Christian.
What precisely is a Christian? What makes someone a Christian in other words?
I interpret the Bible non-literally, partially because I don;t believe God was as violent and horrible as some parts of the Bible say. I believe that I have a personal relationship with God - in fact, I base my entire faith on that, rather than a strict interpretation of the Bible. I place my faith in God, not in a book. My faith does not rest on the Bible being true in its entirety.
If it's not true in it's entirety (and a discussion could be held about what is 'true' but lets assume we take the commonly understood meaning so as not to get sidetracked - but it may differ from person to person) then which parts are true and which not? And who decides? Man? You? Me? Everybody can decide to believe which bits are true/relevant/parable etc? That means 100 million people can have 100 million interpretations of the Bible. That means you can have 100 million versions of what God is about. 'God in mans image' in other words. Please don't think I'm attacking your faith, please. I'm not. Faith is a fantastic thing but if someone elses faith (which can vary wildly with your own), is as valid as your own, then whose to know whose got the 'right' faith. Eg: RC says that salvation is by faith and works, Evangelicals will say it is by faith alone. If your using the wrong key, you may not be able to get in the door (salvation, in this instance). So which key is the right key...or are all keys the right key? If the latter, what's the point in having a lock?
I think God is very understandable. I think that even an atheist can get a basic picture of God if he reads the entire Bible and understands that it is not all literally true.
Whether he takes it literally or not, an athiest could get a working knowledge of God as described in the bible. Working knowledge is not personal relationship though. It's just 'knowledge about'. He can still say it's a very interesting/boring fairytale about a fairytale God. Not that I believe that God is a fairytale I might add!
So, you are saying that even otherwise evil actions, such as genocide, are justified if commanded by God, becuase those actions are then magically made good.
Not "magically good". God can do no evil and the word 'genocide' is a man-made word which describes a particular 'evil' act. If God can do no evil, yet kills many, then it is not genocide. If you chose not to take it literally, is that because you've decided the action is genocide and can't reconcile a God who committing 'genocide'. If God killing many is not genocide however (because God can't commit evil) then this part of the bible may still be taken literally. That is, could God have a reason to kill many and still be 'right' in his actions? Of course he can! His reasons, which are always right - whether we agree with him or not - are his reasons. He is God after all. By saying God's actions are genocide is to say that we define, for God, WHAT constitutes right and wrong and furthermore, WHEN it's right and wrong - which again is making God into our image of what he should be like. It is worth remembering too, that the Bible talks throughout, more about God's wrath than it does his love.
I disagree. Did you know that Hitler used Christian rhetoric (including a book by Martin Luther - "The Jews and their Lies," if I recall) to justify the Holocaust? He claimed to be on a holy mission from God. IF he was (obviously not the case), would the Holocaust have been justified, since God would have told him to do it?
Hilter claiming that he was in accordence with God's will in no way imples that he was in fact, in Gods will. People can claim what they want: Hitler, Inquisition,Crusades etc. That doesn't make it right...as purveyors of 'the moon is made of cheese' argument have found out.
In the same way, I think that most of the violence in the Bible was done by everyday monsters and misguided individuals, who then claimed that what they had done was God's Will. The same thing that still happens today.
That would mean that those parts of the Bible are not inspired by God, but written by man to justify his own actions. You may then rip out those pages because you interpret them as not God-inspired. Now, where do you stop ripping out pages? Where do 100 million people stop ripping out pages-if they base belief in the Bible as being something which is self-determined?
Sure there are different versions of the Bible, but a closer examination may reveal a)why that is the case b) why the differences (assuming a) was taken into account) in text don't amount to all that much in terms of significance. But what you imply is that 100,000,000 versions (make that 2 billion versions in fact - because that's roughly about how many people in the world claim to be 'Christians') exist and that all are valid.
I'll stop editing now and let it sit as it is...sorry for the sloppy, hasty formulation of the post....iano
This message has been edited by iano, 05-Aug-2005 12:29 PM
This message has been edited by iano, 05-Aug-2005 12:40 PM
This message has been edited by iano, 05-Aug-2005 12:52 PM
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-05-2005 10:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2005 7:19 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by AdminJar, posted 08-05-2005 11:27 AM iano has not replied
 Message 167 by Rahvin, posted 08-05-2005 12:04 PM iano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024