I'd like to apologize on behalf of the heterosexual population to our homosexual friends that may have had the misfortune of reading the last few pages of this thread. We're sorry. Please understand that we do not all think we're doing you a favor by grudgingly accepting your existence. :(
I think that's hardly fair, Bugley. THe point of this entire recent conversation isn't that God doesn't like the gays or that Steve doesn't or whatever. It's that the Bible says what it says. We could just as easily be talking about heterosexual adultery or somethng nonsexual in nature. When I cam here, I was directed here form another thread and this was the conversation.
No one should look at these posts and conclude anything like what you said. And any Chrisitan posting here about any given subject knows that he/she is one opinion in a sea of pretty smart people. I would not think it acceptible for the Christians to have to be the ones not discussing there beliefs because it might offend someone else. We can all share ideas and still like one another, or we can't.
You're criticizing what I've said is in the verse, but, to support your claim, you make an assertion that's clearly not in the verse (that Paul thought every man who has ever been born is born heterosexual).
LT, on what do you base the assertion that Paul thinks it's okay for gay Christians to be gay? There's not one bit of scripture that would indicate that at all. You're trying to say anything not specifically said in your opinion is not nailed down, and anything not nailed down to your satisfaction is a cat toy. You are exactly, precisely, unavoidably abusing the literal text of one verse to draw a comfortable conclusion rather than compare to any of Paul's other writings (I Cor 6.9; I tim 1.10).
What verse says homosexuality under any context is okay with Paul? What verse says anyone is born gay?
I'm Going to assume you're a trinitarian. If not oh well.
Would Jesus, the same man who stopped a crowd from stoning a adulteress to death, stand over a 2 year old Amelekite male child and say "There is no other option, dash his head against the stones.. but save his sister for yourself"
Valid assumption, and I see why you said it.
So here's your answer: Did God see into the future that his fragile people and vital mission of redemption required the elimination of a dangerous people? Was intermixing of cultures a huge danger then? Does God know the heart and soul of every Amelekite, and so He can redeem them eternally or ask for their life with total soveriegnty?
I know a part of your mind wants to jsut assume that the Bible advocates senseless barbarism, but surely you can grant that we see a difference, lest Christianity be locked up for murdering kids everywhere.
Maybe we're ripe for a conversation about the process of creating salvation through Christ. It took time, and required certain things in history, some of which were predicted.
*They* were all naturally heterosexual (not everybody in the city, but the people Paul was talking about). That's clear from the verse.
Its only being clear if you're being circular
You're criticizing what I've said is in the verse, but, to support your claim, you make an assertion that's clearly not in the verse (that Paul thought every man who has ever been born is born heterosexual)
Because that was the assumption of the people at the time. As i said, even if Jesus told Paul that that wasn't the case, his audience would get the absolutely wrong impression for almost 2,000 years because your conclusion isn't even POSSIBLE without modern science.
Also, Paul didn't say that anyone who acts in a way contrary to their sexual orientation (whether that be a gay man who is in the closet or a straight man acting gay in jail or whatever) is sinning. He's saying that *these* particular people were engaged in idolatry and that idolatry led to them going against their natural orientation.
So go cursed pagans with... homosexuality? There's nothing WRONG with it, he just makes people do it when they do something wrong.
THe point of this entire recent conversation isn't that God doesn't like the gays or that Steve doesn't or whatever. It's that the Bible says what it says.And that some self-identified "Christians" will make false claims about what's in the Bible to support ostracization of minorities in direct contradiction to Biblical teaching.
But...I didn't. In fact, the verses provided a couple of posts above evidence that I didn't. And ostracize is a funny word. I suppose taking out a gay friend, who isn't a believer, to dinner on Christmas because his family of nonbelievers won't talk to him is your idea of ostracization.
You don't know me, LT. Stop making assumptions about me, my beliefs or my character. You are a few steps away from pracitcing that fruit you are talking about.
Quote:
the men also abandoned natural relations with women
which indicates that these men were naturally heterosexual.
Lolwut? If they were born gay, how could they abandon something they never practiced? I don't think it means what you think it means.
So here's your answer
That is a question.
Did God see into the future that his fragile people and vital mission of redemption required the elimination of a dangerous people?
No.
You are claiming that the character God is amazingly consistent. Yet here we have an omniscient, omnipotent, and loving being rendered completely helpless by a 2 year old. A being that can create GALAXY CLUSTERS and balance 50 physical constants like a rube goldburgh machine so that 13 billion years later a planet called earth will spring forth life can't figure out "You know what, i can teleport that kid 15 light years from here to another planet." or one of a thousand ways that would deal with the problem.
Your claims to consistency are either circular or strain belief beyond any mischaracterization ever portrayed in fiction.
You are also claiming that, for some reason, EVERY bride who's wedding night was last week is irredeemably evil, but EVERY girl, including the ones who's wedding day was supposed to be tomorrow, can be redeemed.
Was intermixing of cultures a huge danger then? Does God know the heart and soul of every Amelekite, and so He can redeem them eternally or ask for their life with total soveriegnty?
If you believe that answer, why do you hesitate to say it?
I know a part of your mind wants to jsut assume that the Bible advocates senseless barbarism
Really? How? Mind reading machine, cat scan? MRI? Gnomish helmet with a little spirally thing on top?
You have NO idea how insulting this comment is. Its the mother of all ad homs. You are trying to denigrate not only my position but my ability to reach that position with absolutely NO demonstrable basis.
God advocated killing young males but keeping virgin females. I think I have reasonable grounds to conclude barbarism
Maybe we're ripe for a conversation about the process of creating salvation through Christ. It took time, and required certain things in history, some of which were predicted.
This isn't consistency, its circularity. This is defining what god had to do by whatever god did.
Have you actually read the chapter? I'm getting the feeling that you haven't
That's twice you've had to resort to ad homs with me. Good bye.
Ancient Sensei, I don't know if you're going to acknowledge your share of responsibility or not, but words like what you spread have and do result in ostracization of minorities (gays).
Yeah. That's the rub isn't it? If you believe something, you ahve to stick by it. So the question isn't whether you believe it or not, but how you present it.
Every gay friend I have knows what the Bible says and knows that believe what the Bible says. Yet I have gay friends. And not gay acquaintances tolerate like Bugley suggestes (although I know that comment wasn't specifically about me or any friedn I might have). Friends. People I'd give my life for, and they know that, too.
So, in a world where people vbelieve different things, some of them passionately, no one should be making an issue that people believe differently. How you express those beleifs and where they come from is what matters.
A woman rolled out a comment about Republicans on FB yesterday: we're all just money-hungry, greedy evil people that don't remotely care about anyone but themselves. Funny how with so many who believe differently from me, that kind of rhetoric is acceptible. But when a Christian says, "I don't tink it's right, but I will love that person and be their friend regardless.", it's divisive and ostracizing.
Again, if you don't knwo someone, debate the things they talk about. Don't put words in their mouth and make assumptions about their character. Those assumptions only serve the purpose of deflecting honest discussion and maintaining ignorance. It's like calling me a racist because I'm a fiscal conservative.
Let's not pretend these boards do not have a good bit of "ostracizing" for many walks of life.
And for the second time. I'll point out this is not the hill I chose to fight on. We could be talking about anything. The conversation I am here for is with BNW and anyone else who wants to talk about why Christians beleive what they do. If the group here decides the gay talk is too sensitive, and someone isn't going to start calling me names while defending an utterly nonBiblical approach to how to interpret scripture, I am happy to let the smaller points go and keep the main thing the main thing.
Saying I twist the scri[ptures into a thing of hate is completely unfounded. Then trying to ascribe some level of ostracization to me without knowing me personally is also unfounded. I submit if there's a divisive personality in this conversation, it might be you, and you ought to step back and take a look. But I can't make you. I'm happy to engage you on any matter so long as you remain respectful and stop putting words in my mouth.
You are claiming that the character God is amazingly consistent. Yet here we have an omniscient, omnipotent, and loving being rendered completely helpless by a 2 year old. A being that can create GALAXY CLUSTERS and balance 50 physical constants like a rube goldburgh machine so that 13 billion years later a planet called earth will spring forth life can't figure out "You know what, i can teleport that kid 15 light years from here to another planet." or one of a thousand ways that would deal with the problem.See below about testing obedience as well. But note that the almighty God wasn't impotent. He dealt with it. Maybe He rmeembers Moses and knwos what a single kid from another culture can do. Maybe he remembers what the Amelekites did to their last neighbors.
You are also claiming that, for some reason, EVERY bride who's wedding night was last week is irredeemably evil, but EVERY girl, including the ones who's wedding day was supposed to be tomorrow, can be redeemed.I missed something here. I believe God offers salvation to everyone. Failed my Calvinist credentialing, there. As smart as the Calvinists I know are, I think scripture is pretty clear God wants no one unsaved, and that we have a compnent of choice in the matter.
If you're talking about why save the [single] women instead of the men, I guess maybe because the race needs rapid expansion to be protected through history. To be honest, I am working this one from memory and should probably sit down and do some word studies and such. Probably is more important that Fantasy Football. : }
If you believe that answer, why do you hesitate to say it?I apologize. The full answer is if God is all-knowing and sovereign, then his plan for any life is just. After all, He does know who has the character he wants and who gives him the worship he demands. If God sought to bring a thousand 2-year-olds to Heaven to end a wicked line of people, but without charging the sins of that culture to said 2-year-olds, he is merciful and just in doing so.
My reticence comes from this: if you don't believe there is a god, the claim that God knows everything and keeps his promises doesn't fly with many. To more than one person here, my defense of God cannot be separated from a defense of barbarism, because there is no difference in God's right to terminate a blasphemous life than there is for me to do it. You can call it a special plea, but like any classic fallicy, it isn't a flaw if it happens to be true. God sees more than we, God knows who to judge and who to offer salvation to, and said 2-year-olds figure into that plan.
I acknowledge this is a tricky conversation. Generally, skeptics of Christianity look at the gooiest conversations first. Some because those are the questions they need answered. Some to justify continued disbelief without putting in effort. Some because they are the most fascinatnig, and some jsut to watch guys like me squirm. In the end, I surmise that the Amelekites got themselves in very hot water, and God decided they weren't going to be any more trouble. He knows the kids aren't to blame for the parents any more than any other culture, so he wants anyone who hasn't bowed to an idol or whatever ended on earth to continue in Heaven. And God wants obedience from His people as he protects them through history to enact His plan.
Can I be more specific than that? Nah. God didn't ask me. But do I think His sovereignty in the Old Testament is inconsistent with His mercy in the New? Nah. It's a long story, with some people being judged and some people given grace. I get the point of the story, and as someone who deserves what the Amelekites got, I'm happy to take the Cross instead.
I guess the only thing to add is that I asked some of these same questions once, and I didn't feel that I had to have them all answered to become a believer.
I know a part of your mind wants to jsut assume that the Bible advocates senseless barbarism
Really? How? Mind reading machine, cat scan? MRI? Gnomish helmet with a little spirally thing on top?
You have NO idea how insulting this comment is. Its the mother of all ad homs. You are trying to denigrate not only my position but my ability to reach that position with absolutely NO demonstrable basis.
God advocated killing young males but keeping virgin females. I think I have reasonable grounds to conclude barbarism
I apologize again. I think I was unclear. I don't mean to claim to read your mind. I said that because I thought I recalled you making that claim, or at least alluding to it. In fact, in that last sentence I quoted, you say it's reasonable to conclude. So I do not at all mean to be insulting or to cast that comment as high browed. I acknowledge it's a tough conversation for Christians and I get how it is seen from the other side, because I was on that other side. So I suppose I say that because at one time I sort of assumed that too.
So, I hope to be forgiven or understood or both. Not reading your mind. Just saying I thought you'd made that statement already.
Ancient Sensei, what scripture says that hang glinding isn't a sin? There's not one bit of scripture that would indicate that at all.
Again, the Bible doesn't list everything that isn't a sin.
Hang gliding isn't a sin. Unless you steal your glider or skip work to hang glide without lessons and die alone on the rocks in completely irreposnsible fashion. Because principle comes into play. THere are some people for whom roleplaying games and secular rock music are a sin. They can't enjoy either without going somewhere God disapproves of.
Curiously, you are asking where in the Bible God axes hang-gliding, looking for specific verbage to say it is a sin or it isn't. But when Paul mentions several times that sleeping with the same gender is sin, you look to a comment NOT in the Bible at all (that Paul might have believed, uniquely, that some people are born gay and some are not, and that such people are referred to in his writings) to counter the argument.
See below about testing obedience as well. But note that the almighty God wasn't impotent. He dealt with it.
With no more aplomb, finesse, ability or most importantly, COMPASSION than we would expect from a particularly brutish group at the time. It is difficult to give your claims of the amazing unity of the biblical message even a modicum of weight when any and all actions that could be conceivable can be justified with the idea that the all knowing god knows it’s the only way and you don’t, so it had to be done.
I missed something here. I believe God offers salvation to everyone. Failed my Calvinist credentialing, there. As smart as the Calvinists I know are, I think scripture is pretty clear God wants no one unsaved, and that we have a component of choice in the matter.
Possibility 1: An all knowing, all powerful, being of inconceivable power looked into every possible future and out of a billion billion possibilities the ONLY option for dealing with the boy children was to kill ALL of them. NONE, nadda, zip, zero, zilch, not a ONE of them could have been raised by Israelite parents and not disrupted the scheme, OR could have been teleported 3 billion lightyears to a new planet without messing something up. Also, EVERY single girl child in the group will NOT disrupt that same plan… for some reason.
Possibility 2: A group of xenophobic barbarians sacked a city, killed the men and kept the women as spoils of war to rape them and take them as wives and then justified it with “the deity of our people said so.”
Possibility 1 is a patent absurdity. Possibility 2 was Tuesday in the bronze age. Which seems a more likely conclusion? (speaking of which…see below)
If you're talking about why save the [single] women instead of the men, I guess maybe because the race needs rapid expansion to be protected through history. To be honest, I am working this one from memory and should probably sit down and do some word studies and such. Probably is more important that Fantasy Football. : }
It’s the answer most theologians give, but not as bluntly. Doesn’t it seem just a TAD racist to you? Not to mention horribly unfair to the women? “I’m sorry you need to sleep with the man who murdered your father and baby brother but its all for the greater good! Our race was chosen by God to lead to a better future!”
Tell me, if this were a movie would that be the line of a GOOD guy or a BAD guy?I apologize. The full answer is if God is all-knowing and sovereign, then his plan for any life is just.
A full answer you’re giving is one word: Yes. Read the question. Look
at the answer. Think about why that bothers you. The answer is simple…. Because you know its wrong. It’s easy to compartmentalize the old testament god from Jesus, but the thought of not only a good, but the BEST possible person doing that is a direct contradiction.After all, He does know who has the character he wants and who gives him the worship he demands. If God sought to bring a thousand 2-year-olds to Heaven to end a wicked line of people, but without charging the sins of that culture to said 2-year-olds, he is merciful and just in doing so.
Remember how this started, with reading into the bible things that aren’t there? How do you know they went to heaven?
You can call it a special plea, but like any classic fallacy, it isn't a flaw if it happens to be true. God sees more than we, God knows who to judge and who to offer salvation to, and said 2-year-olds figure into that plan.
Yes, it’s still a flaw in your argument if your result is right.
See, there were these two guys in a lunatic asylum. And one night, they decide they don't like living in the asylum anymore. They decide they're going to escape! So, like, they get up onto the roof, and there, just across this narrow gap, they see the rooftops of the town, stretching away into the moonlight. Stretching away to freedom. Now, the first guy, he jumps right across with no problem. But his friend, his friend daredn't make the leap. Y'see... y'see, he's afraid of falling. So then the first guy has an idea... He says, "Hey, I have a flashlight with me! I'll shine it across the gap between the buildings. You can walk across the beam and join me!" But the second guy just shakes his head. He suh-says... he says "Wh-what do you think I am? Crazy? You'd turn it off when I was halfway across!"— The Joker, The Killing Joke
I acknowledge this is a tricky conversation. Generally, skeptics of Christianity look at the gooiest conversations first. Some because those are the questions they need answered. Some to justify continued disbelief without putting in effort. Some because they are the most fascinating, and some just to watch guys like me squirm.
I’ll take all of the above for 500 Alex. I will also add that it makes using fallacious reasoning MUCH harder and more obvious when the result is a dead innocent than an incorrect conclusion about the size of mustard seeds.
In the end, I surmise that the Amelekites got themselves in very hot water, and God decided they weren't going to be any more trouble. He knows the kids aren't to blame for the parents any more than any other culture, so he wants anyone who hasn't bowed to an idol or whatever ended on earth to continue in Heaven. And God wants obedience from His people as he protects them through history to enact His plan.
I find it baffling that God can’t understand the motives for being an atheist. (or in this case a heathen) You’re one nation, you have your gods that you’ve been told about for childhood. You know in other places they have other gods. What possible evidence does someone showing up at your gate and saying “Obey MY god or be destroyed” have? What makes his claims stand out as truth? (particularly when they also slaughtered the people who DID convert while they were recovering from being snipped…)
Can I be more specific than that? Nah. God didn't ask me. But do I think His sovereignty in the Old Testament is inconsistent with His mercy in the New?
It’s not his sovereignty it’s what he DOES with it.
Nah. It's a long story, with some people being judged and some people given grace. I get the point of the story, and as someone who deserves what the Amelekites got, I'm happy to take the Cross instead.
I highly doubt you or all of them had it coming.
I guess the only thing to add is that I asked some of these same questions once, and I didn't feel that I had to have them all answered to become a believer.
I don’t see how that’s possible. Claims have a standard of evidence that has to be met based on how far outside of our experience they are. If there’s a mean dog that’s mauled 15 mailmen its easy to believe that he went for mailman 16. If you have a sweet dog that loves everyone its harder, and you SHOULD ask for evidence like matching bite marks.
I apologize again. I think I was unclear. I don't mean to claim to read your mind. I said that because I thought I recalled you making that claim, or at least alluding to it. So, I hope to be forgiven or understood or both. Not reading your mind. Just saying I thought you'd made that stat
Here’s the problem.
You’re insulting my position by calling it an assumption, rather than a conclusion. The two are VASTLY different. I did MAKE that statement. I did not ASSUME that statement.
If I find a wallet on the street and it has a Driver’s License of John Smith, a library card of john smith, a dentist appointment for john smith on the 5th, and a monogrammed JS in the corner it is a CONCLUSSION, not an assumption, that I now have John Smith’s wallet. (even though its technically possible that John Smith stole Jonah Sampson’s wallet and replaced everything yesterday) If someone says, despite that evidence “that’s not john smith’s wallet” they really should have a good reason for that, and not a nihilistic ‘well you can’t know anything its just an assumption so our opinions are equally valid’
Not really a "conversion". Also, not commanded by or approved by God.
The idea is that people are somehow supposed to know not to worship other gods. People don't know, and can't be expected to know, which god is the real one. Even IF you buy a particular god as the real one, its hard to believe that someone is the messenger for that god when other messengers for that god have been duplicitous.
|
Not really a "conversion". Also, not commanded by or approved by God.The idea is that people are somehow supposed to know not to worship other gods. People don't know, and can't be expected to know, which god is the real one. Even IF you buy a particular god as the real one, its hard to believe that someone is the messenger for that god when other messengers for that god have been duplicitous.
Not really a discussion I want to get into right now. Just please don't try and use a story from the Bible to support your point when the story doesn't really talk about that at all.
Just please don't try and use a story from the Bible to support your point when the story doesn't really talk about that at all.
It does talk about what i said i talked about and it does support my point. Its immoral to kill people for coming to a bad but reasonable conclusion. The previous actions of people claiming to follow god make not converting a more reasonable option.
|
|
Just please don't try and use a story from the Bible to support your point when the story doesn't really talk about that at all.It does talk about what i said i talked about and it does support my point. Its immoral to kill people for coming to a bad but reasonable conclusion. The previous actions of people claiming to follow god make not converting a more reasonable option.
What possible evidence does someone showing up at your gate and saying “Obey MY god or be destroyed” have? What makes his claims stand out as truth? (particularly when they also slaughtered the people who DID convert while they were recovering from being snipped…)
The story (paraphrased by Moff Rimmer) is about one of Jacob's (Israel's) daughters who got raped, but then the guy who raped her felt that he actually had feelings for her and wanted to marry her. Her brothers found out about the deed and then found out about the desire to marry. So they tricked this guy into getting circumcised, and then two of the brothers -- Simeon and Levi -- sneak into their town and killed everyone there who was in a lot of pain due to the ... operation.
A few things about this story. Very little (anything?) is said that says that what the brothers did was acceptable or right. If anything, the Bible is pretty clear that it was wrong since neither of these brothers got the birthright, yet they were next in line after Rueben. In addition, God really isn't mentioned. They told the offender that the circumcision was necessary before they would be able to give their sister up for marriage.
Keep in mind that this story takes place LONG before "The Law".
Once again, you said...
What possible evidence does someone showing up at your gate and saying “Obey MY god or be destroyed” have? What makes his claims stand out as truth? (particularly when they also slaughtered the people who DID convert while they were recovering from being snipped…)
No one showed up at any gate saying "Obey My god or be destroyed". No one in this story is talking about "truth" at all. If anything, this story is about "justice" and what exactly that might entail. If anything, I think that it talks more about why the lineage of Christ is the way it is.
But in any case, I still don't think it has anything to do with what you are talking about. The offenders performed a surgery to marry a girl they raped. Then they were killed by the brothers of the victim. And there were consequences for their actions. They were not trying to convert. And the Bible is pretty clear in that they were wrong for what they did.
The story (paraphrased by Moff Rimmer) is about one of Jacob's (Israel's) daughters who got raped, but then the guy who raped her felt that he actually had feelings for her and wanted to marry her.
Which oddly enough is how you actually settle rape under the law (which came latter) It seems to me that the problem is as much that there was a rape and it was an outsider who did it.
Her brothers found out about the deed and then found out about the desire to marry. So they tricked this guy into getting circumcised, and then two of the brothers -- Simeon and Levi -- sneak into their town and killed everyone there who was in a lot of pain due to the ... operation
24 All the men who went out of the city gate agreed with Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male in the city was circumcised.
25 Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male. 26
I think this makes it pretty clear that there are a LOT of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the rape who are being punished for the crime.
A few things about this story. Very little (anything?) is said that says that what the brothers did was acceptable or right.
Are they followers of Yahweh? Yes. Does this give the best impression of them? No. Would this story make you more or less likely to believe a yaweh follower at your gates? That was my point.
Yes, I forgot the agreement they violated was "circumcise or we'll leave" as opposed to circumcise or "circumcise or die" but it doesn't change the point. God hitched his horse to a pretty rickety wagon when he chose the Israelites, he shouldn't be surprised that not everyone wants to ride.
|
|
God hitched his horse to a pretty rickety wagon when he chose the Israelites...
At this point, what ... all twelve of them?
You're still missing the point of the story, but that really doesn't surprise me since you seemed to miss what I wrote as well. You're still acting like this was endorsed or ok. It wasn't. And that's pretty clear.
But you feel free to think that God endorsed this action. That they were advertising God through their actions. And that the Bible suggests that they were right in what they did.
I should have known better ...
Also, what does this mean?
It seems to me that the problem is as much that there was a rape and it was an outsider who did it.
So you're suggesting that it would have been ok if an "insider" did it?
So you're suggesting that it would have been ok if an "insider" did it?
I believe he meant that it is the bible which suggests that.
You're still missing the point of the story, but that really doesn't surprise me since you seemed to miss what I wrote as well. You're still acting like this was endorsed or ok. It wasn't. And that's pretty clear.
No, i'm not acting like god endorsed it. For the 4th time, God's endorsement of the act is irrelevant. Its the people's endorsement of god as a basis for believing in god that's problematic.
Where does it suggest this? I'm trying to stick with what's there. Not make up assumptions that aren't.So you're suggesting that it would have been ok if an "insider" did it?I believe he meant that it is the bible which suggests that.
Now i realize that the law came after the events, but AFAIK they were all written down around roughly the same time. The law says this
Deuteronomy 22
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Which sounds an awful lot like what happened to Dinah.
|
|
Its the people's endorsement of god as a basis for believing in god that's problematic.
But that's not what's happening in the story.
Now i realize that the law came after the events, but AFAIK they were all written down around roughly the same time.
Deuteronomy came well around the time of Moses and the Exile. Dinah was one of the first children of Israel. Not really the same time frame.
Moff: Sorry, but you don't understand me, I can't make you understand me.
No more than Lazarus or Jesus was a zombie, I reckon.
** spoiler omitted **...
I think its one of the problems with taking the new testament as a historical document. The historians might have missed one obscure reformer comming back from the dead, but there's no way they could have missed THAT.
Also, its not mentioned in the other gospels, you'd think it would be.
What wasn't, Lazarus or the "zombie army"?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **...I think its one of the problems with taking the new testament as a historical document. The historians might have missed one obscure reformer comming back from the dead, but there's no way they could have missed THAT.
Also, its not mentioned in the other gospels, you'd think it would be.
Um...
Ezekiel is Old Testament.
Outside of that, I think that it was a vision. I could be wrong, but I think that it's pretty generally accepted that way. Ezekiel seemed to have a lot of odd visions. The vast majority (all?) were pretty much directed at Isreal at that time. "Dry bones" gives some pretty strong imagery. As does the description of them coming back to life. The dry bones was Israel then and them coming back was where Israel would be.
While it is certainly within the pervue of God's power to ressurect that many people, I do believe it was a vision as Moff says. I'd have to look at the previous verses and see the full context of the passage...
|
|
While it is certainly within the pervue of God's power to ressurect that many people, I do believe it was a vision as Moff says. I'd have to look at the previous verses and see the full context of the passage...
I did that a little bit. It's just "prophesy" after "prophesy". I know that there are huge studies into Ezekiel -- it's not an easy book to grasp easily.
Although it shouldn't be too hard to wrap our head around the purpose or use of imagery like that. Most of us saw the "This is your brain..." commercials. But did any of us literally think that our brain was literally a frying pan with melted butter in it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that a lot of fundamentalists point out -- and some of the harder atheists agree with them here -- is that once you start deciding to read some things as allegory, and others as visions, and others as imagery, then it's pretty easy to extend that to other parts.
Two people in a garden with a talking snake? Allegory.
Which means the Fall wouldn't be literal, but figurative.
Which means the resurrection and redemption through Christ might equally well be a metaphor for turning one's life around and accepting the moral teachings of Christ.
At that point, you're a Deist or a well-meaning atheist or agnostic, as much as you are a Christian. Personally, I've no gripe with that -- I'd like to see more of it! -- but a LOT of people have serious issues there, and will react violently when you suggest that the parts they decide are "allegory" and the parts they decide are "literal truth" are fairly idiosyncratic when you get down to it (all the "context" in the world notwithstanding).
I don't have a simple answer here, this is just how I see it, as one person who includes a lot more of the text under the heading of allegory, and a lot less under the heading of literal truth, than do most people.
That is a very fair and honest point.
EDIT: edited to simply say "I agree".
Whoops, sorry. Wrong mass ressurection. I thought he meant this one.
http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/27.htm
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
Buffy. When I saw you stop the world from, you know, ending, I just assumed that was a big week for you. Turns out I suddenly find myself needing to know the plural of "apocalypse".
|
The thing that a lot of fundamentalists point out -- and some of the harder atheists agree with them here -- is that once you start deciding to read some things as allegory, and others as visions, and others as imagery, then it's pretty easy to extend that to other parts.
Two people in a garden with a talking snake? Allegory.
Which means the Fall wouldn't be literal, but figurative.
Which means the resurrection and redemption through Christ might equally well be a metaphor for turning one's life around and accepting the moral teachings of Christ.At that point, you're a Deist or a well-meaning atheist or agnostic, as much as you are a Christian. Personally, I've no gripe with that -- I'd like to see more of it! -- but a LOT of people have serious issues there, and will react violently when you suggest that the parts they decide are "allegory" and the parts they decide are "literal truth" are fairly idiosyncratic when you get down to it (all the "context" in the world notwithstanding).
I don't have a simple answer here, this is just how I see it, as one person who includes a lot more of the text under the heading of allegory, and a lot less under the heading of literal truth, than do most people.
Which goes to show the one simple mistake when people think of the Bible. They assume it is a book. It is not. It is a group of books, letters, and stories. This is why somethings maybe taken literal or historical while others are obviously allegorical.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Generally, the text about dry bones is accepted as a vision Ezekiel had - a lesson to Ezekiel that GOd os sovereing over life and death. And you could say a metaphor, that the Holy Spirit breathes life into the spiritually dead. However, I'd like to study it. I think it's an awesome passage that deserves attention. Sometimes my life feels like a valley of dry bones and it needs water. But I keep feeding it Mt. Dew and excuses.
While it is certainly within the pervue of God's power to ressurect that many people, I do believe it was a vision as Moff says. I'd have to look at the previous verses and see the full context of the passage...I did that a little bit. It's just "prophesy" after "prophesy". I know that there are huge studies into Ezekiel -- it's not an easy book to grasp easily.
Although it shouldn't be too hard to wrap our head around the purpose or use of imagery like that. Most of us saw the "This is your brain..." commercials. But did any of us literally think that our brain was literally a frying pan with melted butter in it?
Hee hee!
You have misinterpreted the imagery of the commercial--your brain is the egg, not the frying pan!
This is why somethings maybe taken literal or historical while others are obviously allegorical.
My point is that what's "obviously allegorical" to me covers a lot more of the bits and pieces than it does for you. That's equally true for as many different people as there are different books, letters, and stories to decide upon. That's the main thing I learned in various Bible study classes and groups -- no two people, Christians or nonbelievers, ever agree 100% on the sum of what's "obvious" to both of them. That's not a bad thing, mind you -- I view it as a feature, not a bug.
Even if they both sort of accept something as allegory, or not, the point of the message seems to be different for different people (I recall one highly stimulating discussion of what the Good Samaritan was all about).