Ark encounter

[hughfarey]

Because there's a difference between Your comment that God Would Not want it that way -- and my sharing Scripture -- which Is His Word to us. You're suggesting that You know God's Mind Before the fact.

You're not sharing scripture at all. You're telling me what you think it means. And I'll tell you what I think it means. I think it means that it has been collected through complex human interaction over several thousand years, and is not to be taken as the literal truth. I think his creation shows clearly that God does not do magic tricks with bones - or fish for that matter - and that he has given us reason so that we can interpret his book in the light of his creation. Why do you think I am wrong?

Jesus Christ is part of the Godhead -- He was the Earthly form -- God is Spirit. So the Godhead contains God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit. Which Also means that a person can't have a graven image of the Holy Spirit in their home.

That's dreadful sophistry. If God is a spirit then it's impossible to have an image of him? No, no, you make a complete mockery of "Jesus Christ, true God and true man." A crucifix is an image of God. To deny that is to deny that Christ was God.
And actually, if we read the commandment at all, it says: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." That's it - no statues of anything, no sculpture, no sculpted birds, trees or fish, and certainly not any people. Period. That's what it says.

So -- what do You interpret that verse to say. That particular commandment.

Generous of you to ask. I could say - it means exactly what it says, and anybody with a sculpture of anything in their house is damned. That is what a literal interpretation of this commandment means. That is what the courage of your convictions should lead you to say. Or I could say - Verse 3 should be taken literally, Verse 4 should be ignored, the beginning of Verse 5 should be followed, but God probably won't be all that cruel to my great-great-grandchildren for no reason other than that I don't follow it. (I'm using Exodus 20 here). Look at all that interpretation, in only three verses!

But that's the whole point of this thread. The Ten Commandments are not to be taken literally. No prohibition against dolls. No cursing of great-great-grandchildren for the sins of their ancestors. That's not the point of the story. The Noah story didn't happen like that. No global flood. No saving of all the animals. That's not the point of the story. The Adam's rib story didn't happen like that. Man not glued together out of mud. Woman not moulded round the rib. That's not the point of the story.

Yeah, yeah, say it again. "Then why not simply throw out the Bible Totally? What actual good Is it?" And round and round we go. Try some theology. Recognise that the bible cannot be taken literally and must be interpreted. Then we can discuss when, why and how it must be interpreted, and then we might find out what actual good it is. Maybe, after a year or so, we'll discover that we're not the first to have tried it. We might read Augustine of Hippo, or St Irenaeus, or some of the early Church fathers, and eventually, we'll find that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is pretty much what we'll come up with. This will be more of a surprise to you than it will be to me.

[Byblos]

Man not glued together out of mud.

Well, there actually is some truth to this since we're all star dust.

[crochet1949]

hugh
Then what do you do with 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

And Exodus 20:1 "And God spoke all these words: vs 2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Eqypt, out of the land of slavery. vs 3 "You shall have no other gods before me.'"

[crochet1949]

And, apparently it IS okay to steal, kill, commit adultery, lie?

[hughfarey]

Then what do you do with 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I agree with St Paul. That's exactly what scripture is for. "Training in righteousness", not as a history, science, or a book of domestic instructions.

And Exodus 20:1 "And God spoke all these words: vs 2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Eqypt, out of the land of slavery. vs 3 "You shall have no other gods before me.'"

I have already mentioned Verse 3. Verses 1 and 2 seem OK too, although there are some who doubt the Egyptian slavery thing altogether.

And, apparently it IS okay to steal, kill, commit adultery, lie?

You tell me. A few pages back you said that Jesus had replaced the ten commandments. Still, I guess loving your neighbour probably precludes stealing, killing and adultery.

[Kurieuo]

I'm going to poke a stick into what I see has been an undertone in some of your posts Hugh. That is the supremacy of your Roman Catholic Church. Byblos please forgive me.

The RCC have no authority when it comes to interpreting Scripture, except that which reason entitles. God's given us all the gift of reason, and the Apostles left behind their deposit to keep followers of Christ from erring no matter how Pharisaical the organised man-made set up after Christ became with adding this and that.

Any lineage back to Peter, if we indeed consider Peter some Pope, was broken by numerous corrupt Popes throughout history who had people executed, had homosexual tendencies (e.g., Pope Leo X), or robbed the poor. (sorry to the Catholic contingent, but what I say you guys must reconcile somehow, I'm not Catholic so wouldn't have the foggiest)

It is also often mistaken that Sola Scriptura means Scripture alone, but no, Luther's mantra was Scripture and reason -- for indeed the Church at the time and of course groups have had wrong or even corrupted interpretations, even fabricated them for their own gain.

Thankfully, the RCC had their own counter reformation years on in large thanks to Luther who challenged the RCC on indulgences based upon his Scripture and reason. And, thankfully Scripture is there for all to really delve into what it says today. Such is rationalism which values independent thinking apart from man instituted religious elements, and as did the Apostle Paul and even Christ.

[Byblos]

Byblos please forgive me.

No, no, you must have me confused with a Catholic priest.

[crochet1949]

Then what do you do with 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I agree with St Paul. That's exactly what scripture is for. "Training in righteousness", not as a history, science, or a book of domestic instructions.

And Exodus 20:1 "And God spoke all these words: vs 2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Eqypt, out of the land of slavery. vs 3 "You shall have no other gods before me.'"

I have already mentioned Verse 3. Verses 1 and 2 seem OK too, although there are some who doubt the Egyptian slavery thing altogether.

And, apparently it IS okay to steal, kill, commit adultery, lie?

You tell me. A few pages back you said that Jesus had replaced the ten commandments. Still, I guess loving your neighbour probably precludes stealing, killing and adultery.

"Training in righteousness' -- how about the 'teaching, rebuking, correcting' part. So how does one 'train in righteousness' without giving domestic instructions -- Ephesians 5 -- Romans 1:24 - 27 or so. And there is the list of people we're Not to have a sexual relationship with in Leviticus. Husbands are told to love their wives Several times and that children are to obey their parents. So - How are husbands supposed To 'love' their wives? And what Are we supposed to be teaching our children / "children obey your parents." And there's that verse / the golden rule -- it Is in the Bible. Do unto others as we'd have them do unto us. //the lying, stealing, committing adultery, etc.

And loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind would suggest that you'd want to obey Him. That when God says certain things are an abomination to Him -- we probably should NOT do them.

[hughfarey]

I'm going to poke a stick into what I see has been an undertone in some of your posts Hugh.

Ah! Well spotted. But note that I did not claim that the Catholic Church had any authority merely because it was the Catholic Church. What I suggested above was that after anyone has sensibly discussed and interpreted the bible as a living teaching tool rather than a historical treatise, their collective interpretation was surprisingly likely to conform to the Catechism anyway. The Catholic Church has increasingly become the church of reason, and although there is still considerable historic dissent regarding its medieval leadership, its pre-eminence among Christian theology today is difficult to argue with.

That when God says certain things are an abomination to Him -- we probably should NOT do them.

Probably? Isn't that taking a bit of risk? I should stay well clear if I were you:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.

And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place.

[Nicki]

Theological but Not literal ? Then why not simply throw out the Bible Totally?

Brilliant. Exactly what I thought you'd say. Just because I deny the literal truth of one particular chapter of one particular book, I ought to throw out the whole library as useless. This is the standard literalist response to any non-literal comment about the bible, and is trotted out automatically, saving the literalist from bothering to understand what the non-literalist is actually saying. That's like researching, say, Chinese history in a public library, and on hearing someone a couple of shelves away saying that he thinks Harry Potter might not have actually existed, marching out of the library assuming it to be useless.
There is, of course, another standard response to my comment above, invariably in the form of a question, but I will couch it as a statement. Because it is not always possible to say how literally true any particular book is, it is best to assume that they all are. Nobody bothers to ask: why? If I find a Harry Potter book among my researches into Chinese history, should I assume it must be true? Of course not. I should judge each book on its merits.

True, but there is a bit of a difference. The Harry Potter books are in a section of the library marked 'fiction'. I don't think some parts of the Bible are supposed to be fictional and just good stories.

Although you seem to have agreed that the injunction against pork can be validly discarded, you say that the Ten Commandments "are the root of morality -- thou shalt Not steal, kill, commit adultery, lie -- it's God's Word to mankind." And yet there is a graven image of my God in almost every room in my house! "Ah, but," say the literalists, "what that commandment means is not that you shouldn't make such images, but that you shouldn't worship them." And that's a very sensible interpretation, although it is not in fact what the commandment says.

That's why Protestants disagree with images of Jesus To me they're fine as long as they're just reminders of the real Jesus who is with us anyway and not things to be venerated in themselves.

[hughfarey]

If I find a Harry Potter book among my researches into Chinese history, should I assume it must be true? Of course not. I should judge each book on its merits.

True, but there is a bit of a difference. The Harry Potter books are in a section of the library marked 'fiction'. I don't think some parts of the Bible are supposed to be fictional and just good stories.

I, on the other hand, do think that parts of the bible are indeed fictional, but have deeper theological and moral meanings which are obscured by too much attempting to make them square with history.

Although you seem to have agreed that the injunction against pork can be validly discarded, you say that the Ten Commandments "are the root of morality -- thou shalt Not steal, kill, commit adultery, lie -- it's God's Word to mankind." And yet there is a graven image of my God in almost every room in my house! "Ah, but," say the literalists, "what that commandment means is not that you shouldn't make such images, but that you shouldn't worship them." And that's a very sensible interpretation, although it is not in fact what the commandment says.

To me they're fine as long as they're just reminders of the real Jesus who is with us anyway and not things to be venerated in themselves.

To me too. But that's not what it says...

[Nicki]

But that's the whole point of this thread. The Ten Commandments are not to be taken literally. No prohibition against dolls. No cursing of great-great-grandchildren for the sins of their ancestors. That's not the point of the story. The Noah story didn't happen like that. No global flood. No saving of all the animals. That's not the point of the story. The Adam's rib story didn't happen like that. Man not glued together out of mud. Woman not moulded round the rib. That's not the point of the story.

So do you think the Ten Commandments were decided on and written by some person(s) and they're not all (or any of them) from God? Why do you think he would want them included in his word then? Do you think any of them should be followed, and why? I'm not meaning to be confrontational, just trying to tease out your thinking about these things. Regarding the graven images, I think the implication was that the images would be made to be worshipped - that was probably the only use people had for statues and so on in that place and time.

[crochet1949]

So -- what IS the 'point' of the 'story'?

[RickD]

hughfarey wrote:
But that's the whole point of this thread. The Ten Commandments are not to be taken literally. No prohibition against dolls. No cursing of great-great-grandchildren for the sins of their ancestors. That's not the point of the story. The Noah story didn't happen like that. No global flood. No saving of all the animals. That's not the point of the story. The Adam's rib story didn't happen like that. Man not glued together out of mud. Woman not moulded round the rib. That's not the point of the story.

I agree Hugh. As I've been thinking about this, I'd like to add that the story of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as told in the gospels, isn't to be taken literally either. It's probably just a story meant to convey some vague truths. Just as Noah and the flood isn't literal, Christ and sin isn't literal either. I realized that when it hit me that it's pretty stupid to believe a man could be born of a virgin, and come back to life after being dead a few days.

Can't possibly be a literal, historical story.

Signed,

[hughfarey]

So do you think the Ten Commandments were decided on and written by some person(s) and they're not all (or any of them) from God? Why do you think he would want them included in his word then? Do you think any of them should be followed, and why? I'm not meaning to be confrontational, just trying to tease out your thinking about these things. Regarding the graven images, I think the implication was that the images would be made to be worshipped - that was probably the only use people had for statues and so on in that place and time.

If you were a Catholic, Nicki, I would direct you to the Catechism, which discusses the matter quite well, or the old Catholic Encyclopaedia, which also has a good section on it. However, let's see what I can do.
Why do we say, of any piece of writing or theatre or creative work, that it is "inspired". Because it seems to capture the nature of something with particular clarity? Because it has an effect on people far beyond what it seems on the surface to attempt? Because it seems that its author could not have produced it entirely from his own experience? There are a number of possible reasons. But however "inspired" the dancing of Rudolf Nureyev, for example, or 'Hamlet', or the sculpture of Michaelangelo, its significance pales towards the trivial compared to the influence and power of the bible. I think it's an example of "by their fruits ye shall know them". The people who first formulated the stories were inspired in that their stories, rather than many others, were found relevant and memorable. The people who first wrote them down were inspired in the choice of stories from the many others which could have been included in the Hebrew bible, and the Christian scholars of the first few centuries were inspired in their selection of the Canon. Even so, there remain some half a dozen books about which divine inspiration is disputed from sect to sect.
Essentially, the Old Testament was originally created for a small Middle Eastern Nation, of obscure nomadic origin, and a propensity for sporadic invasion and exile. Even by the time of Jesus, injunctions specific to nomadic life were beginning to be found less useful than they were, but it was part of the 'inspiration' of the Hebrew Bible that so much of it seemed universally relevant, so much so that our extraction of the ten commandments still forms the basis of a moral code today - respect for others, especially ones parents, the value of personal property and the family as the basis of society.
You are almost certainly correct that the injunction against any form of image was to counteract a belief, still present in some societies I believe, that any image at all somehow contained some of the character of the thing portrayed. The development of the monastic copying of books and statues, especially after the invention of printing, weakened this belief so much that it was no longer relevant to ban all 'graven images' and so that particular injunction was recognised as no longer valid.
Genesis 1, Genesis 2 and the story of the flood are all 'origins' myths, with specific, different meanings. Genesis 1 is a stunningly accurate guess at the progression of the universe, and the earth, through time. In detail, of course, it is completely wrong, but the reason we consider it inspired is in its understanding that the earth developed through time, from the simple to the complex, and in its understanding of the pre-eminence of man as a representative of God's reason. Genesis 2 explores the development of conscience, which is worthwhile, and the subservience of woman as little more than a detached organ of man, which is no longer worthwhile. The Noah story recognises the essential relatedness of all people (something later to be ignored as slaves became popular, but more recently joyfully affirmed by the theory of evolution) and even man's responsibility for, rather than domination of, the other animals.