tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post2044955752802468566..comments2024-01-25T00:50:10.679-05:00Comments on Thoughts from a Sandwich: Is the Bible Human or Divine? Neither or Both?DagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-30111062385107043562011-03-10T20:38:56.539-05:002011-03-10T20:38:56.539-05:00Hi,
This doesn't solve anything :-) but latel...Hi,<br /><br />This doesn't solve anything :-) but lately I have been thinking about this idea of tradition in the Eastern Orthodox church (Catholicism of course has it too but I know little about it there). Orthodox Christianity talks about how the Bible needs to be interpreted through the lens of the church as the Holy Spirit is the one ostensibly guiding the interpretation. There's an interplay here between church leadership and your average parishioner in the role of tradition. A priest told me once (he's a former Baptist) that doctrines do not develop in the church without the approval of the people; which is part of this process of the spirit. The thing I find interesting about this is that this type of thinking doesn't really require that the Bible be inerrant, if you get what I mean. There's some things that are still entrenched- I was just reading a book about how femininity historically in the church has been looked on as evil; ie all women are Eve's evil daughters; but that there's a movement it seems toward a more affirming sense of womanhood. <br /><br />Maybe this has nothing to do with anything, just thinking....<br />thanks :-).IsToonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-56000911376620933942011-03-09T17:30:44.207-05:002011-03-09T17:30:44.207-05:00Just recently I have been participating in a simil...Just recently I have been participating in a similarly-themed discussion on a message board filled with various fundamentalists, and I pointed out that same inconsistency and tied it to the use of prophecies as well. In Christian apologetics, the hyper-accuracy of different prophecies is used as evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired (a supernatural being must have infused that foreknowledge into the prophets), but then when other verses are pointed out that are less than hyper-accurate, or are even flat out wrong, then to be consistent those should count as evidence that the bible is not divinely inspired. (Also, the hyper-accuracy and hyper-precision of the prophecies is vastly exaggerated, but it is enough for this discussion to note that they are *claimed* to be very accurate and precise, not that they actually be so.). If this god was willing to make sure that the text of the Bible was super-accurate in the occasional verse, why is it unreasonable for us skeptics to say that the entire Bible should be consistently accurate, with no errors or contradictions of any kind all the way through?<br /><br />BrianBrian63noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-67486605868884501932011-03-02T16:58:23.270-05:002011-03-02T16:58:23.270-05:00Great post. I've wondered this, too.
The same...Great post. I've wondered this, too.<br /><br />The same question could be asked about the Koran from what I've read of it. (I haven't read all of it yet, just bits and pieces.)Lydiahttp://www.on-the-other-hand.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-84655187409855011082011-03-02T12:55:18.349-05:002011-03-02T12:55:18.349-05:00I have brought up a related point with Christians ...I have brought up a related point with Christians who criticize the hallucination hypothesis to explain the appearances of the risen Christ on the grounds that hallucinations are not shared phenomena. This argument assumes that we can rely on conclusions based on observation and experience about the way the way the human mind works. However, the Christian turns around and accuses the non-believer of anti-supernatural bias for using the exact same type of reasoning to conclude that it is unlikely that a man rose from the dead. If we cannot rely on the scientific method when it comes to the finality of death, why should we think it holds with respect to the individuality of hallucinations?Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-34144892569225282792011-03-02T11:01:16.240-05:002011-03-02T11:01:16.240-05:00Oops I said adultery twice, but you get my point :...Oops I said adultery twice, but you get my point :)Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17313118060838041133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-46049070564358250692011-03-02T11:00:32.641-05:002011-03-02T11:00:32.641-05:00You've just put into words something I've ...You've just put into words something I've been trying to say, or more succinctly ask. I couldn't find the right words to do it adequately. The whole idea that "God" could lay down the law about homosexuality or sexuality among relatives, or cleanliness, or specific situations within slavery, or adultery, other gods, adultery, slander, stealing, coveting, or any other number of "sins", but in some instances this "God" could only "regulate" what was already in practice just completely baffles me. It's one or the other. Is He God or not? Is He all-powerful or not? Can He make laws or not? Is this God's law or man's law? Which is it? Is this divinely inspired or not? You can't have it both ways.<br /><br />I had, in the past, justified it by saying, "He is God, He can do what He wants". But the more I read scripture and the more I study the more absurd I find that rationale.Ruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17313118060838041133noreply@blogger.com