G'day Lindz, G'day Allan
At 11:43 AM 13/01/04 +1100, Lindsay Brash wrote:
G'day All,
I have a question each for Allan and Andrew - hope that doesn't push your dialogue off the rails :-)
No fear of that IMO. It's probably time for some fresh input.
At 09:27 PM 11/01/04 +1100, aleggett wrote:
[AL
No. I have no hang ups with Wican teaching if it teaches what I believe is the foundational truth of God and life that is revealed in JC. Isn't there something about "those who are not against us are for us"?
Allan, what about "No one comes to the father but through me [JC]." I say this not as a trump card, but because I am genuinely interested in your belief system.
AA
OK. I don't believe that any reasonable person would honestly decide to stone their child on the basis of the passage you quote. If I did believe this, I'd have a problem. But I don't believe this, and you don't either. That's my basis for dismissing the example.
So it seems to me that we agree that the Bible does *not* tell anyone in this day and age to stone their child. If that's true, then even if I give it absolute authority, I still won't do this, and neither will anyone else.
Andrew, I'm curious about your use of the phrase "in this day and age". Do you believe that the Bible was telling certain people in a certain time and/or place that they should, indeed *must*, stone their child? I can't believe in that sort of God, but on the other hand I can't believe that I have a higher morality than God, so to me the only conclusion is to discount the authority of some parts of the Bible.
But I'm interested to know how you resolve that problem.
Leviticus doesn't come up in the lectionary very often, so maybe substitute the account of Abraham making a sacrifice of Isaac. In a similar way, I can't believe in a God that would *ever* ask a person to put their child to death (and changing the request at the last minute doesn't alter that).
Good question. See my other post that crossed this for an OT passage I find even more challenging. (And BTW I think the passage to which Allan referred is actually Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I don't think Leviticus has any exactly corresponding regulation, although it has many with similar themes.)
I don't find the story of Isaac so very troubling. I think that, as Allan points out, we need to see it in the perspective of the original writers. More important still, I think we need to see it in the perspective of the original *hearers*. This again comes back to the theory of speech acts. And most important of all, from the perspective of the *participants*. I think that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob existed. My understanding of the passage is affected by this.
If Isaac *had* been sacrificed, I'd have a lot more trouble. But he wasn't, and God never intended that he would be. I don't agree with you that changing the request isn't important. I think it's very important indeed (and I'm sure Isaac would agree with me (;-> ).
In mathematics, we have a constant debate over the nature of our subject. Is it creative, or is it analytic? That is, are we *inventing* new structures, or are we merely *discovering* structure that already exists? Both approaches are valid and profitable in mathematics.
It seems to me that you and I are on the opposite poles of a similar divide in theology. I am asking what God is like, while you are laying down the rules as to what sort of God you can believe in.
I preach caution. Unlike mathematics, I think theology is strictly descriptive. We don't have the freedom to invent the sort of God we'd like. God is there before us.
Going back to Allan's example, let's just assume that God *did* ask for children to be stoned (well, specifically, a son who is old enough that he "spends all his time drinking and partying" (CEV) and has been punished, not just warned, for this before). Why would God say this? For the same reason he condoned slavery, and Israel having a King, and marriage customs which gave some protection to women but at enormous cost to their human rights and dignity. None of these were ever God's idea of the world he wanted.
This is not in contrast to the God I see at work in the world today. It's very consistent. I don't believe God wants children to die of malaria, or AIDS, or hunger, either. But they do, daily. Why? Another big topic, and all I want to say for now is, God seems to me to be the same today as then.
The question that Allan asked was, how do I reconcile this with my concept of Biblical authority? And the answer is, there's a big difference between a naive reading and a simplistic one. I'm happy to take the Bible at face value, which is what I call a naive reading. But I won't defend a simplistic reading. I don't think this passage commits me to stoning my children, and I don't know anyone who does, and if you do then let's lock them up and arrange medication as a matter of urgency. They can be helped. (;->
I think we often underestimate the barbarism both of the past and of the present. Children were executed for being uncontrollable only a few hundred years ago in England. Women are executed on suspicion of unchastity in some parts of the world today.
Yuck.
YiCaa
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/03
