More brief responses to selected items ...
At 11:56 AM 24/01/04 +1100, Andrew Alder wrote:
At 01:38 PM 23/01/04 +1100, Lindsay Brash wrote:At 06:00 AM 23/01/04 +1100, Andrew wrote:At 07:15 PM 19/01/04 +1100, Lindsay Brash wrote:
I think Abraham understood perfectly well what God was asking. I think God asked this because of Abraham's primitive, barbaric if you like, understanding of what God is like. I don't see how you can read the story and conclude that God didn't really ask for the sacrifice.
Can you?
To be honest, yes. Perhaps God asked Abraham if he was willing to give up anything if God required it. And Abraham interpreted that either as a direct instruction to sacrifice Isaac, or as a general demand to demonstrate that willingness so he chooses his most precious possession. And God allows it to proceed but intervenes at the last minute.
Hmmm. I think that's an unlikely reading. Why wouldn't Genesis say that, if that was what happened?
I can see no reason to speculate like this. It violates Occam's (or Ockam or Ockham if you like) Razor.
It depends how you think Genesis came to be spoken/written. My version doesn't rely on Abraham (or anyone else) realising that he had made a mistake on the first instruction. This fits in with your angle of God meeting people within their own understanding.
I'm not quite clear how you are applying Occam's Razor here. If it applies to the text, then wouldn't Occam always point to a "face value" reading? If it applies to the story, then I'm not sure that my version is less simple than the original, but I'm no expert on such matters.
I agree that the story of Abraham and Isaac shows a very limited understanding of God. Is that the point you wish to make?
I guess that is part of it. And if our understanding of God has out-grown this story (in some respects) then we should allow ourselves to move on, and not feel that we have to drag it all with us into the 21st century when it doesn't want to go. I think I'm in common with Allan on that.
Hmmm. So, how will you draw the line as to what goes and what stays?
I don't think you have answered the question, and I fear it may be I who have offended you in asking it.
Not at all. But you're correct that I didn't really answer it, so I'll have a go. My purpose in reading the Bible (as I've mentioned elsewhere) is to discover a coherent revelation of God. Some bits are contradictory or confused, or confusing ... those bits get sidelined (not erased and not eternally - I might gain a new understanding at a later time). The remainder I suppose gets sorted (mentally) into major themes, sub-themes, by-lines and trivia.
The only way that it could all get sidelined is if it was all contradictory, etc, or if there were no worthwhile themes. Then I would need to look elsewhere for a revelation of God.
As for what goes and what stays, it depends on the setting. If I had 30 seconds to give an account of my faith, or to try and share it with someone else, then I could only brush on the major themes, and I wouldn't feel guilty that I hadn't done justice to 90+% of the Bible. On the other hand if I chose to write a book I could go into every detail even on the sidelined bits. But no one would read it.
And I think you grossly misrepresent Allan.
I certainly didn't mean to. I would never have brought his name up if I'd thought it would be controversial like that. Our conversation ended on a very positive note I thought. I thought this would be helpful. I have blundered.
But I'm now struggling to see how I have misrepresented him, even slightly. All I said was that he'd rejected the doctrine of the Atonement. And he did say that, didn't he?
I leave that to Allan. As for me, you might say that *I* reject the doctrine of the atonement, but I would say that I simply understand it in different terms.
As for "transplanting" the story to Australia 2004, that's exactly what I'm *not* suggesting. Rather we need to locate it firmly in its historical setting.
I'm not sure that I can sufficiently understand Abraham's setting to really understand the story. I am even more doubtful that I could convey an adequate understanding to a congregation. So where do we end up? "The preacher says we should follow Abraham's example, but he doesn't really mean it."
The point is simply that Abraham had faith, and was obedient, and was blessed as a result. I think you're making it needlessly complicated.
Maybe. But it also concerns me whenever we don't exactly say what we mean. I agree that "Abraham had faith, and was obedient, and was blessed" (I'm not so sure about "as a result" but that is a different story). And that Abraham is a great example for us. But I'm not sure that his aborted sacrifice of Isaac is a great example.
It came up earlier in your discussion with Allan, that the epithet "This is the word of the Lord" is OK because we know what it means, and that it doesn't mean "these are the words of God." I have a problem with that because in 2004 I think it is dangerous to make any assumption about the background knowledge that is sitting in the pews. So we could spend a lot of time regularly explaining what the different forms of words really mean to us. Or alternatively we could change the words so that they mean exactly (as close as possible) what we want them to mean. If this is PC and offends John Howard, too bad for him.
OK, so that just adds another layer - instead of consensus in each group, the conclusion represents the wishes of the strong debaters, with a few concessions for the others. That could also have been a dynamic in authorship of the bible.
Hmmm? I rather think the whole scenario collapses. It sounded so convincing, but you've now abandoned one of its key assumptions.
Not at all. We could replace the groups by individuals - I certainly know people who would represent the different midsets. I think you are missing the whole point, which was that we could obtain two documents which purport to be a revelation of God's will, but which are mutually incompatible.
I agree that we could easily obtain such. I think that's harmless.
I believe that the Bible includes examples of this.
Can you give me an example?
The command not to murder, contrasted for example against: * Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac * The command to slaughter the Caananites (every woman and child) * The instructions about stoning people for crimes
Kind regards, Lindsay Brash.
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
