Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

#476
#476
This was the conversation:

SergeantVol said:
I am saying it could be an alternative offering (i.e. an elective). Heck when I went to high school there was a Bible history class that was an elective. I went to school in east Tennessee and graduated in 2001.
Click to expand...

Septic said:
How about we keep bible study and bible history in church? We could do it on Sunday and call it Sunday School. In the summer when the kiddies are on vacation, we could call it vacation bible school. Just a thought.:good!:
Click to expand...

PKT_VOL said:
What is wrong with a Bible history/theology/world religions class as an elective?
Click to expand...

Septic said:
Nothing at all, I'd be totally on board with that - they could all be taught side by side in that appropriate setting.

Just don't present it between the dissecting a frog week and Krebs cycle sections of science class.
Click to expand...

The strawman was the last part in the bold. He clearly stated that it was an elective; not in biology class where frog dissections and the teaching of the Krebs cycle take place.

Septic said:
Did I? I think you moved the goal posts when you added theology and world religion to bible history in your question to me. The former two weren't part of his argument.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you didn't mention that earlier. I would imagine it would have something to do with there being a lack of a fundamental difference between Biblical history, theology, or world's religion class with respect to an elective.

However, if one wants to get super technical, it was you who introduced "Bible study" first which is not necessarily analogous to "Bible history" which is what the OP stated. If goal posts were shifted, it was by you first. Again, I don't find this "shifting the goal post" as I don't see a fundamental difference between Bible history/Bible study/theology/world religion/Christianity 101/Islam 101/etc. when it comes to electives.
 
#477
#477
PKT_VOL said:
This was the conversation:









The strawman was the last part in the bold. He clearly stated that it was an elective; not in biology class where frog dissections and the teaching of the Krebs cycle take place.



Interesting that you didn't mention that earlier. I would imagine it would have something to do with there being a lack of a fundamental difference between Biblical history, theology, or world's religion class with respect to an elective.

However, if one wants to get super technical, it was you who introduced "Bible study" first which is not necessarily analogous to "Bible history" which is what the OP stated. If goal posts were shifted, it was by you first. Again, I don't find this "shifting the goal post" as I don't see a fundamental difference between Bible history/Bible study/theology/world religion/Christianity 101/Islam 101/etc. when it comes to electives.
Click to expand...

My Krebs cycle comment was intended to be anecdotal but I concede your point - you did state elective. I was wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#478
#478
Am thinking about going to ME next year on vacation. I'm curious as whether anyone on the board has been to Egypt to see the giant triangular shaped grain storage thingies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#479
#479
lawgator1 said:
Am thinking about going to ME next year on vacation. I'm curious as whether anyone on the board has been to Egypt to see the giant triangular shaped grain storage thingies.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to see the Ed Cayce crystal chambers beneath the paws of the sphinx while you're there
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#481
#481
Roustabout said:
Who said the Bible was an objective source for morality? Not me.
So, no point in discussing the rest.
Click to expand...

If the Bible isn't an objective source of morality, on what basis can you assert homosexuality as immoral? It's a steep, slippery slope to liberal pseudochristianity once the Good Book isn't held as the ultimate, inerrant final say on all things moral. Nothing but an unchecked pagan bonanza could possibly follow, with people either substituting their own judgment for God's or claiming new personal revelations which conveniently align with deviance, such as "God told me gays should marry," or "He said we could go ahead and simulate mating before we tie the knot."

We wouldn't want that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#482
#482
lawgator1 said:
Am thinking about going to ME next year on vacation. I'm curious as whether anyone on the board has been to Egypt to see the giant triangular shaped grain storage thingies.
Click to expand...

Take a stroll up Golgotha Hill and shed a tear where your Lord and Saviour hung on the cross after you see those funny shaped grain bins
 
#483
#483
Deputy Fife said:
If the Bible isn't an objective source of morality, on what basis can you assert homosexuality as immoral? It's a steep, slippery slope to liberal pseudochristianity once the Good Book isn't held as the ultimate, inerrant final say on all things moral. Nothing but an unchecked pagan bonanza could possibly follow, with people either substituting their own judgment for God's or claiming new personal revelations which conveniently align with deviance, such as "God told me gays should marry," or "He said we could go ahead and simulate mating before we tie the knot."

We wouldn't want that.
Click to expand...

"unchecked pagan bonanza" invoked a immediate smile followed by the realization that it also describes the 'every man for himself ' buffet line at Shoney's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#487
#487
Gramps said:
Take a stroll up Golgotha Hill and shed a tear where your Lord and Saviour hung on the cross after you see those funny shaped grain bins
Click to expand...


Maybe Ben can lend me his magic decoder ring to find that in the Bible, since evidently he sees things others cannot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#488
#488
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
No. They shut their doors here in Jackson & HQ in Nashville about 4 years ago.
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't know that, what a shame. I remember as a kid calling for the time (in Memphis) and the automated recording reporting "Shoney's South Time is...."

In hindsight, I don't know why we called for the time but a lot of people did it. Maybe watches were a foreign concept to the inhabitants of West Tennessee in the late 70's and early 80's.
 
#490
#490
n_huffhines said:
I don't have a problem answering it. You're a weird guy for asking it. Hence, WTF

Of course there are gay people in Iran.
Click to expand...

Lol

It seems most understood my point. I knew the answers to the questions before I asked.
 
#491
#491
Obsessed said:
Lol

It seems most understood my point. I knew the answers to the questions before I asked.
Click to expand...

I know what your point is. You are trying to argue that Christianity is innate, which it is not. Put 200 people on an island and see if any of them arrive at Christianity. They won't. Some of them will probably do some gay ****, tho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#492
#492
n_huffhines said:
I know what your point is. You are trying to argue that Christianity is innate, which it is not. Put 200 people on an island and see if any of them arrive at Christianity. They won't. Some of them will probably do some gay ****, tho.
Click to expand...

I never said it was innate. I said what IF it was innate.....
 
#493
#493
Deputy Fife said:
If the Bible isn't an objective source of morality, on what basis can you assert homosexuality as immoral? It's a steep, slippery slope to liberal pseudochristianity once the Good Book isn't held as the ultimate, inerrant final say on all things moral. Nothing but an unchecked pagan bonanza could possibly follow, with people either substituting their own judgment for God's or claiming new personal revelations which conveniently align with deviance, such as "God told me gays should marry," or "He said we could go ahead and simulate mating before we tie the knot."

We wouldn't want that.
Click to expand...

Interesting question. I hope you realize that there are arguments against homosexual practice that never invoke religion or religious text. Even Paul's condemnation of homosexual practice in Romans is an argument from natural theology and not a 'thus sayeth the lord,' claim.
Aside from that your claim is nonsense. The reason is that you, as you so often do, fail to distinguish between epistemology and ontology when it comes to discussing morality. This is the same error that so many Christians make when discussing morality and their "The bible told me so," approach. How we come to know something (such as right and wrong) is different than whether some moral truth actually exists or has a magnetic north. A compass may show us which direction to go, but the compass is not magnetic north itself.
In fact, the bible on many occasions provides prescriptive moral codes that are not to be universally applied to all peoples at all times. It doesn't require any advanced education or discernment to know this.

Example, when did murder become wrong? Cain didn't have the bible, but he is condemned for committing murder.

Let me illustrate the absurdity of this reasoning. "The bible doesn't address torturing puppies for personal pleasure therefore the bible must think it's OK to torture puppies for personal pleasure." This is a more obvious example of the retort we often hear. In Romans, Paul states that a person doesn't have to have biblical revelation to discern right and wrong and good and evil. And this makes sense if there is an objective, unchanging, moral source, i.e. God, that exists. Sure, Paul, in the bible, states that homosexual practice is wrong. But, if your deduction is that the bible is the 'source' of this moral truth, then it really ignores the fact that Paul is explaining how and why he is making such a claim. Paul isn't creating moral truth as the ink hits the paper. He is explaining an objective moral fact, and he himself isn't saying that homosexuality is wrong simply because the OT says so. Even if there are Christians who make stupid claims, it doesn't excuse you from reading the text itself and see what Paul is actually stating and how the bible's books make moral truth claims.

So, based on NT theology, homosexual practice isn't wrong because the bible says so (at least in the universal sense) but because it is a violation of the natural law, or the ends to which a thing is directed. Now, it's important to understand how i'm using nature and natural in this sense. We had a long discussion a while back on this subject. I'm not stating that because something happens in the natural world that it is thus natural and therefore acceptable. No one would justify killing and eating their children because some animal species kill and eat their young.

Let me add that this is anything but a step towards "liberal pseudochristianity" as you state. This a RETURN to classical theology and a rejection of the anti-intellectualism that has infected Christianity for too long.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#495
#495
lawgator1 said:
Maybe Ben can lend me his magic decoder ring to find that in the Bible, since evidently he sees things others cannot.
Click to expand...

You don't need a decoder ring to find Golgotha Hill in the Bible. :)

Ole Ben probably does see what it says different than others. He needs to stick with surgery and book writing and keep his mouth shut. He is becoming laughing stock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#496
#496
Roustabout said:
Interesting question. I hope you realize that there are arguments against homosexual practice that never invoke religion or religious text. Even Paul's condemnation of homosexual practice in Romans is an argument from natural theology and not a 'thus sayeth the lord,' claim.
Aside from that your claim is nonsense. The reason is that you, as you so often do, fail to distinguish between epistemology and ontology when it comes to discussing morality. This is the same error that so many Christians make when discussing morality and their "The bible told me so," approach. How we come to know something (such as right and wrong) is different than whether some moral truth actually exists or has a magnetic north. A compass may show us which direction to go, but the compass is not magnetic north itself.
In fact, the bible on many occasions provides prescriptive moral codes that are not to be universally applied to all peoples at all times. It doesn't require any advanced education or discernment to know this.

Example, when did murder become wrong? Cain didn't have the bible, but he is condemned for committing murder.

Let me illustrate the absurdity of this reasoning. "The bible doesn't address torturing puppies for personal pleasure therefore the bible must think it's OK to torture puppies for personal pleasure." This is a more obvious example of the retort we often hear. In Romans, Paul states that a person doesn't have to have biblical revelation to discern right and wrong and good and evil. And this makes sense if there is an objective, unchanging, moral source, i.e. God, that exists. Sure, Paul, in the bible, states that homosexual practice is wrong. But, if your deduction is that the bible is the 'source' of this moral truth, then it really ignores the fact that Paul is explaining how and why he is making such a claim. Paul isn't creating moral truth as the ink hits the paper. He is explaining an objective moral fact, and he himself isn't saying that homosexuality is wrong simply because the OT says so. Even if there are Christians who make stupid claims, it doesn't excuse you from reading the text itself and see what Paul is actually stating and how the bible's books make moral truth claims.

So, based on NT theology, homosexual practice isn't wrong because the bible says so (at least in the universal sense) but because it is a violation of the natural law, or the ends to which a thing is directed. Now, it's important to understand how i'm using nature and natural in this sense. We had a long discussion a while back on this subject. I'm not stating that because something happens in the natural world that it is thus natural and therefore acceptable. No one would justify killing and eating their children because some animal species kill and eat their young.

Let me add that this is anything but a step towards "liberal pseudochristianity" as you state. This a RETURN to classical theology and a rejection of the anti-intellectualism that has infected Christianity for too long.
Click to expand...

Holy tap dance Batman.

Using the Bible to show how the bible explains natural law. Pray tell, how did Paul know it was immoral then if it wasn't "so sayeth the lord"? And what makes his statement on the subject anything more than the relativistic, humanistic opinion you guys rail on about? Where is this set of defined natural guidelines I should be referencing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#497
#497
Gramps said:
You don't need a decoder ring to find Golgotha Hill in the Bible. :)

Ole Ben probably does see what it says different than others. He needs to stick with surgery and book writing and keep his mouth shut. He is becoming laughing stock.
Click to expand...

I predicted this a couple of weeks ago. He was already saying things that were a bit off. Now he's gone pretty far off the reservation, and he's getting mad that people have the temerity to ask him about it.

He'll need either to learn to deal with the questions, or stop saying weird crap. My guess is he can't do either one, and is going to blow up soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#498
#498
rjd970 said:
Holy tap dance Batman.

Using the Bible to show how the bible explains natural law. Pray tell, how did Paul know it was immoral then if it wasn't "so sayeth the lord"? And what makes his statement on the subject anything more than the relativistic, humanistic opinion you guys rail on about? Where is this set of defined natural guidelines I should be referencing?
Click to expand...
What? You're being obtuse.

Natural theology isn't new. Read Aristotle and Aquinas and get back to me.
 
#500
#500
Roustabout said:
I hope you realize that there are arguments against homosexual practice that never invoke religion or religious text.
Click to expand...

Give me a secular argument against homosexuality between consenting adults in private.

And this makes sense if there is an objective, unchanging, moral source, i.e. God, that exists.
Click to expand...

That source is human intelligence working on difficult questions, slowly breaking the chains of our primitive origins by using tools such as empathy, compromise, and discussion to bring about mutual understanding and peace. No god required.

No one would justify killing and eating their children because some animal species kill and eat their young.
Click to expand...

We evolved the intelligence to understand that the short-term benefits derived from consuming one's children are less than sufficient arguments for doing it considering the long-term cost. Your wish-world definition of "natural" means exactly nothing as both infanticide and homosexuality are naturally occurring behaviors. That of course doesn't mean we should treat them equally. Eating kids causes more harm than sex between consenting adults, and a gay man is no more likely to prey upon a young boy than a heterosexual man is to abuse a little girl.

Your arguments about the purpose of sex are hypocritical and inconsistent unless you also hold contempt for all forms of oral sex, masturbation, contraceptives, heterosexual anal sex, and geriatric sex.

the anti-intellectualism that has infected Christianity for too long.
Click to expand...

Fear of death/desire for immortality and a distaste for uncertainty are the ultimate causes of this "anti-intellectualism." Try to be honest with yourself in asking the degree to which those factors have influenced your beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top