Biblical Criticism

[2PhiloVoid]

Like anything these days, we can seem to pick the "truth" we want to believe.

I am open to listening or reading views that are new to me. but it is always wise to be skeptical.

I agree. Some people seem to want to "pick their truth." But with David Hume, I have to think there can be too much of a useful thing (i.e. Skepticsm) and some of us choose to be realist of one kind or another as we move through this strange, elusive existence we're all stuck in ...

 

[PloverWing]

How, then, do you explain the Flood? Or Sodom and Gomorrah?

Those are also difficult stories, yes. My best guess at an explanation is that there may be actions that are appropriate for the Creator of life and death, the Maker and Destroyer of worlds, that are not appropriate for human beings.

As for delegating the responsibility of killing: For humans, committing genocide is in conflict with the teachings of Jesus, who told us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to treat others as we would wish to be treated, and to love our enemies. That's a serious, genuine moral conflict, God commanding us to behave in two very different ways. I don't really know what the best answer is, if God is truly like that. Hence my dislike for the story of Joshua.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Those are also difficult stories, yes. My best guess at an explanation is that there may be actions that are appropriate for the Creator of life and death, the Maker and Destroyer of worlds, that are not appropriate for human beings.

As for delegating the responsibility of killing: For humans, committing genocide is in conflict with the teachings of Jesus, who told us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to treat others as we would wish to be treated, and to love our enemies. That's a serious, genuine moral conflict, God commanding us to behave in two very different ways. I don't really know what the best answer is, if God is truly like that. Hence my dislike for the story of Joshua.

This is where hermeneutics comes in, I think, Sis.

 

[linux.poet]

Except that you start with the presumption that your particular view of the Bible is the gold standard by which everything else is judged. iI a critique, or lets better say an analysis, seem a little threatening to that view it is simply discarded rather than objectively considered.

I am not at all threatened by Richard Elliott Friedman's views nor my education in university as an English major. It would be interesting if they were correct, but his book just doesn't stand up to reason and like I said, I found it comical.

My post is actually coming from a professor who tried to analyze the Bible as if it were literature back in my community college and the academic exercise just...didn't work. I found the hypothetical interesting, to analyze the story of Moses as if it were a story, but the answers to the questions he was asking quickly revealed that we weren't dealing with just another story. I saw this professor panic trying to hold his views and arguments together, and as a Christian, it took all of my self-control not to laugh. God doesn't need me to defend his Word's veracity when it was right there. I'm not taking a stance as much as reporting my findings of that experiment.

I'm kind of glad that this professor made that mistake and the other unbelieving students got to see the whole thing. At least God's Word was placed in the hands of the unbelievers, even if through highly bizzarre means as that.

Perhaps you are threatened by biblical critical views? If so, I pray that God will grow your faith.

I'm an English major and I know how literary criticism works. You can't apply that to the Bible - it's a historical document, and God isn't a human author that is affected by historical time periods or politics or human psychology. It doesn't work. To apply literary criticism, you have to assume a human author or authors for the Bible and try to connect it to the time period they were writing in to explain the accounts. Which invalidates all prophecy by default, since prophecy is about a time period that the writer wasn't even in and could not even understand.

And that's just the beginning of the problems. How am I supposed to explain the Gospels as part of Jewish society in the 1st century when the account includes them crucifying their own Messiah and is against their leadership and customs? Should I conclude that it is the Greeks making fun of the Jews instead? How am supposed to justify that view when the New Testament was written primarily by Jewish authors, with the exception of Luke?

I could go on all day, but hopefully you get it.

Those are also difficult stories, yes. My best guess at an explanation is that there may be actions that are appropriate for the Creator of life and death, the Maker and Destroyer of worlds, that are not appropriate for human beings.

As for delegating the responsibility of killing: For humans, committing genocide is in conflict with the teachings of Jesus, who told us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to treat others as we would wish to be treated, and to love our enemies. That's a serious, genuine moral conflict, God commanding us to behave in two very different ways. I don't really know what the best answer is, if God is truly like that. Hence my dislike for the story of Joshua.

God commands different groups to do different things. There are different commands for husbands and wives, elders and deacons, young and old. There are numerous records of God commanding individuals to do specific things that the Church does not do today, besides Joshua. Think about Hosea, who was commanded to marry a prostitute, which is not something Christians should do, or Ezekiel, who was commanded to lay on his side with a brick on his hip all tied up - ow.

And Joshua was not given the teachings of Jesus - those are specifically for Christ's bride, the Church, not those that came before Christ did. The nation of Isreal was given many commands that don't apply to the Church - the Church doesn't have to keep the Law, for example. Two different commands for two different groups at two different times in history.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am not at all threatened by Richard Elliott Friedman's views nor my education in university as an English major. It would be interesting if they were correct, but his book just doesn't stand up to reason and like I said, I found it comical.

My post is actually coming from a professor who tried to analyze the Bible as if it were literature back in my community college and the academic exercise just...didn't work. I found the hypothetical interesting, to analyze the story of Moses as if it were a story, but the answers to the questions he was asking quickly revealed that we weren't dealing with just another story. I saw this professor panic trying to hold his views and arguments together, and as a Christian, it took all of my self-control not to laugh. God doesn't need me to defend his Word's veracity when it was right there. I'm not taking a stance as much as reporting my findings of that experiment.

I'm kind of glad that this professor made that mistake and the other unbelieving students got to see the whole thing. At least God's Word was placed in the hands of the unbelievers, even if through highly bizzarre means as that.

Perhaps you are threatened by biblical critical views? If so, I pray that God will grow your faith.

I'm an English major and I know how literary criticism works. You can't apply that to the Bible - it's a historical document, and God isn't a human author that is affected by historical time periods or politics or human psychology. It doesn't work. To apply literary criticism, you have to assume a human author or authors for the Bible and try to connect it to the time period they were writing in to explain the accounts. Which invalidates all prophecy by default, since prophecy is about a time period that the writer wasn't even in and could not even understand.

And that's just the beginning of the problems. How am I supposed to explain the Gospels as part of Jewish society in the 1st century when the account includes them crucifying their own Messiah and is against their leadership and customs? Should I conclude that it is the Greeks making fun of the Jews instead? How am supposed to justify that view when the New Testament was written primarily by Jewish authors, with the exception of Luke?

I could go on all day, but hopefully you get it.


God commands different groups to do different things. There are different commands for husbands and wives, elders and deacons, young and old. There are numerous records of God commanding individuals to do specific things that the Church does not do today, besides Joshua. Think about Hosea, who was commanded to marry a prostitute, which is not something Christians should do, or Ezekiel, who was commanded to lay on his side with a brick on his hip all tied up - ow.

And Joshua was not given the teachings of Jesus - those are specifically for Christ's bride, the Church, not those that came before Christ did. The nation of Isreal was given many commands that don't apply to the Church - the Church doesn't have to keep the Law, for example. Two different commands for two different groups at two different times in history.

Welcome to CF!

You're apparently making some strong strides in academics. That's always good to see! Being that you're an English major and a poet, I suppose that would make you a natural where hermeneutics comes in to play. I'm not one, so I'm sure your sensitivity toward language and its structures will prove very handy (especially so if, as many folks here have had to do, you have to sort through my lousy syntax).

Since the application of hermeneutics is of interest to me even as a philosophy major, and because I've been affected by the implications of the Documentary Hypothesis myself and am always on the look out for contending scholars by which to refute it, I'd like to ask you: which scholars or sources do you think give a good counter to Friedman's thesis?

 

[linux.poet]

which scholars or sources do you think give a good counter to Friedman's thesis?

You'll want to look into the work of Dr. Brent Nongbri and the field of dating Papyri. My final paper for that World Literature class was using the papyri P52 to counter the work of Michael G. Reddish (Introduction to the Gospels) but the same principle would apply to Friedman. You'd probably have to use the Dead Sea scrolls as the papyri reference since Friedman's thesis applies to the Old Testament, but the field of papyri dating is what is tasked with evidencing how old a work is, objectively.

Friedman is hypothesizing younger dates for works, so you'll want to look for papyri that evidence older dates.

You may also want to look into the work of Howard M. Jackson as well, for a more hermeneutical approach. That's the best I got.

Being that you're an English major and a poet, I suppose that would make you a natural where hermeneutics comes in to play. I'm not one, so I'm sure your sensitivity toward language and its structures will prove very handy (especially so if, as many folks here have had to do, you have to sort through my lousy syntax).

There is a significant difference between theology and English studies. Theology is more focused on God whereas English is more focused on people. Theology is cold and calculating, like a chess match - God is who he says he is, he is unchanging, and how He has orchestrated reality is a cold thing that we all must accept, just like a chess player must accept his opponent's moves and his own (sinful) mistakes in playing the game of life.

English, on the other hand, is more like Tai Chi - analyzing your fellow human beings for psychological weaknesses. What are they feeling? Why? What is affecting them? Society? Politics? Donut supply? God? All of these play a role.

There are some principles they share, like detailed analysis of syntax and evaluating works for consistency, but in practice they are very different. It's the difference between worshipping God and giving your fellow human being a hug. In terms of English, I could be considered advanced, but in terms of theology I view myself as a beginner.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You'll want to look into the work of Dr. Brent Nongbri and the field of dating Papyri. My final paper for that World Literature class was using the papyri P52 to counter the work of Michael G. Reddish (Introduction to the Gospels) but the same principle would apply to Friedman. You'd probably have to use the Dead Sea scrolls as the papyri reference since Friedman's thesis applies to the Old Testament, but the field of papyri dating is what is tasked with evidencing how old a work is, objectively.

The field of dating papyri is something I've been mildly exposed to in bible college and in some of my own reading along the way since then, but even though I have a little familiarity with it, neither Brent Nongbri nor Michael Reddish are names I've yet run across. I'll check them out and see what they have to say in comparison to other scholars I've read. I can get all the help I can get because I've always thought the Documentary Hypothesis, in whatever shade it gets presented, is problematic. Even if it's not a lot, then at least some marginal amount in deciphering the authenticity and substance of what is written in the Old Testament. Of late, I've noticed one or two interesting trends among skeptics who are using the DH to cut some ground in support of liberal social activism. How incisive their studies are is something I'm still in the process of reviewing.

Friedman is hypothesizing younger dates for works, so you'll want to look for papyri that evidence older dates.

Yeah, that's typically how this stuff goes. I have his main book, so I'll have to refresh my memory of him by thumbing through his contents.

You may also want to look into the work of Howard M. Jackson as well, for a more hermeneutical approach. That's the best I got.

Ok. What one or two books do you think best represent his most robust position on issues in biblical criticism?

There is a significant difference between theology and English studies. Theology is more focused on God whereas English is more focused on people. Theology is cold and calculating, like a chess match - God is who he says he is, he is unchanging, and how He has orchestrated reality is a cold thing that we all must accept, just like a chess player must accept his opponent's moves and his own (sinful) mistakes in playing the game of life.

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. I've been more or less influenced by Kierkegaard's position on theology in thinking that the Subjective dynamic is predominant over and within the Objective and makes theology more of a mystery through which to explore on an individual basis rather than a Systematic endeavor. But who knows? He could be wrong. If I could find out that theology really does work more like chess—and I do like chess even though I'm not great at it—it'd help me firm up my own theological predilections and get out of the existential void that my mind presently lives within.

English, on the other hand, is more like Tai Chi - analyzing your fellow human beings for psychological weaknesses. What are they feeling? Why? What is affecting them? Society? Politics? Donut supply? God? All of these play a role.

There are some principles they share, like detailed analysis of syntax and evaluating works for consistency, but in practice they are very different. It's the difference between worshipping God and giving your fellow human being a hug. In terms of English, I could be considered advanced, but in terms of theology I view myself as a beginner.

I'm sure you know better than I do. I hadn't really come to realize that English enables one to psycho-analyze a fellow human being. I'd think that human mannerisms would come into play somewhat, kind of like in that old t.v. Series “Lie To Me.”

But my understanding of a link between language and psychology is limited and I'm always open to learning more. Education is a fundamental activity for me, however lousy I may actually be at achieving any advanced understanding through it all.

 

[linux.poet]

I can get all the help I can get because I've always thought the Documentary Hypothesis, in whatever shade it gets presented, is problematic.

The biggest issue I've found with it is when it gets out of Genesis and into the later books. Friedman's idea that Jeroboam's corrupt priests had something to do with writing Kings and Chronicles is what I remember as the major issue.

The claim that the accounts in Genesis contradict each other, which is an attempt to discredit them, is also a major problem. Genesis reads as multiple accounts compiled together near the beginning of the book because that's what it probably is - a bunch of oral accounts that Moses compiled together about the Creation and the Flood that agree. The multiplicity factor is reduced as soon as we get to Abraham and the story settles firmly into one narrative, pointing to Moses as one author.

I've noticed one or two interesting trends among skeptics who are using the DH to cut some ground in support of liberal social activism.

You'll want to look into colonialism and postcolonialism. Those ideas are usually used to define Britain's relationship to her Empire (hence very common in English studies), but it's largely what the practitioners of the DH are trying to place on the nation of Israel.

My prof's argument in class was that God was "colonizing" the nation of Israel by giving them the Law and that the rest of the story was due to colonization trauma (hilarious). A more likely story is that the Isrealites were colonized by the Egyptians and God's rescue is postcolonial , but even that is playing into the DH's hands because they want to use the "multiple accounts" of events as evidence that the writers of Genesis were suffering from trauma and thus discredit the Word of God by saying they were out of touch with reality.

Then they want to use all of that to say that the Bible is evidence of the negative effects of colonialism and thus use that to justify social activism against the evil colonialist overlords.

What one or two books do you think best represent his most robust position on issues in biblical criticism?

I don't know. The source I used for my final paper was from the Harvard Theological Review, but I don't think that narrows it down very much. I do know that Dr. Nongbri has a blog, which may be helpful in locating his peer-reviewed articles.

I've been more or less influenced by Kierkegaard's position on theology in thinking that the Subjective dynamic is predominant over and within the Objective and makes theology more of a mystery through which to explore on an individual basis rather than a Systematic endeavor.

I'm not familiar with Kierkegaard and was influenced by a strong teacher who was into Wayne Grudem, who literally wrote the book Systematic Theology. I still have that teacher's notes on the attributes of God with massive lists of Scripture references.

If I could find out that theology really does work more like chess—and I do like chess even though I'm not great at it—it'd help me firm up my own theological predilections and get out of the existential void that my mind presently lives within.

Philosophy major .

God wants me to exist, therefore, I exist. See Psalm 139. You may be dealing with the a "field water" problem. Philosophy is a field that is dedicated to questioning the nature of existence, thus, the solution to an existential crisis cannot be found inside of philosophy. However, philosophy has an appeal to those who question their existence because they are very good at it and choose a field that plays to their strengths! But if they actually wanted a solution to their problem, they would have to look outside of philosophy for the solution - but the problem is, they will use philosophy (what they know best!) to judge the solution without realizing that what they have studied is dedicated to avoiding it! And so they keep searching. Not only do you need a correct answer, but you need non-philosophical tools to evaluate it.

Now I'm not judging you - I made the same mistake with English. I originally took up English to solve an economic problem (I need a job?) and after years of evaluation I have concluded that English is opposed to economics. Whoops. I didn't want a job and I choose English to avoid considering it on a deep level. It happens to all of us.

But back to chess. The theological chessboard is much bigger than the human one, and God has the white pieces, playing against the world, the flesh, and the devil. He is going to win - Satan's checkmate is certain, and his king, the Anti-Christ, will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. And every so often, God introduces a new pawn onto the board, right where Satan doesn't want there to be one. We can see our section of the board, and we can read God's book on how to be a good chess pawn, but that's it. Pawns cannot be destroyed, but can be captured on either side, either into heaven or hell.

Theology is viewing this divine chess game, and the divine instruction manual, the Bible, and using that to understand the person playing the game. It's like me examining the moves of a chess grandmaster, all of their games and what they have said about chess, and using that to understand, however imperfectly, who they are.

I hadn't really come to realize that English enables one to psycho-analyze a fellow human being. I'd think that human mannerisms would come into play somewhat,

Like The Mentalist? That show is about human mannerisms.

However, a large amount of psychological information about characters may be derived from analyzing a novel, and, considering the work in its historical, social, and political context, about the author who wrote it. Literary critics also frequently reference the work of Lacan and Freud, and psychoanalytic literary criticism is a thing.

But my understanding of a link between language and psychology is limited and I'm always open to learning more.

It would be less about how language affects psychology as much as how the language an author uses reflects their psychological state, beliefs, attitudes toward their beliefs, and so on.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The biggest issue I've found with it is when it gets out of Genesis and into the later books. Friedman's idea that Jeroboam's corrupt priests had something to do with writing Kings and Chronicles is what I remember as the major issue.

The claim that the accounts in Genesis contradict each other, which is an attempt to discredit them, is also a major problem. Genesis reads as multiple accounts compiled together near the beginning of the book because that's what it probably is - a bunch of oral accounts that Moses compiled together about the Creation and the Flood that agree. The multiplicity factor is reduced as soon as we get to Abraham and the story settles firmly into one narrative, pointing to Moses as one author.


You'll want to look into colonialism and postcolonialism. Those ideas are usually used to define Britain's relationship to her Empire (hence very common in English studies), but it's largely what the practitioners of the DH are trying to place on the nation of Israel.

My prof's argument in class was that God was "colonizing" the nation of Israel by giving them the Law and that the rest of the story was due to colonization trauma (hilarious). A more likely story is that the Isrealites were colonized by the Egyptians and God's rescue is postcolonial , but even that is playing into the DH's hands because they want to use the "multiple accounts" of events as evidence that the writers of Genesis were suffering from trauma and thus discredit the Word of God by saying they were out of touch with reality.

Then they want to use all of that to say that the Bible is evidence of the negative effects of colonialism and thus use that to justify social activism against the evil colonialist overlords.


I don't know. The source I used for my final paper was from the Harvard Theological Review, but I don't think that narrows it down very much. I do know that Dr. Nongbri has a blog, which may be helpful in locating his peer-reviewed articles.


I'm not familiar with Kierkegaard and was influenced by a strong teacher who was into Wayne Grudem, who literally wrote the book Systematic Theology. I still have that teacher's notes on the attributes of God with massive lists of Scripture references.


Philosophy major .

God wants me to exist, therefore, I exist. See Psalm 139. You may be dealing with the a "field water" problem. Philosophy is a field that is dedicated to questioning the nature of existence, thus, the solution to an existential crisis cannot be found inside of philosophy. However, philosophy has an appeal to those who question their existence because they are very good at it and choose a field that plays to their strengths! But if they actually wanted a solution to their problem, they would have to look outside of philosophy for the solution - but the problem is, they will use philosophy (what they know best!) to judge the solution without realizing that what they have studied is dedicated to avoiding it! And so they keep searching. Not only do you need a correct answer, but you need non-philosophical tools to evaluate it.

Now I'm not judging you - I made the same mistake with English. I originally took up English to solve an economic problem (I need a job?) and after years of evaluation I have concluded that English is opposed to economics. Whoops. I didn't want a job and I choose English to avoid considering it on a deep level. It happens to all of us.

But back to chess. The theological chessboard is much bigger than the human one, and God has the white pieces, playing against the world, the flesh, and the devil. He is going to win - Satan's checkmate is certain, and his king, the Anti-Christ, will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. And every so often, God introduces a new pawn onto the board, right where Satan doesn't want there to be one. We can see our section of the board, and we can read God's book on how to be a good chess pawn, but that's it. Pawns cannot be destroyed, but can be captured on either side, either into heaven or hell.

Theology is viewing this divine chess game, and the divine instruction manual, the Bible, and using that to understand the person playing the game. It's like me examining the moves of a chess grandmaster, all of their games and what they have said about chess, and using that to understand, however imperfectly, who they are.


Like The Mentalist? That show is about human mannerisms.

However, a large amount of psychological information about characters may be derived from analyzing a novel, and, considering the work in its historical, social, and political context, about the author who wrote it. Literary critics also frequently reference the work of Lacan and Freud, and psychoanalytic literary criticism is a thing.


It would be less about how language affects psychology as much as how the language an author uses reflects their psychological state, beliefs, attitudes toward their beliefs, and so on.

You've definitely given me some things to think about this evening. I'll have to give these propositions a more extensive pondering and get back to you on them since it's almost time for sleep. Thanks!

Peace!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The biggest issue I've found with it is when it gets out of Genesis and into the later books. Friedman's idea that Jeroboam's corrupt priests had something to do with writing Kings and Chronicles is what I remember as the major issue.

You're probably right about this, and the interesting thing for me is to see that the DH is bigger than Friedman himself. There's seems to be a whole history of academic development which has led up to and beyond Friedman's form of the hypothesis, and as I'm moving through a study of the DH, I'm finding a problem endemic to the whole history of the DH project: that too much of it is speculative in nature, permeated by conjectures about the apparent juxtaposition of mere “concepts” found within the texts. My just knowing that this is the case makes me think, too, that the present state of the DH doesn't bode well for its future as a viable theory. It'll be interesting to see how it meets its demise, assuming it dies without much thrashing.

It's too bad that this particular hypothesis engenders so much gracious applause on the part of skeptics. Personally, I hate hypothetical and speculative thinking, especially the kind that merely bounces around upon random, ungrounded rationalizations parading as the 'latest' in innovative advancement of human thought and scholarly prowess. It seems so many people depend on what is otherwise a form of sophistry, and they do so to an extraordinary degree, especially where the Bible is concerned. Then again, maybe it feels good to stake claims upon Mount Dogma regarding this or that notion about fragments from a past reality? I have to ask. Maybe I'm missing out on a good thing?

The claim that the accounts in Genesis contradict each other, which is an attempt to discredit them, is also a major problem. Genesis reads as multiple accounts compiled together near the beginning of the book because that's what it probably is - a bunch of oral accounts that Moses compiled together about the Creation and the Flood that agree. The multiplicity factor is reduced as soon as we get to Abraham and the story settles firmly into one narrative, pointing to Moses as one author.

That could be, but one scholar I respect actually thinks that the 1st chapter of Genesis was the product of post-Exilic fabrication. So, it's difficult to tell and I guess the jury is still out on all of this, even where Christian scholars are sitting among the skeptics.

You'll want to look into colonialism and postcolonialism. Those ideas are usually used to define Britain's relationship to her Empire (hence very common in English studies), but it's largely what the practitioners of the DH are trying to place on the nation of Israel.

My prof's argument in class was that God was "colonizing" the nation of Israel by giving them the Law and that the rest of the story was due to colonization trauma (hilarious). A more likely story is that the Isrealites were colonized by the Egyptians and God's rescue is postcolonial

, but even that is playing into the DH's hands because they want to use the "multiple accounts" of events as evidence that the writers of Genesis were suffering from trauma and thus discredit the Word of God by saying they were out of touch with reality.

Then they want to use all of that to say that the Bible is evidence of the negative effects of colonialism and thus use that to justify social activism against the evil colonialist overlords.

Those may be some relavent paths to look into. I'll keep these in mind.

I don't know. The source I used for my final paper was from the Harvard Theological Review, but I don't think that narrows it down very much. I do know that Dr. Nongbri has a blog, which may be helpful in locating his peer-reviewed articles.

I'm not familiar with Kierkegaard and was influenced by a strong teacher who was into Wayne Grudem, who literally wrote the book Systematic Theology. I still have that teacher's notes on the attributes of God with massive lists of Scripture references.

That's good to hear. I imagine that you've been influenced by quite an array of teachers just as I have, and even though I really don't think that theology can be produced as systematically as some theologians contend, still, I do enjoy reading from Millar J. Erickson's, Christian Theology. Like Grudem's work, it too is a hefty source and a solid one.

Philosophy major

God wants me to exist, therefore, I exist. See Psalm 139. You may be dealing with the a "field water" problem. Philosophy is a field that is dedicated to questioning the nature of existence, thus, the solution to an existential crisis cannot be found inside of philosophy. However, philosophy has an appeal to those who question their existence because they are very good at it and choose a field that plays to their strengths! But if they actually wanted a solution to their problem, they would have to look outside of philosophy for the solution - but the problem is, they will use philosophy (what they know best!) to judge the solution without realizing that what they have studied is dedicated to avoiding it! And so they keep searching. Not only do you need a correct answer, but you need non-philosophical tools to evaluate it.

Oh??? Wow. It sounds like you're adept at philosophy yourself. Can I take it that you've found the exit to this maze that I'm trapped within? What are these non-philosophical tools that I'm missing out on? I'm not just dying now to know—I'm positively wanting to know before I die.

Now I'm not judging you - I made the same mistake with English. I originally took up English to solve an economic problem (I need a job?) and after years of evaluation I have concluded that English is opposed to economics. Whoops. I didn't want a job and I choose English to avoid considering it on a deep level. It happens to all of us.

Oh no. I knew that Philosophy was a fools errand of sorts. Ironically enough, my wife did too. But as Kierkegaard poetically ventured a witty remark upon, one that I to this day still have to ponder over as to its humorous bite:

Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it… Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the essence of all philosophy.​

One caveat about your current assessment of Philosophy is, I think, in order here: as you contemplate the nature of Philosophy as a human venture, are you maybe equivocating just a trifle by referring to “Philosophy” as a mere singular entity, as if it were a mere travesty of the Black Monolith in the movie, “2001: A Space Odyssey”?

But back to chess. The theological chessboard is much bigger than the human one, and God has the white pieces, playing against the world, the flesh, and the devil. He is going to win - Satan's checkmate is certain, and his king, the Anti-Christ, will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. And every so often, God introduces a new pawn onto the board, right where Satan doesn't want there to be one. We can see our section of the board, and we can read God's book on how to be a good chess pawn, but that's it. Pawns cannot be destroyed, but can be captured on either side, either into heaven or hell.

… In this context, I think I can play along with your chess analogy. However, if it is to be applied to other context, maybe not so much.

Theology is viewing this divine chess game, and the divine instruction manual, the Bible, and using that to understand the person playing the game. It's like me examining the moves of a chess grandmaster, all of their games and what they have said about chess, and using that to understand, however imperfectly, who they are.

Like The Mentalist? That show is about human mannerisms.

Kind of like that, yes.

However, a large amount of psychological information about characters may be derived from analyzing a novel, and, considering the work in its historical, social, and political context, about the author who wrote it. Literary critics also frequently reference the work of Lacan and Freud, and psychoanalytic literary criticism is a thing.

You're right, of course. And Philosophical Hermeneutics is also a thing.

It would be less about how language affects psychology as much as how the language an author uses reflects their psychological state, beliefs, attitudes toward their beliefs, and so on.

Yes, this is what I was thinking. Too.

Where were we? Oh, yes. We've been talking about Hermeneutics the entire time. I'm glad you're playing along ...

 

[linux.poet]

Can I take it that you've found the exit to this maze that I'm trapped within? What are these non-philosophical tools that I'm missing out on? I'm not just dying now to know—I'm positively wanting to know before I die.

Yes, you may take it that way. I've never studied philosophy in extreme detail, but I was abused up to the brink of suicide, told I was worthless by my abuser and basically was forced to wonder why I existed in the first place if the only thing I had ever gone through was pain.

What I have found is that God's Word has plenty of answers as to why and how we exist:

1. We exist because God wants us to exist. If He didn't want us to exist, He has plenty of means to remove us from the Earth and kill us.

For You created my innermost parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, because I am awesomely and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully formed in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my formless substance;
And in Your book were written
All the days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

2. We exist to display God's mercy and wrath.

15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I show compassion.” 16 So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very reason I raised you up, in order to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, you foolish person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another [r]for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely us, whom He also called, not only from among Jews, but also from among Gentiles,

3. Believers in Christ exist on the Earth to proclaim the Gospel to unbelievers.

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

4. Believers in Christ exist to edify other believers and contribute to their sanctification process, so that they may be better equipped to accomplish point #3:

Let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but if there is any good word for edification according to the need of the moment, say that, so that it will give grace to those who hear.

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of people, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, that is, Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

We are all essential in God's plan of redemption and there are no wasted pieces on the divine chessboard. The question is not "Why do I exist?" since God has answered that question, but "Why do I not believe what God's Word says about why I exist?" For that, you need the tools of psychology, not philosophy. An existential crisis is a psychological error that frequently leads to depression.

Oh no. I knew that Philosophy was a fools errand of sorts.

Then why did you do it?

Ah, yes, Kierkegaard. But we then we have to ask: what is the appeal of Kierkegaard? Why do you feel that no matter what you do, your journey will end in regret? Who told you that, and thus undermined your confidence in your decisions?

are you maybe equivocating just a trifle by referring to “Philosophy” as a mere singular entity, as if it were a mere travesty of the Black Monolith in the movie, “2001: A Space Odyssey”?

I've never seen the film, but what you are likely thinking of is that there are many scholars within Philosophy with different beliefs. However, the common thread between all of them is questioning and examining the nature of reality, as I've previously explained. One can question the nature of reality in literally infinite ways. There is always a new way to do it.

Then again, maybe it feels good to stake claims upon Mount Dogma regarding this or that notion about fragments from a past reality? I have to ask. Maybe I'm missing out on a good thing?

But then I have to ask: is an hypothesis that tries to undermine the authority of the Word of God and discredit Biblical prophecy a good thing?

Which is your authority, the scholars or the Scriptures?

but one scholar I respect actually thinks that the 1st chapter of Genesis was the product of post-Exilic fabrication.

Which scholar is this? I've never heard of this idea.

I'm finding a problem endemic to the whole history of the DH project: that too much of it is speculative in nature, permeated by conjectures about the apparent juxtaposition of mere “concepts” found within the texts.

I concur with this assessment and agree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, you may take it that way. I've never studied philosophy in extreme detail, but I was abused up to the brink of suicide, told I was worthless by my abuser and basically was forced to wonder why I existed in the first place if the only thing I had ever gone through was pain.

Two things here. First of all, young lady, I'm saddened to know that you had to endure all of the pain you've only briefly mentioned. No one should have to go through abuse of any kind and only you know what it is you've been through. I won't even attempt to address it, but I do appreciate that you've shared this very personal detail. I'll do my best to keep it in mind as I respond to your other thoughtful comments.

Secondly, I'm aware that you're new to CF, so it's always good to see additional fellow Christians come on board here, however much they may or may not express dissent against my more philosophical, existential approach to our common faith in Jesus Christ. I'm glad you're here, and I'm sure we can continue to have an interesting discussion as long as you feel you want to.

Just keep in mind that since you've admitted to only having a milder introduction to the vast field(s) of philosophy, you may be speaking outside of your own boundary of academic knowledge, at least at the present moment. This doesn't mean I think everything you can ever possibly say about philosophy is irrelevant—no, I'm sure you have some highly relevant ideas and critiques for me to consider—but you might expect some push back from me if you advance your knights and Queen upon the chessboard of discussion when, with an allusion to Wittgenstein, I'm under the impression that we're not playing “that game.” Or perhaps, I don't see any of this as any kind of game at all.

With that said, I too have already found the spiritual “exit” that exists in Christ. So, you might be mindful of this as we go. It'll make our discussions easier. And to be clear, my earlier comment about you're finding “the exit” was my insinuated resistance against any implication that I might not know my up from my down where either theology or philosophy are concerned. I assure you, I do know and I am quite capable of defending my point of view, however much I may be obviously lacking in grammatical or syntactical proficiency.

With these few things in mind, though, we can both stay oriented as we chat with one another. We can do so as one human being to another and all the while realizing that the other person is a fellow Christian.

As for the 'tools' of philosophy, I'm under the impression that Christian theology can't get very far if it doesn't acknowledge the variable aspects and limitations of which make up the Philosophy as a multifaceted field of study—fields of study, actually. Blaise Pascal knew this to be the case, and in following a few bites of his thinking, so do I. I think, too, that all of this in turn lends itself to a better hermeneutical handling of the Bible as God's Word, it also bleeds into our our respective understandings about out own individual faith and experience in Christ.

What I have found is that God's Word has plenty of answers as to why and how we exist:

1. We exist because God wants us to exist. If He didn't want us to exist, He has plenty of means to remove us from the Earth and kill us.

Psalm 139 said:

For You created my innermost parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, because I am awesomely and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully formed in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my formless substance;
And in Your book were written
All the days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them. Click to expand...

Yes and no. Indeed, the Biblical texts indicate this, but it isn't so clear how this is to be epistemologically discerned. We can affirm that the Bible tells us that “God did it,” but this isn't to inform us as to how He has done so.

2. We exist to display God's mercy and wrath.

Romans 9 said:

15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I show compassion.” 16 So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very reason I raised you up, in order to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, you foolish person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another [r]for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely us, whom He also called, not only from among Jews, but also from among Gentiles, Click to expand...

… You're use scripture is noted, but I'm not sure that your exegetical support justifies your inclusion that we as Christians are somehow, let alone however explicitly, here to also met out God's wrath. Mercy yes! But wrath? I'm not so clear about.

3. Believers in Christ exist on the Earth to proclaim the Gospel to unbelievers.

Matthew 28 said:

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Sure. I think we can agree on that, even if we may not agree on the how, when and where about it all.

4. Believers in Christ exist to edify other believers and contribute to their sanctification process, so that they may be better equipped to accomplish point #3:

Ephesians 4:29 said:

Let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but if there is any good word for edification according to the need of the moment, say that, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
Ephesians 4:14-15 said:

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of people, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, that is, Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

Yep. Those are good points.

We are all essential in God's plan of redemption and there are no wasted pieces on the divine chessboard. The question is not "Why do I exist?" since God has answered that question, but "Why do I not believe what God's Word says about why I exist?" For that, you need the tools of psychology, not philosophy. An existential crisis is a psychological error that frequently leads to depression.

Yeah, I'd have to say I disagree with all of this. Psychology can be useful, but just like all of the sciences, even it has its limitations and maybe its misused when pressed too far into the sanctity of the sphere of influence of God's Spirit. There's also more to answering the question about “why” any of us believes or doesn't believe what God's Word says. It's not a clear cut issue philosophically or theologically speaking. Yes, I know, you're Christian university made it sound as if it is. So many Christian institutions and their attending leaders do. But psychology? No. Let's not kid ourselves that either psychologists or skeptical philosophers have the upper hand or the academic predominance in any of this.

Then why did you do it?

Why did I pursue philosophy as a degree? There was more than one reason, but one of them was so that I could more fully understand the atheistic mind, and also, through some of this study, come to better understand the nature of my own existential misgivings in relation to my efforts to live and breath within the Christian faith.

Ah, yes, Kierkegaard. But we then we have to ask: what is the appeal of Kierkegaard? Why do you feel that no matter what you do, your journey will end in regret? Who told you that, and thus undermined your confidence in your decisions?

You have to understand Kierkegaard. He was a proto-existentialist and he realized the epistemological impact that the concept of Lessing's Ditch may have upon our understanding of the Bible and our efforts to maintain, or even just to find, faith in Christ. Like Pascal, Kierkegaard thought there was more mystery involved in faith, even a timbre of irrationality, than Christians in the more Westernized Churches often wish to recognize.

I've never seen the film, but what you are likely thinking of is that there are many scholars within Philosophy with different beliefs. However, the common thread between all of them is questioning and examining the nature of reality, as I've previously explained. One can question the nature of reality in literally infinite ways. There is always a new way to do it.

Not exactly. I'm simply saying that Philosophy isn't monolithic; in fact, it's quite diverse, with a number of discourses and sub-fields that can be explored. It's not some one thing, some one tool-box. The type of questions that come about in any one philosopher's mind, or in any person's mind who typically wants to explore and analyze a problem of human existence, can be tempered or catalyzed further in relation to the choice of fields within philosophy she wants to poke her nose into.

But then I have to ask: is an hypothesis that tries to undermine the authority of the Word of God and discredit Biblical prophecy a good thing?

I definitely don't think it's a good thing to stand upon Mount Dogma, especially not with a self-conceit toward either spiritual valor or skeptical audacity. The philosopher, whether she is Christian or Skeptic, who can't realize that the same sauce that is good for the goose is also good for the gander is in danger of committing herself to a line of thought that ends in convoluted inconsistency. This can happen to the Christian just as easily as it can happen to the Skeptic. Dogmatic claims and false axioms shouldn't be taken lightly by anyone, not especially by a philosopher.

Which is your authority, the scholars or the Scriptures?

Existentially, I would say that is the wrong question at the moment and puts the cart before the horse. This is a false dichotomy for starters … more can be said from this.

2PhiloVoid said: ↑

but one scholar I respect actually thinks that the 1st chapter of Genesis was the product of post-Exilic fabrication.

Which scholar is this? I've never heard of this idea.

Kenton L. Sparks.

I concur with this assessment and agree.

Well, at end here of this post, I'm glad we have something we can agree on, Sis! The more I'm reading about the history and nature of the DH in one of my books from a Christian scholar, the more I'm questioning its weight.

But feel free to address me where you feel addressing is needed. Or, if you can just move your Queen into position to place me in check, all the better!

 

[linux.poet]

First of all, young lady, I'm saddened to know that you had to endure all of the pain you've only briefly mentioned. No one should have to go through abuse of any kind and only you know what it is you've been through. I won't even attempt to address it, but I do appreciate that you've shared this very personal detail. I'll do my best to keep it in mind as I respond to your other thoughtful comments.

Just keep in mind that since you've admitted to only having a milder introduction to the vast field(s) of philosophy, you may be speaking outside of your own boundary of academic knowledge, at least at the present moment.

I suspected that I would get in some degree of trouble with my allusion to my personal experience and my concession regarding lack of philosophical experience. However, it would not be wise for me to pretend to be proficient in a field that I have a bare amount of experience with. My previous statements about philosophy being about questioning existence is from allusions to philosophical authors in literary analysis works. My degree is in English, not philosophy.

This is not to undermine the thoughtfulness of your response to my personal experience, which is quite kind indeed. While I understand there are many reasons why an admission of past abuse may be a highly personal detail, for me it is simply a spiritual battle I have fought and won, and I simply step over its corpse on the field of battle as a warrior may obtain glory from conquering a difficult foe. But that is beside the point. I will move on.

With that said, I too have already found the spiritual “exit” that exists in Christ. So, you might be mindful of this as we go. It'll make our discussions easier. And to be clear, my earlier comment about you're finding “the exit” was my insinuated resistance against any implication that I might not know my up from my down where either theology or philosophy are concerned. I assure you, I do know and I am quite capable of defending my point of view, however much I may be obviously lacking in grammatical or syntactical proficiency.

My foremost apologies for the misunderstanding. I thought you hadn't found it or didn't know where it was, and that comment actually reinforced the idea in my mind. I failed to follow your sarcasm and thought you were serious. I will make an effort to avoid such presumptuous statements in the future.

Indeed, the Biblical texts indicate this, but it isn't so clear how this is to be epistemologically discerned. We can affirm that the Bible tells us that “God did it,” but this isn't to inform us as to how He has done so.

I had to look up the word "epistemologically" which tells you where I'm at. The study of the source of human knowledge. Hmm. At this point I will say that this discussion has probably gone over my head. My best shot is to place God as the source of all human knowledge as well as the source of our existence, but that falls into two traps you're likely just waiting to spring on me: where does the knowledge of evil come from if it is opposed to God? and it could be turned into a circular argument. The answer to the evil question is "I don't know how Satan makes up all of his lies" so I'm calling it a day.

I'm not sure why you're bringing in the details of how God created us into a discussion of existentialism. If you chanced to believe in theistic evolution instead of taking the Genesis creation story literally, it doesn't change the fact that we exist at God's behest.

here to also met out God's wrath. Mercy yes! But wrath? I'm not so clear about.

Unbelievers are here to show God's wrath, believers His mercy, is what I believe that passage means. Sorry that I wasn't clear on that by using a vague "we".

Yes, I know, you're Christian university made it sound as if it is. So many Christian institutions and their attending leaders do.

I actually attend a public state/secular school.

Yeah, I'd have to say I disagree with all of this. Psychology can be useful, but just like all of the sciences, even it has its limitations and maybe its misused when pressed too far into the sanctity of the sphere of influence of God's Spirit. There's also more to answering the question about “why” any of us believes or doesn't believe what God's Word says. It's not a clear cut issue philosophically or theologically speaking.

Interesting. The reason I arrived at this conclusion was because a large amount of the lies my parents told me were why I didn't believe certain Scriptures. Psychological phenomenon from my mind being at odds with reality were why I didn't apply them when I believed the Bible to be true. The thing is, as a believer in Christ I wanted to live for Christ and apply God's truth to my life, and I kept finding painful lie after painful lie inside of my mind as obstacles I had to remove. I felt like I was trapped inside of my own brain.

An unbeliever in the truth of the Gospel would not necessarily have a mental disorder, is probably what you are thinking of instead, and on that point I agree. I suppose it may be wise not to apply my personal experience into the area of unbelief quite so fully.

(However, I have a personal hypothesis that God did not design our brains to house the sin nature of mankind and believe lies, and thus many believers seem to go through a painful process of spiritual healing. A pattern I've seen in unbeliever's writings is misery and dissatisfaction with their existences. But that could be a satisfice due to my own personal experience. I'm open to learning more.)

There was more than one reason, but one of them was so that I could more fully understand the atheistic mind, and also, through some of this study, come to better understand the nature of my own existential misgivings in relation to my efforts to live and breath within the Christian faith.

That's a legitimate set of reasons.

I would encourage you to think about it this way: I've brought you some things about Biblical Criticism that you may not have been aware of, and in return you are stretching my mind and bringing me into things I don't know about. I'm okay with that, but you should know that I don't know everything, and I'm not going to pretend I do.

You have to understand Kierkegaard.

No I don't. He is irrelevant to my existence.

Okay, that was a joke, but what relevance does he have to Biblical Criticism? I suppose, in courtesy to your existence and to better understand your viewpoint, I need to understand some Kierkegaard, heh. What book would you recommend as a good introduction to his work?

Kenton L. Sparks.

Ah, another one for my "cynics and critics" reading list.

I definitely don't think it's a good thing to stand upon Mount Dogma, especially not with a self-conceit toward either spiritual valor or skeptical audacity. [...] Dogmatic claims and false axioms shouldn't be taken lightly by anyone, not especially by a philosopher.

I eagerly claim spiritual valor against the evil hordes.

Dogma is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." according to the Oxford English dictionary. Unfortunately, God is the foremost authority in the universe, as Christ made clear when he said "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" in the Great commission. So while dogma may get a bad rap, a large part of the Bible is dogma. However, unlike dogma given by other authority figures that is false and leads their followers into incredible stupidity, God's authority and direction is consistent with the reality He made and standing on His truth and His commands is, in fact, a good decision.

Anyway, I don't think I have moved any Queens to place you in check, but I hope you may have learned a thing or two from the discussion thus far. I know I have.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

I personally am usually strengthened by these things. The biblical scholarship involved with teasing out the technical and culturally specific understanding of a text helps me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suspected that I would get in some degree of trouble with my allusion to my personal experience and my concession regarding lack of philosophical experience. However, it would not be wise for me to pretend to be proficient in a field that I have a bare amount of experience with. My previous statements about philosophy being about questioning existence is from allusions to philosophical authors in literary analysis works. My degree is in English, not philosophy.

This is not to undermine the thoughtfulness of your response to my personal experience, which is quite kind indeed. While I understand there are many reasons why an admission of past abuse may be a highly personal detail, for me it is simply a spiritual battle I have fought and won, and I simply step over its corpse on the field of battle as a warrior may obtain glory from conquering a difficult foe. But that is beside the point. I will move on.

My foremost apologies for the misunderstanding. I thought you hadn't found it or didn't know where it was, and that comment actually reinforced the idea in my mind. I failed to follow your sarcasm and thought you were serious. I will make an effort to avoid such presumptuous statements in the future.

Peace be upon you in all of that, LP!

I had to look up the word "epistemologically" which tells you where I'm at. The study of the source of human knowledge. Hmm. At this point I will say that this discussion has probably gone over my head. My best shot is to place God as the source of all human knowledge as well as the source of our existence, but that falls into two traps you're likely just waiting to spring on me: where does the knowledge of evil come from if it is opposed to God? and it could be turned into a circular argument. The answer to the evil question is "I don't know how Satan makes up all of his lies" so I'm calling it a day.

I'm not sure why you're bringing in the details of how God created us into a discussion of existentialism. If you chanced to believe in theistic evolution instead of taking the Genesis creation story literally, it doesn't change the fact that we exist at God's behest.

That is true, and I have no interest to push this point further with fellow Christians. We both value the point that we have faith that we 'know' the source of our Creation. That's an ample enough conclusion between the two of us, I think, at least it is for me. Existentialism is only a problem for those who are, like me, somewhat epistemically crippled where Romans chapter 1 is concerned. I'll just say that somewhere in the mix is the phenomenon of Gestalt which I believe God has to help us over in one way or another.

Unbelievers are here to show God's wrath, believers His mercy, is what I believe that passage means. Sorry that I wasn't clear on that by using a vague "we".

No problem.

I actually attend a public state/secular school.

Ah, I stand corrected then.

Interesting. The reason I arrived at this conclusion was because a large amount of the lies my parents told me were why I didn't believe certain Scriptures. Psychological phenomenon from my mind being at odds with reality were why I didn't apply them when I believed the Bible to be true. The thing is, as a believer in Christ I wanted to live for Christ and apply God's truth to my life, and I kept finding painful lie after painful lie inside of my mind as obstacles I had to remove. I felt like I was trapped inside of my own brain.

I'd say that your phrasing is very apt in this case ... thank you for that! "Trapped inside" describes it well.

An unbeliever in the truth of the Gospel would not necessarily have a mental disorder, is probably what you are thinking of instead, and on that point I agree. I suppose it may be wise not to apply my personal experience into the area of unbelief quite so fully.

(However, I have a personal hypothesis that God did not design our brains to house the sin nature of mankind and believe lies, and thus many believers seem to go through a painful process of spiritual healing. A pattern I've seen in unbeliever's writings is misery and dissatisfaction with their existences. But that could be a satisfice due to my own personal experience. I'm open to learning more.)

And on these points I'd say you're very astute, and I agree with you.

That's a legitimate set of reasons.

I would encourage you to think about it this way: I've brought you some things about Biblical Criticism that you may not have been aware of, and in return you are stretching my mind and bringing me into things I don't know about. I'm okay with that, but you should know that I don't know everything, and I'm not going to pretend I do.

That's quite alright. Neither do I know everything. In fact, if an Existentialist such as myself was to have an axiom akin to those which Foundationalists readily harbor, it would be this one. This axiom prevents a lot of pretension on my part, or at least it does as far as I know that does. I could be wrong on this point, of course. But I don't know.

No I don't. He is irrelevant to my existence.

Okay, that was a joke, but what relevance does he have to Biblical Criticism? I suppose, in courtesy to your existence and to better understand your viewpoint, I need to understand some Kierkegaard, heh. What book would you recommend as a good introduction to his work?

Lol! Cute. As for Kierkegaard, I wouldn't expend too much time and energy on him. Much of his thinking has been condensed and can be found for free on line. But other than traversing the way in which he deals with the critical, skeptical idea of Gotthold Lessing's epistemic "Ditch" (a.k.a. "Lessing's Ditch"), Kierkegaard could be more concisely grasped by reading this link that I made here on CF a few years back--besides, Sheridan Hough's scratch into this side of Kierkegaard's thought may prove to be a tad bit more amusing and relevant than other sources might be, perhaps:

"Bang! The World is Round!" ... an insight into Objective overreach!

Ah, another one for my "cynics and critics" reading list.

Oh, I wouldn't worry much about reading him at this point. Just know he's one of dozens upon dozens of academics whom I have been influenced by. There's too many to rattle off at the moment, and I don't think you need them.

I eagerly claim spiritual valor against the evil hordes.

Well, everyone has their own special gift, I suppose. I now know yours.

Dogma is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." according to the Oxford English dictionary. Unfortunately, God is the foremost authority in the universe, as Christ made clear when he said "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" in the Great commission. So while dogma may get a bad rap, a large part of the Bible is dogma. However, unlike dogma given by other authority figures that is false and leads their followers into incredible stupidity, God's authority and direction is consistent with the reality He made and standing on His truth and His commands is, in fact, a good decision.

I guess I can't argue much with that, and I'm guessing that unless I want to do some special philosophical gymnastic on my bike of fire, then I'd best refrain from doing so.

Anyway, I don't think I have moved any Queens to place you in check, but I hope you may have learned a thing or two from the discussion thus far. I know I have.

Yes, I have! And I thank you for the worthwhile discussion and the introduction you've offered thus far. Be blessed in all you do, Sis!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I personally am usually strengthened by these things. The biblical scholarship involved with teasing out the technical and culturally specific understanding of a text helps me.

I'm not sure if I'd say that I'm strenghtend by biblical criticism, but I can say that it definitely helps me to be better aware of where the more problematic issues of faith lie. Where the possibility of faith is concerned, I'd rather go into it without a blindfold as much as, and as often as, possible.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

I'm not sure if I'd say that I'm strenghtend by biblical criticism, but I can say that it definitely helps me to be better aware of where the more problematic issues of faith lie. Where the possibility of faith is concerned, I'd rather go into it without a blindfold as much as, and as often as, possible.

For me the reason why it builds up my faith is because it drives me into learning better biblical hermeneutics and Jewish cultural understandings. It also allowed me faith to move away from a shallow literalist and fundamentalistic understanding that is combative against reality and mentally taxing into something that’s not hinging on false historical narratives, pseudoscience and hard heartedness as evidence. It’s way more freeing and faith focused for me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For me the reason why it builds up my faith is because it drives me into learning better biblical hermeneutics and Jewish cultural understandings. It also allowed me faith to move away from a shallow literalist and fundamentalistic understanding that is combative against reality and mentally taxing into something that’s not hinging on false historical narratives, pseudoscience and hard heartedness as evidence. It’s way more freeing and faith focused for me.

Yeah, I can hang with that description. Your focus seems similar to mine.

 

[linux.poet]

Existentialism is only a problem for those who are, like me, somewhat epistemically crippled where Romans chapter 1 is concerned. I'll just say that somewhere in the mix is the phenomenon of Gestalt which I believe God has to help us over in one way or another.

Hrm. It’s interesting for me to think about this, but if you don’t want to talk about it you don’t have to respond.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures.


Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing shameful acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.


And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper, people having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unfeeling, and unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

Gestalt: the whole is not the sum of the parts. That would be the whole sin nature or the whole body here? Or just the phenomenon of unbelief leading to corruption and death? Something else?


I’ve found it useful to distinguish the sin nature of mankind from the body that houses it, much as it is useful to distinguish a parasite from its host. I’ve found that unbelievers cannot distinguish one from the other and perceive them both as a single phenomenon, however. This doesn’t seem to give them any benefit from my perspective.

Neither do I know everything. In fact, if an Existentialist such as myself was to have an axiom akin to those which Foundationalists readily harbor, it would be this one. This axiom prevents a lot of pretension on my part, or at least it does as far as I know that does.

Heh. My introduction to existentialism was Camus’ The Stranger, and my high school literature teacher whose description of it was “life sucks and then you die”. While I would be inclined to agree that life really does suck and we really do die, I’m found that faith in Christ and following the teachings of God’s word eventually makes things suck less. In God, we have hope for improvement on that score. Sin is the cause of the suckage.


Also, if you shoot someone because the sun is in your eyes, you have issues, that’s absurd. Though given that the main character of The Stranger suffered the death of his mom before he did that, I think he might have had some mental health stuff going on and the sun was just the first thing his pain-filled brain reached for.

Much of his thinking has been condensed and can be found for free on line. But other than traversing the way in which he deals with the critical, skeptical idea of Gotthold Lessing's epistemic "Ditch" (a.k.a. "Lessing's Ditch"), Kierkegaard could be more concisely grasped by reading this link that I made here on CF a few years back--besides, Sheridan Hough's scratch into this side of Kierkegaard's thought may prove to be a tad bit more amusing and relevant than other sources might be, perhaps:


"Bang! The World is Round!" ... an insight into Objective overreach!

If I had a dime for every time the word “identity” came up in an English class, I’d have at least a good $200 by now. The issue with the madman and the 8-ball is that he is uttering truth that is inconsistent with his identity. We could spend a considerable amount of time debating whether, if an insane person believed that Jesus rose from the dead for insane reasons and screamed “Jesus Christ is Lord!” at the sky because they are a raging lunatic, what would happen to them. I would argue that the Holy Spirit would repair their broken brain as much as possible and they might even become sane, but I imagine many counter arguments could be proposed.

At least, the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration is a change of identity as well as the truth, so believers in Christ don’t have to worry about proclaiming truth that is inconsistent with who they are in Christ.

As for pleasure, I agree that it has become worthless in today’s world because it’s everywhere. The pleasure of a freshly grilled steak means less when you can just pull it out of the shrink wrap, put spices on it, and just cook it over propane. Said steak would mean more in ancient times where people had to slaughter and slice up the cow. The expensive pleasures of a chess game well won or quilt well made are more valuable simply because they still require effort. This punches a hole through Kierkegaard’s hedonistic views.

There’s also the circle of pursuing happiness leading to unhappiness because you’re never happy enough, which is similar to the idea of pursuing emotional detachment leading to non-detachment because you feel good about your successful detachment. Enough! The whole duty of man is to glorify God and obey his commands, not chase pleasure or detachment.

Thus I believe there are only two human identities: opposition to God and trying to bring Him down by any means possible (good luck with that) and the new identity in Christ. All the rest of the so-called “identities” are just body labels, although the male and female labels seem to carry some weighty spiritual significance. That’s another Gestalt problem- since unbelievers don’t acknowledge God as the source of their identity, they look to their bodies to identify themselves. They do acknowledge the ways they are opposing God as part of their identity sometimes, in false religious identities, but yeah.

As for poor Lessing, I’m going to have to take just a bit more of a rain check on that. I just pulled up a couple of academic articles that explain Kierkegaard’s approach to him, but I need to grab my university institutional login to read them, and actually grill a steak for me to eat so I may consider this with enough calories. No assumptions.

 

[linux.poet]

I have read the following two academic articles:

The modal gap: the objective problem of Lessing’s ditch(es) and Kierkegaard’s subjective reply\
by Matthew W. Benton

Lessing, Kierkegaard, and the "Ugly Ditch": A Reexamination
by G. E. Michalson, Jr.

It seems that Lessing's error was that he was considering it "necessary" for God to save us, and paradoxically, not necessary for him to believe it since it was in the past and not part of his personal experience. I'm inclined toward Kierkegaard's side of the argument, but I think he gives too much credence to Lessing and removes reason and historical evidence as a possible basis of faith.

This reminds me of the conversion of Strobel, which was based on historical evidence. I think what Kierkegaard was trying to aim at might have been that Lessing's ditch was emotionally based and subjective, or the 19th century equivalent of "that's like, your opinion man" in response to Lessing. Faith can have many different things as its basis, and reason itself depends on faith anyway.

Anyway, I'm done dragging this thread into off-topic-ness. Unless someone decides to respond, I'm calling it a day. @2PhiloVoid, good discussion, and I learned a good deal about you and your theological positions. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.