The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 28,741
- 12,787
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Today's winner.The fundamental problem here is that you are making racial what the Bible understands as Covenantal.
In fact, I don't even take the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis as offering anything in the way of literal history, fully reflective of what "actually" transpired in history in the A.N.E. during the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th millennia B.C
I should start off by saying that I tend to take a less literal approach to the pre-Abrahamic narratives in Genesis. I don't think they are meant to be taken strictly literally, but that's an entirely different discussion.
This seems to be the key issue. I believe the entirety of Genesis to be literal history from beginning to end of the book. To believe otherwise sounds more like Richard Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible? than actual correct Scripture interpretation. If you read that book, you’ll realize quickly that the point of taking OT historical narratives non-literally in secular criticism is to discredit Biblical prophecy.I'm of the same mind
I’m not good enough to know that. I interpret it how I interpret it, how my churches and scholarship have led the Holy Spirit, but I don’t know if I agree with Calvin.Are you Calvinistic in your present view of how the Bible should be interpreted?
You seem to be taking the fact of African slavery as evidence that enslaving Africans was specifically Biblically ordained. Deserved.while slavery has dogged the entirety of African history
I have that particular book by Friedman, along with a lot others from various positions on the spectrum of historical significance. It's not really a case of EITHER/OR.................we EITHER take the Bible literally OR we will take it completely and utterly as an ancient myth. No, no, no. There's a lot more to this area of study than being forced to take one of two positions, and I say this since this is one of my main areas of study. Although I'm no expert myself, my degree overlaps into historical studies and I engage a lot of scholars who are historical experts.This seems to be the key issue. I believe the entirety of Genesis to be literal history from beginning to end of the book. To believe otherwise sounds more like Richard Friedman’s Who Wrote the Bible? than actual correct Scripture interpretation. If you read that book, you’ll realize quickly that the point of taking OT historical narratives non-literally in secular criticism is to discredit Biblical prophecy.
From my critical perspective on the history of the tragic Atlantic Slave Trade era and how the Bible was used (rather...misused) to justify it, I'd begin instead with the following:I need to look at the passage in question more closely, but aside from the Gibeonites, the Caananites were never slaves, while slavery has dogged the entirety of African history, even before the Europeans did it in the Americas. I studied the history of Darfur as part of my closing paper for my degree, and that area was a slave trading hub for thousands of years. Did Noah utter a useless curse over Caanan that somehow affected Cush, another one of Ham’s son’s? It’s basically more of the same, discrediting Noah’s prophetic utterance and how it affected history going forward, the same way scholars try and discredit Daniel by moving his writings later in time. They are just trying to discredit the existence of God.
I didn't say that I think the first 11 chapters of Genesis are utter fictions. No, I think they are prophetic and represent what was seen as the "past" for the writer(s) who lived at the time they were compiled and/or written during the later Bronze Age, and who likely incorporated earlier books we no longer have into the Old Testament literature as we now have today, and from which perhaps some original traditions and teaching were handed down from Moses.I do think you are all Christians, but I am admittedly surprised to read this as the majority opinion. My church has warned us against taking historical narratives non-literally at various points throughout the years. Meanwhile, my literary scholar temperament agrees that we should interpret the Bible according to its literary forms. That means history as history, poetry as poetry, prophecy as prophecy, symbol as symbol in prophecy and poetry that is meant to conceal as much as reveal, biography as biography (in the case of the Gospels). If one starts taking the Bible non-literally where it demands to be taken literally, that goes down the road to unbelief, discrediting the Bible as literal Truth, and throwing the whole thing out.
This line of speculative questioning is actually----and despite the contestations of folks like Carrier or the various MythVision sorties----doesn't coherently line up. These questions you pose, historically considered, do not follow one another in some kind of domino affect. They are non-sequential, and furthermore, assuming that anyone should assess historical legitimacy and meaning to any one literary document or story in this way doesn't reflect how modern historical evaluations works. The way it works is that each exhibit of literature, i.e. each individual book or letter, stands or falls by itself under the scope of historical study, not in tandem by necessity with all of the others. Assessing the Biblical works isn't an EITHER/OR historical journey of critical assessment, but a reductionistic or (even ignorant) view of history might make that mistake and alot everything into one 'pot.'What else is symbolic? Did Christ literally did for my sins? Can I actually Trust him? If I trust God to die for my sins and save me from hell, can I at least afford the same God the respect of believing Him when He tells me about history? Since when does God respect modern racial sensibilities? Do we have the right to put Him in our box? He is the Authority to whom we must respond.
Which books and scholars do you think provide the "official" working praxis for doing biblical interpretation? I have about 30 from various scholars of various denominations. I've already given you one in my previous post that makes a good, even if not final, starting point.I mean, does one actually believe the Bible is true if they don’t respect its forms? At the very least, it would seem to me that one who doesn’t is missing out on a lot, the subtleties of how biblical prophecy operates throughout time, the richness of God’s relationship to human beings revealed in Isaiah and Hosea, and the incredible gift of understanding God’s consistent character from Genesis to Revelation.
No, you're good enough. You just haven't had the time (and peace) to engage these topics. I agree we need to be led by the Holy Spirit, but I never assume that just because fellow Christians say something in any church, or in any book I have, that THAT is somehow the definitive leading of the Holy Spirit. It can't be because there are too many different opinions about what different passages and verses of the Bible "mean," but each church leader who gets up and says, "The Holy Spirit told me it means this..........." is riding on the edge of humanity in saying that.I’m not good enough to know that. I interpret it how I interpret it, how my churches and scholarship have led the Holy Spirit, but I don’t know if I agree with Calvin.
I’ll let this go for a few more posts because this seems to be the issue behind the issue of how we are interpreting the curse of Ham passage, but if this balloons out on its own I may need to make yet another new topic to split the discussion lol. Debate linux is running away from mod linux haha.
I never said it was deserved. The Book of Job and Romans 9 defend God’s right to treat people how He wishes to treat them, with no “deserving” implied.enslaving Africans was specifically Biblically ordained. Deserved.
It is possible, yes. It would be a pretty big coincidence though.Couldn't the two pieces be 'coincidental'?
The difference, at least to my brain, is that the Greeks, Romans, Americans, and Jewish people have largely ditched slavery, oppression, tyranny, and poverty, at least on the surface. Previously we did it, but we have moved on. The Africans can’t really seem to move on.Like the historical fact of Greek slaves in Rome [or Greeks from one city-state enslaved by another]. I assume the Greeks weren't cursed by Noah (or were they?)
I agree with this. I cannot type today. I meant that the teaching of others and scholarship are part of how the Holy Spirit has led me personally.agree we need to be led by the Holy Spirit, but I never assume that just because fellow Christians say something in any church, or in any book I have, that THAT is somehow the definitive leading of the Holy Spirit. It can't be because there are too many different opinions about what different passages and verses of the Bible "mean," but each church leader who gets up and says, "The Holy Spirit told me it means this..........." is riding on the edge of humanity in saying that.
Whoops. Alrighty, I am quite through darkening counsel with words without knowledge. All of those references are going on my “acquire and read” list. What scholarly quagmire have I walked into indeed?
This seems to be the key issue. I believe the entirety of Genesis to be literal history from beginning to end of the book.
That sounds more akin to an opinion than the expression of the current consensus of experts. I trust you to tell me which it is, or where it lies on the spectrum between the two extremes.Lots of Christians have taken a literal interpretation throughout history without ever trying to shoe-horn race into it.
It's not until the early modern period, when we begin to see the emergence of the idea of "race" in a predominantly Euro-centric and European-dominated imperial and colonial era of Western history, that anyone began to try to tie "race" to Noah's kids. Because the very idea of "race" didn't exist until then. And it arose in order to justify European colonial imperialism. It's okay to subjugate indigenous people, it's okay to kidnap Africans and sell them into generational chattel slavery, because Europeans saw themselves as being of a preferable racial stock. And it's why this idea of "the curse of Ham" having anything to do with Africans and the enslavement of Africans only came about in this period of modern history.
Plenty of Christians have believed in a literal Noah and flood without ever tying race into it. That's a distinctively modern Euro-centric interpretation that existed purely in order to justify racism. It serves no other purpose except to justify a white supremacist world view.
-CryptoLutheran
That sounds more akin to an opinion than the expression of the current consensus of experts. I trust you to tell me which it is, or where it lies on the spectrum between the two extremes.
I have no idea. That was why I asked @ViaCrucis. My recollection is that their posts are well considered and on point, but I felt there was a certain ambiguity suggestion it might be opinion - well informed opinion, but opinion nonetheless. Or - perhaps more accurately - an overstressing of one aspect of a complex issue. So I was seeking clarification. My reading on this aspect of history is very limited. Your post suggests you are/were in close agreement with their comments. Correct?In your present view, what is the current consensus of experts? I have to ask just in the case I've somehow fallen behind in keeping up with the cutting edge.
If we judge it by racial mix, we see it's all over the board.
Note: Atheists and Agnostics are less diverse than many religious groups. It's also interesting that some of the most "liberal" churches are the least diverse. (Episcopal, UMC, etc.) Pew Research
View attachment 363973
Language, for the most part. In my neck of the woods, we have a large Hispanic population, and many of them prefer to have church services in Spanish. Same deal with the local Vietnamese population.How does one explain the difference in diversity in the other denominations?
That sounds more akin to an opinion than the expression of the current consensus of experts. I trust you to tell me which it is, or where it lies on the spectrum between the two extremes.
I have to admit - I do see a lot of diversity in most Adventist churches I have attended.If we judge it by racial mix, we see it's all over the board.
Note: Atheists and Agnostics are less diverse than many religious groups. It's also interesting that some of the most "liberal" churches are the least diverse. (Episcopal, UMC, etc.) Pew Research
View attachment 363973
The Bible says God saves people of all nations & tribes & that he saves all kinds of people: rich, poor, men, women, talented, little talent, etc. & we are to preach this Gospel to all nations so they will be saved. Christanity is growing the strongest right now in Africa & Aisia. We are also to treat everyone the way he treats us b/c he saved us. We are to preach & then let him sort it out.The Bible says God saves people of all nations & tribes & that he saves all kinds of people: rich, poor, men, women, talented, little talent, etc. & we are to preach this Gospel to all nations so they will be saved. Christanity is growing the strongest right now in Africa & Aisia. We are also to treat everyone the way he treats us b/c he saved us. We are to preach & then let him sort it out.
Today we like to think we got rid of slavery, but the Bible teaches everyone is a slave to something, even earthly kings. Both spiritually & in body.
I was surprised to learn recently many of the church leaders who preached against slavery in the USA were very conservative theologically. That conservative churches stood for slavery & more theologically liberal churches & the secular world stood for slavery freedom simply isn't the case.
It is also true conservative churches didn't want to & still don't want to distract from teaching the problem of sin in general on an individual level where you stand w/ God
Today we like to think we got rid of slavery, but the Bible teaches everyone is a slave to something, even earthly kings. Both spiritually & in body.
I was surprised to learn recently many of the church leaders who preached against slavery in the USA were very conservative theologically. That conservative churches stood for slavery & more theologically liberal churches & the secular world stood for slavery freedom simply isn't the case.
It is also true conservative churches didn't want to & still don't want to distract from teaching the problem of sin in general on an individual level where you stand w/ God
Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, and the golden rule, how that is racist? important commandments.
I was surprised to learn recently many of the church leaders who preached against slavery in the USA were very conservative theologically. That conservative churches stood for slavery & more theologically liberal churches & the secular world stood for slavery freedom simply isn't the case.
Title sounds like an imposition based in ignorance and a deterrent from any intelligent conversation... lol
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?