Why... ?

[CShephard53]

Why is it logical to view God outside of the context of the Bible? Subjectively?

 

[MrPolo]

Not sure I understand the question. But one can conclude God exists without the Bible because there must be a First Cause.

 

[CShephard53]

Oh, the question is fairly simple. Why do people think it is logical to judge God's Character, or view God, outside of the Bible's context?

 

[Celticflower]

They think it is logical because it allows them to re-create God in their image. But just because they think it don't make it so.

 

[MrPolo]

Oh, the question is fairly simple. Why do people think it is logical to judge God's Character, or view God, outside of the Bible's context?

I'm sure the other poster has a point. But before there was a Bible, God revealed Himself in various ways. You can tell a few things about Him just by His work, which we can observe. But I am sure there are some people who inject their presupposed desires of who God is, using illogic.

 

[CShephard53]

Oh, I've got a point alright. I'm waiting for someone to try and argue with it. Because that is when the fun starts.

 

[chach]

not many people would admit that there looking for an aguement but anyway I think I know what you mean. I had a philosophy class my freshman year of college and my prof. was about as strange and shady as they come was basically asking why ("assuming there is a god, of course") then go on a tangent about why there weren't rainbows every day and why we didn't live in gingerbread houses and why theres pain and on and on

basically its really easy to judge god's charter by what you see in the world and by simply picking the worst parts of humanity to fuel your hate towards any form god or governing power

 

[JTLauder]

I'm not sure exactly what point the OP is trying to get at, but if the question is why look at God outside of what the Bible says about him, it's because if you look at God only in the context of the Bible and nothing else, then you are suggesting that all of God's work, character, being exists within the pages of that Bible only. It is done and finished--that God has stopped working and being after the conclusion of the Bible text and is no longer working or existing right now. In essence, if you say you can only learn about God from the Bible, then you are saying that God is dead and the only source of information about God exists only in the Bible.


However, God has continued to exist and work in people even today. There is much we can learn from other Christians--on how God has changed their lives and is still alive today.

 

[CShephard53]

That would be called a jump in logic, that would. And if I want to say something, I'll say it and won't imply it. So no, I'm not suggesting that God's character only exists in the Bible. But if one were to judge him as unloving based on a few instances of him punishing sin, without looking at other things (context, I believe I said), that is illogical.
And I would say that the only completely reliable information (to everyone, that is) about God can be found in the Bible. The reason for that is because many supposed Christians make claims outside of God's character as revealed in the Bible, and not everyone can discern that.
By now I think I've proved most of my point...

 

[JTLauder]

Yeah, I have no idea what you just said....oh well...whatever.

 

[CShephard53]

Well, I'm not going to clarify it. It's pretty clear already.

 

[inpursuit]

Why is it logical to view God outside of the context of the Bible? Subjectively?

Because God is not limited to words in a book

 

[CShephard53]

Because God is not limited to words in a book

Jumping much? I never said that... I was commenting on viewing God subjectively, or subjecting Him to our own feelings to determine His character....

 

[artybloke]

Because there is more than one writing that talks about God (the Koran, the Upanishads, the Bhagavhad Gita, Sikh Scriptures, not to mention the writings of the saints from the 1st century to now), because God doesn't write scriptures, human beings inspired by God write scriptures, and finally, because the nature of texts (ancient or modern) is that they have to be interpreted by minds that are not, never have been, never will be completely natural (there is no tabula rasa).

Absolutely finally, because the Spirit roams where it wants to roam, and we can't tell it where it's going to go next.

 

[CShephard53]

Because there is more than one writing that talks about God (the Koran, the Upanishads, the Bhagavhad Gita, Sikh Scriptures, not to mention the writings of the saints from the 1st century to now), because God doesn't write scriptures, human beings inspired by God write scriptures, and finally, because the nature of texts (ancient or modern) is that they have to be interpreted by minds that are not, never have been, never will be completely natural (there is no tabula rasa).

Absolutely finally, because the Spirit roams where it wants to roam, and we can't tell it where it's going to go next.

Then you don't follow the same God I do. I follow the God of the Bible, who Jesus quotes (even though it's not God speaking) in Mark 10:
Mar 10:5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Mar 10:7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
Mar 10:8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

The Koran does not talk about the God of Christianity, it claims to. Muslims admit to it. Christians admit to it. You can't have two documents that contradict each other and still be called inspired by God. The Bible has stood the test, the Koran has not (it's been changed). The Bible has more textual evidence for it being reliable, the other writings don't come close.

And way to twist Scripture. God can't contradict Himself.

 

[artybloke]

You can't have two documents that contradict each other and still be called inspired by God.

Considering the number of contradictions in the Bible, this is nonsense. Inspiration does not equal authorship.

The Bible is not a sustained logical argument, and does not contain one. It contains stories, poems, meditations, letters, diatribes like the prophets from a diverse number of mainly anonymous hands. Like most scriptures (including the Koran, though Muslims would hate to admit it) it is more a compendium of different approaches to God than a single unified message. Only the Western mind infected by Greek logical thinking thinks it's got some, single point of view.

And the Spirit didn't stop speaking round about 100 years AD. "Behold, I am doing a new thing."

 

[CShephard53]

Considering the number of contradictions in the Bible, this is nonsense. Inspiration does not equal authorship.

The Bible is not a sustained logical argument, and does not contain one. It contains stories, poems, meditations, letters, diatribes like the prophets from a diverse number of mainly anonymous hands. Like most scriptures (including the Koran, though Muslims would hate to admit it) it is more a compendium of different approaches to God than a single unified message. Only the Western mind infected by Greek logical thinking thinks it's got some, single point of view.

And the Spirit didn't stop speaking round about 100 years AD. "Behold, I am doing a new thing."

Number of contradictions? Where are they? I've not seen a one.

No sustained logical argument? Is that why logical people still believe?

 

[CShephard53]

Considering the number of contradictions in the Bible, this is nonsense. Inspiration does not equal authorship.

The Bible is not a sustained logical argument, and does not contain one. It contains stories, poems, meditations, letters, diatribes like the prophets from a diverse number of mainly anonymous hands. Like most scriptures (including the Koran, though Muslims would hate to admit it) it is more a compendium of different approaches to God than a single unified message. Only the Western mind infected by Greek logical thinking thinks it's got some, single point of view.

And the Spirit didn't stop speaking round about 100 years AD. "Behold, I am doing a new thing."

If it was the western mind that did it, how come the Quran was rejected as dealing with the same God of Christianity- by nonwesterners?
Christianity, may I remind you, started in Jewish and Greco-Roman culture.

 

[artybloke]

Number of contradictions? Where are they? I've not seen a one.

He who has eyes to see, let him see.

But actually I don't think they're all that important, because the Bible is not written as a linear logical argument anyway. That's the Western mind set we impose on the Bible, from the Greco-Roman Platonic/Aristotilean way of thinking. It's the reason that all attempts at systematic theology ultimately fail: because in the end you have to prioritise some texts over others.

Theologians and preachers have in the past always done that: if the Bible talks about "judgement", in one passage, and "mercy" in another, say, the idea is to harmonise them. But in harmonising them, one often gets privelaged over another. So one will say God is merciful and emphasise that, the other will say God is just and judgemental.

But the Bible wasn't written with a Western post-enlightenment logic, it was written with an Eastern and pre-enlightenment logic. Western logic is linear and hypotactic (one thing followed by another thing followed by...). Eastern thinking paratactic (one thing and another thing and...) - it doesn't follow on but leaves the reader to make the connections. Hence every denomination, every theological position, has a different understanding of the same texts. Are you Arminian or Calvinist? Believers' Baptism or Infant Baptism? Pre-trib, non-trib, post-trib; creationist, gap, theistic evolutionist: for every theological you can think of there is an equally biblical contradictory opinion, because it depends where you, the reader, put the connections, which bit you emphasise as most important.

The Bible contains a whole host of stories and poems that interact and feed off each other, argue with each other (Esther, Jonah and Ruth verses Ezra and Nehemiah, for instance), sometimes argue with God. It's more like a collage than a landscape; and that's what makes it so beautiful, and such a great work of art, written by many and diverse hands over 1000 years or more. It's not meant to harmonise in a logical, one-thing-after-another way. It says, "here's a way of looking at God, and here's another, and here's another..." It's a smorgaboard of genres, spiritual wisdom, argument, story, poetry, preaching. A melting-pot, a goulash, a... you get the picture.

Christianity, may I remind you, started in Jewish and Greco-Roman culture.

Yes it did, but it started off with lots and lots of different stories from the OT and stories about Jesus, as well as lots of scriptures that didn't make at least the Protestant canon. It started Jewish. Then it had to adapt itself to a Greek way of thinking. It did so very successfully; but it also lost something. It tried to clean up its arguments and form a systematic way of thinking: very Greek. But it lost the Hebrew sense of story as transforming, as a kind of dance of images. It tried to clean up the Bible: so the Song of Songs, an erotic love poem full of sexual innuendo, became about Christ and his church. Well, it's a possible interpretation if you ignore the wet dreams and the reference to breasts...

I find it difficult to read the Bible, because every time I pick it up I have to clear out the theology that's been written over it for 2000 years and get to the original. And that's hard, if not impossible. But there are stories and poems in it that are among the glories of world literature.

I think if the Bible is to make sense to the future, we have to recover its past, clear the guano of systematic theology from it and get back to its orignal Hebrew way of thinking.

 

[CShephard53]

He who has eyes to see, let him see.

But actually I don't think they're all that important, because the Bible is not written as a linear logical argument anyway. That's the Western mind set we impose on the Bible, from the Greco-Roman Platonic/Aristotilean way of thinking. It's the reason that all attempts at systematic theology ultimately fail: because in the end you have to prioritise some texts over others.

Theologians and preachers have in the past always done that: if the Bible talks about "judgement", in one passage, and "mercy" in another, say, the idea is to harmonise them. But in harmonising them, one often gets privelaged over another. So one will say God is merciful and emphasise that, the other will say God is just and judgemental.

But the Bible wasn't written with a Western post-enlightenment logic, it was written with an Eastern and pre-enlightenment logic. Western logic is linear and hypotactic (one thing followed by another thing followed by...). Eastern thinking paratactic (one thing and another thing and...) - it doesn't follow on but leaves the reader to make the connections. Hence every denomination, every theological position, has a different understanding of the same texts. Are you Arminian or Calvinist? Believers' Baptism or Infant Baptism? Pre-trib, non-trib, post-trib; creationist, gap, theistic evolutionist: for every theological you can think of there is an equally biblical contradictory opinion, because it depends where you, the reader, put the connections, which bit you emphasise as most important.

The Bible contains a whole host of stories and poems that interact and feed off each other, argue with each other (Esther, Jonah and Ruth verses Ezra and Nehemiah, for instance), sometimes argue with God. It's more like a collage than a landscape; and that's what makes it so beautiful, and such a great work of art, written by many and diverse hands over 1000 years or more. It's not meant to harmonise in a logical, one-thing-after-another way. It says, "here's a way of looking at God, and here's another, and here's another..." It's a smorgaboard of genres, spiritual wisdom, argument, story, poetry, preaching. A melting-pot, a goulash, a... you get the picture.



Yes it did, but it started off with lots and lots of different stories from the OT and stories about Jesus, as well as lots of scriptures that didn't make at least the Protestant canon. It started Jewish. Then it had to adapt itself to a Greek way of thinking. It did so very successfully; but it also lost something. It tried to clean up its arguments and form a systematic way of thinking: very Greek. But it lost the Hebrew sense of story as transforming, as a kind of dance of images. It tried to clean up the Bible: so the Song of Songs, an erotic love poem full of sexual innuendo, became about Christ and his church. Well, it's a possible interpretation if you ignore the wet dreams and the reference to breasts...

I find it difficult to read the Bible, because every time I pick it up I have to clear out the theology that's been written over it for 2000 years and get to the original. And that's hard, if not impossible. But there are stories and poems in it that are among the glories of world literature.

I think if the Bible is to make sense to the future, we have to recover its past, clear the guano of systematic theology from it and get back to its orignal Hebrew way of thinking.

You have your opinion, but it's far from fact. The Bible does not need to be rewritten. It wasn't added to. And the texts inside it were never taken away from. There's a .002%margin for error. There is no need to delve as deep as you suggest, as we already have lexicons, Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, and multiple translations. If you're suggesting that the Bible isn't the only reliable textual source about God, I have no idea how you could call yourself a Christian, if that is what you call yourself.