• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bible discussion thread

TownieDeac

words are futile devices
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
76,189
Reaction score
16,923
So I fully expect this, like all religion threads, to tank HARD.

But I wanted to talk exegesis with rev and thunderbolt, and the brilliant, articulate Christian posters we have on the boards that aren't necessarily biblical literalists, but who otherwise rely quite heavily on the words of a book pretty heavily in their daily work.

I think as a topic of first discussion, I wanted to talk about a common verse for discussion (1 Corinthians 13:12) - βλεπομεν γαρ αρτι δι εσοπτρου εν αινιγματι; from KJV "For now we see through a glass, darkly..." Other translations, like NIV "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror..." share the same thought.

The full phrase (KJV) says "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

This has always been an epistemological fulcrum for me as not only a way of deciphering how to see God (on Earth), but as a textual cipher for reading the Bible on the larger whole. In many ways, it serves for me as THE quintessential metaphor for Christian faith. The best understanding we could hope to have of God is beyond our mortal epistemological reach in this life. I think for lots of jaded and practiced atheists (like myself), this becomes a great way to attack the entire text as a cop out, reading like "serve and love God, but don't expect to fully understand why" or more reductively "don't ask why, you'll never know, just do." I do find this a complicating and problematizing verse, but I love it as an abstract concept. Our human perception of the world around us really is somewhat of an illusion anyway, as many scientific discoveries have since pointed out, and we can't fully understand the world around us just yet.

Later, I'd love to get into Hebrews, my favorite book.

Otherwise, I expect this thread to be a good place to post your favorite absurd bible stories, like:

2 Kings 2: 23-24
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.


Or just people yelling.
 
reddit.com/r/atheism

but seriously i'm with jed bartlet on this stuff
 
Ezekiel 23:19-20 (NIV)
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of stallions.

This verse really speaks to me.
 
Genesis 34 is a classic. Should be read to every Sunday school child in America.
 
I certainly get that it seems like a "cop out," to say that we can't understand it all, but that is just simply how it is. For centuries, science has said the same thing about certain things. We've learned some things that were once unknowable, but I think we see the same thing happening in theology. The issue with theology vs science is that science (generally) has certain truths that 99% of scientists can get on board with. For example, I'm not really aware of a segment of the scientific community that works to discredit Newton's laws or thinks they're bogus. However, I'd suggest that in the 20th century, through the lens of liberation theology, we perhaps cleaned off some of the dirt on that glass which we see through. But it's not an open and shut case like the "discovery" of dark matter, not everyone will agree with it. So it seems like theology makes no progress, when in actuality, there is some being made.

To your point though, there are some passages that (in my m mind) that point towards perhaps a clearer picture. These passages include Col 1:19, 1 John 1:2 (or really several places in the Johannine epistles), John 1:14, just to name a few. For Christians, Jesus is not a dark mirror/glass, he is the view of God. The problem really that many, many Christians have forgotten that and put more emphasis on the Bible than they do Jesus. The Bible is the word (lower case) of God, Jesus is the Word (capital) of God. When we mix those two, we do certainly see things more darkly. The Bible is a flawed, dated, human-written text. I'd claim that it was divinely inspired, but it's still not perfect. I like to think that my sermons are also divinely inspired, as I prayerfully study, reflect, write, and edit them. But are they perfect, of course not! The Bible is still a source for theology/inspiration/insight, but it is NOT the of Christianity- Jesus is.
 
So I fully expect this, like all religion threads, to tank HARD.

I think it'd be great to have an ongoing thread like this for discussion (not proselytizing) with all sides involved. That being said, perhaps we can agree to not feed trolls when they come along with their one-liners so that the thread might not tank.
 
Ezekiel 23:19-20 (NIV)
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of stallions.

This verse really speaks to me.

Really speaks to dash too amirite?
 
Really speaks to dash too amirite?

Can't help but laugh when reading that passage- but if anyone is wondering, the referent is the nation of Israel (or actually the southern kingdom of Judah) which was turning to other gods.
 
I certainly get that it seems like a "cop out," to say that we can't understand it all, but that is just simply how it is. For centuries, science has said the same thing about certain things. We've learned some things that were once unknowable, but I think we see the same thing happening in theology. The issue with theology vs science is that science (generally) has certain truths that 99% of scientists can get on board with. For example, I'm not really aware of a segment of the scientific community that works to discredit Newton's laws or thinks they're bogus. However, I'd suggest that in the 20th century, through the lens of liberation theology, we perhaps cleaned off some of the dirt on that glass which we see through. But it's not an open and shut case like the "discovery" of dark matter, not everyone will agree with it. So it seems like theology makes no progress, when in actuality, there is some being made.

To your point though, there are some passages that (in my m mind) that point towards perhaps a clearer picture. These passages include Col 1:19, 1 John 1:2 (or really several places in the Johannine epistles), John 1:14, just to name a few. For Christians, Jesus is not a dark mirror/glass, he is the view of God. The problem really that many, many Christians have forgotten that and put more emphasis on the Bible than they do Jesus. The Bible is the word (lower case) of God, Jesus is the Word (capital) of God. When we mix those two, we do certainly see things more darkly. The Bible is a flawed, dated, human-written text. I'd claim that it was divinely inspired, but it's still not perfect. I like to think that my sermons are also divinely inspired, as I prayerfully study, reflect, write, and edit them. But are they perfect, of course not! The Bible is still a source for theology/inspiration/insight, but it is NOT the of Christianity- Jesus is.

I figured it wouldn't take long to get into science vs religion or rationalism vs empiricism. I guess that's what you get for bringing up the problem of knowledge or knowing. In terms of the progress made in theology, to what extent is this problematized by issues of translation? I know for Talmudic scholars, this is the entirety of the pursuit, parsing over translation and meaning.

I guess I struggle with the second paragraph, since for me the only real way of "knowing" Jesus as a transmogrified "Word" is through the text. A direct, conversational dialog between Jesus and me seems unrealistic, so how do I get to otherwise know the Word except through studying the most reliable historical account therein. Since we've yet (through forensic archaeology or any other means) to link his physical body here on earth, it seems like the accounts of him are the best we have. For me, I'm left then with reading the text as allegory rather than history, which makes it harder to see Jesus as either metaphysical body and blood or metaphysical Word.
 
I figured it wouldn't take long to get into science vs religion or rationalism vs empiricism. I guess that's what you get for bringing up the problem of knowledge or knowing. In terms of the progress made in theology, to what extent is this problematized by issues of translation? I know for Talmudic scholars, this is the entirety of the pursuit, parsing over translation and meaning.

I guess I struggle with the second paragraph, since for me the only real way of "knowing" Jesus as a transmogrified "Word" is through the text. A direct, conversational dialog between Jesus and me seems unrealistic, so how do I get to otherwise know the Word except through studying the most reliable historical account therein. Since we've yet (through forensic archaeology or any other means) to link his physical body here on earth, it seems like the accounts of him are the best we have. For me, I'm left then with reading the text as allegory rather than history, which makes it harder to see Jesus as either metaphysical body and blood or metaphysical Word.

Yea, if you're going to discuss religion and start it with that 1 Cor 13 passage, then epistemology is going to enter the conversation real quick.

So, you're going to disagree with this, but I'd say that the text isn't the only way to know the Word/Jesus. I'd say you can do it (again, through a glass somewhat darkly, but then again, how well can you even know a person who is right in front of you?) through prayer. You can meet Jesus in others (ie- just as you did it to the least of these, you did it to me). You can also do it through the text, but in a deeper way with the Holy Spirit. Now, I'd argue that there is no way to get yourself out of the picture and a pure, unfiltered experience where it's just the Holy Spirit in your body/mind, so there is a danger in saying "I just ready this passage and this is what the Holy Spirit told me that it means."

I read the text as an allegory though instead of history. It wasn't written to be history, history interpreted perhaps, but not straight up history. And many people assume that it is 100% historical, and written as such, but it's not. So Christians that assume that end up looking like idiots, and non-Christians that assume that think Christians are idiots.

A theology professor in seminary cautioned against ever using the word "mystery" in an argument, and he's right. But when it comes to the Incarnation, we can debate, we can discuss, we can use logic, but at the end of the day, mystery is involved.
 
Last edited:
relevant

Rabbi Scott: No, of course not. I am the junior rabbi. And it's true, the point-of-view of somebody who's older and perhaps had similar problems might be more valid. And you should see the senior rabbi as well, by all means. Or even Minda if you can get in, he's quite busy. But maybe - can I share something with you? Because I too have had the feeling of losing track of Hashem, which is the problem here. I too have forgotten how to see Him in the world. And when that happens you think, well, if I can't see Him, He isn't there any more, He's gone. But that's not the case. You just need to remember how to see Him. Am I right? [He rises and goes to the window]
Rabbi Scott: I mean, the parking lot here. Not much to see. It is a different angle on the same parking lot we saw from the Hebrew school window. But if you imagine yourself a visitor, somebody who isn't familiar with these... autos and such... somebody still with a capacity for wonder... Someone with a fresh... perspective. That's what it is, Larry.
Larry Gopnik: Um...
Rabbi Scott: Because with the right perspective you can see Hashem, you know, reaching into the world. He is in the world, not just in shul. It sounds to me like you're looking at the world, looking at your wife, through tired eyes. It sounds like she's become a sort of... thing... a problem... a thing...
Larry Gopnik: Well, she's, she's seeing Sy Ableman.
Rabbi Scott: Well, she's, she's seeing Sy Ableman.
Larry Gopnik: She's, they're planning, that's why they want the Gett.
Rabbi Scott: Oh. I'm sorry.
Larry Gopnik: It was his idea.
Rabbi Scott: Well, they do need a Gett to remarry in the faith. But this is life. For you too. You can't cut yourself off from the mystical or you'll be-you'll remain-completely lost. You have to see these things as expressions of God's will. You don't have to like it, of course. Larry Gopnik: The boss isn't always right, but he's always the boss.
Larry Gopnik: The boss isn't always right, but he's always the boss.
Rabbi Scott: Ha-ha-ha! That's right, things aren't so bad. Look at the parking lot, Larry. [Rabbi Scott gazes out, marveling]
Rabbi Scott: Just look at that parking lot.
 
I figured it wouldn't take long to get into science vs religion or rationalism vs empiricism. I guess that's what you get for bringing up the problem of knowledge or knowing.

The issue, really, is unknowing​.
 
The best understanding we could hope to have of God is beyond our mortal epistemological reach in this life. I think for lots of jaded and practiced atheists (like myself), this becomes a great way to attack the entire text as a cop out, reading like "serve and love God, but don't expect to fully understand why" or more reductively "don't ask why, you'll never know, just do." I do find this a complicating and problematizing verse, but I love it as an abstract concept. Our human perception of the world around us really is somewhat of an illusion anyway, as many scientific discoveries have since pointed out, and we can't fully understand the world around us just yet.

can you elaborate, why like the idea of no explanation as a satisfactory rational for commanding someone to do something? also, what do you mean by illusion?
 
images
 
can you elaborate, why like the idea of no explanation as a satisfactory rational for commanding someone to do something? also, what do you mean by illusion?

tumblr_m6uoyfbIdk1qdeqpjo1_500.gif
 
can you elaborate, why like the idea of no explanation as a satisfactory rational for commanding someone to do something? also, what do you mean by illusion?

...the serious answer, at least for me, is that this is kind of the epitome of faith. The whole idea of faith is that you DON'T know, but you have the wholehearted belief that you're acting in accordance with something greater than yourself.
 
Back
Top