SubJeff on 14/9/2007 at 15:16
Or high, maybe he's high.
scumble on 14/9/2007 at 15:59
Quote Posted by fett
Moving on to more political/national/military/economic types of prophecy, about 90% of it would have been completely out of anyone's control. In other words, Nebuchadnezzar didn't decide when and how many times to invade Jerusalem based on Jeremiah's prophecy, yet he did it in exactly the way Jeremiah said he would years prior.
To me this still looks like a discussion of
internal consistency. I've had a look at the prophecies and their fulfilment, and it's a bit difficult to be amazed how well it fits together when it's part of the same religious and cultural tradition. Unless there's something else to the explanation here, it still looks like you've taken historical accuracy for granted.
I suppose I'm in the opposite position to the bulk of atheists who go on about tiny inaccuracies and contradictions. I reckon it fits together far too well to be taken that seriously, and as the comment has been going, this is where people get fooled. I have to say I draw a lot from Thomas L. Thompson's
The Bible in History in this respect, which is pretty extreme on insisting it has nothing to do with history at all, and isn't even intended that way.
fett on 14/9/2007 at 16:10
Quote Posted by Matthew
Just out of interest, what do you feel are the difficulties with Protestantism today? (If you think it's too much of a tangent, feel free to PM.)
I think the BIGGEST problem is it's detachment from it's historical roots, both Jewish and Lutheran. Martin Luther and the Catholic church's biggest concern about the reformation was that christians would split into a million different doctrinal stances on both primary and peripheral issues without the official interpretation of the scriptures by learned men who understood theology. Of course, Luther's breakaway was in large part due to the abuse of this interpretive authority. Either way, that's exactly what's happened, so you have all these denominations and 'non' denominations re-writing and re-interpreting scripture and theology according to need, culture, and modern concerns. While that's necessary with tertiary issues, it's caused a complete detachment from the 'doctrine that was passed to us'. Hence, the RC church cries 'apostolic succession' forgetting the abuse and manufactured doctrines that have arisen from the doctrine of succession. But they have a point. Biblically and traditionally, there is no such thing as believers existing outside of the community of the church, either socially or theologically (this due to the doctrines concerned with Pneumotology - specifically the fashion in which the holy spirit works within the spiritual body of believers).
There's a very renegade, independent spirit in much of Protestantism that is great in terms of being relevant to community needs and charity. But it's also ushered in an age of disconnect from the theology of the early church. Theology informs practice, and people are left thinking that the Bible is simply open to anyone's interpretation. By Martin Luther's definition, it is, but his intention was to institute checks and balances between the average believer just reading the Bible, and the theologians who actually understood it's ramifications upon doctrine and practice. And regardless of all the comments in this thread about the Bible being 'open to interpretation' - it's really not. The original writers knew exactly what they were saying, and so can anyone else if they study the language and cultural context (BIG FUN). The majority of Protestant denominations don't disagree over doctrine - they disagree over practice which has practically nothing to do with the intention of the Biblical text. The disagreements between the RC and Protestant churches stems more from historical and political differences than it does from major doctrines (the Mary doctrines are an obvious exception to this).
As for things that are just WRONG with Protestantism in general? Where to start?
Christian romance novels
Christian talk shows
Christian music (WHAT THE FUCK)
Christian bookstores
Christian clothing
Tim LaHaye
Pretty much anything with the prefix 'christian'
Stitch on 14/9/2007 at 16:17
Quote Posted by BR796164
Do not engage into philosophical or scientific debates if you don't have „Monkeysee's patience“ and you aren‘t able to put together reasonable arguments in respective fields.
The moment you present a true counterargument I'll reply in kind, but the fact that I'm not interested in educating you on the basics of evolution hardly tarnishes the integrity of my original point. Having said that, our little spat is the least interesting thing about this thread, and Vivian and fett have driven things in far more interesting directions, so let's just move on.
Rogue Keeper on 14/9/2007 at 16:27
Quote Posted by fett
And regardless of all the comments in this thread about the Bible being 'open to interpretation' - it's really not. The original writers knew exactly what they were saying, and so can anyone else if they study the language and cultural context (BIG FUN).
But since Lutheranism stresses individual relationship with Christ, it logically demands certain open space of personal interpretation and own conclusions of the Bible (and this is coincidentally one of the core principles of Christian Existentialists).
The reformation has occured because Luther has perceived that Catholic church creates authoritative bureaucratic system, which was not allowed be questioned by common members and that it has posed as the source of the holy word, ultimately giving the only correct interpretation to Bible how they saw fit. It was leading for people to follow that word from fear, not to think about Christ's preaching and take examples for themselves.
Quote Posted by Stitch
stuff
:cool:
Matthew on 14/9/2007 at 16:28
Quote Posted by fett
All fett said
Ouch, that'll teach me to ask a question I don't really want to hear the answer to. ;) I enquired because I 'belong' to a Protestant grouping (though in Northern Ireland at least we don't go in for the clothing/music/LaHaye stuff much), but something I find myself giving more and more thought to is exactly
why, beyond traditionally attending that church, I consider myself part of it and whether I believe what its trying to say at all. :erg:
Rug Burn Junky on 14/9/2007 at 16:44
I know this is way too little, and way too late, but just to revert to the original topic, slightly.
On Tuesday night, I took a walk down to the Brooklyn Heights Promenade. I know I've (
http://www.bluegrin.com/blog/?p=7#more-7) mentioned it before, it's simply the greatest view in all of NYC - Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State Building and (formerly) the WTC, all at once. For the anniversary, they throw up the two floodlight beams to symbolize the towers. It's sort of cheezy, but it's still quite a site to see. Especially when a lowflying cloud passes over, and the sky suddenly gets about ten times brighter. Unfortunately, the only camera I brought was my cellphone, which, as our first night of SF pics have shown, doesn't do well in the dark, but I snapped a shot of the (
http://bluegrin.com/images/ttlg/skyline.jpg) skyline, which doesn't nearly do it justice.
Now, is this post going to be a maudlin, "wah, wah wah, remember 9/11" guilt trip? Well, it could have been, but NO!
Ya see, the promenade was packed. There were a couple of news crews there. A lot of couples silently walking the length of the promenade. A large group of firemen wearing remembrance T-shirts. Me, casually smoking a cigar, with my cream soda bottle cleverly concealing the measure of Talisker I had brought with me.
Every one was pretty somber.
Everyone, that is, except the (
http://bluegrin.com/images/ttlg/japdudes.jpg) Japanese dudes.
They were fucking fantastic. You had this scene of a couple of hundred people, all walking this half mile stretch, taking pictures, whispering to each other, and quite a few crying. And right, dead center, no more than 30 feet away from me, you had four young Japanese guys, all dressed in short sleeve white dress shirts, with pocket protectors and ties tied way too short. Each of them carrying their own camera, and I swear to god, they took about 8 dozen pictures. Every single combination of the group: all four, three at a time, two at a time. Various poses: front, back, sideways. Basically laughing in Japanese and carrying on the whole time. I don't think they were drunk. I don't know whether they knew what it was for, or if they just thought "Hey, cool light show" and they didn't speak any English, so nobody could talk to or ask them.
I swear I watched them for about a half an hour. It totally made my night. By the time I left, I'd had about 6 oz of scotch, and was a little lightheaded (since I haven't had a cigar in a good six months, and I mistakenly went right for a nice big Montecristo) and all I could do was smile. They were still there, yammering away.
Unfortunately, the best picture of the night escaped me, and all I got was a hazy cam shot of it. But as I was leaving, they were taking individual shots, lining themselves up with the light beams coming out of their heads.
Inline Image:
http://bluegrin.com/images/ttlg/thehorns.jpgNow that's how I want to remember 9/11. :D
fett on 14/9/2007 at 16:45
Quote Posted by BR796164
But since Lutheranism stresses individual relationship with Christ, it logically demands certain open space of personal interpretation and own conclusions of the Bible (and this is coincidentally one of the core principles of Christian Existentialists).
The reformation has occured because Luther has perceived that Catholic church creates authoritative bureaucratic system, which was not allowed be questioned by common members and that it has posed as the source of the holy word, ultimately giving the only correct interpretation to Bible how they saw fit. It was leading for people to follow that word from fear, not to think about Christ's preaching and take examples for themselves.
Right on - but even Luther didn't intend to start a new system of self-interpretation. His intention was to 'reform' the existing system, which didn't happen. The breakaway was largely the fault of some overzealous followers (though he did become very divisive eventually). I'm just saying I empathize with the position that the RC took at that point in history because they were closer to the original writings.
Here's an example. If BR#'s grandfather wrote a treatise on something I knew very little about, I would prefer BR's interpretation as opposed to Matthews. Is Matthew free to interpret the treatise? Of course. But whose interpretation will more closely carry the thoughts of the original writer? BR#'s. What about BR#'s son, or grandson. Even six generations away from the original, I'd still prefer the link to the original writer, rather than an outside interpretation. It won't be right in all cases, but in the case of doctrine - some of which was hotly debated for centuries - I'd prefer the interpretation of the men who have been laboring and giving their lives to it's study, rather than what Joe-blow preacher thinks. I'll temper my own interpretation with the 'authoritative' one - which was more to Luther's way of thinking. But Luther's beef was that the authorities were abusing their power to control people. "No scripture is given to private interpretation' Paul said. In other words, scripture is to be interpreted within a community. Protestantism has stepped out of that community in many ways, but it has been necessary given the abuses by the authority within that community. It's the lesser of two evils, though many good things have come from it.
Rug Burn Junky on 14/9/2007 at 16:49
Quote Posted by fett
If BR#'s grandfather wrote a treatise on something I knew very little about, I would prefer BR's interpretation as opposed to Matthews. Is Matthew free to interpret the treatise? Of course. But whose interpretation will more closely carry the thoughts of the original writer? BR#'s. What about BR#'s son, or grandson. Even six generations away from the original, I'd still prefer the link to the original writer, rather than an outside interpretation.
If you've read any of the Brian Herbert sequels to (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)) Dune, you'd feel otherwise.
fett on 14/9/2007 at 18:24
Quote Posted by scumble
To me this still looks like a discussion of
internal consistency. I've had a look at the prophecies and their fulfilment, and it's a bit difficult to be amazed how well it fits together when it's part of the same religious and cultural tradition. Unless there's something else to the explanation here, it still looks like you've taken historical accuracy for granted.
I suppose I'm in the opposite position to the bulk of atheists who go on about tiny inaccuracies and contradictions. I reckon it fits together far too well to be taken that seriously, and as the comment has been going, this is where people get fooled. I have to say I draw a lot from Thomas L. Thompson's
The Bible in History in this respect, which is pretty extreme on insisting it has nothing to do with history at all, and isn't even intended that way.
You must have missed the part where I said most of the political/national OT prophecies are confirmed in history (not history as recorded by the Bible) and the texts of the Empires in question. There are hundreds of such prophecies confirmed by the dating of the DSS to have been written prior to the events in question, and the majority are very specific to the point of giving names and dates. These are things that can be confirmed external to the Bible - the example of Nebuchadnezzar that I gave for instance. Similiar fulfillments can be confirmed in Assyrian, Greek, and Roman writings.
The 'internal' prophecies are suspect due to the credibility of the gospel writers. But DSS confirms time frames for most of the OT prophets and they are certainly prior to the events they spoke of.
I don't think the average person understands when I say 'prophecy' - I'm not talking about stuff like, "Uh...someone will conquer Jerusalem! Yeah!". When a 'prophet' can tell you two hundred years prior that Jerusalem will fall, on what date, how long the siege will last (to the day), specific political events taking place during this siege (startlingly accurate chronology of events), the method by which the city will be invaded, and the fact that there will be no combat during the invasion - that's very, very Specific Stuff. Go to the Babylonian histories and see that they record events to have taken place exactly this way, the only difference between the Jewish and Babylonian texts being that the Jewish texts were written two hundred years prior. What the fuck do you do with that?
Point.
