True Christians, Tell Me Your Story!

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi PV, I hope I can read and try to digest more of Wittgenstein in future.  For now, it sounds as though you and I understand his "two philosophies", if one can put it that way, in largely the same way.

 

As to the question, what was the language game of the biblical writers -- I'm afraid that such a question is too vaguely formulated to provide a basis for fruitful investigation.  Another problem is that "Christians" is such a variegated grouping that it's hard to make headway investigating how "Christians" attempt to convey views on, and lay claim to, assertions in the Bible.

 

I'll just switch over to talking about myself, because that's a lot of fun.  When I was a Calvinist, I was exposed to teaching about "A dogmatic Christ founded a dogmatic Church."  That's a quote from the pastor who gave a summer course in theology to seminarians and would-be seminarians.  Within two or three years, I had "gone over to Rome."  I am guessing that you can divine why.

 

I think that Protestantism includes so many takes on the Bible and its work in conveying revelation that I quail at the number of positions to be confronted.  Within the Catholic Church, of course, there are diversities of opinions, too.  But fine points of biblical interpretation seem to strike with less urgency because the proximate locus of authority is not the Bible but the Church's magisterium - for which the Bible provides the supreme but not the only standard.  The three legs of scripture-tradition-magisterium lead to a situation where the Bible is not the only normative "leg."  So interpreters can maneuver within a range of possibilities about genre, historical influence, etc. as long as they adhere to church doctrine.  Ray Brown could get away with saying a lot of things about the infancy and resurrection narratives that, say, Mike Licona could not get away with.  I suppose professors at Protestant seminaries that are not controlled by evangelicals have some room to maneuver, too.

 

I'm not sure how all this ties back to Wittgenstein and games, but the Protestant game seems to me to suffer from a constricted playing field, or something.

 

Of course, when you move out of scholarship into practice, the Protestants have been whipping the Catholics' ass in many parts of the world.

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks for your lively response!

 

You said that you arrived at a point when you realized you were “just playing a game” with the bible. Perhaps, it is a kind of game, and it’s one we play with ourselves most of all. Sometimes we play it with our families and communities, sometimes with the celestial panorama just outside our walls. Sure, could be a game, but the thing is, if it is a game, we may want to consider what kind of game we think we’ve been played (ala Wittgenstein, for instance.) Are we in fact playing a science game, or one of history, language, culture, or philosophy?  All of these; none of these? As for myself, I think the game is primarily made up of the latter four options above. It could hardly be one of physical science. As we know, many Christians try to make their religion a ‘science game,’ and when they do, it’s one they often quickly lose…

 

Pardon me, I’m a little lost on this first point—I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at here.  I’m not the smartest man in the world, so I constantly need clarification—I hope you don’t mind. Of the five games you mention: science, history, language, culture, and philosophy, you say you tend to think the game is made up primarily of the latter four. By this, are you saying that religion speaks to the last four, but is not intended to speak to science—and therefore any scientific errors in the bible can be dismissed since they are not part of the game we play as  religious beings anyway?

 

Of course you know that the bible is also unreliable in the other areas. Inaccuracies abound in history (the wildly differing accounts in Acts and Galatians of Paul’s apostolic itinerary), language (Tower of Babel), culture (this can mean so many different things—I think most of the bible’s inaccuracies in this can be addressed as historical errors), and philosophy (the anti-intellectualism of the bible is well documented).

 

I could be misunderstanding you entirely. If so, I’m sorry.

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Sure, I’ll try to clarify my point about ‘games,’ especially since what I mentioned to you previously was a bit cursory.

In sum, the ‘bible game’ of today could be seen as being constructed and combined from four related, but archaic, games of history, language, culture, and/or philosophy. And in this respect, we might say that biblical religion speaks not only TO these four elements, but it also speaks WITH (or using) these four as well. The problem is in us becoming aware that the old games are just that….old.

 

In my estimation, and again taking a queue from Wittgenstein, “doing” Christianity could be considered a kind of game that one plays, and this game is played within the mind of an individual and within her community. There are ‘rules’ that apply. Those rules are typically situated in a community and are what we call a ‘tradition,’ and that tradition will tell us how to play the game correctly by that tradition’s standards. So, that is one game.

 

There are also other concurrent ‘games’ one could play. Those other games can be other traditions, and to play those other games, one must play within the bounds and rules of those other traditions. So, by using a couple of Christian denominations as an analogy, one could play a game as a committed Roman Catholic or as a committed Southern Baptist, but both games have different rules and are not usually interchangeable, despite the fact that the ‘games’ that each denomination plays may have some common or similar elements.

 

Now, add to this a couple of other complexities. First, the bible, which is typically considered as a whole unit, represents one of the game pieces common to the present traditions (as in the Roman Catholic and Baptist example above). The second complexity is this: it should be realized (although often it is not) that the writers of the individual bible books (66+) each had their own games, situated within their own respective times. It will not do to say, then, that the writer(s) of the Pentateuch played the same language or history games as the writers of Isaiah, and it would be error to say that the writers of the Prophets played the same culture and philosophy games as the New Testament writers. [And yes, I realize that the OT Documentary Hypothesis and the NT Synoptic Problem "convolute" these games even more, but for the sake of ‘simplicity, we’ll just assume each of these is just another set of examples of possible games, however archaically played.]

 

We therefore have another set of sub-games, or games within games. This means that for our contemporary games players among Roman Catholics and Baptists to play well (and they often don’t), the present game players will need to know how the game(s) within the games, that are already inherent to the main set piece (the bible), were played. If the rules of the interior games cannot be ascertained fully, then that deficit WILL affect the playing of the present game(s). And that situation is…what it is.

 

Here’s another (overly simplistic) analogy: it would be like two people trying to play a game of chess. Unfortunately in this case, even though the two players have heard how the game of chess is supposed to work on a theoretical level, the directions accompanying the game have been half eaten by the elements and neither can discern how the Queen or the Bishop may be moved—and there is no one around these two players who can tell them what the original design of the game was to be. It might even be that they have the Queen’s and the Bishop’s respective roles and positions mixed up. All they know about the Queen and the Bishops is that these ‘pieces’ came with the set, apparently. So…the two players make up their own rules for the Queen and the Bishop, while using the remains of what they have from the half destroyed instructions.

 

As you can see, this game playing with the bible can get somewhat confusing and tedious…but this is the game, and if possible, those who are able to ‘discover’ the inherent structures of the games within the games will be able to play a more efficient, interesting, and relevant game.

 

In Essence, the ‘bible game’ could be seen as being constructed and combined from elements of the four fields of history, language, culture, or philosophy. Then, as I mentioned previously, we might say that biblical religion speaks not only TO these four games, but it also speaks WITH (or using) these four. However, …and here’s a big point…science as we think of it today, with its mathematical superstructure(s) and experimental methodologies, obviously wouldn’t be one of them, or at least not the kind of science that we would call science.

 

Of course, there are Creationists who vociferously contend that the bible does intend to speak to, and even with, scientific acumen, but I think we all can see that the bible doesn’t actually evoke science. Despite what Creationists and Fundamentalists will assert, the bible doesn’t, and never has, played the contemporary science game, especially not with today’s intentions and paradigm.

 

As you already know, I’m sure, science as we understand and know it today wasn’t much of a consideration, particularly during the time periods in which the O.T. writers wrote. So, the narrative game plan of that time would have used the thoughts, materials, shapes, motifs and myths available at that time, even if the game players decided to change one or two of the already existing rules, like using ONE piece in the place of SEVERAL others.  For us to assume that the O.T. writers thought about the world and its structure in the same way as we do today would be, dare I say, anachronistic.

 

Thus, scientific errors in the bible, as we would ‘count’ such errors according to our science ‘game’ in play today, wouldn’t so much be phenomena that we can dismiss, but rather results of game play belonging to a past time (…yes, of course, we know today that bats and birds are not the same species). If we look back with corrective lenses, we can understand that the bible was written (by whomever) using the worldview available at that time. So, no, we probably shouldn’t assume that their thought patterns about the world, and their intentions to describe its structures, corresponded in their motivations and outlook in any way to ours today.  We ruin our game by assuming they were actually trying to play… our game.

 

And that’s how I’d address my “Game” comment, Jeff    (You can fail to be impressed, now.)

 

Now, on to “Cherry-Picking”….    (hmmm, where did I lay my ax?)

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

[duderonomy]

thoughts, materials, shapes, motifs and myths available at that time,

 

I'm sold out to Jesus at this.

[2PhiloVoid]

thoughts, materials, shapes, motifs and myths available at that time,

 

I'm sold out to Jesus at this.

 

I'm glad to hear it!!  When and Where do I pick you up for the Newsboys concert?

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

 

 

 

And that’s how I’d address my “Game” comment, Jeff    (You can fail to be impressed, now.)

 

Now, on to “Cherry-Picking”….    (hmmm, where did I lay my ax?)

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

 

Hi Philo,

 

Running short on time this morning, but I just wanted to say something quickly here in response--hopefully I'll have a chance this weekend to interact more fully.

 

Impressed? Yes, I'm always impressed (or shocked, as it often turns out) at the lengths to which Christians will go to retain faith. Try to step away from your personal commitments to your faith for just one moment, re-read your post, and tell me how your approach sounds to you (and how it sounds to those of us who are nonbelievers): Smorgasbord!

 

Based on your approach to faith, there is no reason for a nonbeliever to assume the truthfulness of the bible, or even the existence of god. I mean, if it's all up to me anyway to decide how the game is to be played, I choose not to play. How can god fault me for that!?

[2PhiloVoid]

 

The Transcendental Argument....

 

[snip]

 

If you have source, document, paper that you'd like me to look and discuss, I'd be more than happy too (assuming it's not more than 30 or 40 pages). Or, if you have some insights on this topic you'd like to run by me, I'm open to reading what  you have to share.

 

Peace

Hi Philovoid, here's a summary of TAG and an attempt to shore up some of the difficulties that critics have pointed to:

 

http://butler-harris.org/tag/

 

If you look at Butler's essay, you'll see it needs editing. I think you, Ravenstar and I could agree on that!

 

At this point, I'm working on other stuff and am not sure that I really want to devote much time to TAG. But if you have insights, I would like to hear them. If you decide the topic isn't worth it, I fully understand!

 

In a nutshell, I'll say that I don't find TAG convincing. Of several reasons, my main one boils down to this. The argument itself doesn't provide reasons why we should accept its major premise, i.e. that we must presuppose the God of Calvinism in order to have logic, morals and inductive reasoning. To the extent that TAG may succeed in questioning assumptions in the thinking of non-Calvinists, it does not show that its own assumptions are sound. I.e. "your theory is inadequate" doesn't automatically generate "my theory is the right one."

 

I have other beefs with TAG but will forebear.

 

 

Hey Ficino,

 

After reading your post and perusing the Butler-Harris article you provided, I concluded that my thoughts on the TAG issue seem to mirror yours for the most part.  I was hoping to find something salvageable for Christian faith in connection to the TAG argument, but nothing really jumped out at me. Needless to say, some salient criticism of TAG became evident:

 

First, Van Til’s and Bahnsen’s position(s) on Presuppositionalism and TAG present what seem to be a somewhat feeble assertion that God, or Christian Theism Proper, has to be taken as axiomatic in order to move on to higher orders of thinking. However, like you, I don’t think this is the case. Higher orders of thinking can take place without assuming anything about the Divine [which, as you know, is why the concept of “Methodological Naturalism/Materialism” is often assumed within the workings of mainstream science.]

 

Secondly, since I don’t put much stock in a Foundationalist and/or Evidentialist epistemic position, then I don’t see how TAG’s foundationally oriented qualities can be of much theoretical use in defending Christianity, or in describing the world, other than perhaps to make each of us aware that we often harbor presuppositions in our heads and that we should try to recognize this cognitive state before we evaluate and analyze our world. Of course, this can't always be done.

 

A third aspect of TAG which doesn’t sit well with me is that it contributes toward “Theonomistic” theology, something which I think poses problems for New Testament faith, as well as for political peace and democratic living.

 

In a nutshell, this sums up my general ‘thoughts’ on TAG.

 

I’m not going to get into any extended discussion on TAG, mainly because that would move us into other epistemological territories that I don’t have time to bring up at the moment. But, overall, I’d say that I mostly agree with your conclusion(s) regarding TAG, and we can let it float on down the river, if you wish.

 

Thank You again for the article,

2PhiloVoid

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Sure, I’ll try to clarify my point about ‘games,’ especially since what I mentioned to you previously was a bit cursory.

 

[. . . ]

 

And that’s how I’d address my “Game” comment, Jeff    (You can fail to be impressed, now.)

 

Now, on to “Cherry-Picking”….    (hmmm, where did I lay my ax?)

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Hi Philo,

 

I appreciate what you have to say here, it did clear up some things for me about your approach to your faith. Here are some fuller thoughts to add to my quick remark this morning.

 

The bible authors were limited in knowledge about science. We are in agreement. The bible authors wrote according to their knowledge of language, culture, history, and philosophy. Again, we agree here. As I read it, the sum of your post is that the bible authors wrote as men of their time and place and knowledge, and to expect more of them isn’t reasonable. Nothing to argue with here, Philo!

 

Would we also agree (assuming that the biblical god is real) that language would be, by necessity, inadequate to speak with perfect accuracy of god? As you mentioned in an earlier comment to Ficino (borrowing from Wittgenstein), language is a ladder that must be discarded when it has taken us as far as it can go. And the distance between finite and infinite is, well, infinite. So would you say that the bible, insofar as it is a product of its own age, and by necessity cannot lead us to anything more than a representative introduction to god, must give way to direct experience of god by some other mystical means? How do you get beyond the mere representation of words about god to the substance of god himself? (By the way, one needn’t go so far away from Christian thought as Wittgenstein for this line of reasoning—Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximos the Confessor will do just fine.)

 

This is all interesting, and makes for nice discussion. However, none of this addresses the historical assumption in Christianity that the biblical writers were inspired by god—who would obviously know all about philosophy, history, culture, language, and even science. This, to me, is where the “game” analogy breaks down. If the bible authors had no way of knowing what game we would be playing in our day, and we have nothing more than conjecture as to the game they were playing in their day—yet surely god knew, correct? Why then would god hide himself in the shadows while we struggle to play the game correctly? Why would he make it so difficult to believe in him, especially if all eternity is in the balance? If direct mystical experience is how god reveals himself, how can one explain so many who do not believe—or who believe in very different versions of the divine? Is it reasonable to assume some sort of divine election—god reveals himself to the lucky few, while the rest of us poor bastards drew the short straw?

 

I really do appreciate your level-headed approach, Philo. It’s not every day that believers and nonbelievers are able to have courteous discussion about these things.

[2PhiloVoid]

 

Hi Philo,

 

I appreciate what you have to say here, it did clear up some things for me about your approach to your faith. Here are some fuller thoughts to add to my quick remark this morning.

 

The bible authors were limited in knowledge about science. We are in agreement. The bible authors wrote according to their knowledge of language, culture, history, and philosophy. Again, we agree here. As I read it, the sum of your post is that the bible authors wrote as men of their time and place and knowledge, and to expect more of them isn’t reasonable. Nothing to argue with here, Philo!

 

Would we also agree (assuming that the biblical god is real) that language would be, by necessity, inadequate to speak with perfect accuracy of god? As you mentioned in an earlier comment to Ficino (borrowing from Wittgenstein), language is a ladder that must be discarded when it has taken us as far as it can go. And the distance between finite and infinite is, well, infinite. So would you say that the bible, insofar as it is a product of its own age, and by necessity cannot lead us to anything more than a representative introduction to god, must give way to direct experience of god by some other mystical means? How do you get beyond the mere representation of words about god to the substance of god himself? (By the way, one needn’t go so far away from Christian thought as Wittgenstein for this line of reasoning—Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximos the Confessor will do just fine.)

 

This is all interesting, and makes for nice discussion. However, none of this addresses the historical assumption in Christianity that the biblical writers were inspired by god—who would obviously know all about philosophy, history, culture, language, and even science. This, to me, is where the “game” analogy breaks down. If the bible authors had no way of knowing what game we would be playing in our day, and we have nothing more than conjecture as to the game they were playing in their day—yet surely god knew, correct? Why then would god hide himself in the shadows while we struggle to play the game correctly? Why would he make it so difficult to believe in him, especially if all eternity is in the balance? If direct mystical experience is how god reveals himself, how can one explain so many who do not believe—or who believe in very different versions of the divine? Is it reasonable to assume some sort of divine election—god reveals himself to the lucky few, while the rest of us poor bastards drew the short straw?

 

I really do appreciate your level-headed approach, Philo. It’s not every day that believers and nonbelievers are able to have courteous discussion about these things.

 

 

Hi Jeff,

 

Ok. I’ll ‘Step-Away’ from my own mental construct. If I do say so, your request seems slightly reminiscent of John Loftus’ “Outsider Test for Faith,” but perhaps you’re asking for something a little more direct and simple than that. In my stepping away from my Game analogy (which I actually don’t find too hard to do), I suppose I would be somewhat unimpressed. I might even be tempted to give it only a disinterested side-glance, and I’d estimate that it has a meager structure, with the tensile strength of a mere sand-castle; perhaps it would only take one or two good waves of ‘reality’ to wash away the edifice of the analogy and show it for what it is—just so much sand, fallen from the hand of the Sandman.

 

I agree with you that my analogy does not, and would not, provide a platform for belief, nor should it. All it might do is provide a very generic suggestion: there is an inherent complexity to the epistemic structure(s) involved with our individual attempts to understand ancient and tattered works of literature, the bible in this case. However, someone such as you already knows about the complexities of biblical evaluation and interpretation, so my analogy wouldn’t offer you much to ponder. If God were to fault you for not believing, His judgment would definitely need to be drawn from something much more substantive that a single game analogy, like mine.

 

So sure, it appears quite vulnerable if viewed from the “Outside,” particularly if the assumption is added that it was intended to persuade and ingratiate someone to the Christian faith. Fortunately, I didn’t intend for it to serve such an elaborate, let alone missional, purpose. That would be a little grandiose on my part. If anything, it literally just scratches the surface, and it would take a wiser and smarter man than me to concoct a formidable spiritual apparatus of influence, especially one representing something as seemingly intangible as ‘faith.’ In fact, I think my Game Model implies that we wouldn’t really be able to “build” such an apparatus, all of which seems to me to fall in line with the inherent epistemology evinced by the writers of the bible. If I’m right, this means that it wouldn’t be ‘Foundational’ anyway, but something else.

 

Be that as it may, I gather that from the points you’ve mentioned in your post, specifically those to which we have agreement, you’ve easily understood the basic implications, and you have graciously acknowledged this.

 

With that, I’m going to pause because I notice that you expand with some questions that take us afield from the Smorgasbord issue. Unfortunately, I only have two hands to catch all the snow.

So, which direction do you want to go? Smorgasbord, or Divine Hiddenness, or the Nature of Inspiration, or the State of the Lost?

 

Thanks again, Jeff, for the adept feedback. By the way, were you previously a pastor or seminary student? I'm not trying to pry, but I just thought I'd ask.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

Hi Philo,

 

Thanks so much for your reply.

 

So, which direction do you want to go? Smorgasbord, or Divine Hiddenness, or the Nature of Inspiration, or the State of the Lost?

 

 

 

Sorry I got carried away with the questions—I tend to do that, especially in a situation like this when I see so many connections and interrelations. In my mind, all of these topics are related to the reliability of the bible. I’ll try to refocus my questions a bit—it seems to me that we might safely boil down our whole discussion to one of the bible’s reliability.

 

Obviously I don’t find it reliable at all. I’m still not sure exactly where you stand, but it seems you find the bible to be a mixture of reliable and unreliable. At the very least, you admit the bible is not very clear, and takes great care to read and interpret in order to come away with anything approximating the truth about god and his ways with humankind, as evidenced by the quote below:

 

 

 

I agree with you that my analogy does not, and would not, provide a platform for belief, nor should it. All it might do is provide a very generic suggestion: there is an inherent complexity to the epistemic structure(s) involved with our individual attempts to understand ancient and tattered works of literature, the bible in this case.

 

 

 

That’s brave of you to admit, and I sincerely appreciate this kind of honesty. I know there are highly regarded biblical scholars who hold to the critical view of the bible yet still classify themselves as believers (such as Dale Martin of Yale), but I’m at a loss to understand how it could possibly be suitable for god to make his primary revelation to humankind fully accessible only to the educated, the scholar.

 

Of course, the argument could be made that god judges fairly and will not hold people accountable to the same standard—but then again, this is a determination based on . . . the bible. Or personal speculation. Do you see my difficulty? How does one determine the wheat from the chaff? Without a reliable, easily-understood scripture, how can a religion based on special revelation stand? I guess that’s my question for this go-round.

 

 

 

By the way, were you previously a pastor or seminary student? I'm not trying to pry, but I just thought I'd ask.

 

 

 

Oh my—does it really show that much?! I was a Reformed Baptist pastor for about 2.5 years, from 1997-1999. After that (actually during that time) I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, and eventually wound up being tonsured as a Reader, ordained as a Sub-deacon, chanter, and was on my way to becoming a Deacon. Instead, I found myself becoming an unbeliever. Go figure. It definitely wasn’t from lack of trying!

[♦ ficino ♦]

I was a Reformed Baptist pastor for about 2.5 years, from 1997-1999. After that (actually during that time) I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, and eventually wound up being tonsured as a Reader, ordained as a Sub-deacon, chanter, and was on my way to becoming a Deacon. Instead, I found myself becoming an unbeliever. Go figure. It definitely wasn’t from lack of trying!

Wow! As a Reformed Baptist, did you ever meet or listen to tapes by or hear of Al Martin? His ranting on "do you feel the weight of your sin" helped push my sister into a year-long nervous breakdown that almost cost her college.

 

What branch of Orthodoxy were you in?

 

Just to hijack the thread to myself, because that's really where it belongs, isn't it, I got saved as Ass of God, then became Reformed, started in seminary, after a year became Catholic, was on the list to enter a Benedictine monastery, and then got hit by a bolt of life. Took me a long time to get out for good, though.

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

Hi ficino,

 

To me, there's no such thing as thread hijacking--it's called conversation!

 

I never met Martin, but did know him through his writings and sermon tapes. One of the previous pastors of the church I was at must have been a huge fan, and left a large collection of his sermons behind. Sorry to hear about your sister's breakdown--strong Calvinistic preaching can have that effect on people, though. It's one of the most inhumane doctrines ever devised, in my opinion.

 

When I converted to Orthodoxy I started in the Orthodox Church in America, which is a primarily English-speaking Russian-tradition church. I remained in the OCA for about 6 or 7 yrs. After that, things got really toxic at my parish, and I left and started attending a Greek Orthodox Archdiocese parish. Stayed there for about 6 or 7 years, until disbelief in the whole shebang took hold.

 

Your journey sounds mighty interesting as well--funny how those bolts of life can change everything.

[♦ ficino ♦]

When I converted to Orthodoxy I started in the Orthodox Church in America, which is a primarily English-speaking Russian-tradition church. I remained in the OCA for about 6 or 7 yrs. After that, things got really toxic at my parish, and I left and started attending a Greek Orthodox Archdiocese parish. Stayed there for about 6 or 7 years, until disbelief in the whole shebang took hold.

When I was in grad school a number of students I knew went to the OCA. I went once, to Holy Virgin Protection Cathedral in the E. Village. They had an English speaking service in a side chapel, packed, and a Slavonic service in the main nave (is that what you call it in Orthodoxy) attended by maybe six elderly women. Later on I took Greek classes at the Greek cathedral and was exposed to a lot of the dirt, infighting, etc.

 

Λοιπόν, μιλάς Ελληνικά? Δεν μου αρέσουν όλοι αυτοί οι βρώμικοι παππάδες! χα χα

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

 

Λοιπόν, μιλάς Ελληνικά? Δεν μου αρέσουν όλοι αυτοί οι βρώμικοι παππάδες! χα χα

 

 

Ain't that the truth! I don't know as much Greek as I should--except for a smattering in bible college and picking up a little here and there, I learned to read it without understanding it for chanting purposes.

 

What you experienced at Holy Virgin is pretty typical for ethnic parishes that do separate services, whether Slavonic or Greek.  GOA parishes typically do a blend of languages during the service, with the important parts (the Our Father, the Creed, etc.) actually done in both Greek and English. A lot of this is up to the individual bishop, or often the priest himself to decide how much or how little Greek is used--mainly based on how much pressure the yia-yias can put on them.The youth aren't generally interested in the "Mother Tongue."

 

I enjoyed my time at the GOA parish--the people were generally good to me, even though I was xenos. Plenty of infighting and dirty laundry, though. Even though I haven't attended in 2 yrs., they are still kind enough to drop by to share the latest gossip!

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi Philo,

 

Thanks so much for your reply.

 

So, which direction do you want to go? Smorgasbord, or Divine Hiddenness, or the Nature of Inspiration, or the State of the Lost?

 

 

 

Sorry I got carried away with the questions—I tend to do that, especially in a situation like this when I see so many connections and interrelations. In my mind, all of these topics are related to the reliability of the bible. I’ll try to refocus my questions a bit—it seems to me that we might safely boil down our whole discussion to one of the bible’s reliability.

 

Obviously I don’t find it reliable at all. I’m still not sure exactly where you stand, but it seems you find the bible to be a mixture of reliable and unreliable. At the very least, you admit the bible is not very clear, and takes great care to read and interpret in order to come away with anything approximating the truth about god and his ways with humankind, as evidenced by the quote below:

 

 

 

I agree with you that my analogy does not, and would not, provide a platform for belief, nor should it. All it might do is provide a very generic suggestion: there is an inherent complexity to the epistemic structure(s) involved with our individual attempts to understand ancient and tattered works of literature, the bible in this case.

 

 

 

That’s brave of you to admit, and I sincerely appreciate this kind of honesty. I know there are highly regarded biblical scholars who hold to the critical view of the bible yet still classify themselves as believers (such as Dale Martin of Yale), but I’m at a loss to understand how it could possibly be suitable for god to make his primary revelation to humankind fully accessible only to the educated, the scholar.

 

Of course, the argument could be made that god judges fairly and will not hold people accountable to the same standard—but then again, this is a determination based on . . . the bible. Or personal speculation. Do you see my difficulty? How does one determine the wheat from the chaff? Without a reliable, easily-understood scripture, how can a religion based on special revelation stand? I guess that’s my question for this go-round.

 

 

 

By the way, were you previously a pastor or seminary student? I'm not trying to pry, but I just thought I'd ask.

 

 

 

Oh my—does it really show that much?! I was a Reformed Baptist pastor for about 2.5 years, from 1997-1999. After that (actually during that time) I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, and eventually wound up being tonsured as a Reader, ordained as a Sub-deacon, chanter, and was on my way to becoming a Deacon. Instead, I found myself becoming an unbeliever. Go figure. It definitely wasn’t from lack of trying!

 

Hi StJeff,

 

I don’t mind your questions, Jeff. They’re all cogent, and I think any one of us can get a little unfocused when reflecting on religious topics. This probably goes without saying since there are so “many connections and interrelations” to contemplate, some of which can easily get under our skin, so to speak, for better or worse, giving us an impetus to “throw up” various questions.

 

As a side comment, though, I do want to say that I’m cautious when conversing with people because I occasionally notice that some of them throw out a host of questions as a kind of rhetorical maneuver. In this regard, I thank you for clarifying the nature of your own questions, and this assures me that we’re actually in a ‘discussion’ mode rather descending into a vitriolic debate. (And, I  am interested in discussion—who knows, I might even find out that I’m indeed wrong about some things and in turn learn from the experience.)

 

Ok. So a central issue for you is that of Biblical Reliability, or should I say, Biblical Unreliability. That’s fine. The notion of the bible as a “Titanic” floating in the sea of religion is a common one, and I don’t blame you for seeing it that way. If Kant is right, it would only be natural, really. I don’t find the bible completely ‘reliable’ either, at least not by way of the modern day, scientifically clad connotation that we might apply to that term. It’s also obvious to anyone who has read the whole bible that it is definitely not clear on some things. In fact, taken in its literary totality (whatever that might actually be on a critical level), I’d say that God has His own little game going on amidst all of the other ‘games’ we have to play in the attempt to wrestle meaning from that “Ol’ time religion.” Add to all of this the place that hermeneutics and exegesis plays in how we each engage the bible--as you already fully know.

 

I haven’t heard of Dale Martin of Yale, so I will (appreciatively) add him to my list of scholars to reference. But, yes, as you’ve surmised, I have a foot placed well into the ‘critical’ camp, although I am inclined more toward the approach of Kenton L. Sparks, or other similar scholars (without necessarily agreeing with all of their conclusions).

 

Sure, I see what you’re getting at here with your questions. Without a sacred book that allows for a Cartesian kind of encounter with “clear and discernable” truth, then we are subject to the outcomes of our own subjectivity, and we resent that God has the audacity to “say” we are culpable for our responses to His Word. It's quite a conundrum for us to be in! And, it seems to be His fault.

 

However, (..and I do not ask this intrepidly, but with stark reserve), do you see the questionable insinuation that is inherent in your inquiry here; that is, that there is "little or no" tension between the need for a “reliable” bible and the assumption of  “reliable” human response? [i’m thinking more along the line of Kant here, than Calvin.]

 

And, yes, your fluency and apparent knowledge in biblical terms is telling...

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

Sure, I see what you’re getting at here with your questions. Without a sacred book that allows for a Cartesian kind of encounter with “clear and discernable” truth, then we are subject to the outcomes of our own subjectivity, and we resent that God has the audacity to “say” we are culpable for our responses to His Word. It's quite a conundrum for us to be in! And, it seems to be His fault.

 

However, (..and I do not ask this intrepidly, but with stark reserve), do you see the questionable insinuation that is inherent in your inquiry here; that is, that there is "little or no" tension between the need for a “reliable” bible and the assumption of  “reliable” human response? [i’m thinking more along the line of Kant here, than Calvin.]

 

 

Hi Philo,

 

If I insinuated that if god would give us an infallible book this would be the solution to the whole problem of unbelievers, I apologize for not being clear. Yes—the human response wouldn’t be reliable no matter what evidence god presented. An infallible book is of limited advantage without equally infallible readers. And even if we were fully convinced of his existence we could always simply hate him and decide not to follow him, like the trembling demons in James.

 

But still, I can’t help but think that if god had made a good-faith attempt to at least scale back some of the errors and ignorance that make up such a large part of the bible he might more easily populate heaven with future worshippers. I would think that it certainly wouldn’t have hurt his cause to have given us such a book. Or to have written his existence a little larger so all of us Doubting Thomases could find something substantial to touch.

 

But that’s just me, and what do I know?

 

It could be that the god of the bible does exist, and that what we have is the best possible way for him to have given humankind knowledge of himself. Maybe more evidence would have removed our free choice. Maybe less evidence would have . . . never mind, it’s hard to imagine how there might be less. Maybe there really is a bunch of evidence, but it’s just the hardness of my heart that keeps me from believing. A religion based on so many maybes doesn’t seem desirable. To me, Christianity (and other supernatural beliefs) is unconvincing—holding that the bible was never meant as an infallible, inerrant guide to god and his ways doesn’t really help me here.

 

I’ve pointed out that the bible isn’t a reliable record, and you have agreed. We come to different conclusions about what this means for faith in god—especially as he is supposedly presented in a religion based on special revelation—but that’s the way things go sometimes. Is that where we are, then?

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi Jeff,

 

[i apologize that it took me a while to respond, but I’ve had to attend to family matters lately.]

 

**If I insinuated that if god would give us an infallible book this would be the solution to the whole problem of unbelievers, I apologize for not being clear. Yes—the human response wouldn’t be reliable no matter what evidence god presented. An infallible book is of limited advantage without equally infallible readers. And even if we were fully convinced of his existence we could always simply hate him and decide not to follow him, like the trembling demons in James.

 

Thank you for the clarification, Jeff. You obviously grasped what I was attempting to imply earlier, being that even if bible were reliable, such a literary status wouldn’t necessarily have provided a solution to the common gripes humanity has had with the Divine. In my estimation, it is more likely that all of the remaining complexities involving the bible, due to our biological and cognitive finitude, would still pose the usual barriers to our attempts to form metaphysical appreciation of it. As you said, we’d still be prone to default to the belief level of demons…

 

**But still, I can’t help but think that if god had made a good-faith attempt to at least scale back some of the errors and ignorance that make up such a large part of the bible he might more easily populate heaven with future worshippers. I would think that it certainly wouldn’t have hurt his cause to have given us such a book. Or to have written his existence a little larger so all of us Doubting Thomases could find something substantial to touch.

 

That’s another good point. Maybe the presence of a historically and scientifically reliable bible in our world would enable some people to respond more positively to Christianity. But then again, and following from what as I implied above, I think that even if the bible were reliable, the obvious ethical perplexities would still permeate and direct most of today’s ethically tinged discussions. To some degree, a reliable bible might placate a Doubting Thomas who asks for various evidential proofs, but evidence in and of itself would not remove the ethical/moral grievances that still remain with those of us who have been socially acculturated into a firmly democratic mindset. I’m of the opinion that a reliable bible might even turn away more people because of its ethically ‘questionable’ contents. What would it mean to us if, by way of science, we actually came to know that the biblical God exists, and we happened to confirm that the early Israelites also existed, as well as wiped out a large swath of Canaanite peoples? Would a reliable bible in this case make much difference to us on a moral scale? I doubt it. 

 

**But that’s just me, and what do I know?

 

Hmmm…I think you know a lot, Jeff.

 

**It could be that the god of the bible does exist, and that what we have is the best possible way for him to have given humankind knowledge of himself. Maybe more evidence would have removed our free choice. Maybe less evidence would have . . . never mind, it’s hard to imagine how there might be less. Maybe there really is a bunch of evidence, but it’s just the hardness of my heart that keeps me from believing. A religion based on so many maybes doesn’t seem desirable. To me, Christianity (and other supernatural beliefs) is unconvincing—holding that the bible was never meant as an infallible, inerrant guide to god and his ways doesn’t really help me here.

 

And there it is, Jeff—your honest evaluation about your own unbelief--that it is ‘based’ on a lack of evidence. Ok. I can appreciate that, and in reflecting on this, I don’t think it would be too little for me to say that I understand your position, especially if we frame it from an Evidential/Positivist/Foundational vantage point. Sure, the evidence doesn’t “add up,” mainly because what we know as the bible never has added up anywhere near to a 21^st century level of justification (or a 2^nd or 3^rd for the matter, if we take into account Celsus or Porphyry). Personally, I too don’t believe there is ‘enough’ evidence; but when I say this, I should probably also be clear that I don’t think Christian faith was ever supposed to be formed  solely from the idea that any amount of accumulated, insurmountable evidence would ever really get a person to faith in God in the first place. Some amazing evidence might enable a person to achieve a certain level of ‘belief,’ but as you already pointed out, any of us in this case could still just harbor the ‘belief of devils’……for all the good that would do us.

 

**I’ve pointed out that the bible isn’t a reliable record, and you have agreed. We come to different conclusions about what this means for faith in god—especially as he is supposedly presented in a religion based on special revelation—but that’s the way things go sometimes. Is that where we are, then?

 

You’re obviously an educated individual with an astute mind and a keen nose for biblical complexities, which isn’t surprising since you’ve already been through the trials and tribulations of Christian ministry.

 

So yes, we come to different conclusions about what all of these complexities mean for having a faith in the Christian concept of God, and that is where we are then. And we can lay down our discussion there if you wish; I understand if this kind of thing wears on you…

 

It’s been interesting, nevertheless, Jeff. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and experiences with me.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

 

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

 

Hi Jeff,

 

[i apologize that it took me a while to respond, but I’ve had to attend to family matters lately.]

 

No apologies necessary. Hope all is well with you and yours.

 

Thank you for the clarification, Jeff. You obviously grasped what I was attempting to imply earlier, being that even if bible were reliable, such a literary status wouldn’t necessarily have provided a solution to the common gripes humanity has had with the Divine. In my estimation, it is more likely that all of the remaining complexities involving the bible, due to our biological and cognitive finitude, would still pose the usual barriers to our attempts to form metaphysical appreciation of it. As you said, we’d still be prone to default to the belief level of demons…

 

[. . .]

 

That’s another good point. Maybe the presence of a historically and scientifically reliable bible in our world would enable some people to respond more positively to Christianity. But then again, and following from what as I implied above, I think that even if the bible were reliable, the obvious ethical perplexities would still permeate and direct most of today’s ethically tinged discussions. To some degree, a reliable bible might placate a Doubting Thomas who asks for various evidential proofs, but evidence in and of itself would not remove the ethical/moral grievances that still remain with those of us who have been socially acculturated into a firmly democratic mindset. I’m of the opinion that a reliable bible might even turn away more people because of its ethically ‘questionable’ contents. What would it mean to us if, by way of science, we actually came to know that the biblical God exists, and we happened to confirm that the early Israelites also existed, as well as wiped out a large swath of Canaanite peoples? Would a reliable bible in this case make much difference to us on a moral scale? I doubt it. 

 

We're largely on the same page here, I think. 

 

Hmmm…I think you know a lot, Jeff.

 

I think I have you fooled.

 

And there it is, Jeff—your honest evaluation about your own unbelief--that it is ‘based’ on a lack of evidence. Ok. I can appreciate that, and in reflecting on this, I don’t think it would be too little for me to say that I understand your position, especially if we frame it from an Evidential/Positivist/Foundational vantage point. Sure, the evidence doesn’t “add up,” mainly because what we know as the bible never has added up anywhere near to a 21^st century level of justification (or a 2^nd or 3^rd for the matter, if we take into account Celsus or Porphyry). Personally, I too don’t believe there is ‘enough’ evidence; but when I say this, I should probably also be clear that I don’t think Christian faith was ever supposed to be formed  solely from the idea that any amount of accumulated, insurmountable evidence would ever really get a person to faith in God in the first place. Some amazing evidence might enable a person to achieve a certain level of ‘belief,’ but as you already pointed out, any of us in this case could still just harbor the ‘belief of devils’……for all the good that would do us.

 

I'm glad you understand where I'm coming from here. I really can't help it. Belief isn't something I can just generate out of the blue by an act of will. Belief, to me, is always based on being convinced by something or the other, something that compels the will to believe. I just don't have it, that something or the other. If god is real, and he takes issue with the fact that what he's left us as evidence isn't compelling to me, I'll just stand speechless before the Judgment and take what's coming to me. No worries here. I can say with integrity that I've done my best to believe.

 

The fact that you take the same "evidence" and build a vibrant faith upon it simply means that, for you, something about this evidence is compelling. I would imagine you would say that, in some way, you can't help but to believe. What is interesting is that we both seem to judge the evidence as lacking, but you still manage to find some way to believe. I don't fault you for that. We both have our sufficient reasons.

 

You’re obviously an educated individual with an astute mind and a keen nose for biblical complexities, which isn’t surprising since you’ve already been through the trials and tribulations of Christian ministry.

 

So yes, we come to different conclusions about what all of these complexities mean for having a faith in the Christian concept of God, and that is where we are then. And we can lay down our discussion there if you wish; I understand if this kind of thing wears on you…

 

It’s been interesting, nevertheless, Jeff. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and experiences with me.

 

Oh, no, nothing has been wearing about this discussion. I've enjoyed it as well as you have and appreciate your sincerity, intelligence, and your openness in sharing yourself here. I just don't think I have much more to add to what I've said on this subject, but if you have further thoughts I'd be happy to respond. If not, hopefully down the road we'll find something else to discuss that will be just as interesting and enjoyable.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

It's nice to know you are bestowing the benediction of peace to me, an unbeliever. Since I do not heed your word of testimony, shouldn't your peace return to you and shouldn't you rather shake off the dust of your feet in my general direction, as one condemned by god to a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrha? Just funning you. Take care, friend.