Why Does God's Voice Only Speak To The Mentally Ill?

[sdelsolray]

This one doesn't do evidence.  Mere assertions rule.  How convenient.

[FarflungWanderer]

Kids in Africa? Yes, that is a problem, but I'm not sure how that applies to my own personal situation.

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

That right there is the reason why things are the way they are. Why people suffer daily of starvation and dehydration and wars and all of that which makes life, as Hobbes put it, "nasty, brutish, and short."

 

"I'm not sure how that applies to my own personal situation."

 

The suffering of every human being applies to your own personal situation because they are your brothers and sisters! You are separated only by distance, and every person who needlessly dies is a tragedy, because that person's talents and potentials and hopes and dreams are forever lost.

 

To focus only on your own life and your own surroundings is insular thinking that has held the human species back for millennia.

 

I could keep beating this dead horse, but I think the point has been made.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

EDIT: Between me reading Philo's post and finishing the one below, he removed the part were he expressed dislike for my interpretation of "we" as "all humans" and asked me to correct my post.

 

 

The reason I used the word "all" was because you used the word "we".  When you use the word "we", you are claiming to speak for all of us, when really people can only speak for themselves, or for people who have stated their specific view or given permission.

 

Preachers and xian authors often use "we" in an effort to build rapport with their audience.  Outside xianity, speakers and authors seldom use the term, and if they do, it's usually considered inappropriate at best, and patronising at worst.  It's also likely to be incorrect. Doctors don't say "we need to get our blood pressure down".  They say "you need to get your blood pressure down" or "people with high BP need to get it down".  It's important to be precise with words, to avoid misunderstanding.

 

I'm still interested in your responses to this:

 

Starving kids in africa are evidence that god is not looking after his creations as promised in the bible, as are xians who have asked god to keep his promises, according to his will, to no avail.  Does this mean god broke his promises, god doesn't exist, or something else?

 

Xians have prayed for people to hear about getting saved (becoming xians) or get saved (become xians) and it hasn't happened.  How do you explain that?

[2PhiloVoid]

EDIT: Between me reading Philo's post and finishing the one below, he removed the part were he expressed dislike for my interpretation of "we" as "all humans" and asked me to correct my post.

 

 

The reason I used the word "all" was because you used the word "we".  When you use the word "we", you are claiming to speak for all of us, when really people can only speak for themselves, or for people who have stated their specific view or given permission.

 

Preachers and xian authors often use "we" in an effort to build rapport with their audience.  Outside xianity, speakers and authors seldom use the term, and if they do, it's usually considered inappropriate at best, and patronising at worst.  It's also likely to be incorrect. Doctors don't say "we need to get our blood pressure down".  They say "you need to get your blood pressure down" or "people with high BP need to get it down".  It's important to be precise with words, to avoid misunderstanding.

 

I'm still interested in your responses to this:

 

Starving kids in africa are evidence that god is not looking after his creations as promised in the bible, as are xians who have asked god to keep his promises, according to his will, to no avail.  Does this mean god broke his promises, god doesn't exist, or something else?

 

Xians have prayed for people to hear about getting saved (becoming xians) or get saved (become xians) and it hasn't happened.  How do you explain that?

 

Free,

 

Fair enough. I’ll try to tone down my attempt at creativity a notch and be more 'explicit.' (But, if that gets too dry, I reserve the right to turn the dial back up to “FUN” on the funometer.)

 

Starving kids in Africa? Well, about that.

 

What specific verse(s) seem to clearly indicate to you that God promised to “look after His Creation,” or even after starving African kids in particular? (I must have missed that specific verse…) So, I guess I’ll have to go with Door Number 3:               

 

Door Number 1 [ .]  God broke His promises

          Door Number 2 [ .]  God doesn’t exist

          Door Number 3 [ .]  Man, that’s just Something else!

 

 

Ok. I see you’d also like for me to explain why other people don’t hear “about getting saved,” as well as to why they don’t actually get saved, when Xians pray for this to take place? That is an interesting question, but in this question, are you implying that when Christians pray for the lost, the lost never, ever, ever hear the Gospel or never, ever, ever get saved? I’m sorry to be so dense, but the question seems to be kinda… f*u*z*z*y.

[hereticzero]

Everyone knows god prefers football over starving children in Africa. 

[Justin]

"Starving kids in Africa? Well, about that.

 

What specific verse(s) seem to clearly indicate to you that God promised to “look after His Creation,” or even after starving African kids in particular? (I must have missed that specific verse…) So, I guess I’ll have to go with Door Number 3:

Door Number 1 [ .] God broke His promises

Door Number 2 [ .] God doesn’t exist

Door Number 3 [ .] Man, that’s just Something else!"

 

Philo, since God was everywhere in the Old Testament helping Israel do this and that, why isn't he doing the same in Africa? These are people who genuinely need help to. This Isn't helping the Hebrews commit genocide like in the OT, this is many millions of people dying a horrible, agonizingly slow death. Where is bible God? I mean if he gets upset when gays kiss or cries when a person masterbates, where is his concern for actual problems in the world? In the bible he cared about the most minute detail like the golden calf, David's botched census and that guy who spilled his seed on the ground instead of in his sister in law for crying out loud. So if God can concern himself with this ridiculous shit then people starving should be way, WAY higher up on his 'to do' list.

[TheOutsider]

But those starving African children aren't Canaanite Jews, who the fuck cares about them? Seriously, the bastards are the spawn of Satan! They probably still have foreskins! FORESKINS I SAY!!!

 

 

 

Eugh... Now I kinda feel bad...

[duderonomy]

 

 

 

Here's my generic view regarding 'God's looking after us':  God preserves our souls (and future bodies), but does not guarantee our immediate, transitory, terrestrial existence; thus, if we feel desperate, we will cry. If we feel threatened, we will hide. If someone grabs us and crucifies us, we will die. God sees every single bit of all that transpires, and we are saved "as through a fire." Painful yes, but true.

 

One of our mistakes is to see prayer as some kind of divining device by which we may call down fortune upon our weary lives, but it never really was about 'prosperity.'  Another mistake is to think that faith empowers us to change our situation or stations in life, when in fact faith's main purpose is to enervate us to love God and other people.

 

So, God does look after 'us.' He sees everything we've done, are doing, and will do. And for those human beings that, from our limited vantage point, seem to fall through the cracks of God's Providence, we have to remember that we have not been given a comprehensive system of how, who, what, where, when, and why any individual will be saved.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Philo, the Bible seems to disagree with your theology.

 

James 5:13-16New International Version (NIV) The Prayer of Faith

13 Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord.15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%205:13-16

 

 

 

Philo, you didn't answer my assertion that your POV  doesn't line up with what the Bible says.  Read what you said. Read what the Bible says. You already think that some parts of the Bible "seem" to be fiction. Is this verse fiction too?

[2PhiloVoid]

 

 

 

Here's my generic view regarding 'God's looking after us':  God preserves our souls (and future bodies), but does not guarantee our immediate, transitory, terrestrial existence; thus, if we feel desperate, we will cry. If we feel threatened, we will hide. If someone grabs us and crucifies us, we will die. God sees every single bit of all that transpires, and we are saved "as through a fire." Painful yes, but true.

 

One of our mistakes is to see prayer as some kind of divining device by which we may call down fortune upon our weary lives, but it never really was about 'prosperity.'  Another mistake is to think that faith empowers us to change our situation or stations in life, when in fact faith's main purpose is to enervate us to love God and other people.

 

So, God does look after 'us.' He sees everything we've done, are doing, and will do. And for those human beings that, from our limited vantage point, seem to fall through the cracks of God's Providence, we have to remember that we have not been given a comprehensive system of how, who, what, where, when, and why any individual will be saved.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Philo, the Bible seems to disagree with your theology.

 

James 5:13-16New International Version (NIV) The Prayer of Faith

13 Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord.15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%205:13-16

 

 

 

Philo, you didn't answer my assertion that your POV  doesn't line up with what the Bible says.  Read what you said. Read what the Bible says. You already think that some parts of the Bible "seem" to be fiction. Is this verse fiction too?

 

 

Hey Dude,

 

You’ve brought up James 5:13-16 a couple of times now, I see, using it to assert that the Bible “disagrees with” my theology. After taking into account the complex contexts inherent to this passage from James, I’m not sure how it directly disconfirms my “theology,” at least not in a ‘de facto’ manner. But, perhaps you know something about this passage that I don’t, Dude.

 

So, by what method of interpretation have you arrived at the conclusion that James displaces my Christian viewpoint? It seems to me that you’re simply “proof-texting” here, something a lot of Fundamentalist Christians do, usually because they know little about interpreting the Bible. I know you're an Ex-Christian, but surely, you don't still retain a Fundamentalist approach to the bible, do you?

 

2PhiloVoid

[mymistake]

To be fair, you can find part of the Bible that disagrees with almost anything.  The Bible mostly doesn't agree with itself.  It wasn't written to be a single work.  Parts of it come from several different religions.  For example James was written for a very Jewish leaning sect.  They probably would have called Paul's followers "false".

[wyson]

Will House not just answer the question already? He already said he knew the answer from post 2!

[duderonomy]

 

 

 

 

Here's my generic view regarding 'God's looking after us':  God preserves our souls (and future bodies), but does not guarantee our immediate, transitory, terrestrial existence; thus, if we feel desperate, we will cry. If we feel threatened, we will hide. If someone grabs us and crucifies us, we will die. God sees every single bit of all that transpires, and we are saved "as through a fire." Painful yes, but true.

 

One of our mistakes is to see prayer as some kind of divining device by which we may call down fortune upon our weary lives, but it never really was about 'prosperity.'  Another mistake is to think that faith empowers us to change our situation or stations in life, when in fact faith's main purpose is to enervate us to love God and other people.

 

So, God does look after 'us.' He sees everything we've done, are doing, and will do. And for those human beings that, from our limited vantage point, seem to fall through the cracks of God's Providence, we have to remember that we have not been given a comprehensive system of how, who, what, where, when, and why any individual will be saved.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

Philo, the Bible seems to disagree with your theology.

 

James 5:13-16New International Version (NIV) The Prayer of Faith

13 Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord.15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%205:13-16

 

 

 

Philo, you didn't answer my assertion that your POV  doesn't line up with what the Bible says.  Read what you said. Read what the Bible says. You already think that some parts of the Bible "seem" to be fiction. Is this verse fiction too?

 

 

Hey Dude,

 

You’ve brought up James 5:13-16 a couple of times now, I see, using it to assert that the Bible “disagrees with” my theology. After taking into account the complex contexts inherent to this passage from James, I’m not sure how it directly disconfirms my “theology,” at least not in a ‘de facto’ manner. But, perhaps you know something about this passage that I don’t, Dude.

 

So, by what method of interpretation have you arrived at the conclusion that James displaces my Christian viewpoint? It seems to me that you’re simply “proof-texting” here, something a lot of Fundamentalist Christians do, usually because they know little about interpreting the Bible. I know you're an Ex-Christian, but surely, you don't still retain a Fundamentalist approach to the bible, do you?

 

2PhiloVoid

 

Philo, I believe I only brought up the James passage once, although I did by quoting it repeat it because I believed it had escaped your attention.

 

I'm not aware of any 'inherent complex contexts' in this simple text in a simple book written to simple Christians. I may have missed a few books of Mind Bending Explain It Away Because It Doesn't Work apologetics though.  Perhaps you know something about this passage that I don't know, Philo.

 

Also, if you dislike my using the term 'your theology' or if I've misused it, we can use 'your point of view' or 'your understanding' or 'your faith' or some other term.

 

At any rate, getting to my point...

 

You say one of our mistakes is to see prayer as some kind of divining device by which we may call down fortune upon our weary lives. You say another mistake is to think that faith empowers us to change our situations and stations in life...

 

The Book of James says the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. The book of James says pray for each other so that you may be healed. The book of James says the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

 

That's why I maintain that the Bible and your point of view are at odds. 

 

If you feel that I have improperly quoted you, just say so. Of course the entirety of what we both said is here for anyone to see and decide.

You also may be tempted to explain away this one lonely verse in a flurry of apologetic philosophy. That's fine, but you and I and most everyone here knows that there are many such verses promising miracles and answers to prayer.

 

So what else is there? James was written to the twelve tribes, and thus it doesn't apply to us today?  OK, then the Book of Acts doesn't apply either, because neither of us are Theophilus?  There are others, too.  We could get rid of half of the New Testament that way! 

 

What else then, time? After the Bible is complete we won't get miracles any longer? Well, the same amount of time has passed since the Council of Idiots gave us the Bible, so maybe John 3:16 doesn't apply any longer either, and besides, neither of us are Nicodemus?

I can just own a Bible and if I tuck it under my pillow once in a while I'll be saved?

 

You see that the absurdities can add up pretty quickly when the plain text is ignored, when the simple and elegant solution is that it just isn't true.

 

Philo, I wish I had your smarts and ability to use words. It must be a wonderful gift. No sarcasm here, I really mean it.  But we both have access to logic and reason. All I ask is that you consider what I'm saying.

 

Man's fallen reasoning and logic lets us walk on the moon and put probes on Mars and on asteroids and around dwarf planets. Two of our spaceships have even left the solar system and are wondering the galaxy.

Contrast that with Biblegod's impeccable reasoning which makes him come to Earth to see what's going on, and when he sees that people are building a big tower that will reach Heaven, he gets scared and makes some of them speak French.

 

In all of your thinking, Philo, don't forget to...think.

 

Peace to you too Philo.

[duderonomy]

To be fair, you can find part of the Bible that disagrees with almost anything.  The Bible mostly doesn't agree with itself.  It wasn't written to be a single work.  Parts of it come from several different religions.  For example James was written for a very Jewish leaning sect.  They probably would have called Paul's followers "false".

 

That's true, MM.  It's important to know where this Christian Bible came from, but to the Christian, the Bible is one big Word of God with a continuous theme, from somebody bruising somebody else's heel in Genesis to 'even so come Lord Jesus' in Revelation.  It's all the Word of God. It says what it says. It's either true or it isn't.  

[2PhiloVoid]

**Philo, I believe I only brought up the James passage once, although I did by quoting it repeat it because I believed it had escaped your attention.

 

Hi Dude,

 

[because of the length of my response here, I’m afraid I’m going to have to divide it up into two parts. The second, more important, part I’ll try to post in a few days. With part 1, I’ll just try to clear some of the conceptual landscape for our discussion.]

 

I agree with you that the letter of James definitely has some material pertinent to our current discussion about healing, as well as to some of our expectations we may have regarding it. I appreciate that you’ve accentuated the importance of James for this issue. Very likely, the verses you’ve chosen out of the text of James have been cited and mulled over countless times through the centuries since they were written. But, while I agree with you that this portion of Scripture from James is relevant to our discussion, I also think there are some complex factors involved in how we are to read, understand, and apply the scheme of ideas expressed within its ancient ideology; it isn’t just a “simple text,” no matter how many Baptist or Pentecostal preachers might aver the contrary.

 

**I'm not aware of any 'inherent complex contexts' in this simple text in a simple book written to simple Christians. I may have missed a few books of Mind Bending Explain It Away Because It Doesn't Work apologetics though.  Perhaps you know something about this passage that I don't know, Philo.

 

Ok, Dude. It’s understandable if you conceptualize the bible as a simple book full of simple text for simple Christians. If, when you were a Christian in your ‘bad ol’ day,’ you were fed a simple approach by simple leaders in your church, it is no wonder to me that you would come away from those experiences and remain thoroughly under the conviction that Scripture is supposed to be “an easy affair.” Unfortunately, it looks like I’m going to have to be the one to bust the bubble of simplicity that your former Christian leaders encased you in. Neither understanding the ways of God, nor the experiences of a Christian life are “an easy affair,” and they were never meant to be, as even James the Apostle seems to have implied at the beginning of his letter.

So, if you will permit me a little bit of “Mind Bending Explain It Away Because It Means Something Other Than What You’ve Been Told,” then I think you’ll catch on pretty quick to the intent of James’ overall message, when I get to the point of breaking out the hermeneutics and exegesis.

 

**Also, if you dislike my using the term 'your theology' or if I've misused it, we can use 'your point of view' or 'your understanding' or 'your faith' or some other term.

 

Dude, that’s ok. You can designate my viewpoint about the bible as “my theology” when you address me. Whatever makes you comfortable as we exchange riffs. 

 

**At any rate, getting to my point...

**You say one of our mistakes is to see prayer as some kind of divining device by which we may call down fortune upon our weary lives. You say another mistake is to think that faith empowers us to change our situations and stations in life...

**The Book of James says the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. The book of James says pray for each other so that you may be healed. The book of James says the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

**That's why I maintain that the Bible and your point of view are at odds. 

 

Ok. Sure. When we read the specific verses you’ve chosen from of the text, it does seem to me, at first glance, that my assertions about “divining devices” and “fortune raining down,” and so on are at odds with the illustrious claims of Ol’ James. But, what I’m going to try to show you is that my understanding of these verses emerges out of several other considerations, considerations about which the church leaders of your former years should have informed you, but evidently did not. (Hopefully, you understand what I’m trying to infer here--it isn’t fully your fault that you comprehend these verses the way you do.)

 

Now, before going on, I also want to be clear that I’m not implying I’m some sort of Bodhisattva who has have come down from the heavenly realm to enlighten you. No, I’m just a concerned citizen, a fellow traveler on the road of life. If it turns out that I’m wrong about the bible and Christian Faith, I’m willing to learn and take correction if need be.

 

**If you feel that I have improperly quoted you, just say so. Of course the entirety of what we both said is here for anyone to see and decide.

**You also may be tempted to explain away this one lonely verse in a flurry of apologetic philosophy. That's fine, but you and I and most everyone here knows that there are many such verses promising miracles and answers to prayer.

 

One thing I’d like to quickly bring up before looking at the verses in James is that I don’t think the term “Explain It Away,” by itself, really exposes much about the actual quality or possible errors in my viewpoint. Furthermore, to say “Explain It Away” is rather a trite statement, holding little academic substance in providing any kind of epistemological categorization. Neither do I think that a “flurry of apologetic philosophy” is what I’ll be attempting here. Rather, I’ll be attempting Hermeneutical and Exegetical practice, which is a different creature.

 

**So what else is there? James was written to the twelve tribes, and thus it doesn't apply to us today?  OK, then the Book of Acts doesn't apply either, because neither of us are Theophilus?  There are others, too.  We could get rid of half of the New Testament that way! 

 

What else is there? Well, for starters, there’s Dude being clever; I see you’re trying to anticipate the way in which I’m going to wrestle this issue down, but the “twelve tribes” and “Theophilus” rebuttals aren’t something I will use. I think the Letter of James is relevant for all Christians, even if on a slightly modified and lesser scale that it would have been for those early,

1^st century Jewish Christians to whom it was addressed. So, I won’t beg to differ with you on that account.

 

However, one caveat I will hold onto is an affirmation that the application of any sector of the Scripture to a wider audience has to be done very carefully and not with a lithe, free spirited, casual air of Willy-Nilly Applicability (…..right…it does kind of sound like Abracadabra!!) I say this because, hermeneutics aside, I know a number of Christians who love to use the term “Standing on the Word of God.” And needless to say, American Christians are experts in employing Willy-Nilly Aplicability and tend to remain naive on how to “Stand” by way of their use of their overwrought and clichéd incantation. I often cringe when they do so because I’m afraid they’re going to end up “Trampling the Word of God” as well as set themselves up for a vast disappointment. And you know what? They often do. In fact, I know some fellow Christians who were left with looks of surprise, angst, disgust, and puzzlement upon their faces when their self-applied Scripture Claims didn’t pay off—but I digress. Onward, then.

 

**What else then, time? After the Bible is complete we won't get miracles any longer? Well, the same amount of time has passed since the Council of Idiots gave us the Bible, so maybe

John 3:16 doesn't apply any longer either, and besides, neither of us are Nicodemus?

**I can just own a Bible and if I tuck it under my pillow once in a while I'll be saved? 

**You see that the absurdities can add up pretty quickly when the plain text is ignored, when the simple and elegant solution is that it just isn't true.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the claim that the text of the bible can be approached as “plain” is an old Protestant standby that really exhibits some conceptual and interpretive pitfalls. Saying that we can read the “plain text” of the bible is kind of like saying that when I make love to my wife, I’m just engaging in a “simple act,” although she and I know that ain’t so, Joe. For the moment, I won’t pursue the side issue of whether or not, and to what extent, the bible is “plain,” so that we can get to the verses in question that you’ve hollowed out from the text of James. 

 

**Philo, I wish I had your smarts and ability to use words. It must be a wonderful gift. No sarcasm here, I really mean it.  But we both have access to logic and reason. All I ask is that you consider what I'm saying.

 

Uh…I’m confident that you have plenty of smarts, Dude, and if you also have access to logic and reason, then I think you can be safe assured I will consider what you’re telling me. I just hope you’ll return the favor.

 

**Man's fallen reasoning and logic lets us walk on the moon and put probes on Mars and on asteroids and around dwarf planets. Two of our spaceships have even left the solar system and are wondering the galaxy.

 

The Lunar missions, as you know, were hoaxes, Dude.** 

 

Contrast that with Biblegod's impeccable reasoning which makes him come to Earth to see what's going on, and when he sees that people are building a big tower that will reach Heaven,

he gets scared and makes some of them speak French.

 

French? Aw, Dude, now you’re just being clever again.   But, I like that...

 

In all of your thinking, Philo, don't forget to...think.

Peace to you too Philo.

 

Peace Again, Dude. My next post will finally get into the verses you've brought up -- James 5:13-16.

 

2PhiloVoid

** […and I was just kidding about the Lunar missions being hoaxes. ]

[florduh]

And for those human beings that, from our limited vantage point, seem to fall through the cracks of God's Providence, we have to remember that we have not been given a comprehensive system of how, who, what, where, when, and why any individual will be saved.

 

So there it is. Game over. His ways are not our ways and we mere mortals can't understand the mind of God. For this reason, nothing needs to make sense or square with reality when defending the God character from the Bible stories.

 

I must say that this thread has presented some of the poorest examples of apologetic argument. Essentially, there is no "argument" other than what's stated above.

[mymistake]

 

And for those human beings that, from our limited vantage point, seem to fall through the cracks of God's Providence, we have to remember that we have not been given a comprehensive system of how, who, what, where, when, and why any individual will be saved.

 

So there it is. Game over. His ways are not our ways and we mere mortals can't understand the mind of God. For this reason, nothing needs to make sense or square with reality when defending the God character from the Bible stories.

 

I must say that this thread has presented some of the poorest examples of apologetic argument. Essentially, there is no "argument" other than what's stated above.

 

 

 

Yep, it's always that we can't understand God after we have studied the Bible for hours and hours (or even for decades).

 

 

But when they first knock on your door they sing a different song.  Oh we can understand God.  That is why we are bothering you on Saturday morning.  We can understand all sorts of things about God.  That is why we know you need God and you need the right God.  Come to our church and put money in the offering plate.  We will help you understand God just like us!

[sdelsolray]

 

And for those human beings that, from our limited vantage point, seem to fall through the cracks of God's Providence, we have to remember that we have not been given a comprehensive system of how, who, what, where, when, and why any individual will be saved.

 

So there it is. Game over. His ways are not our ways and we mere mortals can't understand the mind of God. For this reason, nothing needs to make sense or square with reality when defending the God character from the Bible stories.

 

I must say that this thread has presented some of the poorest examples of apologetic argument. Essentially, there is no "argument" other than what's stated above.

 

That's not 2PhiloVoid's complete argument.  He's also claiming that he, at the exclusion of others, understands and since we don't understand he has liberty to make mere assertions that do not "make sense or square with reality" to support his beliefs.  How convenient.

[Fweethawt]

So, I'm guessing that when Jesus said, "Be ye perfect", he meant perfect punctuation and grammar, right? And THAT'S how we get saved -- by mastery of the English language?

 

I'm just wonderin'...

[duderonomy]

If that's the case, Fwee, I'm a goner for sure.  You notice how when they took prayer out of skools, they put in Hookt on Fonics?

Dam that devil.

 

I got a kick out of your post because I had just noticed I said there were spacecraft "wondering"  the galaxy.  I'm doomed!

[Scottsman]

What do you mean?

 

We are not responsible?

 

You think God should be our nanny and take care of everything?

 

 

Do you have statistics to prove there is more secular aide given to Africa than from religious groups?

Ironhorse, how am I a 24 year male canadian responsible for what happens in africa? I give money to MSF, but im definately not personally responsible.

[2PhiloVoid]

.........Contrast that with Biblegod's impeccable reasoning which makes him come to Earth to see what's going on, and when he sees that people are building a big tower that will reach Heaven, he gets scared and makes some of them speak French.

 

In all of your thinking, Philo, don't forget to...think.

 

Peace to you too Philo.

 

 

Ok, Dude.

 

From what you’ve said lately, it seems to me that you’re still somewhat open to this thread, and St Jeff has expressed some interest, so I’m going to go ahead and briefly proceed to addressing more of our discussion of James 5:13-16. After a couple of posts here, I plan to head back to the ‘Nature of Faith’ thread and pickup with Ficino and StJeff.

 

Originally, I was going to write out a long, elaborate analysis of the verses you’ve “hollowed out from James,” but then remembered who my ‘audience’ was, as you advised me to do. So, I thought it better to shorten my response a little and deliver it in ‘pieces.’ (And I say this with a wink and smile…)

 

Here’s the first short piece.

 

In looking at the verses you’ve cited from James, I think we need to begin by exploring their meaning by acknowledging a few philosophical/philological matters that often get ignored by Christians and non-Christians alike, but which likely affect biblical interpretation. It’s particular important because the verses you’ve cited are often taken as extravagant possibilities by Christians, or viewed as metaphysically pernicious assertions through the hind-site of experiential disappointment. I’ve been privy to the latter case myself at times.

 

First off, in dealing with the Bible as a whole, I think we should dispense with the old adage initially proffered by the Reformers (such as Luther) that the Bible is in some way a “plain” literary entity. Today, knowing what we know about the Bible, I don’t think we can say that its ancient pages exhibit a simple message for simple persons.  It should be fairly obvious to any modern reader who tries his hand at interpreting the bible that it is anything BUT a “plain text.”  Unfortunately, the obviousness I speak of doesn’t seem to hold currency with many of the more Fundamental type thinkers, Christian or otherwise.

 

Secondly, we need to ask a question that probably doesn’t get asked because the answer may seem to be too much of a truism, and that question is: What do we mean today by the term, “plain text”? Without even attempting a complete and analytical breakdown of this term, I surmise that we can agree without too much commotion that a “plain text” is, at the very least, a literary entity that presents a simple to understood message, expressing a meaning that is cognitively graspable by even the most common person. Sure, Protestants have held a few additional notions about the “Perspicuity of Scripture,” but for the moment what I would like to focus on is a minimum denotation that is relevant to just about anyone and comports more with a more colloquial, English understanding of “plain.” If anyone here thinks differently, please advance a restatement—I’m all ears.

 

I want us to also be aware that if the Bible doesn’t qualify as “plain,” then various other associated Christian doctrines and dogmas might be at risk of needing further qualification. Without a “plain” Bible, Protestants today, and possibly other types of Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, or whatnot, will have to think twice--and maybe thrice—before becoming emotionally invested in any kind of view involving the essence of Christian life and faith. The typical Baptist and Pentecostal approach might represent something less than the best.

 

As we all know, there are people who still claim the Bible is an example of a “plain text.” They persist in believing that the Bible can be easily wafted in hand, flapped open on a table, surfed electronically, flipped through sporadically, and wherever one applies some eyes to the confines of its massive bulk, clear meanings will fly forth like fire-works, becoming magically discernible with only a modicum of mental effort.  With this kind view, it seems that the local, uneducated farmer should be able to understand the Bible just as easily as the most tenured, ivory towered theologian. But, is this really the nature of the Biblical texts? I don’t think it is. (And If it isn’t, how might this affect the reading, interpretation, and application of James 5:13-16 by the common person, especially if the common  person is cognizant enough to realize that the ivory towered theologians don’t always agree about biblical meanings either?)

 

Therefore, if the Bible is not a “plain text,” it does not behoove Christians or non-Christians to suppose that it is, or to study it as if its conceptual matrix can be comprehended with something akin to the ease of a human breath.  No, even with the help of God, it is more likely that meaning will still have to be hardily excavated from the ancient and dead words of Jewish prophets and Christian disciples long gone.

 

Since we all already know that a lot of disagreement exists about whether or not the Bible is easy to understand, I would like to suggest that we need to gain some additional discernment on this issue. What passes for discernment in Christians circles, and even in some non-Christian circles, doesn’t seem to me to be very discerning on a philosophical level, or even a spiritual one. So, I offer a few of my own deliberations, as follows:

 

[1] In dealing with the reading and interpreting of the Bible, if we have to make reference to information, sources, processes, and methods that exist ONLY outside the Bible, among other things which we might have to resource so as to inform ourselves about, and clarify, the meaning of a biblical text (the Letter of James included), then at that point we are no longer dealing with what can be analytically* called a “plain text.” That is, if the Biblical writers themselves have not clearly provided us sufficient information or insight by which we can clearly understand their intent and meaning, then we are not dealing with what qualifies as a “plain text.” This is not to say that some parts of the Bible don’t shed some light on other parts of the Bible. I actually think they do, but any light that is shed is only partial, not plenary. The bible came in fragments, not as a humanly planned whole—we’re not reading J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.

 

Example:  When studying the structure of the Bible, many people can identify the presence of various genres, styles, narrative types, figures of speech, symbols, cultural expressions and rhetoric, or narrative descriptions. Today, this is supposedly a common recognition among readers of the Bible, among both protagonists and antagonists. However, it does not prevent people from still reading the Bible’s various literary forms in a one dimensional, literalistic way. Why is this? Basically, the biblical texts from Genesis to Revelation do not contain much in the way of direct, or full, indications as to how we “should” interpret their meanings, or the full historical, cultural contexts in which they emerged. This is a problem, and to address it requires going OUTSIDE the bible to attempt additional understanding of its contents. Staying INSIDE isn’t enough.

 

* By the term “analytically” above, I mean the act of reading the Bible with the intention of applying the field of Analytical Philosophically to the words and terms under investigation, dissecting possible terminology and usage for more precise meaning and intention of usage. I don’t mean that we are simply trying to analyze a text.

 

[2] OR, in dealing with the reading and interpretation of the Bible, if we can recognize a phenomenon in the text that indicates to us the mediation of an outside influence or force which intervenes in our attempt to approach the bible as a “plain text,” then by that recognition, we cannot claim to consistently receive plain meanings from a “plain text,” and we have very little warrant to claim that we are able to apply its meaning to our lives. When unclear meanings might produce unclear results, we would be wise to be cautious in how we proceed in all of this. What are some phenomena that we should we cautious of as we read the Bible, even James chapter 5? I have a few ideas:

 

A. We should be cautious about the insertion of Verse Numbers: these were not added until the 1500s (Schultz, 2012, p. 41), and they should probably be ignored as we read the biblical texts. For sure, verse numbers are great for helping us find something in the Bible, but as Satan is represented as having done while Jesus’ spent a 40 day stint in the desert, we may think we have the right to tear out bits and pieces of Scripture and make untidy claims upon those bits and pieces. In fact, the naming and claiming of bible verses has become a favorite, Satanically inspired, Christian pastime, at least in the English world (McConnell, 1988).

 

Personally, I recommend that we ignore the present verse system of the bible when reading and interpreting it and not allow the verse system to truncate our awareness of the contextual thought flow of the writers. As we ignore the verses in our reading, we also need to make sure we pay attention to where a writer changes topic, where the change begins in each passage, how the topic is explained by example, analogy, or context, and where transitions are made. Granted, this is not easy for us to do; it requires study and mental work, sometimes a lot of mental work. Mistakes can be made by anyone (even yours truly) while reading just about any book, whether it be a Harry Potter book or the Letter of James. Needless to say, I don’t think I need make a spiel about Chapter numberings in the Bible, too.

 

B. We should be cautious of an English Bible (or a Bible in any other more modern language, like German, Spanish, etc.): To those of us living in an English cultural environment, we should see this as a substantial problem, even if does not prove to be an insurmountable one. Many of us ‘Yanks,’’ Canucks,’’ Brits,’’ Aussies,’ and ‘Kiwis,’ can look at a bible cover easily enough and notice a peculiar thing—we see the words “Holy Bible” typically printed there (Duh, Philo!). If we also open up the our English bible, what to our wandering eyes should appear, but a fine English print, and at times, annotations there.  Need I say that when we do this, we have a problem? (Unless we think we should settle for the sufficiency of English because, well, “if it was good enough for Paul the Apostle, it should be good enough for us.”)  If we see English in a bible, we know we’ve been intercepted already on our way to any kind of straightforward reading. Why? Because, when we see English print appearing on a page of the bible, in whichever of many English versions, this means that someone—maybe many several someones--have already taken the liberty to interpret the text for us as they translated the text from the ancient tongues. In other words, reading an English bible does not afford the assertion that we are dealing with a “plain text.” That assertion has gone bye-bye. Languages do not correspond to one another in a lock-step, thought for thought way; there are different conceptual dynamics involved with the structure and contours of each language.

 

All that I’ve thus far is in addition to the fact that the various ancient biblical manuscripts from which modern English translations are ‘fabricated’ can also be sorted into different “families” of ancient texts, many of which manifest numerous differences among and between themselves. Which of them was the right one? Then too, all of this comes along with the historical and clerical messiness of bible transmission through the ages, something which scholars such Bart Ehrman succinctly expose for the benefit of all bona-fide and would-be biblical literalists. The icing on the cake is that there’s more that I won’t even get into here: an assortment of hermeneutical/exegetical methods, archaeological evidences, psychological factors of mind and perception, the presence of various epistemological pretzels like the “meaning of meaning,” as well as a number of other things that could also be brought up.

 

Last but not least, in respect to the Letter of James, we might remember what Martin Luther, that first of the Protestant Reformers, thought about the Letter of James—that is was bogus, “an epistle of straw” (Law, 1990). It would be an understatement to say that Luther’s view of James is problematic for claiming that the book of James is a “plain text,” from a Protestant point of view?

 

In sum, even with all I’ve said above, I don’t want to give the impression that there is a concrete and dichotomous chasm between any person being able to extract, or not extract, an intended meaning from the biblical text. Lots of meaning, however various in its fidelity, can be extracted from the bible, some or much of which may be ‘clear enough.’ However, my main point is that, besides all of the relevant statements made INSIDE the bible about the extent to which any one can be successful in negotiation the biblical text—with the required help of God, no less--more often than not, much of the bible’s meaning will only be extracted by going OUTSIDE of its text and bringing to bear upon it twenty centuries of church tradition, along with several centuries of academic deliberation and insight that scream to be taken into account.  Regardless, because the bible wasn’t written for the contemporary Plain Jane, Simple Sue, and Rural Ralph, I don’t think we should, or can, treat James 5:13-16 as a purely “plain text” with a plain and unproblematic application. James’ handful of verses on healing are no exception. [but… I could be wrong about all this, and if anyone wishes to object objectively or add to what I’ve said, please do so. I’m no Lion, so I won’t bite.]

 

Anyway, Dude. That’s the short version of the first piece. If you are already aware of all of this, I beg your pardon.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

References

 

Laws, S. (1990). James. In A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. (pp. 330-331). Philadelphia, PA:  Trinity Press International.

 

McConnell, D.R. (1988). A Different Gospel: A historical and biblical analysis of the Modern Faith Movement. Peabody, MA:  Hendrickson Publishers.

 

Schulz, R.L. (2012). Out of Context: How to avoid misinterpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[Geezer]

I assume the original question, "Why does God's voice only speak to the mentally ill?", was intended to be rhetorical.

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

 

[a whole pileof things]

 

 

Philo, I'm not trying to insert into your discussion with Dude, but just so you know--you are unintentionally making the unbeliever's case. Seriously, I think most everyone I know would rather burn forever and ever and ever in hell with the gnawing worms than to have to study the bible as hard as you recommend, just to come up with a very doubtful interpretation of some verse we can never hope to understand. Thanks bunches!

[2PhiloVoid]

 

 

[a whole pileof things]

 

 

Philo, I'm not trying to insert into your discussion with Dude, but just so you know--you are unintentionally making the unbeliever's case. Seriously, I think most everyone I know would rather burn forever and ever and ever in hell with the gnawing worms than to have to study the bible as hard as you recommend, just to come up with a very doubtful interpretation of some verse we can never hope to understand. Thanks bunches!

 

 

StJeff,

 

Great point, Jeff! Yes, you’re right! I am presenting a viewpoint that can lend itself to an unbeliever’s case, which is fine by me, and I think it’s in line with other things I’ve said on other threads. (Again, as I’ve stated previously, I’m not here to convert anyone, but to enter discussions and perhaps learn some things along the way. If I become an atheist in the process…so be it. If the process instead invigorates my faith for some unforeseen reason, so be it as well.)

 

See, the point of my discussion with Dude, however unclear and imprecise I may be in attempting to explain it, is that Christians shouldn’t get to have their cake and eat it too by insisting that the Bible is easy to understand and then scuff the heads of unbelievers because of apparent non-kosher reactions. Conversely, non-Christians shouldn’t get to say that the bible is an ‘easy’ target because it so obviously and easily fails. So, neither has much space, in my estimations, to make additional assumptions which emerge out of the idea that the bible is a so-called “plain text.”

 

The bible may be an easy target and difficult to believe for other reasons, of course, but not because it’s message and meanings are so obvious. God didn't afford us that option.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

[2PhiloVoid]

I assume the original question, "Why does God's voice only speak to the mentally ill?", was intended to be rhetorical.

 

Hi Geezer,

 

The original question could very well have been rhetorical, but since we've already figured out that William Parcher isn't real, we are moving on to other related tangents.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid