Comment by David McKay on 4th mo. 21, 2017 at 9:42pm

Casablanca is a simplified model for occupied France packaged for consumption in the United States. It explores the consequences of noninvolvement in World War 2 by depicting the outcomes of various responses to the kind of universalizing violence that was Nazi-ism. While I do not necessarily describe to the films end message I do on her the fact that the film recognized a diversity of responses and rationales to violence. It did not try to be mere propaganda. I am not so sure that you can say the same thing about the book of Exodus. Exodus subscribes to the two path doctrine found in various places in Scripture: there are two paths in life, one leading to life and the other leading to chaos and death.

Comment by James C Schultz on 4th mo. 22, 2017 at 10:44am

There's a lot to be said for the two path doctrine.  Jesus says in Rev 3:15  I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 

See also Matthew 6:24 or Luke 16:13.

Comment by David McKay on 4th mo. 22, 2017 at 1:24pm

The two path doctrine when the options are clear works just fine. However, if as an incentive to follow the authors agenda we are given simplified choices when the situation is actually quite murky — this is less than helpful.

There is little to no evidence that the events of Exodus ever happened. Likely the book was written some time around the era of King Solomon when a new kingdom was being born — and kings like to pretend that their king ships have divine sanction from the beginning of days. Solomon's daddy was basically a petty warlord. So let's rewrite some history.

Perhaps I'm being unfair to Exodus. It has some wisdom there. I simply think it simplifies things too much: too many clear good guys and bad guys and not enough of us ordinary not quite good not quite bad types.

Comment by James C Schultz on 4th mo. 22, 2017 at 3:40pm

Somehow we got mixed signals.  My reference to "Exodus" was to the Leon Uris book based movie intending to show how important it is to some in the Jewish race to have their independence.  So far as the Biblical story goes you either believe it's true or not.  Discussing it doesn't make sense when you have different basic beliefs.

Comment by David McKay on 4th mo. 22, 2017 at 5:40pm

Fair enough.

But your word "true" is a little absolute for me in this instance. The authority of the story for me is less about its historical accuracy then its witness to a God who saves us in part to gathering us into community and calling us to a corporate faithfulness. And I believe that witness is true even as I expressed doubts about the account's historicity.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 22, 2017 at 9:32pm

I don't get the meaning of "a God."

If we talk about "God as-is", then we might differ as to which description applies; but at that point we'd be clear about "not just making this up."

Historicity, well, I don't think most people care whether certain ancient writers got their history strictly factual (Clearly those writers weren't that concerned about science either) -- but we do want to know what God's part was in producing this book and whatever events led to its writing. Especially, to know what God wants us to conclude from all this...

That we're supposed to be involved in this endeavour together, well, yeah. But the group doesn't 'see' God; each individual needs "to do his own math" on that one.

Comment by James C Schultz on 4th mo. 23, 2017 at 11:26pm

I think I agree with Forest (never quite sure of that) though I also agree my use of the word true was not the best choice for even my position.  Personally I agree with Paul's position in 2Ti_3:16  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".  My problem is first focusing and then discerning on the application for myself on a day to day basis. 

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 24, 2017 at 11:18am

Paul was not writing about Paul's writings, by the way. "Scripture" to him meant the Hebrew scriptures (and Daniel, and probably several later books, influential at the time, that later rabbis decided weren't in the same class. Some of those now in the Apocrypha plus a few odd Jewish apocalypses that went out of fashion when the Temple was destroyed.)

The big problem, of course, is what "given by inspiration of God" entails. I would say something like "included in the Creation because God intended it to provide inspiration and insight to some of us sometime," but some people impose other notions like "guaranteed error-free and foolproof" that raise a whole bunch of stumbling-blocks.

And "profitable for doctrine"....  The Church (and the Protestants) made "doctrine" a bad word, as if every idea they accepted was The Last Word direct from God. I'd have to say, rather -- "This is how other people have understood things so far." Not saying they weren't helped by God in their understanding -- but insisting that they were interpreting the Divine/human communication with the same limitations that apply to us today.

Comment by James C Schultz on 4th mo. 24, 2017 at 4:49pm

I'm pretty sure I saw someone on Ebay selling the King James Bible Paul used.  As for error free and foolproof, I can see the Bible being that.  I just can't see us being error free and foolproof in our understanding/interpretation of it. 

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page