Welcome to WeAreSMRT.com. Click here to register

Psalms 146:3

BS = Bible Study... Get it?

Moderator: BaldySlaphead

Re: Psalms 146:3

Postby Chaplain Entrekin » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:10 pm

BeamStalk wrote:...as for the scripture talking about a census of all males, it was of the Levites in Number 3:14-16

14 The Lord said to Moses in the Desert of Sinai, 15 “Count the Levites by their families and clans. Count every male a month old or more.” 16 So Moses counted them, as he was commanded by the word of the Lord.


So, let's consider the original question/idea, which I believe was roughly: Some Christians use the Bible to defend being prolife, but there are other passages that seem to suggest that God only considers someone alive once they have taken a breath (presumably of oxygen). Here is a passage (Numbers 3:14ff) that shows God doesn't consider kids under 1 month old as being "human enough" to count.

(Please forgive me if that was not the precise point. I am trying to be both representative and fair of the original point being made, but confess I am certainly capable of being off target, and ask for your graceful correction if I am).

The argument that this passage (or others) implies that God does not consider humans of value until they take a breath, or are 2 months old is pretty bogus. Since the focus of the census was on males, this would mean that God doesn't care about women of any age! Remember that I said interpretation must be dictated on context. That includes not just literary genre, but using (in this case) a pretty basic understanding of what is going on when reading the larger scope of the text.

This whole thing boils down to the purpose of the census (which is spelled out in the text). Admittedly, there are several different kinds of census-takings going on in Numbers. The first (ch. 1) is for the purpose of military enrollment. The second (ch. 3) is for the purpose of the Levites' place as redeeming the firstborn of Israel. And the third (ch 4.) is to count the Levites who can serve. So relative values of the people left out (i.e. when is a person a person) is not the point.

The most likely explanation for the one-month limit is high infant mortality rates, or possible birth defects that would not show during the earliest weeks of life, that would exclude them from being able to serve in the duties being listed. Even these items would not take away from God's value of the person. It would just mean they would be unable to serve in that specified capacity.

- Chap
I find your lack of faith...disturbing. -Darth Vader
User avatar
Chaplain Entrekin
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:23 am

Re: Psalms 146:3

Postby Chaplain Entrekin » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:37 pm

zilch wrote:Chap- you argue that Christianity is unique among religions, and unique in such a way that makes it ring true in a way other religions do not.


Actually, I was hoping my point was only, Christianity is unique among religions in that it does seem like a man-made religion, because of its economy. Other religions work on a "do this - do this - get that" concept. Christianity does not. For those who say, "All religions are alike," I would respectfully disagree specifically on this point. But even acknowledging that uniqueness would not necessarily cause it to "ring true" for a person.

zilch wrote:I'm willing to bet that you, like the vast majority of Christians, were brought up in a Christian culture. This means that you are likely (like most of us) to have embraced your worldview at first without really thinking about it, and only post facto looked for arguments to support your views.


If you are referring to what I call "cultural christianity" (similar to being a Yankees fan just because you're from New York) than I agree with you and your implications, as they are astute. However, if we are referring to genuine Christianity (and I am not judging others or claiming that I or others are more special, holier-than-thou, or whatever. But I think you understand what I am trying to say) then believing that a choice is wrong/tainted because of the background of the chooser is a logical fallacy.

zilch wrote:I know good people of many different worldviews: atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, pagans..... I don't see any reason to single out any one of their belief systems as better at making people behave nicely, or more convincing in terms of evidence for their god or gods or lack of such.


Any religion or system of thought/belief that has as its end "nice behavior" would be what I categorize as a man-made religion, because it serves only the needs of man. It makes the only entity to which mankind is accountable each other. Did we act "nice" to each other? If so, great, we can have an easy conscience. The purpose of Christianity is not nice behavior, but being made Holy, as God is Holy. That Holiness is not through behavior, works, thoughts, knowledge, etc, but is a gift imputed to us from Jesus Christ. Our conscience is easy not through our behavior, but through our standing as righteous before God (an indicative).

zilch wrote:More later- gotta get on my bike while the sun shines. Cheers, zilch


Based on the length of your next reply, that must have been one heck of a bike ride!

-Chap
I find your lack of faith...disturbing. -Darth Vader
User avatar
Chaplain Entrekin
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:23 am

Re: Psalms 146:3

Postby Chaplain Entrekin » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:45 pm

zilch wrote:And it must be said that the Bible is not as clear as it might easily have been- beams' examples here, for instance, and others, help generate the sometimes byzantine dance of apologetics. If the Nicene editors had been a bit more careful about chucking duplicate but differing accounts, many theologians would probably have been out of work, because there'd have been lots less complex apologia necessary: the so-called "plain reading" of the text would have been much clearer, if still imperfect. Understanding the Bible would have been more like a square dance and less like a game of dodgeball.


Zilch, the fact that Nicene editors, (as you label them) or other "editors" throughout Biblical history did not create a "clean" copy is more evidence in my mind that Christianity is not a man-made religion. The scribes believed their job as copying the very word of God. So that, even when there was an obvious copying error made, the scribes would copy the error and then make a note on the side of the document about the error. But they were unwilling to edit out the error themself, because this was God's word. If you are trying to convince people of a lie, all parties need to get their "story straight." It is clear that in duplicating documents, the Biblical and early church writers and scribes did not try to clean things up.

Still, I believe that scripture is plain enough that its message can be received by those who read it and hear it preached.

- Chap
I find your lack of faith...disturbing. -Darth Vader
User avatar
Chaplain Entrekin
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:23 am

Re: Psalms 146:3

Postby Milo » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:52 pm

Actually, I was hoping my point was only, Christianity is unique among religions in that it does seem like a man-made religion, because of its economy. Other religions work on a "do this - do this - get that" concept. Christianity does not. For those who say, "All religions are alike," I would respectfully disagree specifically on this point. But even acknowledging that uniqueness would not necessarily cause it to "ring true" for a person.


How can you say Christianity does not work on a "do this-do this-get that" concept when that is the very heart of Christianity? Accept Jesus and get salvation. It's not even a matter of doing something to get something, if you don't do it you burn in hell. Maybe Christianity has less hoops to jump through- is that what you mean?
Stop doubting and beleive Milo. Then everything will make sense.
User avatar
Milo
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:37 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama

Re: Psalms 146:3

Postby zilch » Mon Jun 02, 2014 5:54 pm

Hey Chap- no, it was just a normal bike ride for me, although I did wear my clipin bike shoes- they do boost my speed noticeably. This is just stuff I've been thinking about for a long time. I guess this is a basic difference between us: I'm trying to behave nicely, and do what I can to get the whole world behaving nicely. This is of course not my goal alone; most people probably want this, in whatever way they imagine it to be. I don't believe in any holiness beyond this. I don't begrudge those who do; but I don't need it for myself, nor do I see any evidence that the real world demands it in any way. If gods are part of the real world, they haven't done a very good job of letting me distinguish their existence from that of leprechauns and Nessie. So pending evidence, I'll stick with just trying to make the world a better place for myself, my family, all of humanity, and life. If Jesus wants to send me to Hell for being this way, it's His prerogative.

edit- I just read your latest, Chap. I'll just add that the fact that there are parallels in the Gospels which are not quite identical might of course be the result of slightly garbled (or alternate viewpoint) versions of a real story. I'm willing to believe that a lot of Scripture is based, however distantly and garbled, on actual history. But of course all kinds of stories, including fairy tales, also exist in alternate versions. This alone is not any indication of truth.
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15234
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Psalms 146:3

Postby Chaplain Entrekin » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:03 pm

BeamStalk wrote:No. It is the big book of multiple choice because it can be used to support just about anything you want, not because some words have different meanings based on context. You realize the Southern states and Baptist church used the Bible to support slavery. While the North used the bible to say that all men should be free because the overall story of love transcends the actual passages on slavery.


BeamStalk,
I understand what you are saying and acknowledge your point, which you have adeptly clarified. At various times throughout history, people have twisted scripture in order to put forth a meaning which better served their own selfish, immoral, and evil ends.

The silent obedience of the German church during WW2
The immoral act of slave trading and slave holding espoused by Southern ministers in America in the 1800s
The evangelism by colonization practiced in the American colonies and Central America
The selling of indulgeces by the Catholic church

But I think it is more accurate to say (using your language) The big book of multiple application, because people have used it to mean what they wanted it to. When Christians, whether individually, or corporately, are justifying not resembling Jesus Christ in our thoughts, words, and deeds, it is a sure sign that we are misinterpreting God's word. When we remove God as king over all and place ourselves as the new law-givers and determiners of what is right or wrong, it is a sure sign that we have misinterpreted God's word.

But that cuts both ways.

- Chap
I find your lack of faith...disturbing. -Darth Vader
User avatar
Chaplain Entrekin
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:23 am

Re: Psalms 146:3

Postby zilch » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:08 pm

Chap- as I'm sure you realize, slavery cuts both ways too: where do you find your Scriptural denouncement of slavery? I'm gratified that so many Christians have borrowed from the humanistic worldview to find it in their hearts to denounce slavery, but I don't see any Biblical support for it, unless you interpret 1 John 4:8 to mean "no slavery". But that's cherry picking, and I'm not sure God approves of cherry picking.
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15234
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Re: Psalms 146:3

Postby Chaplain Entrekin » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:19 pm

Milo wrote:
Actually, I was hoping my point was only, Christianity is unique among religions in that it does seem like a man-made religion, because of its economy. Other religions work on a "do this - do this - get that" concept. Christianity does not. For those who say, "All religions are alike," I would respectfully disagree specifically on this point. But even acknowledging that uniqueness would not necessarily cause it to "ring true" for a person.


How can you say Christianity does not work on a "do this-do this-get that" concept when that is the very heart of Christianity? Accept Jesus and get salvation. It's not even a matter of doing something to get something, if you don't do it you burn in hell. Maybe Christianity has less hoops to jump through- is that what you mean?


Milo, (good to hear from you)
I understand how Christianity appears to be: Accept Jesus and get salvation.
It is more accurate (and I promise not just semantics) to view it as: Salavation has been provided/won for you. Now accept it.

In other religions we have a pattern of:
1. Imperative (what you have to do, i.e. works) which leads to indicative (here's what you get in return, namely peace/reconciliation with God).

Christianity is reversed.
1. Indicative (here is the status you now have because of the work of Jesus, namely peace/reconciliation with God) which leads to 2. imperative (since you have peace/reconciliation with God, accept that peace/reconciliation and live accordingly).

Note well, I bear no imaginings that just because I have spelled it out more, it will seem any more agreeable to you or anyone else. As I say often, no one is argued into the kingdom of heaven.

Hope all is well
- Chap
I find your lack of faith...disturbing. -Darth Vader
User avatar
Chaplain Entrekin
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:23 am

Re: Psalms 146:3

Postby Chaplain Entrekin » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:25 pm

zilch wrote:Chap- as I'm sure you realize, slavery cuts both ways too: where do you find your Scriptural denouncement of slavery? I'm gratified that so many Christians have borrowed from the humanistic worldview to find it in their hearts to denounce slavery, but I don't see any Biblical support for it, unless you interpret 1 John 4:8 to mean "no slavery". But that's cherry picking, and I'm not sure God approves of cherry picking.


Zilch,
Great question, friend. Perhaps, if you (or others) really want to discuss Biblical interpretation, including historically, we should create another thread? (Since "Psalms 146:3" doesn't really seem like an appropriate thread heading for such a subject).

For right now, please allow me the gracious favor of writing briefly that slavery in the Bible is typically not the same kind of slavery practiced in the Americas and Africa from 1700-1865. As always, context is king. I fully admit that feels like a dodging of the subject. But if you would like us to go into that more, I do propose another thread.

- Chap
I find your lack of faith...disturbing. -Darth Vader
User avatar
Chaplain Entrekin
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:23 am

Re: Psalms 146:3

Postby zilch » Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:33 pm

Sure, Chap, we can start another thread if you like. But I don't know if there's anything new to say on the topic. To preempt your argument: yes, there was slavery that was more like manumission in the Bible. But that was just for Hebrew slaves. Foreign slaves were chattel slaves, just like in the American South: you owned them and their children too, unless you mistreated them. You must know this, Chap. The Bible regulates slavery, yes: but slavery is condoned. This is an apologetic dance I've yet to see performed convincingly.
You were born. And so you're free. So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson
User avatar
zilch
 
Posts: 15234
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:12 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

PreviousNext

Return to SMRT BS

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron