"The Stool Test"
Read the article this discussion is about
- Morpharama
- mariomartin
- shiloh
- Morpharama
- mariomartin
- shiloh
- shiloh
- mariomartin
- shiloh
- mariomartin
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» Morpharama - Hrmpf...
I have been having a similar discussion with a friend of mine. It seems like as Christians our job is to synthesize concepts from many authors, each writing from his own cultural viewpoint and each with a different message to deliver. But just like reading books by different writers of psychology or astronomy, there are varying opinions available on any number of subjects in the field. I have trouble with the idea that the New Testament in some way cancels out the Old. I want to believe that it's in the canon for a reason.Via media,
-- posted by Morpharama
» mariomartin - Thanks Michael
It's good to hear from you.I appreciate your response.I always thought the New Testament refined the Old Testament rather than cancelled it but I'll have to think some more about that,I quess.
-- posted by mariomartin
» shiloh - Mike, how can you?
David commits adultery. A child is born. The child dies. Nathan -- who, as a prophet, speaks with the voice of God, or so we are told -- says that the baby dies as a punishment for David's sin.That's not a matter of "perspective". In fact, Nathan says, "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."
That's even worse! God kills the baby for no reason at all; he'd already forgiven David! (I guess because David was "special" to God.) So an innocent baby dies as a punishment from God to a man whose sin has already been forgiven!
If such things can be reconciled with Jesus, please explain this to me. Would Jesus have ever, ever, ever done such a thing? If not, then Jesus and the God of Nathan are two entirely different Gods.
Shiloh
-- posted by shiloh
» Morpharama - *groan*
I knew this would happen! ;)This is very tricky, and I'm not totally convinced of it myself. Bear with me here.
Suppose you were the author of that story about King David. Consider the significance of the mythology of the good king to the Hebrew people. It's almost like JFK or Eva Peron, only deeper. Now suppose you knew that David was just as corrupt a politician as Peron, or just as morally in question as Kennedy. So you want to paint a picture of a man who is still subject to the laws of God, yet you know that if you go too far no one will believe it.
I don't know that I believe any of the stories in the Old Testament are really based on actual events, nor do I think I need to. The Jewish tradition of Midrash makes me a skeptic on this. Remember folks, this is a story. Midrash isn't concerned with the specificity of the details, just the message. The message I get from this story is that no one, no matter how privileged or powerful, should be able to use their power to disobey God. I think the punishment is a secondary issue. It's there because without it there is no message. And it happens to be revolting to our 20th century conscience.
Is that too far out for you? That's okay; I thought it would be.
No, Shiloh, I don't think Jesus would ever ever ever say or do such a thing. But if you get where I'm coming from, you understand that I don't think God did it to David, either.
Via media,
-- posted by Morpharama
» mariomartin - Hello from the planet Earth
I think Jesus says the same thing in Mt.24 and the real world tells me Mt.24 has happened over and over again.How many innocent people are caught up in awful wars and natural disasters? For the past few years I can't even keep track of them anymore.Don't you think God could put a stop to this if He wanted to?Or is He a slave to "chance"? Actually He's telling us to repent and fast.I think the innocent get it first to give a chance to the more evil ones to repent since He wants to save all of us.Sooner or later we all die-it's just a matter of who goes first.Hope I don't shock anyone with this post.
-- posted by mariomartin
» shiloh - okay
>>Midrash isn't concerned with the specificity of the details, just the message.<<I can accept that. But what that means in plain English is that you just can't believe the Bible when it said God did this or God did that. So where does that leave us? For me it leads to the conclusion organized religion is organized story-telling, not fact. In other words, I guess I'm wondering, not how you can believe that, but how you can believe that and still be a Christian. Where's the necessity for Christianity and Christian practice if the faith is organized story-telling? Why not just do away with the church and believe in a God who's above organized story-telling?
Shiloh
-- posted by shiloh
» shiloh - Mario
I don't buy that argument myself, for two reasons. First, not everyone who dies in wars and natural disasters is some kind of "innocent". The guilty suffer as well. And secondly, I don't buy the idea that God lets some people die just to send the rest of us a message. If Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Light, what have you, then that was the message. Letting people die in floods, wars, plagues is totally unecessary, as far as "divine communication" goes.Shiloh
-- posted by shiloh
» mariomartin - The Communion of Saints
To me this is what the communion of saints is all about.I believe my sin done in secret hurts others just like I believe saintly mothers win tons of graces for their children.Would we have St. Augustine without St. Monica?When we reject God by sinning as we please,God leaves us to ourselves and soon we're killing each other.Our souls are infinitely more important to God than our happiness here and now and if He must, He uses all the means He has.This shows He is merciful.
When I made my nine First Fridays over 25 years ago(do Catholics even know what that means today?) I asked God to use ANY means necessary to get me back on track if I strayed badly.Getting to heaven is serious business.Jesus'life on earth was no picnic and He was no whimp.
I think Mt.24 and Revelation are for all ages and some of the language is strong.To me the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament is the same God.
In all wars and all natural disasters both the good and others are affected but would we have less of these bad situations if people,all people,sinned less? I don't know but I really think so.
Sorry for the sermon.If we pursue this some more,I'll reply on the Catholic page.I'm not sure people on this page want to hear about First Fridays.
-- posted by mariomartin
» shiloh - LOL!
>>Sorry for the sermon. If we pursue this some more, I'll reply on the Catholic page. I'm not sure people on this page want to hear about First Fridays.<<Mario, you're a scream! Nowadays "First Fridays" is the name of an African-American organization.
I see no reason whatsoever why Revelation should be in the canon. It's been the cause of more people leaving Christianity than any other book ever written. But for that matter, I don't think the epistles should be in the canon either. Jist the gospels. That should be the New Testament. And I think all the gospels should be in there, so we can read what all the early Christians thought about the life of Jesus and make up our own minds.
Shiloh
-- posted by shiloh
» mariomartin - That is funny...
Thanks a lot for cluing me in.I won't make that mistake again.-- posted by mariomartin
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.