All throughout reading these messages I was thinking what about these other types of death, drowning, disease, accidents of various kinds are all under God’s control… Thanks for bringing it up. I didn’t know how to say it, but you make a great point.
All throughout reading these messages I was thinking what about these other types of death, drowning, disease, accidents of various kinds are all under God’s control… Thanks for bringing it up. I didn’t know how to say it, but you make a great point.
No they don’t “presume an error”.Interesting assertions by PR & Clem. Each of them, of course, is a logical possibility – that is, on the surface, they explain the text as we have it. However, are they reasonable?
Each of them has one thing in common (besides the fact that none of these are supported by the writings of the ECFs or Jewish tradition): they presume an error. Either Moses/Joshua got it wrong, or the inspired writer got it wrong, or the Israelites (thinking back on it) fabricated a story.
That’s an amazing way to interpret Scripture that we don’t like – “somebody messed up”.
If Moses and/or Joshua got it wrong, then they disobeyed God. Is there any indication that God reprimanded them? (After all, when Moses disobeyed God by striking the rock, God definitely let him know he sinned through his disobedience!)
You’ve shown that you don’t understand inspiration and inerrancy.Because
Because
That’s what we’ve been doing. You simply don’t understand the Catholic literal sense of scripture.
You confuse literal with literalist.No, you don’t. You might have read the words, you haven’t heard them.
Back it up?Gorgias says:
But… do you have anything to back it up, besides the fact that this is what you want the text to mean?
I’m the one who isn’t reading closely? Let’s see:No they don’t “presume an error”.
i.e., Moses & Joshua got it wrong, because the inspired author ‘got it’ right.
i.e., Moses & Joshua explicitly got it wrong.
i.e., life is messy, and therefore, we get things wrong.
No, and no. I understand, quite well, what the Church teaches. I just disagree with you on this particular passage, and so you bring out the big guns.That’s what we’ve been doing. You simply don’t understand the Catholic literal sense of scripture.
My contention isn’t with the Church’s approach to reading Scripture; it’s with your assertion that particular passages of that teaching apply to this passage of Scripture.
None of these suggest that it’s an ahistorical book.
For starters, no one said the passage is ahistorical.I’m the one who isn’t reading closely? Let’s see:
i.e., Moses & Joshua got it wrong, because the inspired author ‘got it’ right.
i.e., Moses & Joshua explicitly got it wrong.
i.e., life is messy, and therefore, we get things wrong.
Really, clem. I get what you’re saying – and it’s that somebody messed up. Sure, you can say that God intended the error, and through it taught His message… but the heart of your and PR’s argument is “there was a mistake”.
No, and no. I understand, quite well, what the Church teaches. I just disagree with you on this particular passage, and so you bring out the big guns.
My contention isn’t with the Church’s approach to reading Scripture; it’s with your assertion that particular passages of that teaching apply to this passage of Scripture.
In particular, it’s a real hoot that you take Benedict’s words and attempt to apply them here. Remember, if this passage is only metaphorical, then there’s no “dark passage” of Scripture here. Benedict tells us that we cannot simply gloss over these passages or explain them away, but that we must deal with them, as difficult as it may be.
None of these suggest that it’s an ahistorical book.
Right. Just that it’s a mishmash of misunderstanding, error, and the fog of history.
Nah… after you speak for yourselves, I hold up your statements for scrutiny, and make sure you realize what you’re really asserting.
I do address the subject. That’s what’s getting your goat – I address it and come up with different conclusions than you do.
And yet…
You took two posters (PR and I), one of whom was addressing propositions from another poster, conflated those posts and ideas, and misrepresented what was said. In effect you invented assertions and motivations that were not made, and assigned them to two other posters.Right. Just that it’s a mishmash of misunderstanding, error, and the fog of history.
Nah… after you speak for yourselves, I hold up your statements for scrutiny, and make sure you realize what you’re really asserting.
I do address the subject. That’s what’s getting your goat – I address it and come up with different conclusions than you do.
And yet…
Well, I have to admit – once you and she quit baldly asserting “metaphor!”, I was glad, since it moved the conversation forward. I was disappointed, though, that the explanation was “error” (primarily PR) and “creative re-imaging of history” (you).
You mean your misrepresentation of my posts? I’d call it ‘amusing’.
This is a nonsensical question.
I reject the version of god you have in mind, just as you reject him.
Oh, right, without a doubt!
Oh, right, without a doubt!
Now you’re just not baldly asserting it, but rather, are explaining, “metaphor, because someone made a mistake either in understanding God or in writing down what He meant”.
Except that you aren’t claiming they “may be symbolic,” you are claiming they MUST BE symbolic because no other explanation is acceptable nor even can be logically true. Which is why you offered the square circle example.
Indeed.
That God does not have a favorable attitude towards killing does not entail that killing is never permitted or commanded by him.
No. God never commands killing.
What do you say to this, then: that you can think of no instances where rape would be permissible does not mean there can be none possible.
Again, God can give and take life as He sees fit.
Ahh… there we go. Finally.