:smirk:

Not ignoring.

These are two different issues but I'll start with murder. The short answer is I think its possible for societies to be so rotten that they're basically in need of a re-do. The men and women could theoretically all be very evil. We need to remember that death is not the end and ultimately trust in God's judgement for their souls. For all we know the children could be enjoying eternal bliss or reincarnated as a billionaire oil baron. Ultimately life is god's to give and take.

Certain societies could theoretically be so awful that death is warranted given God's commandment. We don't make these decisions on our own. Only if direct divine intervention instructs it.

So murder in the bible is justified because the people in the bible or those the bible identifies as murder worthy deserved to die?
What about gay men? The bible calls for them to be stoned to death.
Also, you mentioned “in theory”, but we dont need to theorise because the bible is specific. Im not asking you about theory but the actual instances of the murder described in the bible.

We're going to stick to this one topic instead of branching off to homosexuality which is its own separate topic. I want to get this done first then we can move on.

Let's talk about the amalekites which are the most hated group and the warrant for murder most clear. the amalekites are not a separate race, all we really know about them is that they're a tribe that preys on the weak and attacked Israel when they were refugees fleeing Egypt because they saw opportunity. Lets presume the society is rotten. It's not about me justifying it, it's ultimately trusting in God in this case that we can break the injunction against murder due to the gravity of that society's sins. I think there's something to be said about sparing future generations of that people the awfulness of their society. Evil society dehumanizes all involved. Imagine being brought up by a hateful nazi family in a society that was entirely like that. I mean we typically don't kill like that, but in this instance it's surprising and shocking but not necessarily evil if we trust in the essential goodness of God. Death is not the end.

We need to remember that death is not the end and ultimately trust in God's judgement for their souls. — Moses

The problem, as your know, is your system is based on presuppositions which many of us don't share and find no evidence for. You've got a lot of juicy morsels in this one statement:

1) that there is life after death; 2) that there is a god; 3) that god has some kind of role in post death assessment; 4) that there is a soul; 5) that god is good.

How have you determined that all these separate notions are true and then come together as you have described?

given all the brutal details and slaughters in the bible if we're going to make sense of it we need a few assumptions/presuppositions. it's all part of biblical theory and without them the bible is indefensible or doesn't make sense. my goal isn't to convince a non-believer of their truth in my above quote/discussion, it's to make sense of all the wild and brutal events of the bible through a biblical lens.

We're going to stick to this one topic instead of branching off to homosexuality which is its own separate topic. I want to get this done first then we can move on.↪ — Moses

Its not branching off to homosexuality, homosexuality is just one specific reason the bible gives for the death penalty. I dont need to discuss the morality of being gay, its not a moral issue to me.
So staying on the topic of murder in the bible, is your position that killing gays as prescribed in the bible is wisdom or if it isnt wisdom then how do you reckon this awful part of the bible with this “wisdom” you purport it has?

is your position that killing gays as prescribed in the bible is wisdom or if it isnt wisdom then how do you reckon this awful part of the bible with this “wisdom” you purport it has? — DingoJones

in order for us to apply this commandment we need infrastructure i.e. a religious court system that would make the judgment. In ancient Israel this was known as a sanhedrin, and this system of courts was abolished in 300 CE. Religions change. No one is allowed to just carry out executions without due process.

Even if the case was brought to a sanhedrin in order to apply the death sentence there would need to be multiple witnesses and a lengthy judicial process. Sanhedrin rarely if ever actually sentenced people to death because the standards of proof were too high. It is said that a court which sentences one person to death every 7 years is a bloody one in.... I believe it's in the mishnah.

So despite this commandment no longer being applicable, especially not in a nation such as the US which prohibits the establishment of a religion through the first amendment, homosexuality is still considered a grave sin but it is one between the sinner and God.

Lastly, this only applies to the action between men, not the same sex attraction of course. I am not aware of any cases where a homosexual man or men were executed through a sanhedrin.

Is the bibles edict to kill people who are gay part of its wisdom?
Im not asking about whether the edict can be proved in a religious court, I AM asking whether the edict is part of the bibles “wisdom”…well Im asking more than that but lets just focus in and not get distracted, as you yourself suggested.
So is the edict to kill gay people part of the bibles wisdom? Is it wise to stone gay people to death?

Is the bibles edict to kill people who are gay part of its wisdom? — DingoJones

no, this is not part of the wisdom. i believe the two clauses against homosexuality appear in leviticus which is more of a legal text that just lays out rules and commandments, but not how they are to be implemented as that is left to humans and their institutions. this is not part of the wisdom. in the OT the anti-gay part is basically two lines in leviticus. it is not a central theme of the text. if you're looking for wisdom read Ecclesiastes or proverbs.

I understand, I’m just choosing something specific so we have direct context for this discussion.
Ok, so if it isnt part of the wisdom then I wonder A) what is it then? And B) why is it in the bible?
I think we have to do A) first, but could be wrong.

a) it's a rule/law. a judgment issued from god, but not an absolute one. the bible is many things: history, poetry, philosophy, practical wisdom, legal concepts, dietary recommendations... maybe you can glean wisdom from it but the most straight-off description of the leviticus rulings are that they're just commandments or rules or judgments that are then subject to human implementation.

my goal isn't to convince a non-believer of their truth in my above quote/discussion, it's to make sense of all the wild and brutal events of the bible through a biblical lens. — Moses

I think that is the answer to a different question. I was wondering how you demonstrated those 'facts' to yourself. How did you arrive at :

We need to remember that death is not the end and ultimately trust in God's judgement for their souls. — Moses

Which you did put in bold (presumably because you made a judgment that it was critical to the subject) and the use of 'we' here virtually implores us take notice. But perhaps - given what you have just written - it might have been more efficacious to have stated instead - 'My presuppositions are that....' rather than expressing it as a totalizing overview? Just a thought.

I am also unsure how what you say makes sense of the 'wild and brutal events of the Bible' and why a biblical lens is a necessary condition of understanding. Do you come from the worldview of Judaism?

To all,

...my goal isn't to convince a non-believer of their truth in my above quote/discussion, it's to make sense of all the wild and brutal events of the bible through a biblical lens. — Moses

This set me thinking about what is involved in adopting a "biblical lens".

If the bible is true, then that is what one ought to do. The bible becomes on of the

...things that folk take to be certain even if there is evidence to the contrary, and even if that evidence is overwhelming. — Banno

Amongst the variations in certainty listed in my last post, there is the position in which someone takes specified beliefs to be no just indubitable, but infallible. There is a way of thinking in which the believer takes the position that certain of their beliefs are true even if everything else were to count against those beliefs. These beliefs are to be held despite of the evidence, and despite their consequences.

Belief here ceases to be a rational act in the face of evidence or convention, and becomes an act of assertion, the expression of the will to power, the command "This is how things are!"

What would we call such belief?

And what are its ethical implications?

L

Ok but then you are talking about a rule/law with no wisdom in it aren’t you?

Edited to add:
Also, you DID say it was a judgement from god. Isnt god wise?

I think that is the answer to a different question. I was wondering how you demonstrated those 'facts' to yourself. How did you arrive at : — Tom Storm

The Bible. I am talking with Dingo here, who is for the sake of discussion willing to operate within a biblical framework. If you just want to doubt everything that's an entirely different discussion.

why a biblical lens is a necessary condition of understanding. — Tom Storm

because without a biblical lens there's no making sense of this book. even with a biblical lens when you grant assumption its is an immense challenge. you need to grant certain assumptions just like we'd grant assumptions to virtually any ethical theory or metaphysical belief.

This is philosophy; we grant assumptions. Doesn't mean the assumptions are true. A lot of it is a thought experiment. If we're talking about my own personal faith in God I've already noted earlier in this thread that I don't believe rationality gets one 100% of the way there and that I'm content to rely partially on faith. I have other reasons but these reasons are more personal and intuitive. I think it's perfectly valid to have a discussion within the context of "let's say we grant assumption A, B, and C..."

Ok but then you are talking about a rule/law with no wisdom in it aren’t you? — DingoJones

The most straight-off description of the laws in leviticus is that they are laws. they are laws from god. if you want to say that they were issued with divine wisdom then fine. I usually think of wisdom as more bigger picture than just e.g. a law, but this isn't a major point IMO. The Bible is undoubtedly against homosexuality, but the application of that is a different matter. I don't see why we're getting so hung up on this word 'wisdom.'

Typically when I think of wisdom I think of practical timeless advice, not commandments. But God does possess infinite wisdom according to the book.



I think you're getting a little carried away here. We grant assumptions/presuppositions to virtually every ethical system. It's unavoidable. For instance, many of the enlightenment era philosophers and onwards conceived of humans are essentially atomistic individuals/everyone as their own "unit of individual moral worth" but you absolutely cannot apply this lens to the Bible if you hope to put up the most adequate defense of the book. In the Bible one is part of a genealogical line. You also just don't have autonomy over your own body according to the Bible. Our bodies are on loan from God. You might not like this, I might not like this, doesn't matter - we need to grant the view.

That's all I'm trying to do - give the book its best defense. If I was making the case for utilitarianism or Kant I would be charitable to their assumptions.

Belief here ceases to be a rational act in the face of evidence or convention, and becomes an act of assertion, the expression of the will to power, the command "This is how things are!"

What would we call such belief? — Banno

I don't know. Possibly delusional.

Going back to faith as a movement toward healing (as laid out by the pope), reaching out for a solution (as @unenlightened said) is reflexive for a child. That same action is done as an adult in the face of unknowing.

Solutions to global warming are like the existence of God in that there is an evidentiary problem. There is no evidence that there is no God. There is no evidence that we can't address global warming.

This set me thinking about what is involved in adopting a "biblical lens". — Banno

Is a biblical lens possible? Surely there any number of potential lenses? There is only personal preference tied up in biblical interpretation. Desmond Tutu's Biblical 'lens' was at odds with Scott Morrison's. How do we determine which lens is any good? Does faith eventually become literary criticism?

because without a biblical lens there's no making sense of this book. even with a biblical lens when you grant assumption its is an immense challenge. you need to grant certain assumptions just like we'd grant assumptions to virtually any ethical theory or metaphysical belief.

This is philosophy; we grant assumptions. Doesn't mean the assumptions are true. A lot of it is a thought experiment. If we're talking about my own personal faith in God I've already noted earlier in this thread that I don't believe rationality gets one 100% of the way there and that I'm content to rely partially on faith. I have other reasons but these reasons are more personal and intuitive. I think it's perfectly valid to have a discussion within the context of "let's say we grant assumption A, B, and C..." — Moses

I'm with you to some extent. But I thought philosophy was about testing assumptions and presuppositions. You say there is no way to make sense of the Bible without a biblical lens. I am not sure this can be demonstrated either and we have already explored the fraught nature of a 'biblical lens'. But I respect your work towards a combination of rationality and faith. Do you include the NT in your thinking?

But I thought philosophy was about testing assumptions and presuppositions. — Tom Storm

It can be both. It's fine to question and it's fine to grant (granting is not necessarily conceding that something is 100% correct). Each discussion takes a different form. I just want to build up the strongest form of a position and I think these assumptions/beliefs are reasonable given they're biblically supported and actually often widely accepted.

I am not sure this can be demonstrated either and we have already explored the fraught nature of a 'biblical lens' — Tom Storm

I think it's the same with any philosophical system. Utilitarianism and Kant and Aristotle all have their background assumptions/presuppositions that need to be accepted for discussion to proceed or for the strongest version of the philosophy to come to light. No point in knocking down straw men.

Do you include the NT in your thinking? — Tom Storm

I am not currently defending the NT. I actually haven't even read the NT, but I will likely tackle it soon. From a philosophical perspective its easier to make sense of only the OT as opposed to OT + NT. Less ground to cover.

Is a biblical lens possible? Surely there any number of potential lenses? There is only personal preference tied up in biblical interpretation. Desmond Tutu's Biblical 'lens' was at odds with Scott Morrison's. How do we determine which lens is any good? Does faith eventually become literary criticism? — Tom Storm

All excellent question. But I'm the wrong one to ask. The fact of such diverse "biblical lenses" for me indicates the incoherence of the very idea. It looks like intellectual yoga - bending over backwards in an attempt to achieve enlightenment.

You say there is no way to make sense of the Bible without a biblical lens. — Tom Storm

Hence there is no way to make sense of the bible.

Utilitarianism and Kant and Aristotle all have their background assumptions/presuppositions that need to be accepted for discussion to proceed or for the strongest version of the philosophy to come to light. No point in knocking down straw men. — Moses

This is all true, but could it not also be said that some presuppositions have a better warrant for certain purposes than others?

Well, yeah, one could be making an unnecessary or wrong presupposition when approaching a system which could confound one's understanding.

It looks like intellectual yoga - bending over backwards in an attempt to achieve enlightenment. — Banno

Or being so elastic you can suck yourself off.

Solutions to global warming are like the existence of God in that there is an evidentiary problem. There is no evidence that there is no God. There is no evidence that we can't address global warming. — Tate

Here you hit on what underpins what makes faith distinct from other belief. For most purposes, a belief is a conclusion. The evidence or the convention supports the belief.

This is in contrast to beliefs that are not conclusions but what we might call commitment.

Those familiar with my other writings hereabouts will be aware of the use I make of direction of fit. This is the difference here. Some beliefs are adopted as a result of looking around the world and seeing how things are, what is the case. The direction of fit is such that our thoughts are made to fit the world

In contrast, there are beliefs that reverse this process, such that the world is made to fit the thought. Faith is of this sort.

The most straight-off description of the laws in leviticus is that they are laws. they are laws from god. if you want to say that they were issued with divine wisdom then fine. I usually think of wisdom as more bigger picture than just e.g. a law, but this isn't a major point IMO. The Bible is undoubtedly against homosexuality, but the application of that is a different matter. I don't see why we're getting so hung up on this word 'wisdom.' — Moses

It is your claims about the wisdom of the bible we are discussing is it not?
Anyway, the point is that if they are laws from god and god is wise then so too should his laws be wise, right? But you said that stoning gays isnt wise so Im just observing that this is a contradiction, and to one of my original points you are left ignoring it or rectifying it with the wisdom of the bible.

Typically when I think of wisdom I think of practical timeless advice, not commandments. But God does possess infinite wisdom according to the book. — Moses

I think that leads to contradiction, even through a biblical lense.

In contrast, there are beliefs that reverse this process, such that the world is made to fit the thought. Faith is of this sort. — Banno

You could probably use the word that way.

Jim's faith in his ability to fly finally resulted in his death.

The Sierra Club's faith in the justice system paid off.

In cases like these the element of desire is apparent. Augustine longed to convert to Christianity for years before he did. This longing and his subsequent success at believing are mysterious to me. I almost want to say he was lying to himself, but I don’t know.

This usage isn't as interesting to me as the one mentioned earlier.

This usage isn't as interesting to me as the one mentioned earlier. — Tate

Understood. And yet it has implication for

...the meaning of faith and how it relates to optimism and hope. — Tate

Optimism and hope have the direction of fit from thought to word. Hope involves expectation and desire.

That notion of direction of fit is exactly what is needed to make sense of hope.

Optimism and hope have the direction of fit from thought to word. Hope involves expectation and desire.

That notion of direction of fit is exactly what is needed to make sense of hope. — Banno

That makes sense.

It is your claims about the wisdom of the bible we are discussing is it not? — DingoJones

We could have that discussion. I've mentioned the books of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs as two of my favorites that contain a lot of wisdom. I never said every sentence in the book is packed full of wisdom. If you're looking for wisdom you'll find a lot of it scattered throughout. Book of Daniel tells one to eat vegetables and water in 200 BCE as opposed to wine and fatty foods.

Anyway, the point is that if they are laws from god and god is wise then so too should his laws be wise, right? — DingoJones

yes.

But you said that stoning gays isnt wise so Im just observing that this is a contradiction, and to one of my original points you are left ignoring it or rectifying it with the wisdom of the bible. — DingoJones

Commandments in that section of leviticus are not absolute in the sense that they must be followed under all circumstances and across all times. Commandments can be overridden.

I'm not sure where you're getting stoning. All I know was execution.