Steph: "You [Bock,] still use the bible as a textbook yet you fail to see that
the historical Jesus and Paul are poles apart. In fact you do not differentiate
between the Aramaic speaking Jesus with his mission to return Jews to God, and
the Jesus of later tradition - the Greek translators and the evangelists. As far
as the homosexuality debate goes, the Bible got it wrong. They didn't know
everything. Jesus would have thought it was a sin, just as he thought eating
shellfish was. Personally I don't see why homosexuals would want to marry in a
church and belong to a religion that treats them as lesser beings, but I hope
one day people will overcome their ancient prejudice and allow homosexuals to be
married by the state in the same way I was."
Steph hopes that "one day people will overcome their ancient prejudice and allow homosexuals to be married by the state," yet she hasn't provided any *argument* as to why those whith their "ancient prejudice" should adopt her view. I realize she can't do to much via blog comments, but perhaps if she did not spend time making assertions that are irrelevant (Jesus and Paul disagree, Jesus thought eating shellfish was a sin, etc...) she could at least give us a thumbnail sketch of what an argument for homosexual marriage would look like while avoiding straw-men (the church thinks homosexuals are lesser beings).
People will never have a meaningful dialogue or let go of their prejudices as long as they continue to react with such rhetoric. Such people are actually part of the problem.
PF: "Darrell, the fact that there is progression in the opinions of the
biblical authors about polygamy in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament actually
argues for a more logical explanation (although to be precise, the NT does not
say polygamy is a sin).
Did God change his mind about what is right and wrong, like polygamy,
slavery, eating pork and wearing clothes with dual fabrics? If he did, he's a
vacillating creature.
It's more logical that the views of people changed over time and and as
a result, their conception of what God wanted changed accordingly. The books
assign to God's will their own prejudices. The ancient Israelites killed their
enemies and ascribed their blood lust to God (such as the prescription to take a
"vagina or two" as spoils of war). Jesus had a different idea (and no way to
defeat the Romans in battle even if he wanted to), so his theology was
different."
First, PF states, "It's more logical that the views of people changed over time and and as a result, their conception of what God wanted changed accordingly." But, like some other commentators, PF fails to provide any evidence or argumentation for such a view. How does one weigh that it is *more logical* that people changed their concept of God over time because their views on polygamy changed (since PF brings up that issue) than what Bock is saying, that polygamy was never condoned in the first place? It seems to me that the first thing you would have to do is find an OT *prescription* that says polygamy is good.
Even if one could find a prescription regarding how polygamy is to be carried out (can you?) this does not logically lead to saying God endorses polygamy. As one Christian apologist has cited G. Wenham, “The law sets a minimum standard of behaviour, which if transgressed attracts sanction…What legislators and judges tolerate may not be what they approve. Laws generally set a floor for behaviour within society, they do not prescribe an ethical ceiling. Thus a study of the legal codes within the Bible is unlikely to disclose the ideals of the law-givers, but only the limits of their tolerance: if you do such and such, you will be punished. The laws thus tend to express the limits of socially acceptable behaviour: they do not describe ideal behavior,” (Story as Torah, 80).
Even if PF could prove that the Bible presents God as approving polygamy (rather than tolerating it) and then as disapproving it, it still wouldn't necessarily follow that *PF's explanation as to why this is the case* is more logical (probable) than some other explanation. For example, I think PF would agree that some "goods" are only relevant within a certain culture and yet just as morally binding, within that culture, as goods which transcend any particular culture. Thereofre, PF would have to show that the grounds of God's approval/disapproval is not tied to some temporary (like culture) circumstance. Because if my hypothetical "therefore" is the case, then it is not clear why PF's explanation is more logical than an explanation which may ground the command to something relevant only within that culture.
Of course, all of this will be extremely difficult (impossible) with PF's chosen issue of polygamy. I suggest PF try something more obvious like say, a cultic injunction, which Christians no longer follow. But then PF loses some of his rhetorical (emotional) force and then PF will have to deal with Bock's own explanation and show why it is less logical (probable) than PF's. In the end, my guess is that PF will have to push the entire question back as to whether it is more probable than not that the Christian God exists. In which case, we see that PF has really been begging the question to enter the discussion at this level.
Secondly, how does it logically follow that if God says at t1 under condition X that eating pork is bad and at t2 under condition Y that eating pork is not bad that God is therefore a "vacillating creature"? For the most part, what I've said above applies equally here. Does PF not believe that some moral imperatives are only culturally relevant? Does PF think that every law we have in 21st century American society is legitimately transferable to a culture in the 2nd century BC? PF has to demonstrate that God said whatever law or "good" which PF has in mind is transcendent of all cultures and all times and then, at some later point, went back on that.
PF responds,
"These things have everything to do with gay marriage. The point is that
the Bible is a book that reflects the ideas of its authors, not some divine
instruction. And thus arguing against gay marriage because the Bible says it
is a sin is to side with a primitive culture which had an unreasonable and barbaric prejudice.
To buttress this point, I note that many of the writers of the Bible had no
problems with slavery, polygamy and genocide and did have problems with so many
things that seem bizarre today.
And to associate a wholesale change in what constitutes a sin as
"administrative differences Jesus introduced as part of his program" is bizarre.
What, God rolled out the new Coke? Either eating pork was a sin or it wasn't.
Why did God ever care what people ate? Either homosexuality is deserving of
death or it isn't."
I. As I thought, PF simply has to say the Bible is not God's Word. But of course, when he/she goes on to say it is "an unreasonable and barbaric prejudice" he/she begs the question. To butress the point (I assume that the Biblical ethic is "unreasonable and barbaric"), he/she cites the fact that the Bible authors had no problem with slavery, polygamy, and genocide. Of course, he/she only continues to reason in a circle when he/she cites slavery and genocide (it's promotion of polygamy is an unfounded assertion, as we have seen).
II. To say, "And to associate a wholesale change in what constitutes a sin as "administrative differences Jesus introduced as part of his program" is bizarre." is to work with a very narrow view of ethics which apparently either ignores or disregards the possibility of the moral value of thing being contingent on the situation (I'm not promoting anything like Fletcher's situational ethics).
III. I'm not sure I agree with Bock that, "Eating pork was a matter of clean and uncleanness for Israel. This is not the same as being sin or not. It was to be avoided but it did not mean one had sinned. It did prevent one entering the temple-- that is what cultic impurity was about. It is a distinct category from sin."
It certainly seems from the text that a person who disobeyed the dietary laws was guilty of sin: "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Le 11:43-45). Even though the passage doesn't specifically say that the person who eats the unclean food is sinning, it seems reasonable to arrive at that conclusion because God's people were supposed to be sanctified. In other words, the text does make clear that they had a moral obligation to sanctify themselves and be holy. It wasn't optional. According to this text, it would seem that keeping the dietary laws was one of they ways that they maintained this sanctity. A person's failure to observe the dietary laws would result in a loss of sanctity and, therefore, would also fail to keep their moral obligation.
No doubt, Bock is probably more qualified than me in this issue. Perhaps he has something in mind that I've missed.
