Janssen Debate - Rebate 5
Part 5: by Wes Janssen
Paul,
One looks at your closing statement, "I just don't see any reason to conclude that there are any divine truths in the Bible at all," and wonders how to address your prefatory questions. If one thinks there is no God (the view that you generally profess), then questions as to whether any writings are divinely inspired are preemptively 'answered' within that presupposition. Similarly, questions as to whether Christ was/is the incarnate "image of the invisible God" are presumptively 'answered' within that presupposition. If God doesn't 'exist', He can neither inspire prophets nor be manifest in the Christ. If God doesn't 'exist', considerations of what He does are unintelligible. This point is inescapable. And yet I have to assume sincerity in your questions and that, if this is the case, your declared atheism contains some uncertainty. Assuming this, I will attempt short answers.
Of the Bible you ask, "How do you know what is literal and what isn't? How do you know what the non-literal parts really mean?" My answer: most of the Bible is to be understood as "literal" disclosures and asks to be understood as such. For example, Jerusalem was the Hebrew capital city and "literally" the location of Solomon's temple; the Hebrews were "literally" overtaken by the Babylonians; those taken to Persia were "literally" captives, and so forth. At the same time, there is obviously allegory in the Bible as well, Christ's many parables being clear examples. The Old Testament in particular contains a great deal of poetry, which, like the poetry of any culture, tends to be a mixture of history, allegory, philosophy and religion/spirituality. These passages are often not difficult to recognize, but determining what is history and what is literary device and what is instructive spiritual allegory requires a sensitivity to the texts. For example, we read David's lament in Psalm 22 (the opening statement of which Christ quoted on the cross) in which David writes of being the object of his enemies treachery. He speaks of being surrounded by bulls, lions, and dogs. But a careful reading certainly discloses that those that scheme against him are human and not 'literally' bulls, lions, or dogs. In this prelude to the 23rd Psalm, poetic device and spiritual allegory are readily apparent to the reader who is willing to see them. As Christ instructed, and as Paul and Augustine reiterated, "spiritual persons discern spiritual things." Think of this in terms of any discipline which requires sensitivity on the part of the would-be learner. One cannot learn cellular biology if he has committed himself to the ideology that cells don't exist. To a person insensitive to the 'weirdness' of quantum mechanics, the seemingly impossible superposition principle will seem like "foolishness". Similarly, Paul writes "the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2.14).
You also cite an example of an "extreme" verse from Exodus 22, saying, "I could go on, there's plenty more where that came from. But I don't see any point to quoting more." Indeed, if "where that came from" there isn't "any point" in looking for difficult to grasp answers, I question whether any response will be useful. But the question itself is legitimate, and I am not inclined to leave it unaddressed. Understand that this is only a partial answer. The civil codes which Moses recorder something like 3400 years ago cannot be reasonably considered without recognizing what societies actually were 3400 years ago. Indeed aspects of these codes sound pretty extreme to those of us who are 3400 years removed from those cultures. Recall that our own society had some "extreme" laws as recently as a few decades ago! It is possible that Mosaic laws like "do not mistreat an alien or oppress him" and "do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan" and "do not deny justice to your poor" and "do not accept a bribe" sounded pretty "extreme" 3400 years ago. (Read the Greek social philosophers who wrote more than a thousand years after Moses). At any rate, we are in a poor position to cavalierly critique the jurisprudence of such an ancient culture. If we posit that a benevolent God has 'chosen' this ancient culture to be the benefactors of divine revelation without denying its members free will, we have to consider, as a practical inevitability, what God 'had to work with'. This is precisely the point that Christ makes when he was questioned about a certain Mosaic law in Matthew 19. He said "Moses permitted" certain practices "because your hearts were hard." Christ also alludes to this repeatedly in his (often misunderstood) discourse in Mathew 5, saying, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago," -- then after citing commands or Mosaic laws, elaborating, "But I tell you . . ." then proceeding to explain, in some cases, the deeper meaning, in other cases, that the law was merely "permitted" in a culture unreceptive to deeper spiritual understanding. Again, this is a partial answer to your question, but given your stated predilection, it may not be useful to treat the matter further. How many texts do we read that are more than 3400 years old (as is the case with the verse you cite in Exodus)? Is it not reasonable to expect some difficult subtleties and nuances in such a text, whether divinely inspired or not? Yes, of course it is. This has to do not with a divine imperfection or inconsistency but with human natures. Might a modern reading of such texts tend toward over-simplification? I think so.
Well, more could be said but this has become rather lengthier than I expected. I hope it is helpful.
Paul,
One looks at your closing statement, "I just don't see any reason to conclude that there are any divine truths in the Bible at all," and wonders how to address your prefatory questions. If one thinks there is no God (the view that you generally profess), then questions as to whether any writings are divinely inspired are preemptively 'answered' within that presupposition. Similarly, questions as to whether Christ was/is the incarnate "image of the invisible God" are presumptively 'answered' within that presupposition. If God doesn't 'exist', He can neither inspire prophets nor be manifest in the Christ. If God doesn't 'exist', considerations of what He does are unintelligible. This point is inescapable. And yet I have to assume sincerity in your questions and that, if this is the case, your declared atheism contains some uncertainty. Assuming this, I will attempt short answers.
Of the Bible you ask, "How do you know what is literal and what isn't? How do you know what the non-literal parts really mean?" My answer: most of the Bible is to be understood as "literal" disclosures and asks to be understood as such. For example, Jerusalem was the Hebrew capital city and "literally" the location of Solomon's temple; the Hebrews were "literally" overtaken by the Babylonians; those taken to Persia were "literally" captives, and so forth. At the same time, there is obviously allegory in the Bible as well, Christ's many parables being clear examples. The Old Testament in particular contains a great deal of poetry, which, like the poetry of any culture, tends to be a mixture of history, allegory, philosophy and religion/spirituality. These passages are often not difficult to recognize, but determining what is history and what is literary device and what is instructive spiritual allegory requires a sensitivity to the texts. For example, we read David's lament in Psalm 22 (the opening statement of which Christ quoted on the cross) in which David writes of being the object of his enemies treachery. He speaks of being surrounded by bulls, lions, and dogs. But a careful reading certainly discloses that those that scheme against him are human and not 'literally' bulls, lions, or dogs. In this prelude to the 23rd Psalm, poetic device and spiritual allegory are readily apparent to the reader who is willing to see them. As Christ instructed, and as Paul and Augustine reiterated, "spiritual persons discern spiritual things." Think of this in terms of any discipline which requires sensitivity on the part of the would-be learner. One cannot learn cellular biology if he has committed himself to the ideology that cells don't exist. To a person insensitive to the 'weirdness' of quantum mechanics, the seemingly impossible superposition principle will seem like "foolishness". Similarly, Paul writes "the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2.14).
You also cite an example of an "extreme" verse from Exodus 22, saying, "I could go on, there's plenty more where that came from. But I don't see any point to quoting more." Indeed, if "where that came from" there isn't "any point" in looking for difficult to grasp answers, I question whether any response will be useful. But the question itself is legitimate, and I am not inclined to leave it unaddressed. Understand that this is only a partial answer. The civil codes which Moses recorder something like 3400 years ago cannot be reasonably considered without recognizing what societies actually were 3400 years ago. Indeed aspects of these codes sound pretty extreme to those of us who are 3400 years removed from those cultures. Recall that our own society had some "extreme" laws as recently as a few decades ago! It is possible that Mosaic laws like "do not mistreat an alien or oppress him" and "do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan" and "do not deny justice to your poor" and "do not accept a bribe" sounded pretty "extreme" 3400 years ago. (Read the Greek social philosophers who wrote more than a thousand years after Moses). At any rate, we are in a poor position to cavalierly critique the jurisprudence of such an ancient culture. If we posit that a benevolent God has 'chosen' this ancient culture to be the benefactors of divine revelation without denying its members free will, we have to consider, as a practical inevitability, what God 'had to work with'. This is precisely the point that Christ makes when he was questioned about a certain Mosaic law in Matthew 19. He said "Moses permitted" certain practices "because your hearts were hard." Christ also alludes to this repeatedly in his (often misunderstood) discourse in Mathew 5, saying, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago," -- then after citing commands or Mosaic laws, elaborating, "But I tell you . . ." then proceeding to explain, in some cases, the deeper meaning, in other cases, that the law was merely "permitted" in a culture unreceptive to deeper spiritual understanding. Again, this is a partial answer to your question, but given your stated predilection, it may not be useful to treat the matter further. How many texts do we read that are more than 3400 years old (as is the case with the verse you cite in Exodus)? Is it not reasonable to expect some difficult subtleties and nuances in such a text, whether divinely inspired or not? Yes, of course it is. This has to do not with a divine imperfection or inconsistency but with human natures. Might a modern reading of such texts tend toward over-simplification? I think so.
Well, more could be said but this has become rather lengthier than I expected. I hope it is helpful.
Rebuttal 5: by Paul Jacobsen
Janssen starts out discussing "presuppositions", or I'd call it "bias". And he is correct, we all have bias. Whatever we believe, we believe. And new data we receive is viewed within the framework of our current beliefs/biases. The crux of the problem is, we simply cannot do otherwise. We have no way to remove our bias. We can try to be aware of our biases, and do our best to try to put them aside. And different people have varying degrees of ability to do so. But ultimately, none of use can do so completely. None of us can view anything purely unbiased. Yet, even so, there can be times when evidence can be sufficiently compelling that it can break through our biases. Liberals can become conservatives, conservatives become liberals. Atheists can become theists, and theists become atheists. Each of us is different in exactly what circumstances/evidences can break through our biases and change our minds.
Janssen notes that if you come to the Bible with the assumption that there is no God, then you are not likely to find "divine truths" in it. Yeah, I suppose so. Of course the opposite is true. If you come to the Bible with the assumption that God exists and the Bible contains "divine truths" ordained by God, well, that is what you will find. Basically, Janssen essentially implies that my "presuppositions" (or bias) precludes me from seeing the divine truths. Yet from my view, it seems to me that his bias precludes him from seeing that there just are no divine truths to be found.
As to discerning what is literal and what is figurative, well, basically Janssen says, "read it and figure it out." And it is true that there can be times that poetic phrasing can be fairly obvious. But certainly not always. If it was always clearly discernable, there wouldn't be so much debate even among Christians as to what various passages mean. For example, Janssen sees the passages where God is portrayed as being very human as poetic license, while other Christians do not. Ultimately, Janssen has provided no "formula" to answer the question. Which means there is simply no independent measurement by which his interpretations can be judged as "superior" or "more accurate" than other people's interpretations.
Janssen notes that perhaps a reading of the biblical texts from a modern viewpoint might "tend towards oversimplification." Okay, I can more or less buy that. Even so, it is not the "fault" of modern people to have a modern viewpoint any more than it was the "fault" of ancient peoples to have an ancient viewpoint. To me, it makes no sense for God to have wrapped up his "divine truths" within a text full written from an ancient viewpoint and expect modern people to discern it. If God wants his "divine truths" to be known, He has frankly done a piss-poor job of doing so. How are people who live in other countries where there isn't access to the Bible supposed to learn His divine truths? And even to people like us who have access to His "divine truths", they are, frankly, unintelligible--as evidenced by the extreme divergence of views even among His followers. Surely an omniscient, omnipotent being could do better than this.
Janssen talks about how God simply had to work within the framework of the society of the time. And I reject that notion. He has within His power (if He existed) to tell people how he wants society to run. There is no reason for an "evolution" of society within the context of an omniscient/omnipotent God that wants society to run a certain way. For example, does He or doesn't He want "witches" (whatever they are) executed? Yes or no? This just isn't a multiple choice question. It is yes, or it is no. Basically, Janssen dances around and gives all these pretty words in his response, but never really answers anything. My statement in the prior round to which he said he was responding to was, "I just don't see any reason to conclude there are any divine truths in the Bible at all." To which there was no answer provided. He just said that based on my "presuppositions" (bias) that is likely the view I would have. But there was not the slightest inkling in his response as to why my "presuppositions" might possibly be wrong.
Janssen starts out discussing "presuppositions", or I'd call it "bias". And he is correct, we all have bias. Whatever we believe, we believe. And new data we receive is viewed within the framework of our current beliefs/biases. The crux of the problem is, we simply cannot do otherwise. We have no way to remove our bias. We can try to be aware of our biases, and do our best to try to put them aside. And different people have varying degrees of ability to do so. But ultimately, none of use can do so completely. None of us can view anything purely unbiased. Yet, even so, there can be times when evidence can be sufficiently compelling that it can break through our biases. Liberals can become conservatives, conservatives become liberals. Atheists can become theists, and theists become atheists. Each of us is different in exactly what circumstances/evidences can break through our biases and change our minds.
Janssen notes that if you come to the Bible with the assumption that there is no God, then you are not likely to find "divine truths" in it. Yeah, I suppose so. Of course the opposite is true. If you come to the Bible with the assumption that God exists and the Bible contains "divine truths" ordained by God, well, that is what you will find. Basically, Janssen essentially implies that my "presuppositions" (or bias) precludes me from seeing the divine truths. Yet from my view, it seems to me that his bias precludes him from seeing that there just are no divine truths to be found.
As to discerning what is literal and what is figurative, well, basically Janssen says, "read it and figure it out." And it is true that there can be times that poetic phrasing can be fairly obvious. But certainly not always. If it was always clearly discernable, there wouldn't be so much debate even among Christians as to what various passages mean. For example, Janssen sees the passages where God is portrayed as being very human as poetic license, while other Christians do not. Ultimately, Janssen has provided no "formula" to answer the question. Which means there is simply no independent measurement by which his interpretations can be judged as "superior" or "more accurate" than other people's interpretations.
Janssen notes that perhaps a reading of the biblical texts from a modern viewpoint might "tend towards oversimplification." Okay, I can more or less buy that. Even so, it is not the "fault" of modern people to have a modern viewpoint any more than it was the "fault" of ancient peoples to have an ancient viewpoint. To me, it makes no sense for God to have wrapped up his "divine truths" within a text full written from an ancient viewpoint and expect modern people to discern it. If God wants his "divine truths" to be known, He has frankly done a piss-poor job of doing so. How are people who live in other countries where there isn't access to the Bible supposed to learn His divine truths? And even to people like us who have access to His "divine truths", they are, frankly, unintelligible--as evidenced by the extreme divergence of views even among His followers. Surely an omniscient, omnipotent being could do better than this.
Janssen talks about how God simply had to work within the framework of the society of the time. And I reject that notion. He has within His power (if He existed) to tell people how he wants society to run. There is no reason for an "evolution" of society within the context of an omniscient/omnipotent God that wants society to run a certain way. For example, does He or doesn't He want "witches" (whatever they are) executed? Yes or no? This just isn't a multiple choice question. It is yes, or it is no. Basically, Janssen dances around and gives all these pretty words in his response, but never really answers anything. My statement in the prior round to which he said he was responding to was, "I just don't see any reason to conclude there are any divine truths in the Bible at all." To which there was no answer provided. He just said that based on my "presuppositions" (bias) that is likely the view I would have. But there was not the slightest inkling in his response as to why my "presuppositions" might possibly be wrong.