Saturday, October 29, 2011

The Flannagans on the nonliteral reading of the genocide order

The Flannagans are pretty conservative theologically, and this is their anti-literalist response to the genocide problem.

12 comments:

Joey Wahoo said...

Here's my take on the subject, for what it's worth:
http://practicingresurrection.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/conquest-and-christianity/

Anonymous said...

We could perform the same type of analysis on the Gospel accounts - "a highly-stylised, exaggerated account of what occurred, designed to teach theological and moral points rather than to describe in detail what actually happened."

BenYachov said...

>We could perform the same type of analysis on the Gospel accounts - "a highly-stylised, exaggerated account of what occurred, designed to teach theological and moral points rather than to describe in detail what actually happened."

Accept we Catholics would say that is not consistent with Tradition in regards to how the NT was to be interpreted.

OTOH explain to me how the famous statement of Jesus to pluck out our eyes and or cut off our hands rather then surrender to impurity (because it would be better to go o Heaven maimed vs being physically whole and damned) is not a highly-stylised, exaggerated command that is not to be taken literally?

Even thought it was not.

Anonymous said...

this TOF troll should be banned for excessive profanity. let him wander back to his natural habitat of watching porn.

bossmanham said...

I got the exact same porn minded post over at my blog. Maybe it went out in the gnu atheist talking points newsletter?

Victor Reppert said...

TOF: I deleted your post, and will continue to do so. Bye-Bye.

Edward T. Babinski said...

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE METHODOLOGY EMPLOYED BY INERRANTISTS WHENEVER THEY DEFEND THE "INSPIRED" TRUTH AND ACCURACY OF PARTICUAR PASSAGES OR STORIES IN SCRIPTURE?

AND, DOES THEIR METHODOLOGY HAVE LIMITS AS TO WHAT IT CAN AND CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THE "INSPIRATION" OF?

WHAT EXACTLY ARE THOSE LIMITS?

Inerrantists admit the possibility of so many different explanations (both in the historical realm and in the realm of imaginary invention that involves positing an endless array of improbable "harmonizations" of "difficult" passages with each other or with history or science) that one might as well take nearly any ancient book, from Homer to the Epic of Gilgamesh, and assert its "inerrancy" using the same methods they employ.

And is it true or is it not that depending on the situation or circumstances such things as mass slaughter, slavery, conbinage, polygamy, incest, executing married women who are discovered not to be virgins on their wedding night, animal sacrifice, and circumcision were all parts of God's wonderful plan (some considered damn essential in that time and place), but when the situation or circumstances changed, such things were no longer part of God's plan, and/or no longer considered essential?

BenYachov said...

Whose theory of inerrancy Ed are you talking about?

Because Catholics accept inerrancy but by definition reject perspicuity just as we reject Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

Some advice the Cult of the Gnu's tendency to treat all of religion as one giant general category. Not working for ya.

Just saying...

Matthew Flannagan said...

Anon, That only follows if the same arguments I made in the above articles apply in the case of the gospels. So for example do the gospel writers juxtapost two stories of the resurrection one in which Christ the first in which Christ from the dead and then immediately follow this up with an account which presupposes he is dead and still in the grave. Does the book of Acts then begin with Luke telling Theophilus that Jesus died and stayed dead in the grave? Does comparison with other biographies written in the same Genre, show that resurrection and accounts of crucifixtion, followed by stories of burials and empty tomb of this sort are a common literary motif and were understood as a metaphorical way of saying “this guy was great” and do you discover numerous clear parallels between these other biographies and this one to justify the claim that the gospels were written according to the same conventions.
The answer to this is of course no.
The gospel writers do not follow there accounts of the resurrection up with accounts where he is dead, Acts does not proceed on the assumption Jesus is dead, and latter Canonical writings don’t assume the accounts are not literal, moreover the Genre of the gospels is biography and although there is a degree of looseness and reconstruction in gospels, there is no clear parallel between the resurrection accounts and known metaphorical tropes in Plutarch and so on.

So despite mere assertion you can’t make the same “analysis” of the gospels.

Alex Dalton said...

Matt - while I'm not disagreeing with any main points in your argument, I don't understand why it is necessary to defend God against the charge of genocide in Joshua (if God can commit any such thing), when he wipes out pretty much the whole earth in the Flood, the population of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. Destroying a people seems to be part of God's prerogative throughout the Bible.

And since you handle OT ethics, can you help me understand why God destroys the families of those men that disobey in the Old Testament? I understand why he might wipe the individuals out, but in Joshua and elsewhere in the Torah, he kills their children and wives too. I don't understand this. I'm a Christian but I really struggle ethically with alot of the OT literature.

Anonymous said...

Came across this site which has just released a series of CDs called:
"The Secret Autobiography of Jesus the Christ" and Jesus’ Lost Years not listed in the Bible, from age 13 to age 29 and other secret documents.

http://www.thetruejesus.org/

Intriquing to say the least.

Anonymous said...

Wonder if Editor Jesus would have passed the NT or any of its interpretations?

Maybe this "Autobiography of Jesus" is worth a look...