On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 13:05:35 -0600 "J Burgeson"
<hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com> writes:
> Herewith is my response to part 1 of the challenge. I have not yet
> read
> Terry's recent long post so no references to it are included.
>
> I appreciate the dialog.
>
> Hoss (aka Burgy)
> http://www.burgy.50megs.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The point at issue is what meanings and interpretations to put on
> the
> specific verses in scripture which read:
>
> PS 137:8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
> happy is he who repays you
> for what you have done to us--
>
> PS 137:9 he who seizes your infants
> and dashes them against the rocks.
>
> Robert Rogland, David Campbell and George Murphy have seen fit to
> comment on
> my recent observation that -- at the least -- these two specific
> verses
> indicate an ethical stance that is inconsistent with the character
> of God.
> BTW, I append the full NIV text of all scripture references to the
> end of
> this note.
>
> I continue, after more thought, to hold this view. The psalmist who
> wrote
> (and presumably sang) those words certainly felt them; nonetheless
> in so
> doing he (or she) perceived the mind of God in an inadequate
> fashion.
>
Does this passage specify that this is God's view? It seems to me that
there is an undercurrent that this is the ethical standard. Is it?
Let me come down to some modern monsters. Would we have mourned had the
attempt on Hitler's life had succeeded? I think we'd have rejoiced more
if the entire Nazi command had been suddenly obliterated, for we would
have hoped that the amount of evil done would have been decreased.
Someone observing the amount of evil done by Babylon will similarly feel
joy that it no longer could practice its evil ways, especially with the
assurance that it could not rise again if all its members, down to the
youngest, were gone.
Burgy, you may not think this very Christian, but I am happy when a
robber or carjacker is shot to death, for I am confident that the world
is better without them: run of the mill honest folk have a greater degree
of safety. Also, no clever lawyer will get them off to rob again, and
again endanger others.
<snip>
>
> There are many places in scripture where characters C1, C2,...
> perform
> actions A1, A2, ... . It is my contention that the existence of such
> character-actions in scripture, alone, is not a warrant for thinking
> such
> actions are commanded by God for us. I will cite three examples of
> this.
>
> 1. The casting of lots (dice?) to make decisions. This is a common
> biblical
> practice, performed by many different characters over a long span of
> time.
> Sometimes it seems to make a little sense, as in Joshua 18:6 where
> chance
> seems to be as good a way as any to divide the land. At another time
> it
> seems to assume the gods will direct the casting, as in Jonah 1:7.
> But, of
> course, this is a parable-story and perhaps we can accept it as
> such.
>
> In Luke 23:24 the clothing of Jesus is divided this way -- again, a
> chance
> division makes sense. But in Acts 1:26, the eleven remaining
> disciples are
> deciding a serious question. They decide they need a twelfth; they
> choose
> Mathias by casting lots. Here, it makes no sense to do this by
> chance, and,
> indeed, I have heard a sermon suggesting that the action was out of
> God's
> will, as Paul was to be the twelfth disciple.
>
> So what do we do in the 21st century? Well, we still cast lots for
> some
> decisions, but on most decisions we study, argue, and ultimately
> vote. In
> other words, we do not follow the disciples' lead in Acts 1:6. Not
> even the
> biblical inerrantist.
>
May I suggest a different explanation? The group had narrowed the choice
down to two who seemed to be equally qualified and had space for only
one, if the pattern of 12 were to be maintained. So they used a
randomized choice, trusting that God was in control when they asked him
to show his will.
If I decide what I'm going to do, no matter what, then I have a problem
asking God to bless my choice. But if I honestly seek his guidance, then
I can trust him to lead through all circumstances, for what looks like
chance is in his control. But I will not claim that then everything will
be sweetness and light, for I am assured of testing and persecution. I
have to trust God to work his purpose even in my foolishness and
ignorance, and the evil of wicked men.
<snip>
>
> 3. My last example is Genesis 30:37-39, in which it is reported that
> Jacob
> was successful in producing spotted lambs by having the sheep look
> at peeled
> sticks during mating. Is there any rancher, regardless how pious,
> who
> follows this practice in raising his flock?
>
Does a factual report provide a principle for action? Folk science has
been superceded by genetics.
>
> Robert Rogland comments that the verse is a declaration that the
> sins of the
> Babylonians were so great that the pious could rejoice. The
> operative word
> there is "could." I do not think substituting the word "should,"
> for
> example, would be correct.
>
How about substituting "will"?
<snip>
> I am less comfortable with the concept that God's
> ethics are
> also evolving.
>
Why is it God who is changing when his revelation is progressive? Is not
this the message of the first verses of Hebrews?
Dave
<snip>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 16:12:26 EDT