Robert Rogland wrote
[big snip]
[...]
>Words DO have an objective meaning (the protestations of
>deconstructionists notwithstanding).
Well, I'm not an ASA member but I agree with this to the extent
that words like "two" and "three" model objects in the physical
world. "Good" and "loving" are problematic because they tend to
be context dependent but there definitely are contexts common to
all humans.
>Is it coherent to affirm the "divine inspiration, trustworthiness,
>and authority of the Bible in matters of faith" and also pick and
>choose which parts of the Bible to accept on the basis of some other
>criterion (e.g., one's perception of what a good and loving God would
>say or do)?
This is exactly the sort of thought used to justify the schisms and
creation of the multiple sects of Christianity (or any religion,
for that matter). If Christians from multiple denominations are
to be accepted into the ASA, then I think one should prepare to live
with a plurality of opinions on doctrinal issues (Aside: I'm not a
Christian, either).
>Can one coherently affirm the inspiration of the Bible and deny
>inerrancy? If words have any objective meaning, the answer is no.
[...]
If a ruler claims to hear the voice of God urging the army in which
I'm in to slaughter women and children after a battle, how should I
respond?
In most instances the leader would be put on trial and possibly hanged,
except within Biblical stories, wherein the leader is considered a
righteous hand of God.
Personally, it scares the crap out of me to think that there are people
who believe that any acts are acceptable and just which they feel are
directed by God. And clearly my view is the prevalent opinion today: Most
people who claim to hear God telling them to point a gun at others are
medicated or locked up in padded cells, and not praised as leaders of
righteous nations. So why should one accept such justifications during
Biblical periods?
If the words "good" & "bad" and "loving" & "hateful" have any *objective*
meaning, then acts which are bad and hateful today would be just as bad
and hateful if they occurred several thousand years ago. Further, if words
have objective meaning, then they can be applied to describe acts of a
God. Thus it is possible that a God could do things that are objectively
"bad" and "unloving".
So, to reconcile genocide and the wholesale slaughter of non-combatants
with divine directives and the ideal of a "good" and "loving" God, we are
left with the following:
a) Assume that some words don't necessarily have objective meanings.
b) Assume that a good and loving God did not authorize the destruction
and that the interpretation/recording of events was in error.
c) Assume that there were "hidden variables" that we do not know which
justify the slaughter.
Note that it is impossible for us to distinguish situation "c" from "a",
making the claim of "objectivity" a moot point. One cannot claim that
a word has an objective meaning if that is not subject to demonstration.
Claiming that "goodness" or "love" is defined by God only obfuscates
the issues of definitional objectivity: it doesn't provide an answer.
Personally, and like Burgy, I would to choose option "b" if I wanted to
simultaneously maintain the ideas that my God was loving & good and that
"loving" and "good" had objective meanings. But YMMV. If however, you
choose option "c", don't try to justify that position on an objective
moral basis -- That "proof" isn't one we can access and all the
"objective" data we can access suggests otherwise.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 11:49:24 EDT