Re: [asa] On Job

I kinda like that take! I just don't particularly like the "slippery
slope" argument in general.
1. Even noticing such a thing generally means that the slippery slope is
already in operation, and requires a response other than avoidance (or
rejection or denial).
2. It is somewhat fear-based (for fear that the next step will
inevitably lead to another in whatever constitutes the wrong direction).
3. The nature of the slippery slope seems to be to force one into closer
examination and more personal (and sometimes even respectful) engagement
of the issue involved. In this dynamic, there is room for conversation
and sometimes learning.
4. These often seem to involve gray zones or outright tensions between
two parties who both feel right. As such, they are a microcosm of
something we need to figure out how to deal with in many other scenarios
and scopes.
5. Though slippery slopes are uncomfortable, and even threatening, their
encounter is increasingly becoming a way of life.
6. Finally, it seems like an adult version of, "It's too hard!".
Or so it seemeth to me. JimA

Don Nield wrote:

> I take Don W's point that there is a slope. But I deny that it is
> uniform and slippery. In my opinion the slope has steps, so that one
> is control on how far it is proper to descend (or ascend).
> Don N
>
>
> Don Winterstein wrote:
>
>> My emphasis (admittedly hidden from view) was on what I took to be
>> the "Alice" aspect: That is, do you look with skepticism on
>> historicity if the events described seem far-fetched?
>> Job is clearly written more like a play than a history. Jonah is not
>> written like a play, but the usual historical details, such as the
>> name of the king of Nineveh, are missing; so it's a good candidate
>> for allegory. But there's nothing in the text that can really make
>> the case. Elijah appears in a book that's clearly history. But the
>> "Alice" aspect is strong in all three cases.
>> Whether or not the book is history, what should we take literally?
>> That's the question. The later chapters of Genesis clearly seem to
>> be history, but who among us can take the reported fate of Lot's wife
>> as fact? Do we believe God would go to the trouble of transmuting
>> all the elements of her body just because of an inappropriate
>> glance? Not I. What would be the point, other than generating a
>> memorable Sunday school story forever after? This story is readily
>> explained by elaborations on subsequent observations of a salt
>> feature in the Dead Sea area. And when Elijah had 100 innocent
>> soldiers killed by fire from heaven, doesn't this seem like
>> gratuitous violence that may have been embellished considerably in
>> the retelling? What would we have observed if we'd been on the scene
>> at the time?
>> But if we are skeptical because of the "Alice" aspect, how much do we
>> wind up believing in the end? That's the slippery slope. Obviously
>> many theologians and clergy have slipped a long way down that slope.
>> Don
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Don Nield <mailto:d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
>> *To:* Don Winterstein <mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
>> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; Carol or John
>> Burgeson <mailto:burgytwo@juno.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:46 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] On Job
>>
>> Don W has introduced a "slippery slope" argument. I consider such
>> arguments to be fallacious. Each passage in the Bible should be
>> treated
>> on its merits --- and that means determining the genre of the
>> passage
>> before one proceeds further with intepretation. If that means hard
>> work
>> for the reader of the Bible, so be it.
>> Don N.
>>
>>
>> Don Winterstein wrote:
>>
>> > Would you assign Jonah similar status? Then, how about Elijah
>> calling
>> > down fire on the captains of fifty? Once we get started, how
>> do we
>> > know where to stop?
>> > > Don
>> > >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > *From:* Carol or John Burgeson <mailto:burgytwo@juno.com>
>> > *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:37 AM
>> > *Subject:* [asa] On Job
>> >
>> > Vernon commented: "Can such passages as Job 1:6-12 =
>> > and 2:1-7 be 'interpreted' to mean something different from
>> their =
>> > account of actual meetings, actual discussions and actual
>> > consequences?
>> > =
>> > And if, in your view they must be accepted as real events,
>> what
>> > might we
>> > =
>> > usefully glean from them?"
>> >
>> > The most reasonable interpretation of Job is that it is a
>> morality
>> > play.
>> > To consider it as sober factual history is ludicrous. Sort
>> of like
>> > believing ALICE IN WONDERLAND.
>> >
>> > Burgy
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu>
>> > <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
>> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 6 02:12:46 2006