I do think that there is some imprecision with the use of terms which may add to the confusion. The key area of contention IMHO is the great and cumbersome one of the authority of Scripture, I think. And it is complicated because of the various meanings attached to terms like innerrancy and infallibility.
I cannot come in wholeheartedly on kosta's side because while I do try to stay abreast of what's going on in literary, historical, and form criticism, I think maybe I tend to say,"Well, the Church says the Bible is da Bomb, it's what God gave us, so I'm going to assume that even in all the killing of pregnant women and such there is some truth for me to find there," while I think Kosta is more wholesale in discounting some of that stuff.
On the other hand, I get the distinction between "personal" and "catholic" that I think kosta is making, but, at a guess I'd say the adversarial rhetoric hinders the discovery of meaning and intention.
As an adult type person (allegedly) I haven't thought that Jonah or Job were actual histories. I DO think they are inspired stories. That means that one can learn from Jonah that it don't pay to mess with God, and HE will go to extraordinary means to accomplish His will in your life. AND God loves even Ninevites (not to mention their cattle), and we are total jerks when God shows mercy to someone we want to see fried.
And from Job I learn, well, not enough. It is extremely profound. But what I took away from it was that if I get angry at God, I should tell him. If all I am is a jerk, I should bring my jerkiness to God, wholeheartedly, nothing held back, and God will finally come in His terrifying mercy and graciously, kindly, and lovingly show me what a jerk I am and how wonderful He is. And my conceit is an infinitesimally cheap price to pay for the wonder of a theophany.
So both of you can jump on me if you like. But I think truth would be better served if you both articulated in positive terms what you think the Bible is good for.
Feel free to throw several large rocks in my direction. I'm just wanting two good guys to fight more efficiently.
MD, your analysis is good and perceptive, as always.
I cannot come in wholeheartedly on kosta's side because while I do try to stay abreast of what's going on in literary, historical, and form criticism, I think maybe I tend to say,"Well, the Church says the Bible is da Bomb, it's what God gave us, so I'm going to assume that even in all the killing of pregnant women and such there is some truth for me to find there," while I think Kosta is more wholesale in discounting some of that stuff
Right again. The problem is the Church doesn't explain how God-ordered killing of pregnant women is ties in with the Gospels. I do defer to the Church but I also ask the church to show me the Beatitudes in God-ordered killings of pregnant women.
As an adult type person (allegedly) I haven't thought that Jonah or Job were actual histories. I DO think they are inspired stories. That means that one can learn from Jonah that it don't pay to mess with God, and HE will go to extraordinary means to accomplish His will in your life
Thank you. I couldn't agree more. But our Protestant friends will remind you that Jesus spoke of Jonah as if it were an actual story. Hence, "Houston, we have a problem..."
And from Job I learn, well, not enough. It is extremely profound. But what I took away from it was that if I get angry at God, I should tell him
First, we have no reason to be angry with God, ever. Second, if we do, we need to repent, not just tell him. What's more important is that we repent in our heart and never get angry with God again, than to verbalize it.
If all I am is a jerk, I should bring my jerkiness to God, wholeheartedly, nothing held back, and God will finally come in His terrifying mercy and graciously, kindly, and lovingly show me what a jerk I am and how wonderful He is. And my conceit is an infinitesimally cheap price to pay for the wonder of a theophany.
The idea of theosis is to realize what jerks we are and to evolve into something Christ-like precisely through such pedagogic epiphanies.
Yes, I think you're exactly right. I am rather rigid on those subjects. :)
On the other hand, I get the distinction between "personal" and "catholic" that I think kosta is making, but, at a guess I'd say the adversarial rhetoric hinders the discovery of meaning and intention.
I would really like to know what the Latin position is. I think I understand that the Orthodox position is that God is wholly impersonal. I know that both of you are familiar with the development of Christian philosophy/theology over the last 500 years or more (a subject I am now studying for the first time), and so you both know that the concept of "God is personal" (or not) is HUGE. :)
As an adult type person (allegedly) I haven't thought that Jonah or Job were actual histories.
This goes right to the heart of Biblical authority. While the Bible certainly DOES use many techniques to convey information, such as parables, songs, poems, other allegory, and straight factual historical recitation, how do those stories READ to you? I take them at face value because they are not vague "there once was a man". They contain names, places, and other specific details which one would think would be checkable. Unless it is obvious, as with virtually all parables, how is one to know what is fact and what is fiction?
I mean no disrespect by this but Kosta is on the record saying that the Exodus never happened, which means that the first Passover never happened for real (God killed, and all). Jesus obviously celebrated the Passover "religiously". Was He celebrating a lie? This is the type of stuff that gets my shorts in a bunch. :)
So both of you can jump on me if you like. But I think truth would be better served if you both articulated in positive terms what you think the Bible is good for.
No need my friend. You raise good points. :) Concerning positive terms about what I think the Bible is good for, I would lead with this:
2 Tim 3:16-17 : 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I do consider "all scripture" to be the whole Bible, and from what I can tell of the Catechism, it "appears" to agree.