I received a reply from an anonymous person yesterday on my overly short overview of some of the paradoxes in the Bible. When reading his comments, I felt the strong urge to reject his totalizing simplicity in his line of argumentation, which comes down to the fact that God is above and we have to live and suffer under His rule. Mind the supreme monopolization of the Male in the 'He' and 'Him' form. Why is God never a Woman? And why is he always portrayed as a white long haired hippie? Why is he not a short haired black woman with curls? Why are almost all the figures in the Bible blond and white? Is it because whites are superior in teleological terms? Screw that, really!
Anyways some of his arguments and some of my counter arguments you will find below. The latter are by far not limited to this heavily reduced list of arguments that serve the purpose of equalizing Biblical reading to post-modern reading and stressing the multitude of paradoxes embedded in the Bible.
Anonymous: "The Bible isn't post-modern because it hardly meets the creditability to be a fictional book. It hardly even describes each character and is hardly exciting to read. For example: Numbers."
Me: Postmodern is not fiction, post-modernists would argue that it is the ultimate reality. Simply because it is subjectively personalized. Post-modernists would argue therefore simularly that 'it hardly meets the creditability to be a fictional'. It probably has more legitimacy than a holy mono scripture that has ever been written/ adjusted/ updated/ translated by so many people as the Bible.
Paradoxical proposed Theses I:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
Anonymous: The Bible doesn't contradict it self, for example, the Gospels, which in parallel they all tell the same story. Here's why the examples that are presented don't contradict each other:
God created light which "separated" darkness. This "light" wasn't the sun but some other light. The sun doesn't separate darkness but it fades it out. Sometimes the sun is blacked out during an eclipse. This light is also described in John 1:5, where the light shines through the darkness, and the darkness never prevails over it. Therefore, this light isn't the sun because the sun can stop shining during an eclipse.
Me: You try to pursue a scientific approach, but I think you fail in this alternative biblical interpretation. You are suggesting that God started his work in the middle of an eclipse? A three day period of global (!) eclipse seems somewhat difficult to believe. The argument of having multiple lights (one being natural and one being spiritual) is more interesting and to be taken more seriously than the observation of a mere eclipse explanation. However, this is not elaborated and left up open for interpretation in the Bible. This is a postmodern experience under the definition as mentioned above (i.e. subjective interpretation) . However, this is contradictory as God is the monopolizing totality and the very anthesis of a subjectively lived experience of, in this case, the experience of 'light'. The problem with two lights and the occurrence of postmodernist interpretation lies in the definition of 'light' as being two, rather than one.
Paradoxical proposed Theses II:
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
Anonymous: "In chapter one, God created the earth, and notice that it says it was wasted and void? Well, we find, as interpretators, that God created all things first. Then, in chapter two, God "formed" all things so they wouldn't be wasted and void."
Me: this is again a retroductive reaction. How can you say that he created waste/ void when our experience of these terms is socially constructed and embedded in history? Lets look at threes as in the example. First He/ SHE (!) created supposed trees of waste (whatever those might look like) to replace them with 'unwastefull' trees? How does he ascertain that certain trees/ or other subject or objects can be considered as 'waste' and why did he make them then in the very first place?
Paradoxical proposed Theses III:
MT 7:1-2 Do not judge.
MT 7:15-20 Instructions for judging a false prophet.
Anonymous: In Mt 7 where Jesus says "Do not judge." Jesus didn't say that judging was wrong but it was wrong to judge while you're sinning. Notice what it says in verses 4 and 5, "And why behold thou the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, Let me cast out the mote out of your eye; and look, the beam is in my own eye?" Notice Jesus clearly means that we shouldn't judge our associates when we have sin within (the beam), and try and cast out the mote out of them while being sinful.
Me: This is a relatively easy to rebuff theme. The very definition on 'sinning' is constructed on judging of what is good and bad. If there was not a judging of what was supposedly wrong and good, there would be no sinning in the first place.
Paradoxical proposed Theses IV:
MT 10:10 Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves.
MK 6:8-9 Take sandals (shoes) and staves.
Anonymous: In Matthew 10:10, Jesus is just ordering His disciples not to take anything from anyone for themselves. Mark 6:8-9, Jesus tells His disciples not to take any of their personal items on their journey.
Me: - again this is a retroductive interpretation. In such a manner, we could reinterpret all 'Holy' (and other ethic) books and make them as ultimate truths. Moreover, I think the whole issue about 'property' can be widely contested on the principal that they do not own anything for themselves since they are not accepted to have anything for themselves (except their bodies and minds) in the first place.
Paradoxical proposed Theses V:
MT 12:39, MK 8:12, LK 11:29 Jesus says that he will give no "sign."
JN 3:2, 20:30, AC 2:22 Jesus proceeds to give many such "signs."
Anonymous: Mt 12:39, Mk 8:12, and Lk 11:29 describe the same occurrence. It clearly says what happened in Mk 8:11, "And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, testing him." Jesus didn't give them a sign because they were testing Him, to see if He was the Christ (Messiah). Matthew 4:7 states, “Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.” Therefore, Jesus was acknowledging Himself as God.
In John 20:30, it clearly says that Jesus did miracles signs in front of His disciples. Therefore, Jesus didn't do it for the Pharisees because they were testing Him all the time.
Me: again you are speculating on the meaning of 'signs' and their significance for the apparently flawed contradiction. (Signs, which is by the way one of the core pillar of post-modernism theory and culture). Why the need in the Bible to call them 'signs' and not, like you did, 'miracles' are those not in teleological terms always signs (de facto)!? Why talk of signs when clearly there are not supposed to prove the existence of God in front of the Pharaoh. Signs are named so because they signal something, if they are performed they create affirmation of the existence (in this context) of something teleological, when they are not they prove the opposite (a falsity). They are never voluntarily conducted in the example of teleology becauseJesus has to show his superior existence and rely and receive affirmation through the use of empirical evidence, i.e. the suggested miracles.
Paradoxical proposed Theses VI:
IS 44:24 God created heaven and earth alone.
JN 1:1-3 Jesus took part in creation.
Anonymous: It says in Isaiah 9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace." This prophecy clearly states that the Messiah is God. Their child was born and a Son was given. Otherwise, who is this “son” it's stating?
Me: God/ Jesus: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given...shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace" - This comes from a Judism: "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele - joez - el- gibbor -Abi -ad -sar - shalom"The Christian verse is a cheap reproduction of a much older book, which calls the son differently. Again, a major contradiction that only worsens when you go deeper into it
Conclusion
Anonymous: "If God is nonexistent then what’s the reason for suffering?"
Me: Well to be honest I dont suffer and people that rely on a milder form of Christianity do not suffer either. Instead, they enjoy life as it is, colorful, melancholic, shining, easthetic, etc. Only fundamental religious theorist restrain themselves from enjoying life as it is meant to be, an object of love. If Nietzsche is what it takes, yes than I believe in the power of the individual and wish for the deaht of (a transcendent) God.
Anyways some of his arguments and some of my counter arguments you will find below. The latter are by far not limited to this heavily reduced list of arguments that serve the purpose of equalizing Biblical reading to post-modern reading and stressing the multitude of paradoxes embedded in the Bible.
Anonymous: "The Bible isn't post-modern because it hardly meets the creditability to be a fictional book. It hardly even describes each character and is hardly exciting to read. For example: Numbers."
Me: Postmodern is not fiction, post-modernists would argue that it is the ultimate reality. Simply because it is subjectively personalized. Post-modernists would argue therefore simularly that 'it hardly meets the creditability to be a fictional'. It probably has more legitimacy than a holy mono scripture that has ever been written/ adjusted/ updated/ translated by so many people as the Bible.
Paradoxical proposed Theses I:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
Anonymous: The Bible doesn't contradict it self, for example, the Gospels, which in parallel they all tell the same story. Here's why the examples that are presented don't contradict each other:
God created light which "separated" darkness. This "light" wasn't the sun but some other light. The sun doesn't separate darkness but it fades it out. Sometimes the sun is blacked out during an eclipse. This light is also described in John 1:5, where the light shines through the darkness, and the darkness never prevails over it. Therefore, this light isn't the sun because the sun can stop shining during an eclipse.
Me: You try to pursue a scientific approach, but I think you fail in this alternative biblical interpretation. You are suggesting that God started his work in the middle of an eclipse? A three day period of global (!) eclipse seems somewhat difficult to believe. The argument of having multiple lights (one being natural and one being spiritual) is more interesting and to be taken more seriously than the observation of a mere eclipse explanation. However, this is not elaborated and left up open for interpretation in the Bible. This is a postmodern experience under the definition as mentioned above (i.e. subjective interpretation) . However, this is contradictory as God is the monopolizing totality and the very anthesis of a subjectively lived experience of, in this case, the experience of 'light'. The problem with two lights and the occurrence of postmodernist interpretation lies in the definition of 'light' as being two, rather than one.
Paradoxical proposed Theses II:
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
Anonymous: "In chapter one, God created the earth, and notice that it says it was wasted and void? Well, we find, as interpretators, that God created all things first. Then, in chapter two, God "formed" all things so they wouldn't be wasted and void."
Me: this is again a retroductive reaction. How can you say that he created waste/ void when our experience of these terms is socially constructed and embedded in history? Lets look at threes as in the example. First He/ SHE (!) created supposed trees of waste (whatever those might look like) to replace them with 'unwastefull' trees? How does he ascertain that certain trees/ or other subject or objects can be considered as 'waste' and why did he make them then in the very first place?
Paradoxical proposed Theses III:
MT 7:1-2 Do not judge.
MT 7:15-20 Instructions for judging a false prophet.
Anonymous: In Mt 7 where Jesus says "Do not judge." Jesus didn't say that judging was wrong but it was wrong to judge while you're sinning. Notice what it says in verses 4 and 5, "And why behold thou the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, Let me cast out the mote out of your eye; and look, the beam is in my own eye?" Notice Jesus clearly means that we shouldn't judge our associates when we have sin within (the beam), and try and cast out the mote out of them while being sinful.
Me: This is a relatively easy to rebuff theme. The very definition on 'sinning' is constructed on judging of what is good and bad. If there was not a judging of what was supposedly wrong and good, there would be no sinning in the first place.
Paradoxical proposed Theses IV:
MT 10:10 Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves.
MK 6:8-9 Take sandals (shoes) and staves.
Anonymous: In Matthew 10:10, Jesus is just ordering His disciples not to take anything from anyone for themselves. Mark 6:8-9, Jesus tells His disciples not to take any of their personal items on their journey.
Me: - again this is a retroductive interpretation. In such a manner, we could reinterpret all 'Holy' (and other ethic) books and make them as ultimate truths. Moreover, I think the whole issue about 'property' can be widely contested on the principal that they do not own anything for themselves since they are not accepted to have anything for themselves (except their bodies and minds) in the first place.
Paradoxical proposed Theses V:
MT 12:39, MK 8:12, LK 11:29 Jesus says that he will give no "sign."
JN 3:2, 20:30, AC 2:22 Jesus proceeds to give many such "signs."
Anonymous: Mt 12:39, Mk 8:12, and Lk 11:29 describe the same occurrence. It clearly says what happened in Mk 8:11, "And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, testing him." Jesus didn't give them a sign because they were testing Him, to see if He was the Christ (Messiah). Matthew 4:7 states, “Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.” Therefore, Jesus was acknowledging Himself as God.
In John 20:30, it clearly says that Jesus did miracles signs in front of His disciples. Therefore, Jesus didn't do it for the Pharisees because they were testing Him all the time.
Me: again you are speculating on the meaning of 'signs' and their significance for the apparently flawed contradiction. (Signs, which is by the way one of the core pillar of post-modernism theory and culture). Why the need in the Bible to call them 'signs' and not, like you did, 'miracles' are those not in teleological terms always signs (de facto)!? Why talk of signs when clearly there are not supposed to prove the existence of God in front of the Pharaoh. Signs are named so because they signal something, if they are performed they create affirmation of the existence (in this context) of something teleological, when they are not they prove the opposite (a falsity). They are never voluntarily conducted in the example of teleology becauseJesus has to show his superior existence and rely and receive affirmation through the use of empirical evidence, i.e. the suggested miracles.
Paradoxical proposed Theses VI:
IS 44:24 God created heaven and earth alone.
JN 1:1-3 Jesus took part in creation.
Anonymous: It says in Isaiah 9:6, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace." This prophecy clearly states that the Messiah is God. Their child was born and a Son was given. Otherwise, who is this “son” it's stating?
Me: God/ Jesus: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given...shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace" - This comes from a Judism: "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele - joez - el- gibbor -Abi -ad -sar - shalom"The Christian verse is a cheap reproduction of a much older book, which calls the son differently. Again, a major contradiction that only worsens when you go deeper into it
Conclusion
Anonymous: "If God is nonexistent then what’s the reason for suffering?"
Me: Well to be honest I dont suffer and people that rely on a milder form of Christianity do not suffer either. Instead, they enjoy life as it is, colorful, melancholic, shining, easthetic, etc. Only fundamental religious theorist restrain themselves from enjoying life as it is meant to be, an object of love. If Nietzsche is what it takes, yes than I believe in the power of the individual and wish for the deaht of (a transcendent) God.
2 Comments:
I advise against going too deep into this.
You may get mailbombed.
cheers, this will be the last one on religion for some time :)
Post a Comment