Worldview... Why we believe what we believe

[Tarrou]

I was going to post something in response to the growing debate on Christians and, well, any form of media that isn't the bible, but I'm duty-bound to be at least reasonably polite, so I'm just going to say that I'm utterly sick of hearing people claim that anything that lacks sufficient theological purity should be avoided. I know I'm just a heathen, but to me that sounds like rubbish.  

[Seority]

.~* heart *~.

Oddly enough, it is just a game.
What else is it that you keep talking about? Because, to be truthful, I don't see anything else.

.~* 4laugh *~.

 

[Tarrou]

Berezi

He kind of goes over how many of these beliefs came about, and it's interesting that the defenition of literal could have/did allow for a metaphorical reading of Genesis's first 11 chapters. It only changed to taking every verse of the Bible word for word probably about 40 years ago.

Well, that would probably be when it became widespread, at any rate. If that estimate is accurate, then it sounds like yet another outgrowth of the American culture wars.

Quote:

I do believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures. I also believe that the Bible should be taken literally - not so much in the sense of word-for-word, but in the sense of the truths that it contains about God.

I know some people with a similar understanding of the bible, and it's one that, intellectually, I can respect.

Quote:

[...]Also, the letters of the New Testament deserve to be taken word-for-word. The authors were intending to be taken straight up, so we shouldn't read it that way.

Yeah, no-one would write an epistle in metaphorical form unless he was being deliberately, obnoxiously obtuse. The interpretational scheme you've proposed sounds pretty reasonable, although I can't say that I'd be comfortable interpreting all the histories literally. That's really just because of my own philosophy, though, and doesn't have much real bearing on the matter.

Quote:

But again, just because biblical literalism shouldn't mean reading every verse word-for-word doesn't mean that people don't do it anyway.

Too true.  

[Berezi]

Master Protoman_exe

Err, that scripture was irrelevant. As close as you're trying to make it. You must also be aware of the apparel and such... Final Fantasy games aren't the best ones to play. I'm sorry but I forget where exactly it's found, but in the pentateuch, it mentions abstaining from witchcraft and sorcery.

If God wanted me to stop playing video games, I'd know about it.

And furthermore, there is far too much of a disconnect for me between video games and reality for me to really object. Most of the ones, at least that I play, aren't even set in the same world as ours.

Do you appreciate Lord of the Rings? Or The Chronicles of Narnia? If your answer is yes, I might as well tell you, I'll stop playing video games when you stop appreciating those. Because the pentateuch says you should abstain from witchraft.

As I mentioned, video games can often convey really wholesome themes to people. The sanctity of life is a unviersal theme throughout Final Fantasy, or the ones I've played, and I really think that's a great message to send to people. Also, in some games, like FF7, the main bad guy wants to dominate the world, but he's also vengeful of the way he was treated and his "mother" was treated. He almost kills an entire population of people, but is stopped by the holy magic which was only able to be summoned because another person sacrificed her life in love for the planet. In FF6 at the end, Terra uses the last of her flying powers to guide her friends out of the tower, almost sacrificing her life. At the end of FF9, Garnet and Zidane still manage to be together and finally get over their class differences. We see Cecil undergo a kind of redemption as he turns from a dark knight into a Paladin. A huge theme of FF4 is forgiveness.

These things are things that you generally draw from the game, Christian or not. And it's not so bad to be excited about the hope that Cecil has, or the way he forgives his brother for betraying him. It's not so bad to be excited for Terra as she finallly figures out how to love others and what that means, or to see Garnet and Zidane overcome their differences, or to see the world saved from certain doom because of one person's sacrifice.

There are some really neat witnessing opportunities there, because these are the same sort of thing that God endorses/encourages/stands for. There are some questionable things, but it affects the message that the story tries to convey for the better.  

[Berezi]

Tangled Up In Blue

Well, that would probably be when it became widespread, at any rate. If that estimate is accurate, then it sounds like yet another outgrowth of the American culture wars.

Very true. This could be interesting.

Quote:

I know some people with a similar understanding of the bible, and it's one that, intellectually, I can respect.

I guess I don't see how it could be any other way.

Quote:

Yeah, no-one would write an epistle in metaphorical form unless he was being deliberately, obnoxiously obtuse. The interpretational scheme you've proposed sounds pretty reasonable, although I can't say that I'd be comfortable interpreting all the histories literally. That's really just because of my own philosophy, though, and doesn't have much real bearing on the matter.

Huh. Is that due to perspective and stuff like the whole "History is written by the winners" thing?  

[Tarrou]

Berezi

Huh. Is that due to perspective and stuff like the whole "History is written by the winners" thing?

No, it's just that a lot of the history in, say, Exodus seems, to me, like it probably isn't a wholly accurate historical account. But that is, again, primarily just because I'm a non-Christian. The way I read the bible is going to be a lot different from how you read if.  

[Berezi]

Tangled Up In Blue

Berezi

Huh. Is that due to perspective and stuff like the whole "History is written by the winners" thing?

No, it's just that a lot of the history in, say, Exodus seems, to me, like it probably isn't a wholly accurate historical account. But that is, again, primarily just because I'm a non-Christian. The way I read the bible is going to be a lot different from how you read if.

True. I mean, I'm sure the supernatural aspects of it probably are very strange, but at least from my studies so far, the concrete history of it has been entirely accurate.  

[The Noble Protoman.exe]

Seority

.~* heart *~.

Oddly enough, it is just a game.
What else is it that you keep talking about? Because, to be truthful, I don't see anything else.

.~* 4laugh *~.

Simply put, maybe you should look farther into what I am saying.  

[The Noble Protoman.exe]

Berezi

If God wanted me to stop playing video games, I'd know about it.

And furthermore, there is far too much of a disconnect for me between video games and reality for me to really object. Most of the ones, at least that I play, aren't even set in the same world as ours.

Do you appreciate Lord of the Rings? Or The Chronicles of Narnia? If your answer is yes, I might as well tell you, I'll stop playing video games when you stop appreciating those. Because the pentateuch says you should abstain from witchraft.

As I mentioned, video games can often convey really wholesome themes to people. The sanctity of life is a unviersal theme throughout Final Fantasy, or the ones I've played, and I really think that's a great message to send to people. Also, in some games, like FF7, the main bad guy wants to dominate the world, but he's also vengeful of the way he was treated and his "mother" was treated. He almost kills an entire population of people, but is stopped by the holy magic which was only able to be summoned because another person sacrificed her life in love for the planet. In FF6 at the end, Terra uses the last of her flying powers to guide her friends out of the tower, almost sacrificing her life. At the end of FF9, Garnet and Zidane still manage to be together and finally get over their class differences. We see Cecil undergo a kind of redemption as he turns from a dark knight into a Paladin. A huge theme of FF4 is forgiveness.

These things are things that you generally draw from the game, Christian or not. And it's not so bad to be excited about the hope that Cecil has, or the way he forgives his brother for betraying him. It's not so bad to be excited for Terra as she finallly figures out how to love others and what that means, or to see Garnet and Zidane overcome their differences, or to see the world saved from certain doom because of one person's sacrifice.

There are some really neat witnessing opportunities there, because these are the same sort of thing that God endorses/encourages/stands for. There are some questionable things, but it affects the message that the story tries to convey for the better.

... Wow, so basically you're saying what you just said with a longer post. I will concede for now. Simply put, I am not good with using bunches of words, so I do not get my point accross. Terribly sorry.  

[Tarrou]

Berezi

True. I mean, I'm sure the supernatural aspects of it probably are very strange, but at least from my studies so far, the concrete history of it has been entirely accurate.

Indeed. Miracles are something that I do not take at face value. More than that, though, while I'm willing to grant a general historical accuracy to the texts, I very much doubt that they are wholly without historical error (their theological accuracy, I leave to others, since it has little effect on me). I suppose I'm not saying that the histories cannot be taken literally; my point, really, is that they shouldn't be thought of as anything more than a rough outline of what happened, generally correct but probably not the precise truth.  

[Seority]

Master Protoman_exe

Seority

.~* heart *~.

Oddly enough, it is just a game.
What else is it that you keep talking about? Because, to be truthful, I don't see anything else.

.~* 4laugh *~.

Simply put, maybe you should look farther into what I am saying.

.~* heart *~.

I'd rather not, unless there's a good reason. You haven't said anything that might make me change my mind besides just thinking about it. I've already have and, again, I've heard nothing that has made me think anymore about it.

.~* 4laugh *~.

 

[Berezi]

Master Protoman_exe

... Wow, so basically you're saying what you just said with a longer post.

Not quite. I expanded on what I was saying in order to make the point.
The points:
1) Just because a game, or any media for that matter, has objectionable content doesn't mean that we shouldn't play it.
2) These games don't usually convey bad themes, and have actually made me think on occasion, and for the better. I don't see how this is a detriment to my faith.
The expansion is the proof for these things.

Quote:

I will concede for now. Simply put, I am not good with using bunches of words, so I do not get my point accross. Terribly sorry.

There's nothing for you to apologize about.

If you're going to concede, I'd rather it be for the merit of my words than the length of them.

If you still feel like you have more to say, I'd rather hear what you've got to say. You don't have to be good at using lots of words. You only have to be good at backing up what you say.

FYI - if you start making references to the Pentateuch for our daily lives, most likely you'll hear someone say "do you eat shellfish?" in response. There are plenty of other places in scripture where you can find out that we should abstain from witchcraft. But the issue here isn't that. It's whether or not a game is okay to play even if it has some objectionable content.  

[Berezi]

Tangled Up In Blue

Indeed. Miracles are something that I do not take at face value. More than that, though, while I'm willing to grant a general historical accuracy to the texts, I very much doubt that they are wholly without historical error (their theological accuracy, I leave to others, since it has little effect on me). I suppose I'm not saying that the histories cannot be taken literally; my point, really, is that they shouldn't be thought of as anything more than a rough outline of what happened, generally correct but probably not the precise truth.

Perhaps. But at least in my studies of Old Testament Archaeology so far, the history is pretty concrete with what other sources record.

I guess it depends on the perspective that you're reading the Biblical history from. From your perpsective, you've definetly got that reading right. From a theist one like mine, it is the precise truth, miracles and all.  

[Tarrou]

Berezi

Perhaps. But at least in my studies of Old Testament Archaeology so far, the history is pretty concrete with what other sources record.

I guess it depends on the perspective that you're reading the Biblical history from. From your perpsective, you've definetly got that reading right. From a theist one like mine, it is the precise truth, miracles and all.

Generally speaking, yes, but the Old Testament accounts seem over-simplified to me. Consider the Jews' captivity in Egypt: firstly, the story of how they got there seems unlikely (especially since we've little archeological evidence to go on in the first place). And secondly, the archeological evidence doesn't seem to square with a single mass migration out of Egypt, given that there is evidence of a continued Israelite presence in Egypt a hundred years after the Rule of Ramses II, the pharaoh usually considered to the Pharaoh of Exodus. Generally correct, but not specifically.
On an entirely different note, I should also state, just so you're fully aware of my thought processes, that I'm typically very wary of biblical archeology that touches on Israel in general and the United Monarchy period in particular. All of that is way too tied up in modern Israeli politics for my comfort, frankly.

But in the end, this is where we cite irreconcilable interpretational differences and agree to disagree.  

[Berezi]

Tangled Up In Blue

Generally speaking, yes, but the Old Testament accounts seem over-simplified to me. Consider the Jews' captivity in Egypt: firstly, the story of how they got there seems unlikely (especially since we've little archeological evidence to go on in the first place). And secondly, the archeological evidence doesn't seem to square with a single mass migration out of Egypt, given that there is evidence of a continued Israelite presence in Egypt a hundred years after the Rule of Ramses II, the pharaoh usually considered to the Pharaoh of Exodus. Generally correct, but not specifically.
On an entirely different note, I should also state, just so you're fully aware of my thought processes, that I'm typically very wary of biblical archeology that touches on Israel in general and the United Monarchy period in particular. All of that is way too tied up in modern Israeli politics for my comfort, frankly.

But in the end, this is where we cite irreconcilable interpretational differences and agree to disagree.

You know, it really is simplified in many cases. Take the account of Abram for a second. They just say "he left X and arrived at Y" expecting you to know exactly where he would have gone. Indeed, if you know the geography of the area, you do. Otherwise it's a bit confusing. It wouldn't surprise me if some Israelites decided to remain in Egypt, especially considering how whiny they got so quickly, some probably decided it wasn't worth leaving.

I should have lunch with my OT Arch prof. I'd love to talk to him about these things.

But yeah, you're right. This is where we cite those differences. In terms of the histories of Israel chronicled in Regions on the Run by Dr. John Monson, there are like, 4 different theories as to how they emerged, and you can't really say which one is correct solely on the archaeological evidence. So I suppose the whole field of Biblical Archaeology is doing what we're doing now. =)