Philosophy & Religion Thread

[GratefulPoke]

Thanks for the reply (hope this harkens to discussions boards from seminary ).

I appreciate the clarity of your three options. It helps me see exactly where our paths diverge.

Regarding the Matthew and Mark contradiction, I actually see those as two sides of the same coin rather than a logical failure. In one, Jesus warns against false neutrality (Matthew), and in the other, he warns against religious gatekeeping (Mark). To me, a perfect revelation would include both of those nuances because life is nuanced.

As for the Amalekites, I agree that's a heavy and difficult text. Where you see a moral error, I see a difficult look at divine judgment. If I believe God is the author of life, I have to grapple with the fact that His justice might look different and more severe than my own, yet still perfect.

The reason I can’t land on your Option 1 is that if I believe humans introduced errors into the core teachings/narratives, I lose any objective way to know who God actually is. I'd be left picking and choosing based on my own modern biases.

My question for you is if we assume for a moment that a perfect God exists, wouldn't he be capable of ensuring his message remained inerrant despite the human hands involved? Or do you think the human element automatically guarantees error?

No problem and thanks for your thoughtful response! It definitely gets the neurons firing.

I can see where you are coming from with the Matthew and Mark passages, but I would posit that if we are viewing the passages exegetically, the conflict gets more pronounced, not less so. I am happy to discuss this, but I am more interested in your response to the 1 Samuel passage.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that that the genocide was divinely condoned and his instruction was accurately recorded with that statement, as sometimes divine judgement is severe. If you feel like this is an inaccurate summary, let me know.

In doing this, it opens up a pandora's box. Mass killing children is ok, if God instructs it. Mass killing of women is divinely inspired, as long as God has asked for it. Genocide is just, as long as it has God told you to do it. Does this make the Palestinian genocide ok? Israeli political leaders have called Palestinains the people of Amalek multiple times throughout it, a direct reference to this exact passage. What about the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi's? What about Native Americans at the hands of white settlers? One can see exactly where this goes.

In short, accepting biblical inerrancy & infalliblity turns morality into a subjective matter, completely dependent on the whims of God. In the quest to make the biblical text objective truth, it has made morality subjective. God says do not kill, unless he tells you to kill every man, woman, child of an entire ethnic group. Oh, and their animals too. What use is a subjective morality?

The result is predictable, as we can clearly see what this has done presently in our current political climate as most evangelicals today enthusiastically cheer Israel as they conduct their genocide, root for ICE as they rip families apart, ethnically cleansing our domestic population, not to mention to bully the trans population. We don't see that level of support with any of the other Christian denominations that reject biblical inerrancy. This is a product of how they view the bible and morality.

I also want to acknowledge that we are likely approaching these texts with very different hermeneutical frameworks.

You are looking at these passages as independent data points to be tested for logical consistency. I am approaching them through a framework of biblical theology, where I assume a coherent big picture and look for how these seemingly disparate parts fit into a unified whole.

Because of this, I realize we probably can’t solve every specific textual criticism or historical problem here in this forum. However, I’m really interested in the philosophical side: In your view, is the human element inherently a source of corruption, or is there a version of a perfect God that could successfully communicate through imperfect vessels without losing the truth?

Theological frameworks aside, if one disregards the data points that allow us to test for the validity of a specific claim and instead point to the collection of claims and the narrative they create, illustrating how that initial claim fits in, are we really ever testing for the validity of that specific claim? Or any of the other claims? It seems to me that contorting each piece to fit a preconceived idea or narrative results in avoiding a serious consideration of any of the alternatives.

To answer your question on philosophy, assuming God exists, is perfect, original sin as a doctrine is true, and humans have free will then yes, God's communication would also be subject to those things as long has he communicated through people. As such, the people wrote the various books that comprised the Bible (many years after the original transmission) introduced their own biases, ideas and preconceived notions into it, just like people have done for all of human history in every other text written.

This allows us to acknowledge realities like the person who started the oral tradition of 1 Samuel had a bronze age concept of morality where genocide was occasionally permissible, or Paul who had a first century understanding of morality, giving instructions to slaveowners on how they should treat their slaves instead of instructing the slaveowners to emancipate them. By and large we understand morality better than them, we have historical lessons they never had access to. We know the immense suffering and injustice genocide and slavery cause and know not to subject others to that. If the bible is infallible, then these things would still be theologically permissible today. What value is a theological framework that cannot even get basic morality right?

Does this require one to parse scripture to determine what is applicable to modern life and what isn't? Yes, and nearly everyone does it to some extent anyway, which is why you don't see evangelical churches accepting polygamists. Does parsing scripture introduce uncertainty? Absolutely. Could this result in people losing the truth? Yes, but that happens anyway. I would argue that some doctrines contribute to that more than others.

 

[LaB_OkState]

I want to address your points regarding 1 Samuel 15 head-on because I don’t want to be accused of dodging the "hard parts" of the text, but I also want to clarify how my theological framework functions as a moral guardrail rather than the Pandora’s Box you’ve described.

I think our main disconnect lies in what I see as a rush to application. From my perspective, you are performing a grammatical-historical exegesis (asking what it meant then) and jumping straight to a modern political application. My approach, however, is Christocentric. I believe that to understand any text, I must first see how it is fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. This isn't contorting the text; it’s reading it as a unified, redemptive story. In the Old Covenant, holy war was physical and localized to a specific people at a specific time. But in the New Covenant, Jesus explicitly stated, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). Therefore, the physical sword of 1 Samuel finds its ultimate fulfillment in the spiritual sword of the Gospel. When modern political leaders use “Amalek” rhetoric to justify violence today, I believe they aren't practicing inerrancy, they are practicing bad exegesis. They are ignoring the fact that Jesus took the full weight of divine judgment upon Himself so that we would no longer vent judgment on others.

Regarding the charge that inerrancy makes morality subjective to God’s whims, I would actually posit the opposite. If I parse the Bible based on what I currently feel is right or wrong, then I am the one making morality subjective. I would be making God in my own 21st-century image. I would rather wrestle with a God who is other and sometimes difficult to understand than follow a God who simply reflects my current cultural sensibilities. If truth is progressive and determined by our evolving reason, then what we call moral today will likely be seen as primitive or even evil by the year 2500. By anchoring morality in an unchanging Word, I am looking for a standard that transcends the moving goalposts of human history.

I also want to gently push back on the idea that inerrancy leads to a predictable political result. The inerrancy camp is not a monolith; it includes a vast spectrum of people, including many who use that very doctrine to advocate for peace, the welcoming of the stranger, and the protection of the vulnerable. To lump all who hold this theological view into one political camp is as inaccurate as lumping all non-theists into a single moral or political ideology. Admittedly, there will be areas where my convictions are 'lpredictable simply because I am bound to what I believe God has clearly said. And I recognize those positions may not satisfy you but it is a mistake to lump all who hold this theological view into a single political camp.

Finally, I’m interested in your philosophical conclusion regarding the "human element." You mentioned that if God exists and communicates through people, that communication is automatically subject to human error and bias. My question for clarification is this: If we assume for a moment that God is truly "perfect," is God so limited that He cannot overcome human bias to ensure His message remains true?
Further, do you believe any human document( scientific, historical, or otherwise) is capable of being 100% accurate? We generally accept that human authors are capable of writing a textbook or a scientific journal that is 100% factually accurate despite their personal biases. If a human history professor can achieve that level of accuracy, why is it logically impossible for an omnipotent Creator to do the same through a human vessel? It seems to me that your conclusion requires God to be less capable than the very humans he created. If we assume he is perfect, shouldn't we also assume He is capable of perfect communication?

This is fun

 

[TheMonkey]

Does this require one to parse scripture to determine what is applicable to modern life and what isn't? Yes, and nearly everyone does it to some extent anyway, which is why you don't see evangelical churches accepting polygamists. Does parsing scripture introduce uncertainty? Absolutely. Could this result in people losing the truth? Yes, but that happens anyway. I would argue that some doctrines contribute to that more than others.

Exactly. It’s not whether we pick and choose, it’s how we decide what we pick and choose. Because, we all do it. This whole conversation reminds me of a TED Talk. It’s an old one, but I recommend folks watch this if they haven’t seen it.

A.J. Jacobs: My year of living biblically
https://www.ted.com/talks/a_j_jacob...hare&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tedspread

 

[GratefulPoke]

I want to address your points regarding 1 Samuel 15 head-on because I don’t want to be accused of dodging the "hard parts" of the text, but I also want to clarify how my theological framework functions as a moral guardrail rather than the Pandora’s Box you’ve described.

I think our main disconnect lies in what I see as a rush to application. From my perspective, you are performing a grammatical-historical exegesis (asking what it meant then) and jumping straight to a modern political application. My approach, however, is Christocentric. I believe that to understand any text, I must first see how it is fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. This isn't contorting the text; it’s reading it as a unified, redemptive story. In the Old Covenant, holy war was physical and localized to a specific people at a specific time. But in the New Covenant, Jesus explicitly stated, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). Therefore, the physical sword of 1 Samuel finds its ultimate fulfillment in the spiritual sword of the Gospel. When modern political leaders use “Amalek” rhetoric to justify violence today, I believe they aren't practicing inerrancy, they are practicing bad exegesis. They are ignoring the fact that Jesus took the full weight of divine judgment upon Himself so that we would no longer vent judgment on others.

Regarding the charge that inerrancy makes morality subjective to God’s whims, I would actually posit the opposite. If I parse the Bible based on what I currently feel is right or wrong, then I am the one making morality subjective. I would be making God in my own 21st-century image. I would rather wrestle with a God who is other and sometimes difficult to understand than follow a God who simply reflects my current cultural sensibilities. If truth is progressive and determined by our evolving reason, then what we call moral today will likely be seen as primitive or even evil by the year 2500. By anchoring morality in an unchanging Word, I am looking for a standard that transcends the moving goalposts of human history.

Lets say for the sake of argument, we run with your take on covenant theology, the problem still remains: A morally objective God could not instruct the ancient Israelites not to kill, but then later command them to slaughter an entire ethnic group. These commands are irreconcilable. Not only that, but according to the author of 1 Samuel 15, God withdrew his favor from Saul and gave it to David since Saul did not fully complete the genocide and left some women and animals for himself. If morality is objective, genocide is always wrong and this fact would not change with the times. The take you are espousing is consistent with this statement: "divine instructed genocide used to be just". And again, if the supposed source of morality cannot get something as elementary as this correct, what good is that source of morality?

You mention looking for an standard that transcends the moving goalposts of history, but covenant theology is the opposite of that. It is by its very nature not a theology of consistency, but a theology of relativism. That all biblical instruction is relative in its relation to which covenant is in place at the time. This is the moving goalposts of history, but instead of attributing it to humanity's nascent understanding of morality and inherent relativism, it is attributed to God's relativism. This shatters the idea of an objective moral God.

This also does not deal with Paul's instructions for slaves to obey their masters. This is a new covenant instruction, one still in effect today according to that framework. Does this mean that Confederate slaveowners that taught and enacted these teachings were moral? They were following Paul's instruction. Again, if one's theological framework cannot get this right, what purpose does it serve?

This is why I have said before and have said here again, the Bible is a horrible moral compass. Biblical inerrancy places those shortcomings on God and tries to explain them away, other theological approaches hold man responsible.

In my view, morality is objective, it is our understanding of it that is subjective and the humans that come after us are much more likely to have a more complete picture than we do. So yes, humans in the year 2500 will think we were barbaric in some ways and they will be right. Just like what we all do when studying ancient peoples that weren't mentioned in the bible. The people in the bible are no different. There is plenty of room inside of the Christian tradition to acknowledge these realities.

This has zero to do with feelings, it is a knowledge and understanding problem. What determines what is moral is cause and effect and the more instances of cause and effect that one is aware of or observes, the higher potential that individual has of being moral. It is not because morality itself has changed, but it is the human capability to understand what is moral has changed.

This is why in other faith traditions, such as Buddhism, one meditates to become more aware of cause and effect, each one is considered a "dharma gate" or a way that one can receive instruction and learn. For us humans, objective morality is not a destination we arrive at, but a constant search, a consistent opening to experience.

I also want to gently push back on the idea that inerrancy leads to a predictable political result. The inerrancy camp is not a monolith; it includes a vast spectrum of people, including many who use that very doctrine to advocate for peace, the welcoming of the stranger, and the protection of the vulnerable. To lump all who hold this theological view into one political camp is as inaccurate as lumping all non-theists into a single moral or political ideology. Admittedly, there will be areas where my convictions are 'lpredictable simply because I am bound to what I believe God has clearly said. And I recognize those positions may not satisfy you but it is a mistake to lump all who hold this theological view into a single political camp.

Finally, I’m interested in your philosophical conclusion regarding the "human element." You mentioned that if God exists and communicates through people, that communication is automatically subject to human error and bias. My question for clarification is this: If we assume for a moment that God is truly "perfect," is God so limited that He cannot overcome human bias to ensure His message remains true?
Further, do you believe any human document( scientific, historical, or otherwise) is capable of being 100% accurate? We generally accept that human authors are capable of writing a textbook or a scientific journal that is 100% factually accurate despite their personal biases. If a human history professor can achieve that level of accuracy, why is it logically impossible for an omnipotent Creator to do the same through a human vessel? It seems to me that your conclusion requires God to be less capable than the very humans he created. If we assume he is perfect, shouldn't we also assume He is capable of perfect communication?

This is fun

Of course, no camp is a monolith, but camps can be dominated by certain sensibilities. And ideology absolutely drives consistent outcomes. It is why suicide bombers tend to be adherents to specific sects of Islam, and why many liberation theologians ended up supporting socialist politics and why belief in dispensationalism & biblical inerrancy ends up being a strong predictor of zionism.

First of all, history is not a good example for this. It is very much a subjective thing, generally told by the victors. Certain events are objectively known, but their context and meaning is entirely subjective. I'm assuming you have taken a couple US history classes in your lifetime. Now read The People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. There is a high level of subjectivity even if both of those source materials agree on the same basic set of facts. Scientifically, this is why just conducting a study isn't enough, it has to be able to be replicated. And if a new, better understanding is discovered, we modify or discard our previous understanding of it. Think of the theory of gravity for instance. Gravity works nothing like what Issac Newton proposed, even if he was initially "right" in a basic sense.

This reminds me of the theological argument "can an all powerful God create an object so heavy that even he cannot lift it". We could debate this all day and both make excellent arguments. I think this approach misses the point though. The question is less capability, but more what is the evidence that we have and how does that evidence interact with consent and free will (at least in a theological context). An all powerful God would be capable of ensuring children don't starve to death, but he doesn't do that. There is a choice.

At the end of the day, if we assume God is perfect, then he didn't command the ancient Israelites to genocide an ethnic group. People did that and wanted the cover of divine approval for their atrocity, like they have in just about every other historical instance

 

[LaB_OkState]

Lets say for the sake of argument, we run with your take on covenant theology, the problem still remains: A morally objective God could not instruct the ancient Israelites not to kill, but then later command them to slaughter an entire ethnic group. These commands are irreconcilable. Not only that, but according to the author of 1 Samuel 15, God withdrew his favor from Saul and gave it to David since Saul did not fully complete the genocide and left some women and animals for himself. If morality is objective, genocide is always wrong and this fact would not change with the times. The take you are espousing is consistent with this statement: "divine instructed genocide used to be just". And again, if the supposed source of morality cannot get something as elementary as this correct, what good is that source of morality?

You mention looking for an standard that transcends the moving goalposts of history, but covenant theology is the opposite of that. It is by its very nature not a theology of consistency, but a theology of relativism. That all biblical instruction is relative in its relation to which covenant is in place at the time. This is the moving goalposts of history, but instead of attributing it to humanity's nascent understanding of morality and inherent relativism, it is attributed to God's relativism. This shatters the idea of an objective moral God.

This also does not deal with Paul's instructions for slaves to obey their masters. This is a new covenant instruction, one still in effect today according to that framework. Does this mean that Confederate slaveowners that taught and enacted these teachings were moral? They were following Paul's instruction. Again, if one's theological framework cannot get this right, what purpose does it serve?

This is why I have said before and have said here again, the Bible is a horrible moral compass. Biblical inerrancy places those shortcomings on God and tries to explain them away, other theological approaches hold man responsible.

In my view, morality is objective, it is our understanding of it that is subjective and the humans that come after us are much more likely to have a more complete picture than we do. So yes, humans in the year 2500 will think we were barbaric in some ways and they will be right. Just like what we all do when studying ancient peoples that weren't mentioned in the bible. The people in the bible are no different. There is plenty of room inside of the Christian tradition to acknowledge these realities.

This has zero to do with feelings, it is a knowledge and understanding problem. What determines what is moral is cause and effect and the more instances of cause and effect that one is aware of or observes, the higher potential that individual has of being moral. It is not because morality itself has changed, but it is the human capability to understand what is moral has changed.

This is why in other faith traditions, such as Buddhism, one meditates to become more aware of cause and effect, each one is considered a "dharma gate" or a way that one can receive instruction and learn. For us humans, objective morality is not a destination we arrive at, but a constant search, a consistent opening to experience.


Of course, no camp is a monolith, but camps can be dominated by certain sensibilities. And ideology absolutely drives consistent outcomes. It is why suicide bombers tend to be adherents to specific sects of Islam, and why many liberation theologians ended up supporting socialist politics and why belief in dispensationalism & biblical inerrancy ends up being a strong predictor of zionism.

First of all, history is not a good example for this. It is very much a subjective thing, generally told by the victors. Certain events are objectively known, but their context and meaning is entirely subjective. I'm assuming you have taken a couple US history classes in your lifetime. Now read The People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. There is a high level of subjectivity even if both of those source materials agree on the same basic set of facts. Scientifically, this is why just conducting a study isn't enough, it has to be able to be replicated. And if a new, better understanding is discovered, we modify or discard our previous understanding of it. Think of the theory of gravity for instance. Gravity works nothing like what Issac Newton proposed, even if he was initially "right" in a basic sense.

This reminds me of the theological argument "can an all powerful God create an object so heavy that even he cannot lift it". We could debate this all day and both make excellent arguments. I think this approach misses the point though. The question is less capability, but more what is the evidence that we have and how does that evidence interact with consent and free will (at least in a theological context). An all powerful God would be capable of ensuring children don't starve to death, but he doesn't do that. There is a choice.

At the end of the day, if we assume God is perfect, then he didn't command the ancient Israelites to genocide an ethnic group. People did that and wanted the cover of divine approval for their atrocity, like they have in just about every other historical instance

At the rate we’re going, we’ve basically written three chapters of a book that we could be getting royalties for! In all seriousness, I truly appreciate you giving me the opportunity to chew on these things; it's rare to find a good-faith push that forces this much sharpening. However, I think we’re reaching the point where the chasm between our worldviews is becoming clear. You see covenant theology as a "theology of relativism," but I see it as a master architect realizing a plan through progressive revelation. Think of it like a father telling a toddler "don’t touch the stove" but telling a teenager "use the stove to make dinner." his character hasn't changed, but the administration of his rules has evolved as the child’s capacity matures. To me, God isn't being a relativist; he is meeting humanity in their "nascent understanding" and leading them toward the ultimate clarity found in Jesus.

Regarding "moral progress," you argued that we understand morality "better" today than ancient peoples did, yet the fact that slavery persists in our "advanced" civilization, often in more predatory, hidden forms like human trafficking, suggests that morality isn't a linear climb of better information. It’s a constant battle with a human nature that remains fundamentally unchanged. This is where I find the non-theist position difficult. If we are the sole judges of morality based on "cause and effect" or a "complete picture" that won't be ready for centuries, then morality is actually a moving target. It becomes relative to whoever holds the most power or the loudest consensus in the present moment. By acting as the judge over ancient texts, the non-theist position risks committing the very "moral relativism" it critiques. If there is no transcendent anchor, then we have no objective ground to say the people of the future are "right" and we are "wrong", we are just different.

I’ll leave it there for now, mostly because I’m starting to feel like I should be getting a syllabus and a paycheck for this much writing!

 

[GratefulPoke]

At the rate we’re going, we’ve basically written three chapters of a book that we could be getting royalties for! In all seriousness, I truly appreciate you giving me the opportunity to chew on these things; it's rare to find a good-faith push that forces this much sharpening. However, I think we’re reaching the point where the chasm between our worldviews is becoming clear. You see covenant theology as a "theology of relativism," but I see it as a master architect realizing a plan through progressive revelation. Think of it like a father telling a toddler "don’t touch the stove" but telling a teenager "use the stove to make dinner." his character hasn't changed, but the administration of his rules has evolved as the child’s capacity matures. To me, God isn't being a relativist; he is meeting humanity in their "nascent understanding" and leading them toward the ultimate clarity found in Jesus.

Regarding "moral progress," you argued that we understand morality "better" today than ancient peoples did, yet the fact that slavery persists in our "advanced" civilization, often in more predatory, hidden forms like human trafficking, suggests that morality isn't a linear climb of better information. It’s a constant battle with a human nature that remains fundamentally unchanged. This is where I find the non-theist position difficult. If we are the sole judges of morality based on "cause and effect" or a "complete picture" that won't be ready for centuries, then morality is actually a moving target. It becomes relative to whoever holds the most power or the loudest consensus in the present moment. By acting as the judge over ancient texts, the non-theist position risks committing the very "moral relativism" it critiques. If there is no transcendent anchor, then we have no objective ground to say the people of the future are "right" and we are "wrong", we are just different.

I’ll leave it there for now, mostly because I’m starting to feel like I should be getting a syllabus and a paycheck for this much writing!

Agreed that more knowledge is not a guarantee of a better morality. It is just an opportunity for a better morality. It has to be something that is cultivated.

I agree that we are at an impasse and it really comes down to epistemological differences. Either way, I do appreciate the time and effort that you put into our conversation and how you approached the conversation in good faith. It is good stuff. Until next time!