Theologicamol Questions

[erika]

Dear Pastor Josh,

I want to thank you for providing this service.

Here's my question. How large was the ark?

If I am allowed a follow-up, where did those hard-working friends and sons of Noah find polar bears and penguins?

A dingo ate my version of the biblical flood,

dfk

This might be better suited for the unfunny/snark page.  Come on, Dave.  I hope you're better than that.  You're probably not though.

That sounded rude, I apologize - I just enjoyed the friendly exchange of ideas that had occured before.  Shame on me.

You do realize you're fighting the powers of snark with more snark, don't you?

Eye for an eye, you say? That is so fucking old testament. Get with the times.

[dave from knoxville]

Dear Pastor Josh,

I want to thank you for providing this service.

Here's my question. How large was the ark?

If I am allowed a follow-up, where did those hard-working friends and sons of Noah find polar bears and penguins?

A dingo ate my version of the biblical flood,

dfk

This might be better suited for the unfunny/snark page.  Come on, Dave.  I hope you're better than that.  You're probably not though.

That sounded rude, I apologize - I just enjoyed the friendly exchange of ideas that had occured before.  Shame on me.

Dear Ben,

What the hell are you talking about? I go to church weekly; while most people only whine about the crazy things that many Christians believe (and worse, act on,) I am in there every week trying to loosen up hurtful misconceptions.

Some of the worst offenders are biblical literalists, who use the most outlandish arcane scriptures to support their insane beliefs, such as preemptive war. They would actually have Jesus riding the lead tank, standing on top with his sword raised to the sun.

So I try to point out flaws in their thinking. One of my long-time disorienters is forcing people to think about just how big the ark must be to support all species of animals for 6 weeks. The latest most refined guess I have is that the ark would need to be 6 miles wide, 19 miles long, and 8 stories high. I find that this is an opening to start a conversation that people would never be willing to engage in. I was sincerely interested in Pastor Josh's thoughts in this area.

Sorry of it put you off your oatmeal.

dfk

[erika]

PS. Dave:



Oddly enough I don't think you can bring your pets...

[Steve of Bloomington]

Dear Pastor Josh,

I have been enjoying this thread.  You remind me of the 'cool' priests at my Jesuit high school.  Hope comparing you to Jesuits doesn't offend.

Which leads to my question.  Do you often find yourself in situations where you are talking to/ arguing with Christians who disagree with you?  Does it get all 'Real World' or do people keep their cool?  I don't run in theological circles so I can only speculate as to how these things go.  I have a sense if there were more Pastors like you running around, or you got more air time, it'd be a good thing.

Steve

[Pastor Josh]

Pastor Josh,

I am curious if you have ever read any of the gnostic gospels.  Any thoughts as to whether they have any messages of value for Christian congregations today, and if you think the decisions in including and excluding various books of the New Testament still make sense in the present day?  I suppose in a sense by focusing on certain aspects of the Bible and not others each minister/pastor/priest does their own unofficial editing.  Is their ever room for adding/removing texts to the bible, or editing?  In a somewhat related note do you personally see the Bible as a template/guide, or as infallible law?  (fyi I am was raised very Catholic, so a lot of my questions have some basis in that - Catholicism is pretty hierarchical so wondering how some other Christians work)

Thanks for setting up this section - you answer each question with humility and humor and it was fun to find it and read it straight through.

Thanks for the kind words.  I find the gnostics interesting, but there's a reason they were left out.  It's actually a misconception to think that at some point some group of guys said, "this is scripture, and that isn't."  It's just that these books were the most commonly read.  Of course, it's more complicated than that, but the canon wasn't set by an authority.  Authorities just recognized what was in common usage.  So the gnostics and even the more orthodox gospels, epistles, acts, and revelations that aren't included today aren't included because people weren't really reading them by the early fourth century.  (If you're interested, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/?adword )  I like Thomas a lot, and although I've never preached on it, I have used it in bible studies.  And your insight about self-editing is absilutely correct.  No one, and I mean no one, actually takes the whole of scripture as authoritative, no matter what they say.  There are too many contradictions, not just in minor details but in broad theological themes.  I would see no point in creating a new canon, but in most Protestant denominations there's no reason why that couldn't be done. 

[Pastor Josh]

Old testament, but I would still appreciate your insights:

I have always been uncomfortable with the tale of Abraham and Isaac.  When God told Abraham to slaughter his son, I have always felt that it should have gone a different way. Abraham should have said "No. I love you, Lord, but this is my child and I will not do that" and God responds "That's the right answer. You are a good man." 

But in the bible, Abraham agrees to slaughter his son, and then good tells him at the last minute (via an angel) to put the knife down. Like "Close enough. You pass." 

Am I to take a lesson from such a story? That I should be willing to kill those I love in the name of God? Yeesh.

Not to mention, can you imagine how awkward Abraham and Isaac's relationship was after that little event?  Abraham must have been like, "Soooooo....Isaac....um....How about them Mets?"

No doubt.  I'm not really sure what to make of that story, myself.  Kierkegaard has an interesting answer in _Fear and Trembling_.  Here's a link to a blog post by a friend of mine who has a better answer, I think.  http://metholectionary.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/abe-and-ike-learning-not-to-hate-the-story/  I think your version of events is better.  However, learning about how these stories came about in the tradition of Israelite folk tales has helped me understand how our stuff differs from their stuff, if that makes sense.  I think, ultimately, that this is not a story that connects with our understandings of story, which means it might be hard for us to understand as a theological guide.  I like Will's problems with the story, and I think those problems have more to say to us than any straight preaching of the story.

Related to this - can you explain or point me to a proper explanation of the Book of Job?  I think you can understand why it's difficult to embrace.

Thanks Pastor Josh!

Basically, Job is about being properly angry at God and understanding the role of chaos in creation.  It isn't about God smacking down Job for being pissed.  Try reading God's response in a gentle, loving tone, instead of a harsh, angry one, as it's usually preached.  The Brueggeman book I mentioned earlier would be a good place to start.  If you're looking for a book on almost any specific biblical book, the _Interpretations_ Series is a good place to start, although I haven't read their commentary on Job.

[Pastor Josh]

Dear Pastor Josh,

I want to thank you for providing this service.

Here's my question. How large was the ark?

If I am allowed a follow-up, where did those hard-working friends and sons of Noah find polar bears and penguins?

A dingo ate my version of the biblical flood,

dfk

Completely the wrong questions.  I believe you aren't being snarky, but if someone asked me this in bible study, that's exactly what I'd tell them.  Instead, it's a story (like all biblical stories) about God and humans responding to each other.

[Pastor Josh]

Please stop this thread.

Thanks in advance.

No, but you're welcome all the same.

[Pastor Josh]

Dear Pastor Josh,

I have been enjoying this thread.  You remind me of the 'cool' priests at my Jesuit high school.  Hope comparing you to Jesuits doesn't offend.

Which leads to my question.  Do you often find yourself in situations where you are talking to/ arguing with Christians who disagree with you?  Does it get all 'Real World' or do people keep their cool?  I don't run in theological circles so I can only speculate as to how these things go.  I have a sense if there were more Pastors like you running around, or you got more air time, it'd be a good thing.

Steve

Comparing me to Jesuits doesn't other me, but cool pastors?  That phrase always reminds me of the flashbacks to Rev. Lovejoy's early days as a pastor.  But I'll assume you meant it as a compliment.

I agree that if there were more pastors like me around then it would be a good thing, but there are quite a few.  You're right in that we just get less airtime because we're desecrating soldier's funerals or blaming natural disasters on human rights activists.  We're boring in comparison.  

When I'm talking with other Christians who disagree with me, it can go one of two ways.  We can either have a good dicussion and learn from each other, or someone can go batshit insane.  And being either a liberal or a conservative is no indicator of which response one will have.  At my current church, they're very conservative, but they're open to disagreeing with each other.  At my last church, they'd punch you in the face if you hinted that Paul didn't write Ephesians.  But religion isn't the only place this happens.  Try reading an athiest forum some time.  Mostly rational, moderate people, but a few lunatics.  Just like in churches.

[cutout]

So, since I don't have anything productive to add to the discussion, I thought I might open this topic to such questions.  Anything, no matter how ridiculous, will recieve a thoroughly researched and mostly made up answer.

vs.

Completely the wrong questions.  I believe you aren't being snarky, but if someone asked me this in bible study, that's exactly what I'd tell them.

[Pastor Josh]

So, since I don't have anything productive to add to the discussion, I thought I might open this topic to such questions.  Anything, no matter how ridiculous, will recieve a thoroughly researched and mostly made up answer.

vs.

Completely the wrong questions.  I believe you aren't being snarky, but if someone asked me this in bible study, that's exactly what I'd tell them.

Are you saying I'm not delivering what I promised?  I disagree.  We're talking theology here, not bible trivia.

[orator]

personally, I find this thread and you pretty odd, and I don't mean to be disrespectful

you sound like someone who's on the verge of becoming an atheist, or maybe already is, and whose beliefs don't even need god or the bible

I feel bad for the people you preach to, and I don't even believe in god

you might want to look into humanism or something

[Pastor Josh]

personally, I find this thread and you pretty odd, and I don't mean to be disrespectful

you sound like someone who's on the verge of becoming an atheist, or maybe already is, and whose beliefs don't even need god or the bible

I feel bad for the people you preach to, and I don't even believe in god

you might want to look into humanism or something

No disrespect taken, but confusion abounds.  I preach the love of God for all humanity and how that compels us into action in the world, which is pretty much what I believe Jesus to have done.  I don't tie my beliefs to ancient myths.  How does that make me an atheist?  On the contrary, the way I approach the world and the way I treat others are intimately tied to my understanding of God.

(edit) PS--I just reread the thread with your comments in mind, and I still don't follow you.  What I read in my answers is a pretty standard version of contemporary progressive Christian theology.  Can you help me understand what you're saying?

[A.M. Thomas]

personally, I find this thread and you pretty odd, and I don't mean to be disrespectful

you sound like someone who's on the verge of becoming an atheist, or maybe already is, and whose beliefs don't even need god or the bible

I disagree.

I feel bad for the people you preach to, and I don't even believe in god

This is pretty offensive.

I think we really need a new definition and understanding of religiosity, or at least what it has the potential to be.  Avoiding a literal interpretation of the Bible, having a progressive ideology, and thinking of the concept of God abstractly does not make someone "on the verge of becoming an atheist."  Nor does it exempt someone from experiencing religion.

One thing I can't stand about contemporary atheist thought is the belief that atheists don't have to respect or acknowledge the potential for positivity in religion.  Many Dawkins-esque atheists reason that because a belief cannot be proved/disproved by science, it is a false belief.  This bothers me.  I guess I just want perceptions of religiosity to change.  And I do think they are beginning to change.

[Pastor Josh]

personally, I find this thread and you pretty odd, and I don't mean to be disrespectful

you sound like someone who's on the verge of becoming an atheist, or maybe already is, and whose beliefs don't even need god or the bible

I disagree.

I feel bad for the people you preach to, and I don't even believe in god

This is pretty offensive.

I think we really need a new definition and understanding of religiosity, or at least what it has the potential to be.  Avoiding a literal interpretation of the Bible, having a progressive ideology, and thinking of the concept of God abstractly does not make someone "on the verge of becoming an atheist."  Nor does it exempt someone from experiencing religion.

One thing I can't stand about contemporary atheist thought is the belief that atheists don't have to respect or acknowledge the potential for positivity in religion.  Many Dawkins-esque atheists reason that because a belief cannot be proved/disproved by science, it is a false belief.  This bothers me.  I guess I just want perceptions of religiosity to change.  And I do think they are beginning to change.

Although I'm not offended by the comment, I heartily agree with the rest of your statement, although I'd say your comments about atheism are true only for a minority of atheist, in my experience.  I present a version of Christianity that is faithful both to the millennia-long revelation of God to humanity and the conditions of contemporary life.  Paul did the same thing, as has every preacher since.  Take the scriptures, and find the truth that everyday life does not disprove.