From an Academy of Achievement interview:
The theory of democracy is that the more people that are knowledgeable about what's going on, and are involved, the more likely the better ideas are going to come to the forefront. But, if just a few people dominate many in various areas, whether it's in a city, or in a nation, or in one direction or another tax policy or foreign policy, they may make mistakes because they don't have all the wisdom in their heads. This whole idea of a marketplace of ideas is also a marketplace of engagement and involvement. Once we can develop opportunities and institutions for people of all ages and all backgrounds to get involved in the civic challenges of their choice, then a lot these more 'headline problems' are going to be addressed, whether they're government deficits, or inadequate housing, poverty, discrimination, or what have you.
Things are a lot worse now in Washington than they were ten, twenty, thirty years ago. The giveaways of the people's assets -- the federal lands, the minerals, the R&D that the tax payers paid for -- is bigger than ever. Corruption is bigger. Money in campaigns is more influential in what Congress does or doesn't do. And I've seen more and more that the federal government can really be lawless with impunity. The president can refuse to spend funds that he's supposed to spend by congressional authority. They can engage in foreign adventures, they can violate people's civil liberties, they can refuse to enforce safety laws, and nothing happens.
From Glassbooth.org:
Since I was a law student, I have been against the death penalty. It does not deter. It is severely discriminatory against minorities, especially since they’re given no competent legal counsel defense in many cases. It’s a system that has to be perfect. You cannot execute one innocent person. No system is perfect. And to top it off, for those of you who are interested in the economics it, it costs more to pursue a capital case toward execution than it does to have full life imprisonment without parole.
And finally, below are some one-liners that commonly pepper his speeches:
-Once you don't vote your ideals... that has serious undermining affects. It erodes the moral basis of our democracy.
-The corporate lobby in Washington is basically designed to stifle all legislative activity on behalf of consumers.
-The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference.
-When strangers start acting like neighbors... communities are reinvigorated.
-No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.
-Competition, free enterprise, and an open market were never meant to be symbolic fig leaves for corporate socialism and monopolistic capitalism.
Maybe I should do Jesse Ventura next, or is that too crazy?
49 comments:
How about Al Sharpton, Harry Reid, or Michael Moore...oh someone you might agree with...nevermind.
Actually Arnold would be fun.
Lumbee, if you are grouping Justus with Sharpton, Reid, and Moore, I don't think you have read enough of his blogs. Justus, correct me if I'm wrong.
Justus, are you posting the Nader quotes for fun and discussion, or are they the quotes of his you agree with?
Some of the interpretation here would depend on the context and application from Nader, but following will be my thoughts.
Ending a previous sentence with a preposition is something I am sorry for.
I'll start with Nader's claims on the death penalty. His claim "It does not deter. It is severely discriminatory against minorities, especially since they’re given no competent legal counsel defense in many cases" sounds anecdotal, and I think it is irresponsible for him to state that as fact without support. (which may have come in the linked article I didn't read).
I will agree the system is not perfect, and all imperfect justice systems cause the loss of innocent life, that is not restricted to capital punishment. If Nader (or Justus) are stating it is an invalid system, I would request that an alternative be given.
I agree with the comment about voting your ideals. Also that drugs do not cause the fundamental ills of society. They are a by-product. I also agree that Republicans and Democrats are often more similar than they would admit. I'd love to see a third political party, but I doubt that would fix the system.
The first quote about not having power in the hands of a few (paraphrased), I can agree with parts, but it sounds like he could be pushing towards a socialistic or communistic society. I could be wrong here.
So overall, I don't have major issues. If Nader doesn't support the death penalty that's fine, but to do so on grounds of racism, is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.
These are Nader quotes that I agree with. They are open for discussion of course.
I am against the death Penalty. I don't know what alternative you like besides ""don't kill people." With all the murder-suicides out there, it could be argued that life in jail w/o parole would be a better deterrent than death penalty.
To Lumbee, I could find things about Michael Moore and Sharpton that I agree with, however slim the pickings. Harry Reid... gag.
This might be a bit of a simplification, but what do you think would be the impact on deterrent effect if we passed a law that only those murders committed on Wednesdays would be eligible for the death penalty? Do you think we'd see less murders committed on Wednesdays? The moral argument against the death penalty, I figure, is a lot different than the one about its deterrent effect.
I should add that I haven't thought my previous comment all the way through; it's just a thought experiment.
I do suspect, however, that as soon as the death penalty was eliminated and life without parole became the max, that penalty too would pretty soon thereafter be characterized as discriminatory by some of the same grievance peddlers.
As for prepositions, who can forget this classic exchange from Cheers?
Sam: Carla's trying to become the kind of waitress you would enjoy being waited on by.
Diane: "Being waited on by"? You just ended that sentence with two propositions.
Sam: Haven't you got customers to be waiting on?
Diane: You ended that sentence with a proposition.
Sam: Haven't you got customers to be waiting on, MULLET-HEAD?
The deterrent effect of the death penalty is certainly debatable. There is ample evidence to support both sides of the argument, and both sides view the evidence cited by their opposition as not persuasive.
And the reason might be that this IS, at its core, a moral issue about which reasonable minds can and do disagree. Based on my non-empirical, non-scientific estimation, a little more than half of Americans find the death penalty useful and just, with the rest viewing it as useless and reprehensible. Very few if any sit on the fence. I think the best treatment of this issue I've ever seen was in an episode of the West Wing where two presidential candidates were asked their positions on the death penalty. One candidate said "I'm against it," while the other said "I'm for it." Then they moved on to the next question. Its a chicken-egg argument or a game of tic-tac-toe - whatever analogy you want to use, and I fully recognize that I am simply not persuasive enough to convince someone on the opposite side of the debate to see things my way. I'm perfectly fine with that.
Personally, I agree with Justus. I categorically oppose the death penalty. But, as I said, I'm not going to try to persuade anyone that I'm right - its a futile argument for both sides.
Inserting an explicative or degrading name after the preposition pretty much makes sure no one attempts to correct your grammar a second time... I love me some Cheers.
Rosen, I would agree that the deterrent quality of the death penalty is debatable. It is probably not any more of a deterrent than life in prison. You are correct, it does come down to a moral issue, and there's no reason for us to engage in unconvincing discussion.
I still take issue with Nader's proposition that the death penalty is racist, and liked JBs response to that.
If you are challenging me to a game of tic-tac-toe... Game on! I am also very skilled at Connect4.
Justus, to simply say how about "don't kill" would also eliminate the military and cripple the police force. I know that's not what you're saying, and your reasons for not supporting capital punishment are more involved than that, but I decided to respond anyway.
To Jason, a Wednesday-only death penalty would not reduce the number of murders, just shift time preferences for those which are premeditated. As it stands however, people who premeditate to commit murder now build the risk of getting caught (whatever the penalty) into their action, and however wrong they might be, think the benefits outweigh the risk. That is already such a irrational and immoral decision making process, that I don't know if anyone could figuree out how much of an actual deterrent the death penalty would be as opposed to life in prison.
To RosenRosen, I am not trying to change anyone's mind on the subject, just saying that as someone who used to be strongly pro-death penalty, I have slowly migrated to a strong anti-death penalty position, and Nader captures some of the reasons why.
To Loathsome, I would personally alter Nader's quote slightly to "It is severely discriminatory against poor people, especially minorities, who can not afford the same level of competent legal counsel defense available to others." If Nader is making a claim of explicit racism, a fairly strong case can be made (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-death-penalty). My position (taking society in the present and moving forward), however, is that most racial imbalances come as a result of economic inability to afford the best legal defense available.
In any event, that is not my main reason for being anti-death penalty. It is the middle section of Nader's quote: "It’s a system that has to be perfect. You cannot execute one innocent person." In my very humble opinion, when an innocent person is executed, his blood stains not only the death penalty, but the justice system and every member of society. I can not shrug off "an isolated few" innocent people who are convicted of the death penalty. Over 130 people have been exonerated after juries decided they should die, and others may have been exonerated had they not already been executed. In matters of life and death, I would rather be one who errs on the side of life.
The arguments that the death penalty is possibly economically and/or racially discriminatory and more burdensome to the justice system than life sentences are just gravy.
I will agree that there can be economically and/or racially discriminatory burdens on the justice system. I would also add political connections to that list (this is probably tied to the first two though). However, to JBs point, that is an issue with the system not the death penalty. Man's justice is often imperfect, and many suffer as a result. Although none are perfect, I think historically America's legal system is better than most.
I have no problem with a guilty murderer receiving the death penalty. I do have an issue with any innocent person being convicted.
I will also add Ping Pong to my list of challenges. I watched "Balls of Fury", but my game still stinks.
To start a different topic, Justus, from a Libertarian standpoint what would be a solution to the racial/economical issues with legal counsel?
To address Loathsome's new query: why do you ask? Do you need representation? If you'll give me a second, I think I've got a business card around here somewhere...
I usually like the Libertarian take, and wondered how providing equality to those without resources affects the free market.
To your second question... I don't yet, but I probably will by next Tuesday, so I will take that card. Since we met on a blog, do I get a discount?
Justus, I'm no attorney. but isn;'t all murder by definition pre-meditated? And if there would be a demonstrable shift if Wednesday-only murders were penalized with death, isn;t that conceding the argument that the penalty does have some sort of deterrent effect? I'm not arguing one way or the other, but I think you came close to accidentally conceding the point. As it stands, we have a penalty that applies to every day, so maybe the proper question could be "how many more murders would we have if there was no death penalty?"
Personally, I find the moral case much more persuasive than the rational one. My dad was a deputy warden for many years in Georgia and had to witness several executions. I witnessed first-hand the emotional toll it took on him. That said, he was still a supporter, I think, because he did not quite know what an alternative response would be that would sufficiently express society's revulsion at such evil acts as those committed by the guilty.
The argument citing the imprefection of the system loses weight with each new advance in forensics and DNA analytics that make such mistakes ever more unlikely.
So I think we're really left with the moral argument.
As for disparities in the quality of legal representation, what do you think would be the reaction of the legal community if the federal government suddenly asserted that all have a "natural" right to legal representation in the same manner many are doing now with health care, what with all the cost controls, limits on reimbursement, single-payer mechanics, etc? My guess is a lot of lawyers would suddenly oppose the nationalization of a lot of things.
JB,
It sounds like we are all in agreement that the moral argument is the primary one, but as to logic, I feel I have to defend myself a bit.
I am not an attorney either, but my understanding is that while most murders are pre-meditated, there are exceptions as in "There a guy in my bed with my wife and I am going to flipping kill them both right now." I believe a significant percentage if not a majority of murders actually occur in the process of committing another felony.
Let's be sure we are not confusing an incentive with a deterrent. A Wednesday-only death penalty wound possibly incentivize some to shift their schedules, but we are assuming the penalty is taken into account at all, which I stated above is not really clear based on the immoral and irrational processes required to have someone set on murder in the first place, and would not take into account the "felony in process" murders.
To answer "how many more murders would we have without a death penalty?" Because of varying demographics and shifting cultures, it is difficult to compare any 2 regions or time periods, but when comparing the per capita murder rates between states with and without the death penalty? (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates)
Again, having continued the deterrent talk, I don't like to argue the position based on deterrent. From a moral standpoint, I am against it, fundamentally, and even if it could be somehow reconciled with my understanding of morality, I do not want an imperfect justice system to take the life of even one innocent person. Regardless of how science may be advanced, I unfortunately have little doubt in a criminal's ingenuity to escape or divert punishment to another, and on the other hand of criminal justice professionals and politically appointed/elected prosecutors to sell the guilt.
Has anyone by chance read John Grisham's true story account "The Innocent Man"?
Sorry for the mangled English, I am trying to type and participating in a conference call at the same time.
I understand that adultery is a felony in some states, but I am not clear on what "other felony" the offended husband in your example is committing when he flips out and kills them both. Unless, of course, you count the killing of his first victim as the felony which led to the killing of his second. But I don't think that's what you were arguing.
In this case, I am not sure there is much of a difference in the effect of an incentive and a deterrent. To put it another way, the "deterrent" could "incentivize" one to behave differently.
The stats you link to are interesting, but surely you aren't suggesting that states that don't have a death penalty ipso facto have fewer murders. You're probably right that there is something about the demographics and geography that makes this so, but not the existence or lack thereof of the death penalty. Maybe the missing penalty AND the lower murder rates are indicative of a more morally advanced populace. I'd buy that a little easier, and it would help your moral argument. But the stats you cite, I think, don't help the "anti-deterrent" argument one iota.
I think his point was murders committed in the course of armed robbery or breaking and entering etc.
Why don't we talk about the moral issue? It sounds like that is what everyone is wanting to talk about but everyone is afraid too.
Alex, I want to hear your arguement.
I did read "The Innocent Man".
A tale of incompetence, corruption, ignorance, self interest, etc....little to do with why the death penalty is wrong, just with why the way we are "executing" it is second rate at best.
I am still very much pro death penalty.
And I'm sorry, I just have to know why the death penalty is an issue for Christians.
Exodus 21 talks about God's view of murder and the penalty for it. The penalty for premeditated murder is death. The penalty for manslaughter is death -- with room for mercy at the foot of the altar. The penalty for adultery, btw, is death. Also beastiality (and the animal is to be killed as well).
If this is God's view, why do we try to say the death penalty is unfair or inhumane or biased? We were taught this system of justice from God's law.
Yes, it's imperfect because the world lies in the lap of the evil one -- everything is imperfect until the rightful King takes rulership again.
But any solution we humans try to come up with will be imperfect, so why not go with the one God set out in the first place?
I am in favor of giving you eligibility to own a gun when you move out on your own (whatever age that might be), have a job, and have had proper gun training. You may opt out of owning a gun.
If you commit a criminal offense (not civil), then your gun is taken away. Everyone now has a gun, but YOU.
If you commit premeditated murder, and are caught, and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary, then the family of the victim should have the right to take your life. The family chooses, not a judge or jury. Judges and juries are only to be used in cases to declare whether the murderer is guilty, not sentencing the guilty. That is determined by the victim's kin. This is only reserved for murder cases. (I guess there could be a range in which families of the victims, or the victim him/herself can choose for the criminal, rather than a jury. For instance, breaking and entering could have a minimum of 1-year sentence up to a five-year sentence. But rather than having a jury or judge choose, I would allow the victim choose or at least petition for a particular sentence.)
Furthermore, no appeals for the murderer, no waiting for 15 years before he is executed. Take him out back, spend $.30 on a hollow-point bullet, and shoot him. All must be done by the family or a representative of the family.
I am with Lumbee on this one.
Couldn't say it better myself.
By the way Professor, that is very similar to God's way according to the O.T!
Having already expressed my anti death penalty position, I will only say that in reference to the "that's what the Bible says" arguments, I take the same approach as with slavery (and other issues), and look at the trajectory of the Bible.
The OT/Hebrew use of the death penalty was far more restrictive that any other society at that time, where entire families or multiple generations would be killed, and for crimes much less than murder and adultery.
In my humble opinion, that trajectory is further advance by Jesus in his famous exchange with a crowd intent in carrying out OT style justice. I want to think it was a taunt as much as anything - "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
If the One without sin does not condemn ("I do not condemn you either"), then why should I?
Christ works in the heart of every sinner, regardless of sin. Who am I to cut His work short?
So by this logic...why condemn anyone for anything?
Paul teaches in his letter to the Romans that governmental agents do not wield the sword in vain. Romans 13:4. This in an epistle that teaches us that we Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. This is one of his major points in that epistle. Yet he still goes into many verses that teach that we still adhere to the laws of man, and that infact those who keep the laws of man are ministers of God, and last but not least...they are sanctioned by God. It says in verse 2 of the same chapter that those who resist the laws of man resist the laws of God...then Paul goes on to warn that man has the right...delegated by God to take life!
That epistle clearly teaches that government rightly has the right to institute capital punishment.
This is not the same situation as slavery. Do you see slavery commanded for Christians to institute? No. Philemon does address the Christian who is in this type of situation and the result of Pauls teaching speaks for itself.
Capital punishment is not an evil man made institution, slavery is. Capital punishment is sanctioned and even demanded by God.
Who are we to question Him?
It has been stated that I do not have a problem with the death penalty (although that does not speak for issues with its application in the legal system), but I am not familiar with God's mandate for capital punishment in Paul's epistles.
I didn't say that God's mandate for capital punishment is in Paul's epistles. I refer to God's teaching in the OT where it is clearly mandated, thus the comment referred to by you, and Paul's iterration of the still sanctioned use in the Church Age.
You know better than that TJ.
You said capital punishment is demanded by God, and said that within the context of your discussion of Paul's epistles (Philemon, Romans). That is why I commented. I am now clear on your intent.
Exodus 21 specifically deals with issue of slavery at the same time as the death penalty. I do not personally see how I can take a literal view with respect to one and not the other. I struggle to find a consistent approach.
If I were to interpret Exodus 21 literally without context, then not only can I justify slavery, I would support the death penalty for:
- Children who hit their parents
- Children who curse their parents
- Kidnappers
- Owners of violent animals
As for the New Testament, I feel much more comfortable taking Jesus's words and actions at face value than trying to determine a correct interpretation of a letter of Paul.
"That epistle (Romans)clearly teaches that government rightly has the right to institute capital punishment" seems like a mighty bold statement to me.
To take the first half of Romans 13 literally and without context would make a very strong case in support of government in any form it may appear, be it Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Third Reich, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or even Big Government America.
I ask myself the following question: Could Paul, writing a letter that was distributed to Romans in Rome, and almost certainly made its way into the hands of the Roman government officials, be taking a very strategic position? I believe it to be a very real possibility.
The word authority has a very different connotation than the words force, coercion, or power. I agree wholeheartedly that the author of ALL TRUE authority is God, be it reflected in man or government. But both man and government must choose to align themselves with the authority of God, otherwise Christians find themselves wrestling, not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Eph 6:12)
Paul was clever. His intellectual and political credentials are laid out in full detail elsewhere in the scripture. I have to think that he was being smart, strategic, and careful about the best way to spread the truth of the Gospel in Christ, even if it required a subliminal approach at times.
This is simply my personal interpretation. (I am a Baptist after all!) I come to my anti-death penalty stance out of a position of humility, since I can not point to a verse that says "moving forward, let's not condemn people to death." The pro-death penalty side certainly has the advantage there. But, returning to the words and actions of Jesus, I can not find anything that would lead me to believe he would support a stoning, firing squad, or lynching.
To me, unable to shake all doubt from the subject, it's a version of Pascal's gamble: I would rather allow someone to live that God justified a punishment, than for God to want a life to be redeemed that I approved be ended prematurely.
I must add that I love this discussion!
Please do not take this following message to be a move to get away from the present discussion: Lumbee, you stated that God's rule in the O.T. is similar to the way I expressed above in favor of capital punishment. But prior to the O.T., there was the Law Code of Hammurabi. And some of my views are also expressed in that code.
Is there any way to find out as to why Lumbee's reading of the Bible is different than Justus's reading? What is the fundamental difference between the two interpretations?
Lumbee, in my opnion you need to support your position better on a couple of arguments before I will buy it.
-Governments "do not bear the sword in vain" is not a literal comment. It is an illustration showing that human government has the authority both to make law and execute penalty. No specific penalty is written or implied.
-You stated that "Paul goes on to warn that man has the right... delegated by God to take life". I haven't read the entire book of Romans recently, but I re-read ch 13 and 14 and don't see anywhere Paul addressing "God's delgation to take life". Again, he gives no specific application for government.
Paul is contextually and specfically addressing how a Christian should relate to normal government - in submission, trusting God. He is not addressing how government should relate to man in the passing, enforcing, or creating of laws.
-"That epistle clearly teaches that government has the right to institure capital punishment". I don't find this in Romans either clearly or implied. I request more support to your claim.
Justus, a few comments to your posts.
-I don't think that Christ's comment about throwing the first stone applies to this situation. It does not apply to government at all. If it did then no law would be acceptable because no one is perfect. He is adressing the abuse of religious power by the leaders of the day. Along the same lines you say "I can not find anything that would lead me to believe he would support a stoning, firing squad, or lynching". I don't think he addresses the issue at all, so it is difficult to accurately draw a conclusion in either direction for the reason below.
I agree with your comments on Romans and capital punishment. It is not addressed in that epistle. In my opnion (and I could be wrong) the New Testament does not give any instruction for the way that government as an entity is supposed to relate or rule man. It does give specific examples of how man should relate to government. The New Testament is primarily discussing how a Christian should live, and to borrow an explanation that is "the life of Christ in the child of God by the power of the Holy Spirit".
God does give specific instruction to government in the O.T. However, I also agree that when applying the Mosaic Law to our day, you must be careful (I mean, I'm not giving up shellfish). We are not living in a Theocracy, and Christ makes it clear that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law in Galatians.
The reason I support capital punishment and believe that God sanctions it is Genesis 9:5,6 "Whoever sheds man's blood,by man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."
Does this mean I agree with capital punishment in all forms we have seen it across all governments. Absolutely not. But I do believe that the Bible supports a government in instituting a policy of capital punishment. We may disagree there, but that's okay.
I also wasn't sure I grasped the full implication of your statement that Paul could be acting strategically. I wouldn't mind more development there. It seemed vague to me. Perhaps it is because I lack significant cleverness.
Loathsome, you are correct that in the "first stone" passage Jesus addresses the religious leaders, but leaders of people nonetheless.
By your same standard, how is Genesis 9:5-6 clearly linked to government? Why wouldn't religous leaders, or vigilantes even, be just with acting in accordance to this verse?
It seems to me these verses are statement of a post-flood reality of man's further separation from God's protection, rather than a commandment.
Compared with Eden, which was created according to God's will, the picture of creation outlined in Genesis 9:1-6 is strikingly different.
I love the broader passage, as even in the harsh reality described, God moves to forge a new covenant, a promise to Noah and all of creation, to bless and protect.
As for my statement on Paul, I don't want to get too off track, but I suggest that he was writing not only to early followers, but with at least one eye towards any non-believer or government official that may intercept copies of the letter. When not persecuted, Christians where held with deep suspicion, so Paul would therefore have a valid reason to offer ambiguous support to government.
People have used ambiguity to their benefit throughout history.
As a more modern example, I think of Shostakovitch and his relationship with Russian Government. His music can be seen as supporting or dissenting Stalin and Communist Russia, depending on how his music is interpreted. Given the political pressures and threats to himself and his family, I am sympathetic to how Shostakovitch employed ambiguity.
I am sending this response off quickly, so it may need some revision.
You are correct that Genesis 9 does not directly say "a government official", but it is directed toward the entire population of the earth (8 people) who are tasked with rebuilding society, population, etc to replace the world where "everyone did what was right in their own eyes" that God just destroyed.
I wouldn't take the position that it is just describing fallen chaos. i.e. that because one person kills, another kills them, etc... It states the reason for the taking of the second life because "man is created in God's image". Vigilantism is motivated by lesser virtues. Although unpleasant, as JB said in an earlier post, capital punishment, in my opinion, is consistent with God's value for human life and distaste of those who disregard it. I would also state again that this belief is different than an issue of innocent people being convicted.
I would agree that man after the flood was further separated from God than he was in Eden (enter sin), but not that post-flood man was further separated than pre-flood man. Sin was evident in both, but the case can be made that after the flood, only 8 people remained who believed in God, whereas before the majority rejected His will. God judged mankind and the world because of sin, thus drastically changing it, but did not destroy either.
I would agree that the main point of the Noah's story is not that God provided a statement on murder, but that He protected the minority that sought His will in spite of ridicule and the surrounding effects of evil in their world. The rainbow is without a doubt, a new covenant between God and man.
I see what you are saying with Paul. I could agree with that to some extent, but would say that Paul showed no fear of any punishment by man, and if by adding ambiguous text he compromised his message, I would question that premise. After all, he ended up being executed for words he spoke (even if Paul spoke evil words, this is not an application of capital punishment I support). This is probably an issue with nuances that could be discussed apart from this one, and I think ultimately you and I would probably agree here if we spent time on it.
Good stuff, Loathsome, Lumbee, and all who contributed. I didn't think this would start a discussion on capital punishment, but am happy to learn more about everyone's position.
I really don't know what the "right answer" is, but I am glad we could share our differences without charges of heresy and calls for an inquisition.
Professor to answer your question:
Please, Justus, forgive me if I assume to much. But, at least in Rosen Rosen's view, and I assume that Justus has a similar view, the bible is not seen as the literal word of God perfect and complete and totally authoritative, and without error.
You see I do beleive that the Bible is totally authoritative, perfect, complete, without error, etc.
This is the fundamental difference in our beginning points of interpretation...I think...Justus I am making some assumptions...but your language in dealing with Paul leads me to beleive that you view his writings as not as "cannonic" as others....or am I just a moron for assuming?
Maybe we can't get out of the woods without charges of heresy... ;-)
Just kidding. Here is my take.
I don't think I would be prepared to say I align with either your or RosenRosen's stated positions.
I do believe in the Biblical cannon, and that the divine and ultimate truth contained therein reveals to us God's nature and will, but I hesitate to offer a complete position on the Biblical text as I have neither the time or qualifications to perform and exhaustive investigation.
When I hear "I do believe that the Bible is totally authoritative, perfect, complete, without error, etc." The following questions come to my mind:
Do you mean the original manuscripts that the authors wrote, do you mean the versions assembled by King James, or do you mean the most authenticated versions among the collection of texts discovered to date? Does the standard of perfection apply only to the native language each section of the Bible was written in, or would you say the Bible is equally perfect in its translation into English? Are there some translations that you hold as better than others? Are you saying that every timeline, historic setting, and person described in the Bible is histrocially true and accurate in its name/datesetc? Are we to make room for cultural, historic, and idiomatic expressions used at the time the text were written that don't make sense to the modern reader? Are all the literary forms in the Bible to be interpreted at face value, or is there room for allegory, symbolism, poetry, etc.?
To be honest, I don't know any of the answers to these questions, and I have not read or hear anything that provides definitive answers. Call me a doubting Thomas.
I believe fully that the Bible is true. How, I am simply not sure.
I also believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, inspired by God, penned by man, and also preserved by God through the generations.
Having stated that, I would present my answers to Justus' questions. First, I will admit to not having done exhaustive work on this topic but many of my opinions come from those who have.
Since I have not studied extensively myself, and my position is one primarily derived from those I trust, I would like to hear challenges, questions, or those who would present the other side of the story, so that I may confirm my personal faith against it (Dr. RosenRosen, if you care to get involved). [Is that sentence a run-on?]
Justus, I think you ask the right questions, and I think they should be answered. I also believe that they are questions that can be answered if one is willing to spend the time.
-"Do you mean the original manuscripts that the authors wrote, do you mean the versions assembled by King James, or do you mean the most authenticated versions among the collection of texts discovered to date?" -- I believe the original manuscripts were inspired by God, supervised by God and are therefore inerrant. The King James, although a very good translation, is not inspired. Nor is any other manuscript or text. That being said, there is almost negligible difference between our current manuscripts and many translations and the ancient manuscripts we have. Historically the care and preservation by the Hebrews, Monks, and others gives me complete confidence that my English translations can be trusted for almost any study I would undertake.
-"Does the standard of perfection apply only to the native language each section of the Bible was written in, or would you say the Bible is equally perfect in its translation into English?" --Sort of answered above, but I think the burden of proof lies on those to show error in the modern translations rather than starting with that as an assumption. Textual criticism is important, but again, I believe until shown otherwise that the English translations are reliable. There is strong evidence to the accuracy of our modern translations.
-"Are there some translations that you hold as better than others?" --Yes, but as a general rule most translations that are widely used and accepted show very little difference.
-"Are you saying that every timeline, historic setting, and person described in the Bible is historically true and accurate in its name/dates etc?" --Yes. Both Archeology and History have shown the Bible to be accurate. I am not aware of any conflicts, but since I am not an archeologist or historian, would welcome an example.
-"Are we to make room for cultural, historic, and idiomatic expressions used at the time the text were written that don't make sense to the modern reader?" --Yes, the Bible should be interpreted in the time in which it was written. If the Bible was written for all men at all times, this has to be the approach. I recognize this may be a slight tangent from this question, but have a small point on the final line "don't make sense to the modern reader". I believe that the modern reader should be objective and personally honest and not use this to dismiss things he doesn't like as "not making sense". I'm not saying you made that claim, I just wanted to clarify the point from my perspective.
-"Are all the literary forms in the Bible to be interpreted at face value, or is there room for allegory, symbolism, poetry, etc.?" --Certainly. I would state that Revelation is clearly not completlely literal, Psalms is a book of poetry (along with others), Christ teaches in parables, and literary forms as well as styles should be incorporated as they would with any book.
As I said, these are things that I believe, but if others are willing, I would enjoy and appreciate a discussion on this topic.
-the blog cut me off, but
Another element of this has to be faith. I believe that God is who He claims to be in the Bible. This being true, I trust that an omnipotent God is able to preserve His Word (His primary revelation of will to us) in such a manner that man can have complete confidence in its accuracy across generations and languages.
Loathsome, you stated:
-"Are you saying that every timeline, historic setting, and person described in the Bible is historically true and accurate in its name/dates etc?" --Yes. Both Archeology and History have shown the Bible to be accurate. I am not aware of any conflicts, but since I am not an archeologist or historian, would welcome an example.
Please provide for me information about archeology showing evidence of Moses, Moses freeing his people from Egypt, and the army of the Pharaoh of the Exodus drowning in the Red Sea. One would think that such a story, especially the drowning of hundreds of people, would have left behind tons of evidence. I have searched for this information, but I just haven't come across anything other than what is written in the O.T.
Professor, I will research and see what I can find.
However, I did not state that every single event, person, date, etc. has been confirmed by history or archeology. Both history and archeology have confirmed the Bible's accuracy many times. For example, the Hittites were once thought to be a non-existent empire spoken of only by the Bible until this century. I think the more important point to this is that with all of the claims, many of them specific, there is no contradictory evidence (to my knowledge) that the Bible is inaccurate.
I will respond later to your specific question.
Professor,
I think you are too picky with people's words. You knew TJ did not mean that the Bible and all its historical figures have been proven completely by archeology and history.
I will let his response to your request for "proof" for the existence of Moses speak for itself...but just know that I am calling you out. Implied meaning and thought IS valid in the 21st century English language spoken in the United States. Therefore, being grammatically precise, however important, is no less important than allowing for implied meaning and general popular understanding. So I again call you out and say...we aren't in class Jose.
I always call out "ivory tower" behavior.
Guys, I speak to the professor in an edgy tone because he is a close friend...i know these undertones do not convey on a blog...just had to qualify that.
Lumbee, reread the quotation by Loathsome:
-"Are you saying that every timeline, historic setting, and person described in the Bible is historically true and accurate in its name/dates etc?" --Yes. Both Archeology and History have shown the Bible to be accurate.
Notice that he says "Yes" to the question that includes "every timeline, historic setting, and PERSON [emphasis mine] described in the Bible is historically true and accurate in its name/dates etc."
He asserts that there is some archaeological evidence about each and every character in the Bible. I have been researching Moses for a while and I haven't been able to come up with any archaeological evidence whatsoever. Loathsome's assertion makes me think that perhaps he came across some evidence that I have not, so let him dig into this matter.
And you, Lumbee, need to find for me that Wyatt article of archaeological evidence of wagon and wheels found in the Red Sea.
I don't think you really know what you are saying when you state "ivory tower behavior."
I do know what I am saying and he answers that first quotation about every timeline and person etc...yes. THEN he makes a general statement that archeology and have shown the bible accurate. Ok this does not mean that archeology and history has proven every timeline and person. This means that "yes" is answering your question and history and archeology HAVE proven the bible accurate! Simple language usage, complicated by an "ivory tower" professor...in my opinion. But we digress.
Loathsome, where are you to defend your answer? Is Lumbee correct in his assessment of your answer?
Even if Lumbee is correct, I still want to know how is the story of Moses, freeing of the slaves, and the mass deaths in the Red Sea have been "historically true and accurate." My main point is to find extra-Biblical information about Moses. I prefer writings from Ancient Egyptian sources, but at this point, I'll take anything.
OK, Lumbee, here are some proper definitions of "Ivory Tower" taken from various sources:
"Secluded place or sheltered state of being far removed from the harsh realities of day to day living; a place or attitude of retreat, especially preoccupation with lofty, remote, or intellectual considerations rather than practical; separation from real-life problems: a state or situation in which somebody is sheltered from the practicalities or difficulties of ordinary life."
If you look at what I am trying to figure out above is to see if Loathsome has any archaeological proof that Moses existed, the slaves were freed, traveled across Egypt into Canaan before 1200 BCE, and the mass deaths of the Pharaoh of the Exodus' army. I clearly misinterpreted what Loathsome was saying pertaining to archaeological proof. If I wanted to argue with an "Ivory Tower" attitude, then I would have attacked his philosophical and logical premises of the manner in which he stated his remark to all biblical events being historical fact. That is, I would have attacked the way HE FORMED THE SENTENCE, not what the sentence is implying. He makes an assertion, I haven't found any evidence of such assertion, therefore, I am asking for proof. It is the same as if I were to say, it is historically accurate that the Gilgamesh existed, he fought Enkidu--the wild beast sent by Ishtar--and he survived the massive flood and found the key to immortality. Wouldn't you then ask for SOME proof?
Now you know about "ivory tower" and its applications. I am the first to point that out to someone when they clearly know nothing about a subject and deviously trying to divert to conversation to something useless and impractical like sentence structure, truth trees, stolen concept/anti-concept usage, floating abstractions, linguistic analyses, and simulation/simulacra perspectives.
Trust me, you don't want to go there.
Class is now dismissed--Stay Thirsty My Friends! Or as they used to say in the Middle Ages, Ita Missa Est ("Go, dismissed it is"--this was also said at the end of Mass)
Professor, I always stay thirsty... thanks for asking.
Although you may have misinterpreted what I was saying, I did understand what you were asking, which was "show me the bones of Moses" (to roughly paraphrase).
I will respond honestly and say that I have done very little study in the field of Biblical archaeology. I assume since you ask the question, you have never seen physical evidence of Moses (outside of the 5 books he wrote in the Bible). Since I haven't taken the time, I will concede until I prove otherwise that there is no physical evidence outside of the Bible.
However, archaeology, by its very nature often discovers things that validate truth that was believed by previous generations. In other generations it could have been claimed that there was no ark, the Hittite empire never existed, a man named Jesus never walked the earth, King Sargon never existed, Sodom and Gomorrah were mythological, all of which now show evidence to verify what the Bible long claimed to be true?
Yes, there is not archaeological proof for every name, place, and event in the Bible, but as history progresses, it continues to catch up. I would also postulate that there is no evidence that Moses did not exist, and since the Bible has been confirmed over and over again, and never been disproved, I am comfortable accepting what it says about Moses to be true.
As to the Ivory Tower, it is one of my favorite drinks.
Post a Comment