TromboneChat

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 06, 2017, 01:29AMProverbs 27 text

2) v5 -
"Better is open rebuke
    than hidden love."
I don't think I quite understand what is trying to be said here. Is it specifically warning against covert romance or sex? Or is it rather telling you to declare when you support people?


I believe that vs 6 answers your question regarding vs 5.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 06, 2017, 01:29AMProverbs 27 text

....

1) The first one is interesting here. Does Christianity (or Judaism) hold that Yahweh knows the future in total detail?

There are a differnt strands of christianity with different ideas about this.  And actually I can only tell you about Protestant Chistianity, not Roman Catholic or Othodox.

So most christians do think God knows the future in detail: that generally involves 1 or both of
 - he just knows what going to happen or
 - he has planned what is going to happen

Some christians believe that God doesn't have perfect knowledge of the future, but just knows how it will work out in the end.

And there are probably small sects with different ideas again.

Quote2) v5 -
"Better is open rebuke
    than hidden love."
I don't think I quite understand what is trying to be said here. Is it specifically warning against covert romance or sex? Or is it rather telling you to declare when you support people?

I think the proverb is just telling us that its best to live life openly rather than secretly.  So even a not good thing in the open is better than a good thing that is hidden

Quote3) v14 tells us that lie-ins are an eternal constant...

my wife heartily agrees with this one.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 07, 2017, 03:30AMThere are a differnt strands of christianity with different ideas about this.  And actually I can only tell you about Protestant Chistianity, not Roman Catholic or Othodox.

So most christians do think God knows the future in detail: that generally involves 1 or both of
 - he just knows what going to happen or
 - he has planned what is going to happen

Some christians believe that God doesn't have perfect knowledge of the future, but just knows how it will work out in the end.

And there are probably small sects with different ideas again.


The mainstream of the Christian tradition clearly has taught that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future.  The very minority report that God does not was a few years ago advocated by those who called themselves "Open Theists."-- i.e. the future was "open" to God.  Those who call themselves Process Theologians advocated some version of this as well.  Open Theism received some notice about 10-15 years ago, but seems to have waxed in popularity as a number of theologians wrote some strong critiques of its handling of the biblical texts.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Feb 07, 2017, 12:08PMThe mainstream of the Christian tradition clearly has taught that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future. 

Not perfect knowledge of the future?  Exhaustive sounds like a waffle.

I would say that most mainstream Christians either believe God has perfect knowledge, or even further that he has a plan that includes everything.  The latter is firmly held by evangelicals but I see it in more mainstream denominations as well.  (moreso in the pew than the pulpit)

I think the idea that God is omniscient comes from the definition of "god."  We know He's God, therefore he must have every attribute of the human definition of god, therefore he is omniscient.  I find that a bit problematic but YMMV.

Perfect knowledge certainly conflicts with the idea of free will, but then free will is not a scriptural concept at all, merely a deduction to solve some obvious problems. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Feb 07, 2017, 04:25PMNot perfect knowledge of the future?  Exhaustive sounds like a waffle.

I would say that most mainstream Christians either believe God has perfect knowledge, or even further that he has a plan that includes everything.  The latter is firmly held by evangelicals but I see it in more mainstream denominations as well.  (moreso in the pew than the pulpit)

I think the idea that God is omniscient comes from the definition of "god."  We know He's God, therefore he must have every attribute of the human definition of god, therefore he is omniscient.  I find that a bit problematic but YMMV.

Perfect knowledge certainly conflicts with the idea of free will, but then free will is not a scriptural concept at all, merely a deduction to solve some obvious problems. 

In the debate over Open Theism exhaustive knowledge was the term used, but the way it was used would be identical with what you have called perfect knowledge of the future.  It was not a "weasel word."

The key idea for most theologians was that there was nothing in the future that was hidden to God.  There were many biblical texts in the discussion, but most prominently the texts in Isaiah 40-45 in which Yahweh "sets forth his case" against idols and complete knowledge of the future is argued to be one the hallmarks of the true God.

Open Theists tried to claim that there was an imcompatibility with "free will," but the real issue is what is the definition of "free will."  Most theologians in the Reformation traditions hold to what is philosophically known as Compatiblism which has a somewhat limited notion of freedom but still affirms freedom of a sort.  That is in distinction to what philosophers call Libertarian Free Will, a stronger notion of freedom, but that's a discussion for another day.  The point is that "free will" is a somewhat slippery term when discussed philosophically and/or theologically.

Proverbs 28 text

Highlights

 - more proverbs

Summary

 - Wicked people are actually cowards. The righteous are, conversely, quite courageous.
 - Rebellion causes a land to have many rulers—but one king can do a better job and ensure peace.
 - Justice and law are utterly at odds with the wicked, and you do battle with the wicked by following and supporting law and justice.
 - It's better to be poor and honest, than rich and corrupt.
 - Avoid the following: hanging out with gluttons, charging people exorbitant interest on loans, and refusing to listen to the law.
 - the wicked will be destroyed by their wicked acts, while the innocent will be rewarded.
 - Smart poor people see through the false self-esteem of the wealthy, and confessing your sins to God allows you to obtain mercy.
 - It's a good idea to always have a little fear—meaning concern—but people with hard hearts who lack this kind of respectful trepidation will end up falling into calamity.
 - Wicked rulers are bad. And so are people who give assistance to murderous fugitives.
 - Don't be partial towards anyone in particular, because they might turn around and do something wrong for a really small reason, like getting a piece of bread.
 - Don't hurry to get rich; be a miser, flatter people, or leech off your parents.
 - don't be greedy or trust in your own wits. But do give to the poor.

Questions and Observations

1) repetition is good

Proverbs 29 text

Highlights

 - more proverbs

Summary

 - If you fail to adjust after being rebuked, you'll end by falling into utter ruin and won't be able to repair it.
 - wicked rulers are bad, wise children are good for their parents, visiting with prostitutes is bad, and flattering neighbors is pretty bad too.
 - Kings who exact too much from the people can ruin their countries, and fools and scoffers are still deprecated.
 - If the wise try to bring fools to the court of law, it leads to endless ridicule and ranting—so avoid doing this if you can.
 - The wise know how to hold back their anger.
 - Rulers shouldn't listen to falsehoods, but should be fair to the poor.
 - The poor and their oppressors have at least one thing in common: God has made them both live.
 - Train your children and they will become wise and give you peace.
 - Not only law, but prophecy also helps people behave correctly.
 - You can't discipline servants through words alone - they will understand but not respond. A pampered servant will become insolent
 - People who are hasty in speaking are worse off than fools and have less hope.
 - Trust in God rather than fearing other people - God ultimately gives justice, rather than kings.
 - The righteous and the wicked both seem like abominations in each other's eyes.

Questions and Observations

1) more wisdom

Quote from: ddickerson on Feb 06, 2017, 06:17AMI believe that vs 6 answers your question regarding vs 5.

I believe that you are correct; good spot.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 08, 2017, 09:00PMProverbs 29 text
Link adjusted

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 08, 2017, 09:00PM - If you fail to adjust after being rebuked, you'll end by falling into utter ruin and won't be able to repair it.
I like the metaphor here. A person is like an object under stress. If it doesn't bend under the stress, and more stress is added in consequence, then in time the stress may reach a point where the object breaks disastrously.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 08, 2017, 09:00PM - The righteous and the wicked both seem like abominations in each other's eyes.
And don't we know it! Humans love few things more than taking sides.

Proverbs 30 text

Highlights

 - lots of lists of bad things or behaviours.

Summary

 - the inspired sayings of Agur to Ithiel
 - I'm just a man and am ignorant compared to God who's words are flawless
 - I ask 2 things of God, so that I will be able to stay faithful and not dishonour you:
    - keep lies away from me
    - give me enough to survive, no more and no less

 - Don't slander servants to their masters
 - Agur catalogues all the bad guys out there:
    - people who curse their parents,
    - people who think they lack sin but are actually sinful,
    - people who oppress the poor and steal money and goods from them.
 - People who are leeches end up having their own children prey on them (maybe)
 - a list of things that are never satisfied:
    - a barren womb,
    - Sheol,
    - the dry earth thirsty for water,
    - and some sort of raging fire that keeps consuming everything.

 - an eye that mocks father and mother will be picked out by crows.

 - 4 things that are too wonderful/or beyond his understanding
    - an eagle in the sky, a snake crawling on a rock, a ship sailing the seaand the way of a man with a woman.
 - an adulteress says she's done no wrong
 - 3 things make the earth tremble, and the fourth knocks it out of sorts entirely: a slave who becomes king, a fool who's eaten too much, an unloved woman who gets a husband, and a maid who succeeds her mistress as the new head of household
 - 4 small wise animals:  ants, who provide food for themselves despite their size; badgers, who own nothing, yet defend themselves by living in the rocks; locusts, who march in rank without having a king; and finally the lizard, who is found in all the palaces of kings.
 - 4 proud creatures: a lion, a rooster, a he-goat and a secure king
 - stirring up anger produces strife.
 

Questions and Observations

1) No one knows who Agur was, but some guess he was a non-Israelite, representing Near-Eastern wisdom in a more general way

Quote from: MoominDave on Apr 06, 2016, 02:58PMPart I - The Tetrateuch
Genesis

• [li]Big picture stuff
  • [li]Creation; Adam & Eve[/li][li]Humans, take 1; Cain & Abel, Noah[/li][li]The Flood; Wash everything away, start again[/li][li]Humans, take 2[/li]
  [/li][li]Abraham; extensive travels, original covenant, Lot, not sacrificing Isaac[/li][li]Jacob; conflict with twin Esau, banishment, wives, 12 sons[/li][li]Joseph; betrayal to Egypt, rise, saving of family, supposed origins of 12 tribes[/li]

Exodus

• [li]New scene, three generations on - Israelites now of low status in Egypt[/li][li]Moses grows up, fights battle of wills with Pharoah over plagues, leads Israelites to depart[/li][li]Wandering, take 1; through the desert to Mt. Sinai, where they make a long camp and...[/li]

Leviticus

• [li]...many laws are given[/li]

Numbers

• [li]Wandering, take 2; they reach their destination, but are too weak to attempt the task, and so...[/li][li]Wandering, take 3; more pootling around, building up military prowess over the years in the preparation for invasion; new leaders emerge, and they finish on the brink of their destination again[/li]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jul 16, 2016, 04:49AMPart II - The Deuteronomistic History
Deuteronomy

• [li]Moses orates; recap of terms and conditions, forward planning[/li][li]Moses dies[/li]

Joshua

• [li]Conquest of Canaan under Joshua[/li][li]Division of conquered land between the tribes, East and West banks of the Jordan[/li]

Judges

• [li]Prologue: Messy details of attempted not-always-successful conquest, compare with previous book[/li][li]An intermittent sequence of Judges leads: Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Samson[/li][li]The Dan tribe take territory in the North and the Benjamin tribe are defeated by the other tribes[/li]

Ruth

• [li]Intermezzo: Heartwarming tale of a family coming through hard times in the era of the Judges[/li]

1 Samuel

• [li]Samuel is a priestly leader in a time of Philistine conflicts who needs a worthy successor[/li][li]Saul is appointed to the new role of king and with his son Jonathan defeats the Ammonites, Philistines, Amalekites, but he falls out with Samuel, who anoints David as a replacement king secretly[/li][li]David (a military hero) and Saul vie for superiority over a long period, eventually brought to an end when the Philistines kill Saul in battle[/li]

2 Samuel

• [li]The kingdom nearly splits, but David unites it, doing many heroic deeds[/li][li]But in time he becomes morally suspect and manipulated by schemers[/li]

1 Kings

• [li]David dies, succeeded by Solomon, who consolidates his power base brutally but gains great wealth and a reputation for great wisdom, building the "first temple" and a palace; however, like David he becomes morally suspect in time[/li][li]After he dies, the kingdom is split into Israel (larger Northern portion) and Judah (smaller Southern portion), and the continual inference is that Judah is the legitimate one of the two[/li][li]Kings succeed in both Israel and Judah; Elijah gains prominence as a prophet[/li]

2 Kings

• [li]Long successions of kings of both Israel and Judah are described, and the prophet Elisha comes to prominence[/li][li]Most kings do not prioritise Yahweh-worship - none in Israel, but some in Judah.
  [/li][li]First Israel then Judah are unable to tread the difficult path of negotiation between stronger powers on either side, with both populations destroyed and exiled by 586 BC[/li]

Quote from: MoominDave on Oct 28, 2016, 07:11AMPart III - The Chronicler's History
1 Chronicles

• [li]Recap of genealogy to the beginning; return of some exiles to Judah[/li][li]Recap of Samuel written to favour David more highly[/li]

2 Chronicles

• [li]Recap of Kings with only the Judah parts and a focus on relations with Yahweh[/li][li]End of exile when Babylon falls[/li]

Ezra

• [li]Cyrus of Persia commands Judah to return home and rebuild their temple; decades later Artaxerxes of Persia commands Ezra to lead a second wave of returnees[/li]

Nehemiah

• [li]Nehemiah, a Judahite official of Artaxerxes of Persia, is appointed governor of Judah, rebuilding Jerusalem's wall; he and Ezra organise Judah, mixing enlightened social reform with brutally dogmatic interpretations of Mosaic law[/li]

Tobit Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]Tobit and his son Tobias are exiled in Nineveh when Israel falls, while Sarah lives in Media; a demon has killed seven of her husbands. With an angel's help, Tobias rescues her, and everyone lives happily ever after[/li]

Judith Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]Nebuchadnezzar is enraged by the Israelites' failure to answer a military summons, and despatches his general Holofernes with his army to suppress them; Judith, a beautiful Israelite widow, uses feminine wiles to distract Holofernes, killing him[/li]

Esther

• [li]Jewish exile in Susa Esther wins a beauty contest to become queen of Persia; factions vie to destroy the Jews in Persia, but the influence of her and her uncle Mordecai carries the day[/li]

1 Maccabees Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]In the 160s BC the Greek rulers attempt a religious crackdown in Judaea, against which Judas Maccabeus leads a rebellion[/li][li]Various competing empires trade blows, and all the while the rebellion becomes more secure; Jonathan Apphus and then Simon Thassi succeed Judas and establish a medium-term peace, along with Simon's dynasty, the Hasmonaeans[/li]

2 Maccabees  Catholic/Orthodox

• [li]Prior to the Maccabean revolt, unedifying political struggles within the priesthood result in turmoil, resulting in the crackdown of 1 Maccabees; Judas leads the first portion of his revolt, in less detail this time[/li]

Quote from: MoominDave on Jan 23, 2017, 04:48AMPart IV - Wisdom Literature
Job

• [li]Job is a wealthy and good man, devoted to Yahweh[/li][li]Satan talks Yahweh into letting him test Job's faith, which he does by destroying his fortune, family, and health[/li][li]Job and his friends talk it over at length; Job is convinced of his innocence, his friends of his guilt[/li][li]Yahweh eventually turns up and ticks them all off for not respecting him enough; he restores Job's fortunes twice over[/li]

Psalms

• [li]Large collection of devotional songs/poems, whose themes include
  • [li]Overarching powerfulness of Yahweh[/li][li]Need to praise and thank Yahweh[/li][li]How bad it feels when Yahweh feels absent, and how good it feels when he feels present[/li]
  [/li]

Prayer of Manasseh Orthodox

• [li]An extra psalm[/li]

Proverbs

• [li]Large collection of wise sayings, many attributed to King Solomon. Major themes include:
  • [li]Industriousness, Humility, Fair dealing, Marital faithfulness, Religious devotion, Political savvy[/li]
  [/li]

Proverbs 31 text

Highlights

 - Wisdom of King Lemuel
 - What makes a good woman?

Summary

 - King Lemuel says:
  - Kings must be strong; they should not give power over them to others
  - They should not be drunk, as drink is a comfort for those whose lives are bitter
  - Be a good judge
  - Use your voice on behalf of those whose voices are not heard
 - What makes a good woman?
  - A fine wife is to be prized beyond almost anything else
  - The husband may trust her
  - They work towards the same goals
  - She is domestically industrious
  - She undertakes agricultural negotations and work
  - She has physical strength
  - She gives to the poor
  - She arrays herself splendidly
  - She trades the fruits of her own labour
  - She is wise and kind
  - Her family respect her for all this
  - And she is devout

Questions and Observations

1) Like Agur, Lemuel is not easily identified. Some think he might be a pseudonym of Solomon.
2) Kings have not been notably abstemious...
3) The 'good woman' bit is an acrostic in Hebrew.
4) It is perhaps a little tautological to simply state that the ideal wife is wise, given that the point of this book is to specify what wisdom was to the ancient Hebrews. But then we can simply refer to earlier chapters.
5) As noted many times before, biblical gender roles do not suit many in modern society. We can all agree that an ideal wife is wise and kind, but not that she should be the kind of glorified domestic servant that the ancient Hebrews expected. Different times, different values.
6) Ecclesiastes up next, then the Song of Solomon. Then there are a couple of deuterocanonical books - "Wisdom" and "Sirach" - before we move into the major prophets.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 13, 2017, 03:46AMProverbs 31 text

...

4) It is perhaps a little tautological to simply state that the ideal wife is wise, given that the point of this book is to specify what wisdom was to the ancient Hebrews. But then we can simply refer to earlier chapters.

(Just commenting on the same theme, not disagreeing)
The chapter is the words of Lemuels mother I think.  Hence I think it is a case of woman teaching wisdom, so it parrallels chapters 1-9 where it is wisdom personified as a woman teaching.

And she is teaching a woman's view of how a truly capable woman should live.

Quote5) As noted many times before, biblical gender roles do not suit many in modern society. We can all agree that an ideal wife is wise and kind, but not that she should be the kind of glorified domestic servant that the ancient Hebrews expected. Different times, different values.

While I acknowledge that gender roles were different, here we have a picture of an accomplished merchant who is successful in business and providing for and managing the house.  This looks to me as encouragement to stretch the cultural boundaries of a woman's role.

Quote6) Ecclesiastes up next, then the Song of Solomon. Then there are a couple of deuterocanonical books - "Wisdom" and "Sirach" - before we move into the major prophets.

I'm going to guess that you will like Ecclesiastes.  Not sure about Song of Solomon.  Its definitely not cricket.

Proverbs teaches us about Wisdom and Understanding: what it is and how valuable it is.  It focuses on morality and ethics, folly and foolishness, family, lust and happiness.

The goal of "Wisdom and Understanding" is to lead people to "Happiness"(3:13-18). By knowing how to keep your desires within reasonable limits, staying focused on family life, working hard, and knowing when to quit, Proverbs says that you can actually be pretty happy and fearing God is also an important part of its prescription.

QuoteThe book ends with a description of the "capable wife." She is the perfect opposite of the adulteress and the foolish woman described earlier in Proverbs—she puts in practice the advice given by Proverbs, whereas they totally ignore it.

She also takes Wisdom, who had formerly been seen as a kind of angelic presence or an abstraction, and makes it concrete—she embodies Wisdom. In this way, the ode to the "capable wife" provides a fitting end to Proverbs. It takes the recommendations and the philosophy that Proverbs has made and then provides an ideal example of someone who's able to take that advice and flourish.

Ecclesiastes 1 text

Highlights

 - Everything is pointless.

Summary

 - The words of the Convener, a descendant of King David
 - Everything is meaningless, pointless: there is nothing new under the sun.
 - I have been King in Jerusalem and sought to seek out by wisdom all that is done under heaven.
 - The answer to Life, the Universe and Everything: Life is an unhappy business - everything is pointless, what's broken can't be fixed, and you can't even count the number of things that are lacking.
 - I'm really wise, so I set out to thoroughly investigate wisdom - I found out that it was just like chasing after the wind. Wisdom is annoying and makes you sorry you ever tried to get any.

Questions and Observations

1) Preacher is the translation of Qoheleth meaning Convenor or Collector, with the assumption that the convening is to teach.

2) son of David could mean descendant but has traditionally been taken to refer to Solomon.  Some people think that Ecclesiastes is a Fictional Biography of Solomon's sayings.

3) Vanity is the translation of a mist, vapour or mere breathe which the translators understand to be a metaphor.

4) Is the Convener an atheist?

5) The conclusion of this first chapter is the opposite of the conclusion of Proverbs! What's going on!

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 13, 2017, 12:42PM
I'm going to guess that you will like Ecclesiastes.  Not sure about Song of Solomon.  Its definitely not cricket.

There is an argument that if you had Ecclesiastes and James, you could overlook most of the rest. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Feb 14, 2017, 04:59AMThere is an argument that if you had Ecclesiastes and James, you could overlook most of the rest. 

Song of Solomon is always good for sending a unique Valentine to your sweetheart such as "your teeth are like a flock of sheep that are shorn that come up for washing of which everyone bears twins and none is barren." 

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 13, 2017, 06:34PMEcclesiastes 1 text

4) Is the Convener an atheist?

5) The conclusion of this first chapter is the opposite of the conclusion of Proverbs! What's going on!

Pretty nihilistic stuff so far... The writer sounds thoroughly depressed, world-weary to an extreme extent. I take it things pick up a bit from here...

I see why would you think that the narrator might be an atheist. Or at least coming from a religious viewpoint that has little notion of an afterlife. The whole idea of Christianity is that good actions in life produce afterlife reward. Less so in Judaism though. The point of the whole Christian religion is to give people a sense of meaning in their day-to-day existences, and the narrator is explicitly bemoaning not having that.

Ecclesiastes 2 text

Highlights

 - You can do good things, but everything comes to naught in the end

Summary

 - The writer achieved much and also submitted to the pleasures of the flesh; this all seems empty
 - They became wise, but perceived that it did them no good in the long run - the wise and the foolish die alike
 - They built up a domain by toil, but rue that they will have to leave it to somebody else when they die, someone who might not deserve it
 - Even the objectively best things to do are empty and transitory

Questions and Observations

1) Still very much on a downer.
2) The writer seems to be in the midst of an existential crisis. Presumably the resolution of this occupies this book?
3) Resenting those that come after you for being left what you built up without them deserving it is quite a strikingly pointless exercise in seething.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 14, 2017, 05:45AMPretty nihilistic stuff so far... The writer sounds thoroughly depressed, world-weary to an extreme extent. I take it things pick up a bit from here...

I don't want to spoil the plot so I won't say.

QuoteI see why would you think that the narrator might be an atheist. Or at least coming from a religious viewpoint that has little notion of an afterlife. The whole idea of Christianity is that good actions in life produce afterlife reward. Less so in Judaism though. The point of the whole Christian religion is to give people a sense of meaning in their day-to-day existences, and the narrator is explicitly bemoaning not having that.

Actually I was giving you the chance to deny the conclusion that a depressed existentialist was likely to be an atheist.

And no, the whole idea of christianity is not that good actions in life produce afterlife reward.  The bible teaches that we are saved by trusting God and not by what we do; but that if we do really follow Jesus then we will behave accordingly.  ie good works are a symptom of our faith, not the cause of our salvation.

I would also argue that a sense of meaning is not the primary purpose of christianity, but can see how you would deduce that from your perspective. 

Yes, that'll be a difference of perspective. I see Christianity as a man-made artifact, and hence ask myself what the man-made purpose of it is. To a believer, I can imagine that the question of what Christianity is for is one that doesn't make a great deal of sense to pose?
It is certainly good for alleviating existential doubt - atheists have an intrinsically harder time doing this - but I would argue a more satisfyingly honest-with-oneself one. It's harder work, but worth it.

Ecclesiastes 3 text

Highlights

 - Rejoice in what is in front of you

Summary

 - Everything has a natural time in which to occur
 - There is nothing better than to be joyful and to do good
 - There is wickedness everywhere in man's institutions - but Yahweh's eventual judgment will see things right in the end
 - We are not special; we die just as animals do
 - Keep your perspective - make joy in what you are and have; do not dissatisfy yourself worrying about things outside your space and time

Questions and Observations

1) There being a natural time for everything doesn't mean that it is good for everything to occur. Few would argue that using "a time to kill" to kill in means that things turned out for the best. This is quite a fatalistic philosophy.
2) There's a rather nice brass band piece based on this text - Peter Graham's The Essence of Time, in which each section is headed by "A time to/for [...]".
3) The idea that Yahweh's judgment will sort everything out finally is naturally of no comfort to those of us that don't believe. We must instead trust in the more worldly "What goes around comes around" - to do our best in the knowledge that there may be no payoff for it, simply because it is the right thing to do. This takes a certain amount of mental steeling to perform unflinchingly in the face of the pressures of the world, unreinforced as it is by the carrot and stick of the Christian framework, but, once acquired, it then frees you up to inspect the mores of those institutions that set themselves up as a moral police without feeling intimidated by their claims to greatness. But one quickly sees that the urge to get along productively with others is a strong one regardless of religiosity - and, on the flip side of the coin, one sees that the reassurance of religion to believers that there is a moral backstop there can lead people into false confidence in their actions. It is what makes us human that makes us co-operate, not the mechanisms for societal order that have come into being over the millennia. These (religions, tribes, kingdoms, confederations, etc.) are simply devices to facilitate co-operation, and suggest the continuance of it when the temptation to abandon it strikes. The lesson that one learns is that the claim, sometimes made, that being religious correlates with being a good person, seems clearly false. Humans are humans, and that overrides all else.
4) So we die like beasts, and "what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same". This seems noble (and true to me), but how does it square with Christian ideas of afterlife? Is it asserting that beasts are also judged? Can a Christian be reunited with their pets in the afterlife?
5) The mood of pervasive gloom is lifting now - the author's found a basis on which they feel it's sensible to be happy.
6) The themes here are putting me in mind of basic Buddhist ideas (of which I admittedly know little). The idea that the meaning in life is what you put into it seems common between the two here.
7) The injunction to focus on what is in front of you touches on the conversation we had a few chapters ago (in Proverbs) about not getting too distressed about being led temporarily by evil people utterly beyond one's power to influence.
8) Yes, I think you are right, Martin. I'm enjoying this one so far. It is sparking thoughts.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 15, 2017, 07:17AMEcclesiastes 3 text

...

1) There being a natural time for everything doesn't mean that it is good for everything to occur. Few would argue that using "a time to kill" to kill in means that things turned out for the best. This is quite a fatalistic philosophy.

that's right, he's not saying that these things are the best, but that they are going to happen regardless of what we want, and that our job is to enjoy the ride while we're on it.

It does seem fatalistic doesn't it.

Quote2) There's a rather nice brass band piece based on this text - Peter Graham's The Essence of Time, in which each section is headed by "A time to/for [...]".

and there is also Turn, turn turn too.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ga_M5Zdn4

there was even a time for that.

But I like Peter Graham better.  I've played and liked Laudate Dominum.



Quote3) The idea that Yahweh's judgment will sort everything out finally is naturally of no comfort to those of us that don't believe. We must instead trust in the more worldly "What goes around comes around" - to do our best in the knowledge that there may be no payoff for it, simply because it is the right thing to do.

one wonders why it is the right thing to do.

Quote4) So we die like beasts, and "what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same". This seems noble (and true to me), but how does it square with Christian ideas of afterlife? Is it asserting that beasts are also judged? Can a Christian be reunited with their pets in the afterlife?

I would think the answer to those to questions is not provided by this statement.  Koholeths research and conclusions were limited to observations of things that happen "under the sun", which should suit you to a tee.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 15, 2017, 07:17AM4) So we die like beasts, and "what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same". This seems noble (and true to me), but how does it square with Christian ideas of afterlife? Is it asserting that beasts are also judged? Can a Christian be reunited with their pets in the afterlife?

I don't think the concept of an afterlife existed when this was written.  That is a much later development.

Nowhere does the Bible distinguish between animal and human souls, so there is no reason not to believe you'll be reunited with your pets.  And ex-wives.  Well, unless you don't believe in an afterlife, I guess that would be a show stopper.

I think this scripture infers an afterlife:

Job 19:25-27  English Standard Version (ESV)

25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,
    and at the last he will stand upon the earth.[a]

26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
    yet in my flesh I shall see God,

27 whom I shall see for myself,
    and my eyes shall behold, and not another.
    My heart faints within me!

Ecclesiastes 4 text

Highlights

 - Facing reality under the sun

Summary

 - Again I saw oppression everywhere and conclude that the dead are better off.
 - and people toiling - for no purpose than envy or greed: all vanity
 - two people working together can help each other, but one is alone without help
 - the wise youth is better than the foolish king - but even he is forgotten in death.
 - all is pointless: a striving after wind.

Questions and Observations

1) Pretty depressing, isn't he?
2) How does this compare with other philosophies "imagine there's no heaven" and everthing will magically be better, or 'There's probably no God... now stop worrying and enjoy your life'?

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 15, 2017, 12:44PMBut I like Peter Graham better.  I've played and liked Laudate Dominum.
Edward Gregson that one. Lovely piece though.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 15, 2017, 12:44PMone wonders why it is the right thing to do.
Indeed one does! Basic empathy is our first guide. Would you want someone to do to you what you're thinking of?

Randomly but germanely, this piece of satire passed across my screen just a few minutes ago...

Quote from: timothy42b on Feb 15, 2017, 01:14PMI don't think the concept of an afterlife existed when this was written.  That is a much later development.

It seems to me that you're correct on this - as we've gone through, the developed Christian concepts of heaven and hell (plus limbo, purgatory, etc) have seemed notable by their absence, particularly in the mouths of people as early as the author of this part is supposed to be. Sheol does not seem the same thing at all, a much more rudimentary concept.

But surely Christians logically have to read these words in light of what they've later come to believe? If these are wise words supposedly given by someone that they trace religious descent from, then they need to ask "Why didn't this person know about what we later came to believe?"; "If they didn't know this, are their words flawed for us?".

I note Dusty's point that there have been regular hints in these wisdom books at something going on afterwards (after all, what can it mean to be judged if you aren't in existence?) - but it's been notably not made concrete. There's been no itinerary laid out for the dead. Things are hinted at in vague terms rather than described.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 16, 2017, 06:01AMIt seems to me that you're correct on this - as we've gone through, the developed Christian concepts of heaven and hell (plus limbo, purgatory, etc) have seemed notable by their absence. Sheol does seem the same thing at all, a much more rudimentary concept.

But surely Christians logically have to read these words in light of what they've later come to believe? If these are wise words supposedly given by someone that they trace religious descent from, then they need to ask "Why didn't this person know about what we later came to believe?"; "If they didn't know this, are their words flawed for us?".

There are scriptures that refer to afterlife, read my post #1824 for just one example.

Quote from: ddickerson on Feb 16, 2017, 06:06AMThere are scriptures that refer to afterlife, read my post #1824 for just one example.

You can interpret some scriptures that way, IF and ONLY IF you already believe in it and are looking for it.

It is well established that Judaism did not have the concept before Second Temple, and some branches today still do not include it. 

Quote from: ddickerson on Feb 16, 2017, 06:06AMThere are scriptures that refer to afterlife, read my post #1824 for just one example.

Sorry Dusty, conversational crossover - I was modifying my previous post while you were posting.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 16, 2017, 12:01AMEcclesiastes 4 text

V4: "Then I saw that all toil and all skill in work come from a man's envy of his neighbor. This also is vanity and a striving after wind."

There is difficult profundity here. As I grew, I realised that I had some skill in some subjects, notably music and mathematics. I measured myself against my peers and against those that had achieved success, and used the desire to be better than others to improve myself. It's a very effective device in achieving this.

But I realised later that this type of motivation comes at a cost. One treats one's peers as competitors rather than colleagues, one develops an inward-looking and suspicious mindset that poisons one's psyche, and it lays one open to intense unnecessary stress when one's skills are surpassed by others. Disgusted with myself, I threw out the powerful competitiveness that I'd previously fostered, and sought instead to develop what skills I have in order rather to please myself without reference to the levels achieved by others and to achieve tasks for others that seem worthy. This does not offer the simple jolt of motivation that tribal competition does, but it is less internally harmful.

A great deal of human activity is based on the urge to out-do other humans.

Quote from: drizabone on Feb 16, 2017, 12:01AM2) How does this compare with other philosophies "imagine there's no heaven" and everthing will magically be better, or 'There's probably no God... now stop worrying and enjoy your life'?

Functionally, there's little difference if you leave the injunctions to behave in religious fashion aside.

Ecclesiastes 5 text

Highlights

 - Be honest, upright, and take joy in what you have

Summary

 - Talk to God only after consideration
 - Mean what you say to him, especially when vowing
 - Greed is never satiated
 - Be wise in your business ventures
 - Be happy in your lot; this is the only true wisdom

Questions and Observations

1) The idea of being happy with your lot is one that contains both strength and weakness. It is a generally sound life principle to make yourself happy with what is within reach. But such evils as the Indian caste system, slavery, and indentured servitude are enabled by a passive acceptance of what is. Would Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement of the 60s have grown such powerful and good fruit if they had simply left well alone? No; in the absence of any dissent, there would have been no incentive for the evil structures that enclosed them to change.
2) A general point - I've only just got around to reading up about the composition of this book, this doesn't relate to this particular chapter. I see that it is post-exilic in composition, post-dating Solomon by at minimum 600 years. As seemed likely with the various psalms "Of David", etc., this is a later writer putting words into the mouth of an earlier character.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 15, 2017, 07:17AMEcclesiastes 3 text

4) So we die like beasts, and "what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same". This seems noble (and true to me), but how does it square with Christian ideas of afterlife? Is it asserting that beasts are also judged? Can a Christian be reunited with their pets in the afterlife?


Rather than questioning if this means is there an afterlife, or not, we should remember that Solomon was speaking from an "under the Sun perspective" -(vs 16), the way things would look without God's Divine reality and purpose.

It seems, that from a poetic standpoint, in the first verses, dealing with "time", he shows the opposites of existence. When Solomon gets to the latter verses, he is describing the opposites of an "under the Sun view" versus God's Divine view.

Quote from: ddickerson on Feb 16, 2017, 08:19AMRather than questioning if this means is there an afterlife, or not, we should remember that Solomon was speaking from an "under the Sun perspective" -(vs 16), the way things would look without God's Divine reality and purpose.

Some of us think it is a mistake to read the Bible solely in the context of modern US Christianity, without some attention to the culture and attitudes of the times.

The fact that the concept of an afterlife had not yet occurred to the Israelites at the time of the writing does not mean it could not exist.  Understanding can possibly grow over time.  People a thousand years later might know more. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Feb 16, 2017, 04:42PMSome of us think it is a mistake to read the Bible solely in the context of modern US Christianity, without some attention to the culture and attitudes of the times.

The fact that the concept of an afterlife had not yet occurred to the Israelites at the time of the writing does not mean it could not exist.  Understanding can possibly grow over time.  People a thousand years later might know more. 



I gave you one verse from Job.

Here are two more:
Isaiah 26:19:

“But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You, who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.”

Here’s Dan 12:1-3,

“At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book — will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.”

"your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book — will be delivered." Concept of the Lamb's Book of Life.

Ecclesiastes 6 text

Highlights

 - Don't waste your life obsessed with transitory things

Summary

 - Sometimes you don't get to enjoy the rewards of your labour
 - Do not fall into the trap of never being satisfied with your situation
 - Life is short and incomplete, and we cannot see what will follow us

Questions and Observations

1) Ecclesiastes 6:1-2 is very similar to Ecclesiastes 5:13-14.
5:13-14 -
"There is a grievous evil that I have seen under the sun: riches were kept by their owner to his hurt, and those riches were lost in a bad venture. And he is father of a son, but he has nothing in his hand.
6:1-2 -
"There is an evil that I have seen under the sun, and it lies heavy on mankind: a man to whom God gives wealth, possessions, and honor, so that he lacks nothing of all that he desires, yet God does not give him power to enjoy them, but a stranger enjoys them. This is vanity; it is a grievous evil."
The meaning of both is rather obscure to me. Is it simply bemoaning the fact that wordly fortunes can be transitory? This doesn't seem a very biblical message if so.

Quote from: timothy42b on Feb 16, 2017, 06:11AMYou can interpret some scriptures that way, IF and ONLY IF you already believe in it and are looking for it.

It is well established that Judaism did not have the concept before Second Temple, and some branches today still do not include it. 

Depends on which serious OT scholars you look at to claim that it is "well-established."  There are a number of well respected and well credentialed OT scholare that would dispute that.  There's a difference between a belief that is quite under-developed and a belief that is absent.

I believe that the key to interpreting Ecclesiastes is the refrain that first shows up in 2:24-- "There is nothing better for as person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil.  This also, I saw, is from the hand of God, for apart from him who can have enjoyment."  The idea is repeated, for example, in 3:12-13,22; 5:18, etc.  It culminates in the closing remarks of 12:13-14.

In other words, without living a life that understands that all is a gift from God and that all meaning and purpose ultimately comes from Him, such a life is just, in the words of the song that Peggy Lee made famous, "Is that all there is?... then let's break out the booze and keep dancing."

Ecclesiastes looks pessimistic, but that refrain puts human pessimism in its proper place.  It's only pessimistic when lived apart from understanding that God alone gives meaning.

Thanks John. That's certainly the message that I've been getting from it; good to agree!

One might ask "Is that all there is?". And one might answer "Yes indeed! Isn't that enough for you? A world full of amazing things and people?". Booze and dance as one wishes, we all still must make a living in the morning and make our internal peaces with the world in which we live. Which is a pretty exciting thing to be living in, endlessly diverting, sometimes upliftingly so, sometimes depressingly so.

I wonder if a propensity to feel disheartened by the thoughts that the writer of Ecclesiastes articulated is correlated to a tendency to seek solace for them in extra-natural beliefs? I'm aware that what I do and am means basically nothing in the grand scheme, but I don't spend my time moping about that - it doesn't really seem a matter for sorrow, it's just how things are. The offer of religious solace for a supposed sore point seems redundant, as the point isn't sore. But to others that feel a problem with being little and insignificant things may be different.

The moral of Ecclesiastes holds well with the faith elements removed - the surest joy is that that you take in doing the things that are in front of you. One doesn't need to believe that those things were put in front of you by a God to work to that notion.

I'm not sure I'd call Ecclesiastes "pessimistic", by the way... The writer looks head on at some of the most basic downers that there are in life, and then offers their solution. "Realistic", "pragmatic", these are words I might use.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 17, 2017, 05:47AMThanks John. That's certainly the message that I've been getting from it; good to agree!

One might ask "Is that all there is?". And one might answer "Yes indeed! Isn't that enough for you? A world full of amazing things and people?". Booze and dance as one wishes, we all still must make a living in the morning and make our internal peaces with the world in which we live. Which is a pretty exciting thing to be living in, endlessly diverting, sometimes upliftingly so, sometimes depressingly so.

I wonder if a propensity to feel disheartened by the thoughts that the writer of Ecclesiastes articulated is correlated to a tendency to seek solace for them in extra-natural beliefs? I'm aware that what I do and am means basically nothing in the grand scheme, but I don't spend my time moping about that - it doesn't really seem a matter for sorrow, it's just how things are. The offer of religious solace for a supposed sore point seems redundant, as the point isn't sore. But to others that feel a problem with being little and insignificant things may be different.

The moral of Ecclesiastes holds well with the faith elements removed - the surest joy is that that you take in doing the things that are in front of you. One doesn't need to believe that those things were put in front of you by a God to work to that notion.

I'm not sure I'd call Ecclesiastes "pessimistic", by the way... The writer looks head on at some of the most basic downers that there are in life, and then offers their solution. "Realistic", "pragmatic", these are words I might use.

The author of E would argue, as do most orthodox Christians, that those very ordinary things that you mentioned aren't really pessimistic when lived as a gift from God, but that living that way is the only way to really avoid pessimism without "whistling in the dark."  I would argue that what we do really does matter in the grand scheme because we are creatures created in the image of God and recognizing that and receiving all the mundane of life as His good gifts gives life a completely different perspective.  That's what ultimately makes the book not pessimistic.  It is arguing that life IS pessimistic when lived apart from God.

Glad that we do agree on the way the book handles the theme.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Feb 17, 2017, 06:18AMThe author of E would argue, as do most orthodox Christians, that those very ordinary things that you mentioned aren't really pessimistic when lived as a gift from God, but that living that way is the only way to really avoid pessimism without "whistling in the dark."
That's a new idiom to me, and, looking it up, I find that it has conflicting meanings:

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whistle_in_the_dark:
    (colloquial) To make a show of bravery despite one's fears; to put on a brave front.  
    (idiomatic, US) To speak of something despite having little knowledge of it.

From http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+whistling+in+the+dark
     to be confident that something good will happen when it is not at all likely She seems pretty sure she'll win the title, but she may just be whistling in the dark.

Which of these three do you mean? I think the first (put on a show of bravery) is probably your meaning, so I'll reply on that basis.

It's interesting that you would say "the only way". I guess you must not believe me when I tell you that it genuinely doesn't bother me to be small and insignificant like this? Or that you think I'm fooling myself? Though I note that you don't write that you would argue that way, so maybe I'm overstretching in replying as if these are your personal convictions?

Quote from: John the Theologian on Feb 17, 2017, 06:18AM  I would argue that what we do really does matter in the grand scheme because we are creature created in the image of God and recognizing that and receiving all the mundane of life as His good gifts gives life a completely different perspective.  That's what ultimately makes the book not pessimistic.  It is arguing that life IS pessimistic when lived apart from God.
Except here I stand offering myself as an example that it isn't. To me, this is exactly backwards - the embracing of the Christian narrative in order to console oneself in the face of not feeling okay with being small and insignificant reveals a problematic pessimism, with the Christian narrative providing an external psychological 'fix' for it for those that need it. But it is not a universal that everybody feels bad about accurately perceiving the humbleness of their place in the universe.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 17, 2017, 06:27AMThat's a new idiom to me, and, looking it up, I find that it has conflicting meanings:

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whistle_in_the_dark:
    (colloquial) To make a show of bravery despite one's fears; to put on a brave front.  
    (idiomatic, US) To speak of something despite having little knowledge of it.

From http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+whistling+in+the+dark
     to be confident that something good will happen when it is not at all likely She seems pretty sure she'll win the title, but she may just be whistling in the dark.

Which of these three do you mean? I think the first (put on a show of bravery) is probably your meaning, so I'll reply on that basis.

It's interesting that you would say "the only way". I guess you must not believe me when I tell you that it genuinely doesn't bother me to be small and insignificant like this? Or that you think I'm fooling myself? Though I note that you don't write that you would argue that way, so maybe I'm overstretching in replying as if these are your personal convictions?

Except here I stand offering myself as an example that it isn't. To me, this is exactly backwards - the embracing of the Christian narrative in order to console oneself in the face of not feeling okay with being small and insignificant reveals a problematic pessimism, with the Christian narrative providing an external psychological 'fix' for it for those that need it. But it is not a universal that everybody feels bad about accurately perceiving the humbleness of their place in the universe.

Dave, the meaning of the idiom is a combination of #1 and #3.

I would argue that from my orthodox Christian perspective you are living off of borrowed capital from the Christian world view and thus the fact that "it doesn't bother you" is just a "suppression of the truth" as described in Romans 1.  This isn't singling you out.  I believe this is the natural way all unbelievers live, but that none of them can really live consistently.  Living consistently would be the pessimism described in the Peggy Lee song.  I don't believe that my point of view is a psychological crutch.  In fact, it has been argued by some serious Christian thinkers, that your position is actually the psychological crutch.  For an interesting argument along these lines, see R.C. Sproul's book The Psychological of Atheism-- also released under the title Why Are There Atheists.

https://www.amazon.com/psychology-atheism-R-C-Sproul/dp/0871234599

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0842315659?ie=UTF8&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&qid=1264803709&sr=8-1&linkCode=shr&camp=213733&creative=393173&tag=apologetics31-20

It really is a clash of worldviews.  Either world view must see the other as psycholgically "covering its bases" to use another American idiom.  Both can't be correct.  The issue is both which one is right and which one can we live consistently with in this world.

Yes, you think that I am fooling myself (at which I take no offence, I hasten to add - I hope you take no offence that I obviously think the same of you). To which there is little possible reply - when one person doubts another's perception, then they have defined their points as flawed and thus ignorable - as you go on to imply above. Both worldviews are largely internally consistent, though mutually contradictory, and we are not going to resolve this ancient question in these posts.

For me, in this situation I call into Mr Occam's barber shop for a shave. One position assumes a God (and also various qualities of Godly communication, expressed largely via the book we're reading), the opposing position assumes none of this. The wise barber points out to me that the latter is more straightforward.

That aside (we've precised it all in quite swift time by internet standards), what do you mean in saying that I'm "living off of borrowed capital from the Christian world view"? This seems potentially a bit hubristic to me, but I don't feel I understand what you're saying very well.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 17, 2017, 07:04AMYes, you think that I am fooling myself (at which I take no offence, I hasten to add - I hope you take no offence that I obviously think the same of you). To which there is little possible reply - when one person doubts another's perception, then they have defined their points as flawed and thus ignorable - as you go on to imply above. Both worldviews are largely internally consistent, though mutually contradictory, and we are not going to resolve this ancient question in these posts.

For me, in this situation I call into Mr Occam's barber shop for a shave. One position assumes a God (and also various qualities of Godly communication, expressed largely via the book we're reading), the opposing position assumes none of this. The wise barber points out to me that the latter is more straightforward.

That aside (we've precised it all in quite swift time by internet standards), what do you mean in saying that I'm "living off of borrowed capital from the Christian world view"? This seems potentially a bit hubristic to me, but I don't feel I understand what you're saying very well.

Borrowed capital is elements of the Christian worldview that don't naturally or logically fit in your world view, but you adopt anyway because you can't really live in this world without using them.

I would see Mr Occam's razor as implying just the opposite POV and I don't think it's hubristic that I'm convinced the Christian world view is true. That's the reality of worldview thinking. In fact, as a Calvinist, I would argue, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 2:14 that my POV is only and completely by divine grace that I don't see the world as you do and that your response is completely "natural" from a "natural man's" POV.  I believe that takes all of the pride out since my perception is wholly formed by divine grace, not human ingenuity.

However, since I believe in sovereign divine grace, I also believe that the "hound of heaven" can change even minds such as yours. 

Quote from: John the Theologian on Feb 17, 2017, 08:04AMBorrowed capital is elements of the Christian worldview that don't naturally or logically fit in your world view, but you adopt anyway because you can't really live in this world without using them.
Uh huh, sure. Which elements were you talking about, though? I couldn't think of anything immediately.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Feb 17, 2017, 08:04AMI would see Mr Occam's razor as implying just the opposite POV and I don't think it's hubristic that I'm convinced the Christian world view is true. That's the reality of worldview thinking. In fact, as a Calvinist, I would argue, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 2:14 that is is only and completely by divine grace that I don't see the world as you do and that your response is completely "natural" from a "natural man's" POV.  I believe that takes all of the pride out since my perception is wholly formed by divine grace, not human ingenuity.
What felt potentially hubristic was the assertion that I was "living on borrowed capital", not that you felt you were correct.

1 Corinthians 2:14 we will come to in time! But interesting to drop in.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Feb 17, 2017, 08:04AMHowever, since I believe in sovereign divine grace, I also believe that the "hound of heaven" can change even minds such as yours. 



Btw, my mind is always open. But the door is guarded against people trying to slip things past.

Quote from: MoominDave on Feb 17, 2017, 08:21AMUh huh, sure. Which elements were you talking about, though? I couldn't think of anything immediately.

What felt potentially hubristic was the assertion that I was "living on borrowed capital", not that you felt you were correct.

1 Corinthians 2:14 we will come to in time! But interesting to drop in.



Btw, my mind is always open. But the door is guarded against people trying to slip things past.

I believe all unbelievers are living on "borrowed capital," but we would need to talk a bit more for me to really understand what yours exactly is.

BTW, the hound of heaven doesn't need an "open mind' because I believe the Holy Spirit is actually one who does the opening of the mind, but that's a debate for theology, not this forum.  I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said that he was the most reluctant convert ever and something like he was dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom. Such things apparently really do happen. 

Quote from: John the Theologian on Feb 17, 2017, 04:59AMI believe that the key to interpreting Ecclesiastes is the refrain that first shows up in 2:24-- "There is nothing better for as person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil.  This also, I saw, is from the hand of God, for apart from him who can have enjoyment."  The idea is repeated, for example, in 3:12-13,22; 5:18, etc.  It culminates in the closing remarks of 12:13-14.

In other words, without living a life that understands that all is a gift from God and that all meaning and purpose ultimately comes from Him, such a life is just, in the words of the song that Peggy Lee made famous, "Is that all there is?... then let's break out the booze and keep dancing."



I bolded a couple of phrases from your post.

I think you are erring in drawing more from the passage than is there.

I don't see the first phrase as pessimistic at all.  It is a great thing to eat and drink and work hard. 

The next sentence observes that this state of affairs is a gift from God, in the author's opinion.  But it does not require that understanding to enjoy eating, drinking, and working hard.  Your "in other words" does not follow from the plain reading of the scripture.  It is a conclusion you have reached from the viewpoint of 20th century conservative theology, and may be true or false, but is not based on the text as it is written.

Nor is there any hint of an afterlife here, nor suggestion that man is doomed and in need of a Savior. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Feb 17, 2017, 09:10AMI bolded a couple of phrases from your post.

I think you are erring in drawing more from the passage than is there.

I don't see the first phrase as pessimistic at all.  It is a great thing to eat and drink and work hard. 

The next sentence observes that this state of affairs is a gift from God, in the author's opinion.  But it does not require that understanding to enjoy eating, drinking, and working hard.  Your "in other words" does not follow from the plain reading of the scripture.  It is a conclusion you have reached from the viewpoint of 20th century conservative theology, and may be true or false, but is not based on the text as it is written.

Nor is there any hint of an afterlife here, nor suggestion that man is doomed and in need of a Savior. 

Tim, you've misunderstood my post-- Dave got it, though.  The bold parts are the phrases that put the pessimistic looking parts of Eccl in perspective.  They are not ultimately pessimistic and demonstrate that overall the book is not really pessimistic as some have claimed.  The text explicitly says that finding enjoyment is "from the hand of God" and I factor this into my understanding of the purpose of life and developing my "20th century conservative theology."  Since it is an interpretation that has an ancient history developed from an ancient text, I really don't think that it is just reading something into the text through my theological bias.  I didn't say that others couldn't enjoy eating....  My point was that I believe that genuine enjoyment of this is a gift of God.  Unbelievers receive that through the common grace of God, but, as the text says, it is a gift of God.

I also was not making any claims about the afterlife in those passages.  What I was saying is that the OT view of an afterlife is more complex and nuanced than your claim implies.  My main point is that while underdeveloped, there are a number of hints of an afterlife that go beyond the "grave is all there is" that some OT scholars seem to want to claim.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Feb 17, 2017, 09:38AM  The text explicitly says that finding enjoyment is "from the hand of God" and I factor this into my understanding of the purpose of life and developing my "20th century conservative theology." 

  I didn't say that others couldn't enjoy eating....  My point was that I believe that genuine enjoyment of this is a gift of God. 
I read your "in other words" to mean that man cannot enjoy the eating and the hard work UNLESS he understands it to be a gift of God.  If that was not your intent then I misunderstood you.