TromboneChat

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 12, 2017, 09:09PM

What I found most interesting was to find thoughts similar to those expressed by Jesus and Paul, indicating that their ideas were developing in Judaism prior to christianity.
I thought the early

But it may be the other way around.  Every book in the Bible, old or new testament, was written by Jewish writers (one was a convert, the others were born Jewish.)  It is not surprising that there should be some continuity and consistency.  Where we probably go wrong is when we overlay modern Christian ideas and miss the essential Jewishness. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Mar 13, 2017, 05:10AMBut it may be the other way around.  Every book in the Bible, old or new testament, was written by Jewish writers (one was a convert, the others were born Jewish.)  It is not surprising that there should be some continuity and consistency.  Where we probably go wrong is when we overlay modern Christian ideas and miss the essential Jewishness. 

Or possibly we overlay modern skeptical ideas and miss the essential sameness. 

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 12, 2017, 09:09PMbut how would we learn about consequences?Evil as a consequence, even a potential consequence, is the responsibility of the creator (Isaiah 45), especially an omnipotent one, unless of course you change "omnipotent" into something else (modify/qualify it), which is what pretty much all believers do (no choice if they're at all rational--this has never failed to show up in questioning in my own experience, so it's more a matter of the given believer's comfort with the necessities impose upon us by reality), but many just can't handle any kind of interpretive license that's too overt for them to miss (not targeting present company in those crosshairs as far a I know).
 
Quote from: drizabone on Mar 12, 2017, 09:09PMyour preconceptions are showing again Actually that would more than likely be projection. When your doctrines "inform" you on scripture, that's by definition an unobscured set of preconceptions. If you're looking through accurized historical lenses, however (and you accept the rather large error margins inherent to the discipline, and of course your history is informed by science and sound epistemology and critical thinking ... etc), that would be a genuinely informed view. Wiser theologians tend to allow for interpretations from other theological schools of thought as entirely reasonable alternative views even if they don't agree with them (usually [generalization notice], when someone has plenty of experience as well as plenty of knowledge, they kinda chill on matters of these kind of differences--a particularly stark aspect of military culture, by the way ... just a side note there).
 
Quote from: drizabone on Mar 12, 2017, 09:09PMI'm not surprised that it seems to have been written to "rally the troops" given the circumstances it was thought to have been written in.Can you elaborate on that (just curious ... seems I maybe missed some contextual disagreement/correction/explanation)?
 
Quote from: drizabone on Mar 12, 2017, 09:09PMWhat I found most interesting was to find thoughts similar to those expressed by Jesus and Paul, indicating that their ideas were developing in Judaism prior to christianity.
I thought the earlyPlease continue ... heh (particularly if you were about to elaborate on the previous sentence).

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 12, 2017, 10:12PMTo modify and adapt a line from a classic movie-- Oh them preconceptions, Oh them devil preconceptions. 
Heh ... great sentiment!
 
That would be worthy of a tattoo in particularly classic/well crafted verse (should also be a quote). It would be a nice compliment to "Fear is the mind-killer."

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 13, 2017, 05:14AMQuote from: timothy42b on Mar 13, 2017, 05:10AMBut it may be the other way around.  Every book in the Bible, old or new testament, was written by Jewish writers (one was a convert, the others were born Jewish.)  It is not surprising that there should be some continuity and consistency.  Where we probably go wrong is when we overlay modern Christian ideas and miss the essential Jewishness.Or possibly we overlay modern skeptical ideas and miss the essential sameness. 
Or we allow our doctrinal preconceptions to "inform" us a bit too much to get at what's really there rather than what affirms them ... but yeah, that's the basic idea. Skepticism is a very good thing, until/unless it's used selectively/strategically and turns into bias defense of course. Then it heads toward dogmatism--sacred cowism ... heh.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 12, 2017, 09:09PMyour preconceptions are showing again

Oh sure. But which preconceptions are more reasonable? Every other religious grouping in the world would agree with me that Christianity and its god are the created things, substituting instead, mutatus mutandis, their version of 'the truth' for whatever it is that they feel predated the world. It's not just us evil irreligious people that have an alternative take on this question - in fact, the majority of humanity would disagree with this Christian position.

Quote from: MoominDave on Mar 13, 2017, 06:25AM It's not just us evil irreligious people that have an alternative take on this question - in fact, the majority of humanity would disagree with this Christian position.

Yes, either religion X is right and the others wrong, or Y is right and the others wrong, etc.

I came across an old (90s) Spong book at a yard sale last week.  Simplified, he argues that the "did it happen" question is misguided.  If you answer yes, you lose the science; if you answer no, you lose the divine.  Interesting take. 

Quote from: MoominDave on Mar 13, 2017, 06:25AMOh sure. But which preconceptions are more reasonable? Every other religious grouping in the world would agree with me that Christianity and its god are the created things, substituting instead, mutatus mutandis, their version of 'the truth' for whatever it is that they feel predated the world. It's not just us evil irreligious people that have an alternative take on this question - in fact, the majority of humanity would disagree with this Christian position.

Interesting switch here from an argument from what is more "reasonable" to an argument from what the majority of the world believes.  In light of the foibles of the majority of the world being dead wrong many times in the past, and likely so right now, of course, your argument is a non-sequitor here.  I understand that you have really conflated 2 arguments here, but the way you have stated them, your last claim doesn't flow from your 1st.  Just thought I'd point that out.  Both appeals can be made, but both are not self-evident because how one defines "reason" often can be a form of begging the question and appeals to what the majority believes have to deal with the fact that many of the firmly held beliefs in this world would not pass muster for a truly hard-core rationalist.  In fact many of them are not at all thought out rationally in any sense of the word.  Both thinking believers and thinking unbelievers can agree on that point.

Not trying to hijack the biblical post here, but couldn't resist pointing this out.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 13, 2017, 12:25PM  In fact many of them are not at all thought out rationally in any sense of the word.  Both thinking believers and thinking unbelievers can agree on that point.

Not trying to hijack the biblical post here, but couldn't resist pointing this out.

I would agree with that.  Most people do not examine most beliefs rationally and it does not affect the perceived certainty at all.

We should not however create a false equivalence.  There are beliefs that could stand up to rational examination and beliefs that simply cannot. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Mar 13, 2017, 12:41PMI would agree with that.  Most people do not examine most beliefs rationally and it does not affect the perceived certainty at all.

We should not however create a false equivalence.  There are beliefs that could stand up to rational examination and beliefs that simply cannot. 

But we still have to deal with the question of how we determine what is rational, which is a question of epistemology and not self-evident by simply appealing to the term.  Hard core empiricists, idealists of various sorts, Christian theists, atheists are going to have serious disagreements about epistemology.  Those differences define what is considered "rational."

Thomas Jefferson said he held truths to be self-evident, but just try to get any group of any size to agree on what is "self-evident" and see the sparks fly.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 13, 2017, 12:48PMBut we still have to deal with the question of how we determine what is rational, which is a question of epistemology and not self-evident by simply appealing to the term.  Hard core empiricists, idealists of various sorts, Christian theists, atheists are going to have serious disagreements about epistemology.  Those differences define what is considered "rational."At its core any effective epistemic system will be required to effectively address the vagaries of human brain ownership--most notably our inclination to fool ourselves for various reasons (i.e. personal affirmation/confirmation bias). Any epistemic system that fails to adequately address this fundamental aspect of human brain ownership will fail.
 
Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 13, 2017, 12:48PMThomas Jefferson said he held truths to be self-evident, but just try to get any group of any size to agree on what is "self-evident" and see the sparks fly.Yup ... he was wrong. It was just effective sociopolitical writing--evocative in making its point.

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Mar 13, 2017, 05:16AMEvil as a consequence, even a potential consequence, is the responsibility of the creator (Isaiah 45), especially an omnipotent one, unless of course you change "omnipotent" into something else (modify/qualify it), which is what pretty much all believers do (no choice if they're at all rational--this has never failed to show up in questioning in my own experience, so it's more a matter of the given believer's comfort with the necessities impose upon us by reality), but many just can't handle any kind of interpretive license that's too overt for them to miss (not targeting present company in those crosshairs as far a I know).

I agree that everything is God's responsibility (but not that he is accountable to us) and that includes the good and the bad.  However I disagree that the only rational response to that is to adjust God's omnipotence eg to remove "evil" from his power and want to point out that many christians have other responses to the problem.

Its a problem in the sense that we would expect that an all powerful being that loved us to make things comfortable for us, to do things that we wanted and not to allow bad things to happen to us.  So when reality doesn't work that way we question our beliefs or our understanding of reality.

Even christians need the world as they see it to make sense and if reality keeps contradicting and biting their beliefs, then it is generally the beliefs that are changed to match reality (in my experience). Some christians as you say modify the scope of God's omnipotence but there are other responses too, eg
- change the definition of love from doing what we want to doing what is ultimately best for us - this is how I think the bible uses love.
- deciding that you don't understand how God is running the world but trust that God is in control, that he has a purpose for everything and that as he has promised, everything is for the best for those that love him.
- reject the idea the God is omnipotent or loving.

Some believers who have recently wrestled with the problem include Feinberg, Carson and (I think) Plantinga.  Feinberg's 'The Many Faces of Evil' is IMO an especially rational discussion of the topic (of theodicy) as opposed to Carson's which was more for the 'thinking' christian (excuse the oxymoron )

Incidentally:
- Feinberg argues that there are many different problems of evil (eg natural, moral ...) and that each has its own solution.  So the answer to 'Why does God allow pain and suffering caused by natural disasters' would be independent of the answer to 'Why does God allow people to be cruel to each other"
- in my experience people reject solutions to evil because they don't like them rather than that they are wrong.  eg saying God allows suffering because it will have a much greater benefit in the afterlife
- I also think that every world view has a problem of evil, ie everyone should be able to account for the existence of pain and suffering.  so when evaluating a world view we can ask
  1. how does it account for the existence of evil
  2. how solution does it deal for evil

QuoteActually that would more than likely be projection.

I was talking about Dave's preconceptions.  You're not suggesting that HE is projecting his doctrines are you?!

Actually I think that we all project our worldviews when we are discussing things, not just scripture.

I think that we all have preconceptions about how the world works, call it a "world view" if you like or even Weltanschauung.  I think parts of our worldview operates at a conscious level and is open to articulation and discussion, but other parts are subconscious and are not easily articulated.


Quote When your doctrines "inform" you on scripture, that's by definition an unobscured set of preconceptions. If you're looking through accurized historical lenses, however (and you accept the rather large error margins inherent to the discipline, and of course your history is informed by science and sound epistemology and critical thinking ... etc), that would be a genuinely informed view. Wiser theologians tend to allow for interpretations from other theological schools of thought as entirely reasonable alternative views even if they don't agree with them (usually [generalization notice], when someone has plenty of experience as well as plenty of knowledge, they kinda chill on matters of these kind of differences--a particularly stark aspect of military culture, by the way ... just a side note there).

I hope my doctrines are informed by scripture rather than vice versa but recognise that my preconceptions often interfere with my understanding.  I also think that that's the case for everyone.

In my experience the ability of people to chill on matters of difference is inversely proportional to how important the think the difference is.  Its difficult to be tolerant of differences that are significant, eg the value of epistemology

Quote Can you elaborate on that (just curious ... seems I maybe missed some contextual disagreement/correction/explanation)?

We mentioned earlier that it was thought that the book was written in Alexandria at a time when the Jew's were being persecuted, so I thought it reasonable that the book would be written to "rally the troops" ie to comfort and encourage the Jew's

Quote Please continue ... heh (particularly if you were about to elaborate on the previous sentence).

it doesn't relate to "rallying the troops" but how some statements in this book were similar to statements of Jesus in the gospels and Paul in Romans.  This suggested to me that Jesus and Paul's ideas were formed out of nothing, but had a context in historical Jewish thought

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 13, 2017, 12:25PMInteresting switch here from an argument from what is more "reasonable" to an argument from what the majority of the world believes.
Actually it's an argument pointing out your bias, but presuppositionalism is all about denying that's a problem in spite of the fact we know this is a critical, fundamental issue for human brain owners.

Reply moved to: Religion Matters: Take 3

reply moved to the Religion thread

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 13, 2017, 10:27PM

Feinberg teaches at my alma mater.  His now deceased brother was a professor of mine there.  Not only does he have a PhD in philosophy from the University of Chicago where his dissertation was on the topic of theodicy, he has personally struggled with the issue because his wife has struggled with a lifelong painful disease.  So his discussion is not just that of an ivory tower thinker unlike some.  Yet he defends a robust view of divine sovereignty as he addresses the question of theodicy.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Mar 13, 2017, 08:33PMFeinberg teaches at my alma mater.  His now deceased brother was a professor of mine there.  Not only does he have a PhD in philosophy from the University of Chicago where his dissertation was on the topic of theodicy, he has personally struggled with the issue because his wife has struggled with a lifelong painful disease.  So his discussion is not just that of an ivory tower thinker unlike some.  Yet he defends a robust view of divine sovereignty as he addresses the question of theodicy.
It's interesting how we choose to perceive things sometimes ... what's recognized as lending credibility or bias and what's not, and under what circumstances.
 
Lately I'm feeling compelled to go back into the ivory towers, back into psychology, to study the psychology of belief and how we can learn to manage our cognitive power plant more effectively. I also find Kellyanne Conway fascinating ... in a frequently maddening sort of way (and I'm sure that last bit would make her happy ... heh).

Besides Feinberg's serious philosophical work on the problem of evil, he has also written some more popular level books that focuses on his personal struggles due to his wife's serious illness.  One of those should be read together with his more technical work.

Here are the links:

https://www.amazon.com/Where-God-Personal-Finding-Suffering/dp/0805430415/ref=la_B001JRTP8Q_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489517495&sr=1-10

https://www.amazon.com/When-There-Are-Easy-Answers/dp/0825444128/ref=pd_cp_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0825444128&pd_rd_r=9T6AJR5HVFWVCK01T163&pd_rd_w=uxLaI&pd_rd_wg=CmL6S&psc=1&refRID=9T6AJR5HVFWVCK01T163

https://www.amazon.com/Deceived-God-Journey-Experience-Suffering/dp/089107886X/ref=la_B001JRTP8Q_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489517495&sr=1-11

BTW, here's the link to his large philosophical work:

https://www.amazon.com/Many-Faces-Evil-Revised-Expanded/dp/1581345674/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Sirach 2 text

Highlights

 - Love and Fear the Lord

Summary

 - God tests those who serve him, so be humble and steadfast
 - and hope because none who have trusted the Lord have been disappointed
 - Woe to those who are slack when the time of reckoning comes
 - those who fear and love the Lord seek to please him
 - for he is merciful

Questions and Observations

1) Resuming normal programming.
2) This is similar to Hebrews 12 but has a much heavier focus on duties and fear.

Sirach 3 text

Highlights

 - Respect your parents, be humble and be generous to the poor

Summary

 - The Lord loves parents more than children so honor and respect your parents
 - Look after them in their old age
 - serve with humility
 - be open to new learning and don't be proud
 - be generous to the poor

Questions and Observations

1) some instructions on how to be good.  Similar to James.

Sirach 4 text

Highlights

 - More instruction on living

Summary

 - Don't be mean to the poor or distressed
 - be a good guy
 - Wisdom is great
 - here are some wise tips for life

Questions and Observations

1) Just some general guidelines on living wisely that would be suitable for the godly or the ungodly
2) I just noticed that Sirach has 51 chapters of advice.

Sirach 5 text
Sirach 6 text

Highlights

 - advice for life

Summary

 - Don't think you are too rich to be judged
 - or assume that God will always forgive you
 - be consistent and only speak if you know what you are talking about so you don't cause harm
 - be faithful to your firends and don't be ruled by passion

 - make many friends but be careful who you trust
 - reliable friends are very valuable
 - be self-disciplined and you will be rewarded and able to acheive much
 - follow the wise and the intelligent and learn from them

Questions and Observations

1) looks like good advice.

Sirach 7 text

Highlights

 - more advice.

Summary

 - don't do evil or injustice and you won't suffer from them
 - don't seek favours from those in power because you risk being drawn in to corruption
 - Don't get into the habit of sinning
 - Don't despise hard work
 - Value friends above money, respect your property, honour your parents, be generous to the poor

Questions and Observations

1) Its unrealistic and unbiblical to say that you won't suffer from evil or unjustice if you don't do it.
2) Ummm, looking after your wives is in the same paragraph as looking after your farm animals.

Sirach 8 text

Highlights

 - prudence and common sense

Summary

 - don't pick fights with the rich or powerful because you're likely to lose
 - don't pick on the poor and unfortunate either
 - don't disdain the advice of those wiser and elder
 - don't make bad situations worse
 - only pick battles that you can win

Questions and Observations

1) is dain the opposite of disdain? gruntle that of disgruntle?

Sirach 9 text
Sirach 10 text

Highlights

 - advice about women and friends, rulers and pride

Summary

 - be careful withwomen
 - be careful chosing friends
 - advice on rulers and magistrates
 - warnings about pride

Questions and Observations

1) 9:17,18 is definitely still applicable
2) pride cometh before a fall

Apologies for my absence this last week - and this week's going to be much the same ("Huzzah!", I hear you cry...). Busy times in various ways.

To pick one point out of the above chapters that Martin's been through, the moral of chapter 8 is pragmatic, but is it how the world should work? 'Don't argue with a law person because their greater familiarity will sink you' (and the other phrasings along similar lines in this chapter advising not to tangle with those one can't hope to socially beat) is perhaps a good rule to keep oneself happy in the bubble that one can create for oneself, but I don't think that it should be held as a precept - else the powerful can do as they wish. We've built ourselves a more 'civilised' society now, one where in theory anyone is held accountable for law-breaking, where the state will provide a poor person wronged by a lawmaker with legal support to pursue redress.

Sirach 11 text

Highlights

 - General advice

Summary

 - Humility is strongly associated with wisdom
 - Don't judge a book by its cover
 - Worldly glory is fleeting
 - Withhold judgement until you are informed
 - Focus your energies on a small number of topics
 - Do not rely on building up worldly goods for a happy retirement
 - Keep your promises
 - Humans are quick to forget when times were other than they currently are
 - Be wary of deceitful strangers

Questions and Observations

1) This is all quite Proverbsy. So Dave is pleased.

Sirach 12 text
Sirach 13 text

Highlights

 - advice about trust and friendship

Summary

 - advice on generorsity and trust
 - be cautious on who you befriend
   - you are influcenced by your friends
   - they can exploit and embarrass you
   - don't treat influential people as your equals
   - people tend to hang out with their own kind
   - people suck up to the rich and ignore the poor and humble
   - your nature shows itself on your face

Questions and Observations

1) yes, very proverbsy.  But I don't think that lots of the advice is reliable.  eg "your heart changes your countenance". You should never judge a book by its cover.

Is he saying that? I read it more as an "If you feel happy, people will see you smile" type thing. Admittedly, I haven't read all of these recent chapters in full depth of consideration, but in my perception his average is high. And I like his wry ending to this chapter immediately after that sentiment:
The sign of a happy heart is a cheerful face,
    but to devise proverbs requires painful thinking.

I know the Victorians were very keen on seeing people as "criminal types", with all the attendant phrenological nuttiness that they ornamented their idea with. I don't think Ben Sirach is doing the same here?

Sirach 14 text

Highlights

 - How to be happy

Summary

 - Prevention is better than cure when losing happiness is at risk
 - There is no point accruing wealth just to sit on it
 - Do good now because you don't know when death will take you
 - The pursuit of wisdom leads to happiness

Questions and Observations

1) As you might expect Martin, I heartily approve of the explicit placing of happiness as a major life goal. It's nice to see it emphasised so here.

Quote from: MoominDave on Mar 22, 2017, 06:53AMIs he saying that? I read it more as an "If you feel happy, people will see you smile" type thing. Admittedly, I haven't read all of these recent chapters in full depth of consideration, but in my perception his average is high. And I like his wry ending to this chapter immediately after that sentiment:
The sign of a happy heart is a cheerful face,
    but to devise proverbs requires painful thinking.

I know the Victorians were very keen on seeing people as "criminal types", with all the attendant phrenological nuttiness that they ornamented their idea with. I don't think Ben Sirach is doing the same here?

I think your right.  Especially as the happiness theme is continued next chapter.

Quote from: MoominDave on Mar 22, 2017, 06:59AMSirach 14 text

...

Do good now because you don't know when death will take you

It seems to me that the text seems more self centred than being altruistic, sharing your wealth is with your friends, so it seems to me that the advice is more 'eat, drink, and be merry with your friends for tomorrow you might die' than share your wealth with the poor and needy, like he mentioned in chapter 4.

Quote1) As you might expect Martin, I heartily approve of the explicit placing of happiness as a major life goal. It's nice to see it emphasised so here.

Just as an aside, blessed is often a synonym for happy, so you should enjoy Jesus' beatitudes too.

Sirach 15 text

Highlights

 - the benefits of wisdom
 - take responsibility

Summary

 - whover fears the Lord will seek wisdom and she will reward him richly
 - don't blame the Lord for your decisions: its you're own fault!

Questions and Observations

1) I think the chapter divisions are consistently unwise.
2) It seems Sirach overheard our discussion on responsibility He's obviously a wise man.

Sirach 16 text
Sirach 17 text

Highlights

 - God: his wrath, mercy and creation

Summary

 - having ungodly children is worse than not having kids at all
 - 1 intelligent person can fill a city but a clan of outlaws can make it desolate
 - wicked people get together and cause big problems
 - God is merciful but also wrathful, he forgives but also punishes
 - don't think that you can hide from the Lord's justice, that would be foolish
 - God showed his wisdom through the order of creation, which runs according to its purpose

 - he made man to rule over creation,
 - he gave them knowledge and his law
 - and he will hold them accountable

 - repent from your evil
 - for the Lord is merciful

Questions and Observations

1) I guess converting "ungodly' into 'wicked' would work for Dave.
2) Sirach gives some details about Hebrew history/myths associated with Lot, so is probably referring to God's jusdgement of Sodom and Gomorrah
3) Sirach assumes that intelligent people aren't outlaws. I think he's showing some bias there.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 22, 2017, 07:27PM
Just as an aside, blessed is often a synonym for happy, so you should enjoy Jesus' beatitudes too.



Off topic, but I read an unusual translation of the beatitudes that translated the word Blessed as Congratulations.  Congratulations to the poor, for you shall etc.

It seemed very incongruous and off putting.  But in some ways it makes sense. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Mar 24, 2017, 06:06AMOff topic, but I read an unusual translation of the beatitudes that translated the word Blessed as Congratulations.  Congratulations to the poor, for you shall etc.

It seemed very incongruous and off putting.  But in some ways it makes sense. 

What translation was that?  I've never heard that suggestion before.

Here's a good short study of the Greek word "markarios" which lies behind the English word Blessed.

http://www.crossmarks.com/brian/allsaintb.htm

I don't remember where I saw it.

I checked Gateway for some different sources.  There are some variations, but most translations use either Blessed or Happy. 

I did find this:
https://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/scholars-version-translation/

as well as several other references to Congratulations and a Scholars Version.  I'm not sure if they are synonymous.

FWIW there are 2 greek words translated a blessed.

One is markarios which mean blessed in a happy sense and the other is eulogia which means blessed as in saying something good about you, I understand it as the opposite of cursed.

Wisdom 18 text
Wisdom 19 text

Highlights

 - God is great, don't be ungracious, develop self control

Summary

 - God lives forever and created the whole universe
 - you can't diminish or increase his power
 - humans are can't God at all, and are specks compared to him
 - that's why he is patient with us and has mercy on us
 - he has compassion for all of humanity not just his neighbours like we do.
 - when you are doing good deeds don't be ungracious
 - don't be rash in your words or emotions, be cautious, take the chance to think and prepare
 - control yourself, don't just pander your base desires
 - otherwise you'd be led astray by wine and women and won't become rich
 - don't trust others too quickly or gossip
 - wisdom is found in the fear of the Lord, not wickedness
 - those who are god-fearing idiots are better than intelligent villains
 - you can judge a person by his appearance and the first one at that.

Questions and Observations

1) Sirach assumes that we only show compassion for our neighbours.  I think that we do tend to be more compassionate to our own family and 'tribe' than others, but with modern media we also are affected by the plight of people from all over the world.

2) you can follow his logic through these paragraphs, including the section on God is not random.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 23, 2017, 04:41PMSirach 16 text
Sirach 17 text

1) I guess converting "ungodly' into 'wicked' would work for Dave.
Pretty much.

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 23, 2017, 04:41PM2) Sirach gives some details about Hebrew history/myths associated with Lot, so is probably referring to God's jusdgement of Sodom and Gomorrah
And the "600,000 foot soldiers" I think references the Exodus escape story?

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 23, 2017, 04:41PM3) Sirach assumes that intelligent people aren't outlaws. I think he's showing some bias there.

A touching trust in political authority...

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 24, 2017, 06:32PMSirach 18 text
Sirach 19 text
Corrected the links...

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 24, 2017, 06:32PM - those who are god-fearing idiots are better than intelligent villains

Actually, in this line he takes the opposite conclusion to the one you took above - "the highly intelligent who transgress the law". It's interesting that the bad clever people in this comparison might or might not be followers of his religion - it isn't religion that he uses to define this end of the contrast. Though the use of "God-fearing" does suggest the contrast.

Sirach 20 text

Highlights

 - The symptoms and fruits of both wisdom and the lack of wisdom
 - Ways in which things may turn out unexpectedly

Summary

 - It's possible to make things worse when trying to make things better. Be cautious in issuing reproval.
 - But stewing on things is always bad.
 - Freely admit your mistakes, you'll be better off for it.
 - Overtalking alienates people, as does the wrongful assumption of authority.
 - Being quiet may or may not indicate wisdom. The quiet wise will pick the right moment to open their mouths
 - Things are not always what they seem
 - Beware coarseness
 - A fool giving a proverb may well not give it meaningfully
 - Don't promise what you won't keep, even if you feel it socially awkward
 - Liars are appalling people
 - Wise and sensible behaviour tends to result in worldly advancement
 - But bribes are a temptation to anyone, no matter how wise
 - Hiding your wisdom is not good

Questions and Observations

1) There's plenty of modern relevance in this chapter. For example, I'm currently somewhat regretting a gently phrased rebuke last night that was (correctly, but not wantedly) interpreted as a sharper word than the ones that I actually used. Oops.
2) The sainted Trump should learn from vv24-26:
24 A lie is an ugly blot on a person;
    it is continually on the lips of the ignorant.
25 A thief is preferable to a habitual liar,
    but the lot of both is ruin.
26 A liar’s way leads to disgrace,
    and his shame is ever with him.
Surely never has a person lied more - so often, so persistently - than he does. He is simply a disgrace to humanity.
3) I've only just noted - 100 pages up!

Sirach 21 text

Highlights

 - Measure your thoughts and deeds

Summary

 - Keep away from bad things; they are dangerous
 - The maintenance of wealth requires responsibility
 - Embrace correction
 - Do not borrow to build your house
 - Control yourself
 - Stupidity is hard to fix...
 - ...and misdirected cleverness can turn very sour
 - The thoughts and words of fools are often a burden; contrast with those of intelligent people
 - Fools do not recognise wisdom when they see it
 - Respect privacy
 - Don't gossip

Questions and Observations

1) We all wish we didn't need to borrow money in order to own a house!
2) Regarding "panic and insolence" "wasting away riches", there have been countless examples over the ages of the cycle where someone works hard to accrue wealth, passing it on to their children to safeguard, but then a descendant arises who is preoccupied with wastage in the name of pleasure, and it is all lost.

Sirach 22 text

Highlights

 - Social duties

Summary

 - Those who idle are shunned
 - Children that do not behave in the prescribed fashion disgrace the parents
 - Teaching a fool is hard work
 - Avoid stupid people; they'll bring you down
 - Subject your thoughts to due reflection; then the foundations of your conclusions will be secure
 - Friendship will bear much, but there are limits
 - Stand by those in need; your positions will change in time
 - Grant me the ability to keep my mouth closed when I ought to

Questions and Observations

1) Ben Sira's society was harsher on those that neglected their duty than we are. We live in an easier time.
2) And their take on children's duties is novel to modern eyes. "The birth of a daughter is a loss", eh? Rarely is patriarchal doctrine so flagrantly codified. And in the Christian holy book too. No wonder we still have some weird gender-based hang-ups. Ben Sira's recommendation of regular thrashing is not one for modern eyes either.
3) His general take on "foolishness" is rather reductive, I have noticed, and continue to notice in this chapter. He seems to regard some people as fools, unchangeable. Yes, some people glory in their ignorance and take pains to stay in their animal state. But many who are ignorant don't. Perhaps he would have felt differently if he'd lived in an age of universal education.
4) I can't work out whether he is or isn't lumping the "ungodly" in with the fools. If he is, <insert obvious observation here>.
5) On the same theme as (3), he has abandoned hope of bringing enlightenment to those that haven't learned things. This is good advice for self-preservation, but bad advice if one wishes build a more generally enlightened society.
6) The advice to aid those in hard times is couched in terms of them returning the favour when they are in good times. This cuts to the nub of the doctrine of "enlightened self-interest", but expresses it in barer times than most of us think when actually performing such actions.

Quote from: MoominDave on Mar 26, 2017, 04:42AMSirach 22 text

...

2) And their take on children's duties is novel to modern eyes. "The birth of a daughter is a loss", eh? Rarely is patriarchal doctrine so flagrantly codified. And in the Christian holy book too. No wonder we still have some weird gender-based hang-ups. Ben Sira's recommendation of regular thrashing is not one for modern eyes either.

Just pointing out that this isn't really part of the Christian Holy book for Protestants, so I've got no problem agreeing with your dislike for this. 

Quote4) I can't work out whether he is or isn't lumping the "ungodly" in with the fools. If he is, <insert obvious observation here>.

Wisdom literature does tend to do that lumping doesn't it.

Sirach 23 text

Highlights

 - Control yourself

Summary

 - O Lord protect me from ruining myself by not being self controlled
 - Control what you say cause it it can get you into all sorts of trouble if you don't
 - Illicit sex will get you into trouble
   - men will be punished by God
   - women will be punished by the assembly

Questions and Observations

1) The first paragraph continues on from the last couple of verses in chapter 22
2) illicit sex: men can hide it so they will think that they can get away with it. So Sirach understands that men will have to be punished by God who sees all.  But this is typically not the case for women, who has to face obvious consequences for their actions and can be punished by the local assembly. Obviously our atheist will see this differently.

Did you notice that we also had "haughty eyes" again?

Quote from: drizabone on Mar 26, 2017, 10:14PM2) illicit sex: men can hide it so they will think that they can get away with it. So Sirach understands that men will have to be punished by God who sees all.  But this is typically not the case for women, who has to face obvious consequences for their actions and can be punished by the local assembly. Obviously our atheist will see this differently.

Well, I concur that, given the premise that we're being watched by Yahweh, this is a sensible thing to write. One uses the tools at one's disposal, and Ben Sira's aim is to encourage Yahweh-believers to behave well. To point out to them that what they believe implies that certain morally problematic sexual liaisons will cause them great trouble later is good sense on his part. He's not writing for an atheist audience, even though much of what he writes can be taken as useful moral instruction by anyone, regardless of religious position.

I disagree with him on visiting the sins of the adulterous parents on the resulting children. This is I suppose an incentive to the parents not to try to move forward with a new relationship - the illegimate never becomes legitimate. Was this on balance useful to his society? It would help keep people from straying, but it would condemn innocent parties to a life of ostracisation. That seems an obvious moral wrong to me.

I was interested to see what he picked out as important here regarding sexual crimes - incest and the ever-popular adultery. No mention of either rape or homosexuality, both of which have always been common enough to be widely known, and were treated inconsistently by ancient commentators. The OT's attitude to the former is not always totally clear or indeed sane (cf. stoning the victim for not being able to attract attention). In contrast, it deploys opprobrium in no uncertain terms towards the latter. Perhaps these omissions tell us something about the visibility of various practices in his society. Or perhaps Ben Sira's neighbour's son and daughter had been recently shamed for keeping it in the family, and it was on his mind at the time.

Sirach 24 text

Highlights

 - Wisdom is good, m'kay?

Summary

 - The merits of wisdom advertise themselves
 - The Mosaic books are held wise

Questions and Observations

1) Quite straightforward, this one, I think.

Sirach 25 text

Highlights

 - Specific things that Ben Sira does and doesn't like

Summary

 - Ben Sira takes pleasure in people getting on with each other
 - He specifically hates boastful poor people, lying rich people, and elderly adulterers
 - Diligence in youth allows one to be valued for wisdom in old age
 - Happy people: Those with good children, those that see their enemies disappear, those that marry well, those that farm wisely, those that talk moderately and correctly, those not trapped serving someone unworthy, those with friendship, those who are listened to
 - Being wise is good, but being devout more so
 - Ben Sira's nightmares: having his heart broken, a woman who is wicked, being mistreated by those that hate him,  being bitten by a snake, angering a woman
 - Evil women are scary! Don't marry a woman for beauty or wealth, make sure she is a nice person. Else you'll be very sorry over a long period of time.

Questions and Observations

1) Ben Sira sounds like a nice man here in the first verse. But then his second verse seems aimed at some particular people that he has in mind in its strange and nasty specificity... All in all, this chapter gives us some insight into his state of mind and priorities. I surmise that he must have cause to engage with some quite angry women in his life... I wonder what his wife was like... And I wonder what he was like, if he made her angry...
2) The idea that what is inside shows on the face appears again (v17), and this time it seems to me clear that he does in fact mean the faulty idea that you can tell character reliably from a person's outside. No excuses for you this time, Ben Sira!

Thought some of you might be interested in these lectures on the historical and geographical accuracy of the canonical gospels.

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2017/03/27/simon-gathercole-on-the-reliability-of-new-testament-geography/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29

Hopefully I'll get to them before we get to the Gospels.

Sirach 26 text

Highlights

 - On wives.

Summary

 - Good wife, happy life
 - Bad wife, sad life
 - a good wife is charming, skillful, silent, modest and beautiful, with nice legs and a pretty face.
 - faithfulness in marriage is rewarding
 - Sirach tells us of some things that depress him and of his dislike for merchants and tradesmen

Questions and Observations

1) I always thought it was 'happy wife, happy life'
2) Do you think that Sirach's sentiments on wives are the same as those expressed in Proverbs or worse?
3) The chapter breaks consistently have the last few verses of a chapter related to the first paragraph of the next.  It happens so often that it seems to be deliberate but I can't think why it would be done.  any ideas?