Anyone else struggling with Bible stories?? (CC)

[Parrothead]

I think in part, it's traditional. That which has been changed may be associated with negative societal changes that are understood to be positively correlated due to timing. The days when Americans went to church on Sunday and had prayer in school were the days before kids brought multiple semi-automatic weapons to school. Ergo, traditional beliefs = traditional ethics, which translates to "safety."

 

There are theological reasons, too. For example, if you deny a literal interpretation of creation, you reject the traditional idea of sin. If you reject the traditional idea of sin, you have no need for the traditional concept of redemption. If you have no need for redemption, salvation is irrelevant. Faith in Jesus is unnecessary. For a person who is concerned that Hell is a very real place, believing the wrong thing, even if it's well intended, is an unacceptable gamble.

You may have something in your first paragraph. I would like to point out though in your second paragraph, you've made assumptions about all of christanity which are not true. I'd rather not debate the differences in the various Christian churches, but I would like to point out that there are many Christians who do not believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story. Yet these Christians do believe in the traditional idea of sin. Sin is simply human disobedience. I sin all the time. I often utilize my faith's traditional way to bring myself back into grace which is what I believe Jesus taught us to do. Yet I do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Nor do I believe in a literal six day creation.

[albeto.]

You may have something in your first paragraph. I would like to point out though in your second paragraph, you've made assumptions about all of christanity which are not true. I'd rather not debate the differences in the various Christian churches, but I would like to point out that there are many Christians who do not believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story. Yet these Christians do believe in the traditional idea of sin. Sin is simply human disobedience. I sin all the time. I often utilize my faith's traditional way to bring myself back into grace which is what I believe Jesus taught us to do. Yet I do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Nor do I believe in a literal six day creation.

 

You said you've never understood how some Christian churches preach a literal Bible. I offered a suggestion as to how some Christian churches preach a literal bible. 

 

Some, not all.

 

:)

[JenniferB]

There are Christians who like to go around pretending their favourite psalm doesn't involve smashing the heads of babies onto rocks but it's not me.

Are you referring to Psalm 137? I was wondering about this verse "dashing the little ones upon the rock," last Lent because we sing it over and over and I thought it was talking about babies. My Godmother told me that the Church Fathers teach us that the little ones are the little sins or the little bad thoughts that lead us to sin. It makes perfect sense in the context of Lent because that time of year is specifically for spiritual rigor leading to deep repentance. The whole Psalm is about how we are in a foreign land longing for Zion, which again makes perfect sense in the context of Lent, this life of passions being the foreign land and Zion being Heaven.

[Rosie_0801]

People tend to settle, permanently or seasonally, in or near river basins. Rivers sometimes flood, occasionally catastrophically.

 

It's not surprising that we have stories of the sun, moon, stars, wind, storms, fire, water, death, etc. passed down in most cultures' mythologies. These elements were (and still mostly are) beyond our control, so our only apparent recourse was to seek the intervention of some supernatural power. I'll wager even most atheists occasionally mutter "Please, please, please, please, please," under their breath over a dice roll or similar situation. I know I do, and like annandatje lack the "belief" gene... if it's even that simple. :)

Sure, I only commented because someone commented on flood stories being prevalent in Middle Eastern cultures and they are common a long way from there too.

 

This is completely off topic, but I was tickled recently to learn that Aboriginal stories from South Eastern Australia about the sky being dark for months corresponded with a huge volcano blowing up in NZ. 

[Parrothead]

Yes, this is a big issue for me. Exactly. Even the idea of Atonement as necessary; that a blood sacrifice is necessary to "pay for" sin makes NO SENSE to me. Even when I was a devout Evangelical, it didn't make sense to me and I thought old hymns like "Nothing But the Blood of Jesus" were creepy and bizarre. I ignored that in an intentional way. I didn't want to examine it's nonsensicalness, because it's clear to me that there is no purpose for the Cross if I don't believe in original sin and the Fall.

 

Dawn, I understand that many Catholics and EO do view the Bible differently from the tradition from which I came. My parents don't even consider Catholics to be "real Christians." What I don't understand is how a RC can believe the Gospel accounts as true, as showing the divinity of Christ, of illustrating that He is the Messiah, and so on, but not view the Bible as inerrant. If one part is a cultural myth that demonstrates a purpose, why isn't Jesus a myth also?

 

For my part, I don't care if a literal snake actually talked to a naked lady in an actual Paradise called Eden and she literally ate a piece of fruit that was hanging on a literal, actual tree OR if that is allegory for humans were intended to live paradisiacal lives, but they rejected God in pride, so they need to be reconciled to Him. The outcome is the same in either instance, just as Albeto said. Did our ancestors mess up, passing messed-up-edness on to all humanity ever after? Does God, who made us with the potential to choose good or evil, then have no way besides shed blood to excuse our evil choices? This is one of the many absurdities of the faith, IMO. (Sorry if that is offensive to some believers.)

RCs don't see the Bible as something to be taken as literal. We do see it is inerrant. Context is important as is knowing it was written using many literary devices. Especially when it comes to the OT. We have to remember the OT is more the story of the Jewish people rather than a Christian one. It is used to understand life from a jewish perspective.

 

The RCs believe we have an unbroken line from Jesus to the most newly ordained priests. Each Catholic priest can trace his ordination from the bishop that ordained him to the bishop who ordained him all the way down the line of bishops back to one of the apostles after the resurrection.

[JenniferB]

I am sorry to disagree, but the NIV specifically uses the word "infants." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+137&version=NIV

And other translations say "little ones," but what's most important is the meaning. Why would the Bible say this, and why would the most ancient church prescribe this Psalm to be sung during Lent, a time of repentance?

 

We can read the words and just take the verse literally and be puzzled at best or puke or loose faith at worst, or we can learn something valuable from those wiser than us. "As the Psalmist said, “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones!â€. Do you understand the spiritual meaning of this? Babylon is the kingdom of the devil and his children are the thoughts. Christ is the Stone. Blessed is, therefore, the one who dashes the evil in himself from the start, destroying it with the eternal stone—Christ." St. Nikolai (Velimirovich)

[Parrothead]

It seems many of us are struggling with this as of late. :grouphug:

 

I was raised in a literal Bible believing church. Even years ago, I remember looking at some of the Old Testament stories with skepticism, but I pretty much ignored it and thought that I just needed more faith. I tend to over think nearly everything, so I chalked it up to that. But recently my wheels have started spinning on it again, on the stories and the things that all you have mentioned. And it's unsettling.

 

Quill, I think you mentioned in another thread of this subject that you might identify more as a Deist. I've wondered the same about myself. I do believe there's a higher power, and we identify that as God. I also think there's a good chance Jesus walked the earth and lived as the Bible portrays. Where I falter is seeing the Bible as a play by play record of human history, and that all these men who lived in a rather narrow period of time have the exclusive lock on all truth.

Questions need answers. It isn't a matter of faith. I hope you can find someone who can answer your questions with the depth you need to grow in your faith.

[Ipsey]

Are you referring to Psalm 137? I was wondering about this verse "dashing the little ones upon the rock," last Lent because we sing it over and over and I thought it was talking about babies. My Godmother told me that the Church Fathers teach us that the little ones are the little sins or the little bad thoughts that lead us to sin. It makes perfect sense in the context of Lent because that time of year is specifically for spiritual rigor leading to deep repentance. The whole Psalm is about how we are in a foreign land longing for Zion, which again makes perfect sense in the context of Lent, this life of passions being the foreign land and Zion being Heaven.

 

That's an interesting play on the verse, but. . . . no.

 

Yes, the first part of this psalm is the grief and longing for Zion, but the second half is clearly about a curse of destruction called onto Babylon for its captivity of Israel. All you have to do is read it in context.

 

"Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

    happy is the one who repays you

    according to what you have done to us.

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants

    and dashes them against the rocks."

 

It's calling death and destruction on not only the adults who are directly to blame for the captivity of the Israelites, but that death should fall on their offspring too. 

 

I'm sure it was much easier to sing those verses believing what your Godmother said and accepting how the Church Fathers have glossed them over. It makes it more palatable, for sure.  But that's not what they say. And I don't at all think that's what the psalmist meant. One just has to read it. If it's symbolic, fine. But then we're back to what's symbolic/what's not?

[Guest]

My dh and I study the bible and the Christian faith a  LOT- our study has not taken us away from the Christian faith but has caused us to delve more deeply in to it, appreciate it, want ot embrace it even more. 

I would suggest some of these resources: Biblical Archeology Review, Our Father Abraham, Reasons to Believe, The Key's to David's City, etc. Studying ancient cultures/ beliefs, archeological finds, science, substantiates the O.T. Understanding the "why's" takes far more time. We have to make a paradigm shift in order to understand and interpret the O.T. because it was an ancient culture, far removed from where we sit now -Interpreting an ancient culture  from a modern or post-modern stance isn't fair to the text or the reader.

 

Not to belabor the point, but another thing that annoys me about The-Bible-Is-God's-Word is exactly this. If the Bible and the message it contains are critical information for every soul, why would it be inaccessible to so many? Why would God record his Plan in a book? For that matter, why wouldn't Jesus be the author of The Book? If Jesus is God (and simultaneously, is God's son - try parsing that one out), why not compile The Book straight-out, instead of needing to "inspire" people for thousands of years and then "inspire" other people to collect and canonize it? And then later "inspire" people to correctly interpret it. Not to mention how many thousands (maybe millions) have "interpreted" scripture to suit themselves, though fully certain that they were interpreting God's Word correctly. 

 

How is it that some people who comb the scriptures with extreme thoroughness, read apologetics books, watch movies, etc. - how is it that any such person could become less convinced through greater study? I have a little joke I sometimes tell: "What do you call a person who has read the entire Bible cover-to-cover?"

 

"An atheist." ;) 

 

But, seriously, if God intends the Bible to be the way we learn about Him and draw closer to him, why would it ever have the opposite effect? 

[Parrothead]

That's an interesting play on the verse, but. . . . no.

 

Yes, the first part of this psalm is the grief and longing for Zion, but the second half is clearly about a curse of destruction called onto Babylon for its captivity of Israel. All you have to do is read it in context.

 

"Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you

according to what you have done to us.

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants

and dashes them against the rocks."

 

It's calling death and destruction on not only the adults who are directly to blame for the captivity of the Israelites, but that death should fall on their offspring too.

 

I'm sure it was much easier to sing those verses believing what your Godmother said and accepting how the Church Fathers have glossed them over. It makes it more palatable, for sure. But that's not what they say. And I don't at all think that's what the psalmist meant. One just has to read it. If it's symbolic, fine. But then we're back to what's symbolic/what's not?

Yes, you have the right of the end of this psalm.

 

The first part of the psalm is about the psalmist refusing to sing the sacred songs in an alien land. The singer then swears to exhalt Jerusalem forever. The end is a prayer asking for the ultimate defeat of the Babylonians who have captured the Jewish people.

 

I would like to note that that particular prayer has not been answered.

[JenniferB]

That's an interesting play on the verse, but. . . . no.

 

Yes, the first part of this psalm is the grief and longing for Zion, but the second half is clearly about a curse of destruction called onto Babylon for its captivity of Israel. All you have to do is read it in context.

 

"Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you

according to what you have done to us.

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants

and dashes them against the rocks."

 

It's calling death and destruction on not only the adults who are directly to blame for the captivity of the Israelites, but that death should fall on their offspring too.

 

I'm sure it was much easier to sing those verses believing what your Godmother said and accepting how the Church Fathers have glossed them over. It makes it more palatable, for sure. But that's not what they say. And I don't at all think that's what the psalmist meant. One just has to read it. If it's St. Nikolai (Velimirovich)symbolic, fine. But then we're back to what's symbolic/what's not?

The life of faith is a difficult struggle. I lost faith years ago, that is in my own ability to understand these and many many other puzzling verses on my own or from a plain reading. But, with the wisdom of the Fathers and in context of the Church calendar (set long, long ago) the verse makes *perfect* sense to me, and brings about spiritual fruit if I follow the spiritual meaning of dashing evil thoughts on the rock, who is Christ, which is what Scriptures are meant to do.

 

Edited to add: More interpretation on this verse from the 500's, "But let us search out the meaning of this saying in detail. ‘Babylon’ means confusion. For Babel has the same meaning as Shechem (Gen 12:6). ‘Daughter of Babylon’ means enmity [or the enemy]. First the soul is put to confusion and so it produces sin; but he calls sin miserable, because sin (and I have spoken of this elsewhere) has no existence or substance of its own but is brought into existence through our own carelessness; and again through our correction it is destroyed and loses its existence. Therefore, he says, as though a holy man were speaking to sin, ‘Blessed is he who pays back to you what we have received.’ Let us learn what we have given, what we have received, and what we should desire to give back again. We have given our desire and we received back sin. This text calls ‘happy’ the man who gives back this evil and by this ‘giving back’ he means no longer doing it. Then he adds, ‘Happy the man who takes your little ones and dashes them against a rock’—as if he would say: Happy the man who seized the things generated from you, ‘the enemy’, i.e. the evil thoughts [logismoi], not giving them a chance to grow strong in him and constrain him to evil deeds, but immediately, while they are still in their infancy, before they are fed and grow strong against him, flings them down on the rock, which is Christ. In other words he utterly destroys them by taking refuge in Christ. (pp. 174-5)" St. Dorotheus of Gaza taken from the blog, Logismoi. (St. Dorotheus is recognized in both East and Western Christianity as a Saint.)

[BakersDozen]

Coming back with a thought that hit me this morning as I got ready for church (ironically...still going for the sake of my dc/family but I hang out in the hallway/nursery). There are Bible stories that fill us with shock and horror - stories of little ones being sacrificed on altars or idol's arms. These are sickening stories and sickening practices all for the sake of worshiping/serving a god. Yet there are stories of little ones being "sacrificed" (drowning, killed by soldiers) all for the plan of God. Equally sickening yet perhaps a bit more so because this is a God who supposedly is living, not a dead statue, and could prevent those deaths. Yet he didn't. He allowed (which, in my opinion is equal to causing) these horrific things to happen and all for what, exactly?? So that stories like Moses and Jesus' escape to Egypt could happen? Things like this, stories like this, sicken me and deaden my heart to a "loving" heavenly father. It also makes me wonder as to his intelligence because surely he could accomplish his purposes without bloodshed. Seems he is a bit violent and sadistic as evidenced by the very stories that are supposed to point our hearts to him.

[albeto.]

RCs don't see the Bible as something to be taken as literal. We do see it is inerrant. Context is important as is knowing it was written using many literary devices. Especially when it comes to the OT. We have to remember the OT is more the story of the Jewish people rather than a Christian one. It is used to understand life from a jewish perspective.

 

The RCs believe we have an unbroken line from Jesus to the most newly ordained priests. Each Catholic priest can trace his ordination from the bishop that ordained him to the bishop who ordained him all the way down the line of bishops back to one of the apostles after the resurrection.

 

The concept of the Apostalic Succession notwithstanding, the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus' death was a sacrifice in atonement for the sins of humanity. Quill is right - a blood sacrifice was necessary (the RCC teaches that only the first sacrifice needed blood, subsequent sacrifices, in the form of the eucharist, are bloodless):

 

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities". Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.

 

 It is love "to the end" that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.

 

[CCC 615-16] 

 

When you partake of the eucharist, you acknowledge this with your actions. You affirm your belief that the sacrament of the Mass is the same as the sacrifice on the cross - Christ's atonement for your sins, albeit an unbloody one:

 

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

 

[CCC 1367]

[WishboneDawn]

That's an interesting play on the verse, but. . . . no.

 

Yes, the first part of this psalm is the grief and longing for Zion, but the second half is clearly about a curse of destruction called onto Babylon for its captivity of Israel. All you have to do is read it in context.

 

"Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you

according to what you have done to us.

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants

and dashes them against the rocks."

 

It's calling death and destruction on not only the adults who are directly to blame for the captivity of the Israelites, but that death should fall on their offspring too.

 

I'm sure it was much easier to sing those verses believing what your Godmother said and accepting how the Church Fathers have glossed them over. It makes it more palatable, for sure. But that's not what they say. And I don't at all think that's what the psalmist meant. One just has to read it. If it's symbolic, fine. But then we're back to what's symbolic/what's not?

This is the interpretation I would agree with. It's not nice but it is what it is.

[WishboneDawn]

The life of faith is a difficult struggle. I lost faith years ago, that is in my own ability to understand these and many many other puzzling verses on my own or from a plain reading. But, with the wisdom of the Fathers and in context of the Church calendar (set long, long ago) the verse makes *perfect* sense to me, and brings about spiritual fruit if I follow the spiritual meaning of dashing evil thoughts on the rock, who is Christ, which is what Scriptures are meant to do.

I can not accept the idea that the rock is Christ. The rock is mentioned in the psalms which are a part of the Hebrew Scripture, written long before any inkling of Christianity.

[JenniferB]

Erasing accidental double post.

[JenniferB]

I can not accept the idea that the rock is Christ. The rock is mentioned in the psalms which are a part of the Hebrew Scripture, written long before any inkling of Christianity.

The OT wouldn't have much meaning or use to me at all without understanding it in a Christian manner, as pointing to Christ the Incarnate God.

 

Didn't you say before that you study the Bible from a secular perspective? If so, naturally we would come to different meanings and purposes for many passages.

[Parrothead]

 

The concept of the Apostalic Succession notwithstanding, the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus' death was a sacrifice in atonement for the sins of humanity. Quill is right - a blood sacrifice was necessary (the RCC teaches that only the first sacrifice needed blood, subsequent sacrifices, in the form of the eucharist, are bloodless):

 

 

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities". Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.

 

It is love "to the end" that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.

 

[CCC 615-16]

When you partake of the eucharist, you acknowledge this with your actions. You affirm your belief that the sacrament of the Mass is the same as the sacrifice on the cross - Christ's atonement for your sins, albeit an unbloody one:

 

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

 

[CCC 1367]

I never disagreed with Quills opening statement.

[Parrothead]

Not to belabor the point, but another thing that annoys me about The-Bible-Is-God's-Word is exactly this. If the Bible and the message it contains are critical information for every soul, why would it be inaccessible to so many? Why would God record his Plan in a book? For that matter, why wouldn't Jesus be the author of The Book? If Jesus is God (and simultaneously, is God's son - try parsing that one out), why not compile The Book straight-out, instead of needing to "inspire" people for thousands of years and then "inspire" other people to collect and canonize it? And then later "inspire" people to correctly interpret it. Not to mention how many thousands (maybe millions) have "interpreted" scripture to suit themselves, though fully certain that they were interpreting God's Word correctly.

 

How is it that some people who comb the scriptures with extreme thoroughness, read apologetics books, watch movies, etc. - how is it that any such person could become less convinced through greater study? I have a little joke I sometimes tell: "What do you call a person who has read the entire Bible cover-to-cover?"

 

"An atheist." ;)

 

But, seriously, if God intends the Bible to be the way we learn about Him and draw closer to him, why would it ever have the opposite effect?

I had a response to your questions mostly typed out. Then the browser booted me. Then I thought maybe your questions are rhetorical. If you want I can type it all out again.

[WishboneDawn]

There is no evidence of the Israelites living in Egypt in the first place. No evidence has been found that indicates Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe, or that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds. There are no inscriptions from the relevant period that ever mentioned the Israelites. Although the ancient Egyptians kept extraordinarily detailed records of their daily lives, including all kinds of contracts and transactions, they never mentioned a race of slaves in their midst, and certainly not a race of people who are said to have lived 120-137 years in a culture in which the average life span was about 50.

 

According to Exodus 12:37-38, the Israelites numbered "about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children," plus many non-Israelites and livestock. Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550 men aged 20 and up. The 600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites would have numbered some 2 million people, compared with an entire Egyptian population in 1250 BCE of around 3 to 3.5 million.  Two thirds of the Egyptian population at the time were supposedly immigrant slaves with a natural life span three times the Egyptians, and yet no mention of them anywhere, under any circumstances.

 

It's more plausible that this event never happened, even though it was written down, than to suggest it happened regardless of the lack of corroborating evidence, and all the evidence exists to the contrary. If we consider the fact that Christians reject non-Christian religious texts that do the same, we should expect the same consideration when applying this standard to Christian texts.

 

Archaeological evidence suggests a different explanation: 

 

 Thus there was no migration from Mesopotamia, no sojourn in Egypt, and no exodus. There was no conquest upon the Israelites’ return and, for that matter, no peaceful infiltration such as the one advanced by Yohanan Aharoni. Rather than conquerors, the Hebrews were a native people who had never left in the first place. So why invent for themselves an identity as exiles and invaders? One reason may have been that people in the ancient world did not establish rights to a particular piece of territory by farming or by raising families on it but by seizing it through force of arms. Indigenous rights are an ideological invention of the twentieth century A.D. and are still not fully established in the twenty-first, as the plight of today’s Palestinians would indicate. The only way that the Israelites could establish a moral right to the land they inhabited was by claiming to have conquered it sometime in the distant past. Given the brutal power politics of the day, a nation either enslaved others or was enslaved itself, and the Israelites were determined not to fall into the latter category. [source]

 

Whether this is the case or not, it's worth exploring if one is interested in finding the truth of these historical events.

 

A couple of things.

 

First, do you mean the average lifespan of those who made it to adulthood? Just wondering because average lifespan often gets discussed without the high infant and childhood mortality rates being considered. Once we start talking about those who actually make it to adulthood the lifespans, from what I know (which may not be much) the lifespans aren't terribly different from expected lifespans of many people in certain parts of the world today, generally 60 to 70 years.

 

I think there's one other plausible hypothesis. It may be that there was a smaller event of great importance to the Ancient Hebrews but of little or no importance to the Egyptians. Maybe involving thousands or hundreds on individuals? Maybe concerning a rich landowner rather then the Pharaoh? Some germ of an event that captured Hebrew thought and was inflated (as peoples generally inflate stories i which they played a part) as it was retold. Layers of importance were added and other motives, like land claims (that do play a big part in a lot of the OT stories) came to influence the story.

 

A seductive bit is the name Moses. Moses is also an Egyptian name. That may be coincidence, or not.

 

I don't think it's safe to say the Exodus happened as it is recorded in the Bible but I'm not sure it's safe to decide it's entirely made-up either.

 

Both of those points sort of go nowhere in the larger discussion I realize. :D

[albeto.]

I never disagreed with Quills opening statement.

 

I'm confused. Quill said,

 

Yes, this is a big issue for me. Exactly. Even the idea of Atonement as necessary; that a blood sacrifice is necessary to "pay for" sin makes NO SENSE to me....

To which you replied,

 

RCs don't see the Bible as something to be taken as literal. We do see it is inerrant. Context is important as is knowing it was written using many literary devices. Especially when it comes to the OT...

 

I understood this as you offering an alternative to her interpretation of the necessity of a blood sacrifice. But you say you're not disagreeing with the idea of the necessity of a blood sacrifice. So... would you mind helping me out here? Why did you offer the idea that Catholics don't necessarily read the bible literally? I missed the connection you implied, and I'm curious as to what you mean.

[livetoread]

Psalm 137 is interesting, but it doesn't hold a candle to Deuteronomy 28. It starts out nice, with God detailing all the blessings he will give his people if they keep his commandments. Then things go downhill fast as God describes what he, personally, will do to them if they don't. It's not pretty, with disease, pestilence, siege, and starvation being among the things God will do to them. It culminates with how they are going to be so desperate, they will eat their children. In apparently even worse behavior, they won't share the flesh of their children, but will hog it to themselves. Finally God says that it will delight him just as much to do this as it delighted him to makes them prosperous.

 

So if they didn't keep his commandments, God was going to bring every awful thing he could think of to bear on them, so they ended up eating their children (and not sharing-that just tickles my very dark funny bone), and God is going to enjoy doing it to them. Not sure how one spins that one.

[JenniferB]

Psalm 137 is interesting, but it doesn't hold a candle to Deuteronomy 28. It starts out nice, with God detailing all the blessings he will give his people if they keep his commandments. Then things go downhill fast as God describes what he, personally, will do to them if they don't. It's not pretty, with disease, pestilence, siege, and starvation being among the things God will do to them. It culminates with how they are going to be so desperate, they will eat their children. In apparently even worse behavior, they won't share the flesh of their children, but will hog it to themselves. Finally God says that it will delight him just as much to do this as it delighted him to makes them prosperous.

 

So if they didn't keep his commandments, God was going to bring every awful thing he could think of to bear on them, so they ended up eating their children (and not sharing-that just tickles my very dark funny bone), and God is going to enjoy doing it to them. Not sure how one spins that one.

I have no desire to spin, but I am curious what the Fathers say about Deut 28, so I'm off to investigate. I don't claim any personal wisdom on these things. They've always puzzled me, but my personal response to my own puzzledness has always rang in my heart, "I do not think it mean what you think it mean," then off to find something that resonates with my soul.

[Parrothead]

I'm confused. Quill said,

 

 

To which you replied,

 

 

I understood this as you offering an alternative to her interpretation of the necessity of a blood sacrifice. But you say you're not disagreeing with the idea of the necessity of a blood sacrifice. So... would you mind helping me out here? Why did you offer the idea that Catholics don't necessarily read the bible literally? I missed the connection you implied, and I'm curious as to what you mean.

I was only commenting on her second paragraph in that particular instance. As I didn't disagree with her opening statement and have no experience with... What was it creepy and bizarre hymns?

 

But I could address the inerrant vs infallible question she had about catholic beliefs in her next paragraph.

 

Likewise I don't think I addressed her last paragraph about original sin. I didn't want to step too far into her conversation with you and Dawn.

 

I'm on the iPad and it is hard to do all the multi quoting such as you did above. If you still don't understand what I was referring to I can drag out the laptop do multi quotes and color. I don't mind doing so if the effort is needed. Just say the word.

[Amy in NH]

I have to say that I agree with your husband.  Religion is cultural indoctrination.

[albeto.]

I was only commenting on her second paragraph in that particular instance....

Okay, my bad.

 

Thanks.

 

:)

[Parrothead]

Okay, my bad.

 

Thanks.

 

:)

Not a problem. You and I seem to have a history of not understanding each other in small ways in these types threads. I'm just glad we can remain open to asking questions and being friendly elsewhere on the boards.

[albeto.]

A couple of things.

 

First, do you mean the average lifespan of those who made it to adulthood? Just wondering because average lifespan often gets discussed without the high infant and childhood mortality rates being considered. Once we start talking about those who actually make it to adulthood the lifespans, from what I know (which may not be much) the lifespans aren't terribly different from expected lifespans of many people in certain parts of the world today, generally 60 to 70 years.

 

Would that make a difference in light of the idea that the Israelites supposedly lived 120 years and yet no mention of this was ever recorded?

 

I think there's one other plausible hypothesis. It may be that there was a smaller event of great importance to the Ancient Hebrews but of little or no importance to the Egyptians. Maybe involving thousands or hundreds on individuals? Maybe concerning a rich landowner rather then the Pharaoh? Some germ of an event that captured Hebrew thought and was inflated (as peoples generally inflate stories i which they played a part) as it was retold. Layers of importance were added and other motives, like land claims (that do play a big part in a lot of the OT stories) came to influence the story.

 

But there's no evidence the Israelites were in Egypt at all. Not a lot of Israelites, not a few Israelites. No mention anywhere under any circumstance.

 

A seductive bit is the name Moses. Moses is also an Egyptian name. That may be coincidence, or not.

 

I don't think it's safe to say the Exodus happened as it is recorded in the Bible but I'm not sure it's safe to decide it's entirely made-up either.

 

I think it's perfectly plausible to suggest this story was nothing more than urban myths told again and again, finally recorded, preserved, and centuries later determined to be "divinely inspired." There's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

Both of those points sort of go nowhere in the larger discussion I realize. :D

 

Aw, but what fun is there in only sticking with the larger discussion?

 

;)

[albeto.]

Not a problem. You and I seem to have a history of not understanding each other in small ways in these types threads. I'm just glad we can remain open to asking questions and being friendly elsewhere on the boards.

 

That was entirely my fault. I read Quill's first paragraph and skimmed the rest. I appreciate that you read my questions with the sincerity in which they were asked. Thanks for that. Really.  :)

[Ipsey]

I have no desire to spin, but I am curious what the Fathers say about Deut 28, so I'm off to investigate. I don't claim any personal wisdom on these things. They've always puzzled me, but my personal response to my own puzzledness has always rang in my heart, "I do not think it mean what you think it mean," then off to find something that resonates with my soul.

 

 

I don't mean to badger you, so this is the last I'll say. I hope you'll forgive me if I'm coming off crudely.

 

I think it goes back to what a previous poster (Quill, perhaps?) said. Why can't the writing be clear, if in fact God had it divinely created? Oh, we can't read it ourselves and understand it. It doesn't mean what it says. In fact, we just need other people to spin it and make all the bad parts seem nice, make them suit what we want them to mean, and then say, "YES! This is what resonates with ME. This is what it must actually mean. Not what it says. See, now I've explained it so that it shows God to be the good, benevolent being we know He is." (Except for the actual verses which don't seem to indicate that)

 

But, to read it, and to point out these verses. . . and to have "oh, but it doesn't mean what it says" as the only response makes it that much less believable.  

 

I do understand that you don't want it to mean what it says, its horrible. And, when you find some kind of other interpretation that makes it suit your own pre-conceived beliefs--and what you want it to say-- well, I'm glad its meaningful to you, but that doesn't change what the original writers wrote, and what they actually meant.

 

Now, sit on my hands :)

[WishboneDawn]

The OT wouldn't have much meaning or use to me at all without understanding it in a Christian manner, as pointing to Christ the Incarnate God.

 

Didn't you say before that you study the Bible from a secular perspective? If so, naturally we would come to different meanings and purposes for many passages.

 

An understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures as Herbrew Scriptures can have great meaning for Christians. That's where are roots are. Why wouldn't understanding those roots be meaningful and useful?

[WishboneDawn]

double post. :( 

 

[WishboneDawn]

I have to say that I agree with your husband.  Religion is cultural indoctrination.

I'd agree with that too but then I'd also ask, what isn't? :D

[livetoread]

I have no desire to spin, but I am curious what the Fathers say about Deut 28, so I'm off to investigate. I don't claim any personal wisdom on these things. They've always puzzled me, but my personal response to my own puzzledness has always rang in my heart, "I do not think it mean what you think it mean," then off to find something that resonates with my soul.

My "spin" comment was too flippant, and I apologize. I should have chosen my words more carefully. It wasn't directed at you and your tradition, but it sounds like it was, and that's not ok.

[WishboneDawn]

Would that make a difference in light of the idea that the Israelites supposedly lived 120 years and yet no mention of this was ever recorded?

Nope! I just like to bring that point up when people discuss average lifespans for people in the past.

 

 

But there's no evidence the Israelites were in Egypt at all. Not a lot of Israelites, not a few Israelites. No mention anywhere under any circumstance.

There are the Hebrew Scriptures! I know, I know, but those scriptures are, whatever your view of God and Christianity, the stories a people told about themselves and it's not unreasonable to assume there was some factual kernal to those stories. I think what would be needed is someone more versed in historical criticism of documents like the Exodus story. What parts read like myth? What parts hint at legend instead?

 

 

 

I think it's perfectly plausible to suggest this story was nothing more than urban myths told again and again, finally recorded, preserved, and centuries later determined to be "divinely inspired." There's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

I accept that and I agree it's plausible. But I also know that similar stories often start with some real event, the pearl with a bit of grit at the center sort-of-thing. Even as I'm typing this I'm sort of remembering something I heard on oral tradition and history and how it's transmitted that would challenge my claim...I'll have to see if I can Google it up.

 

 

 

Aw, but what fun is there in only sticking with the larger discussion?

 

;)

:D

[Cricket]

To the OP, start with what you believe about God. You compare Him to a politician doing the same thing. God isn't a politician. He isn't one of us. Does He have authority over His creation or doesn't He? To me, these stories only makes sense in the traditional teachings of sin. I believe that is part of why they were included in the Bible. they show how seriously God takes sin and how far removed from Him we are. We tend to think very highly of ourselves but that isnt how God sees us. The whole idea of God as a 60s peace-and-love hippie is really whacked out, IMO.

[nmoira]

There are the Hebrew Scriptures! I know, I know, but those scriptures are, whatever your view of God and Christianity, the stories a people told about themselves and it's not unreasonable to assume there was some factual kernal to those stories. I think what would be needed is someone more versed in historical criticism of documents like the Exodus story. What parts read like myth? What parts hint at legend instead?

It all reads like myth, and one with familiar narrative elements. It was just the kind of thing a displaced an enslaved (by the Babylonians) people needed to hold on to any hope of returning to their homeland. I don't think it coincidence that the story grew in the time of the Babylonian exile.

[albeto.]

There are the Hebrew Scriptures! I know, I know, but those scriptures are, whatever your view of God and Christianity, the stories a people told about themselves and it's not unreasonable to assume there was some factual kernal to those stories. I think what would be needed is someone more versed in historical criticism of documents like the Exodus story. What parts read like myth? What parts hint at legend instead?

A written claim is not evidence that the claim is true. There's no reason to assume the story was based on a kernel of truth because there's no evidence to support that idea. This doesn't have anything to do with my opinion of the Christian religion, but everything to do with facts of history. In the same way, there's no reason to accept the idea that 75 million years ago, billions of people were brought to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked around volcanoes, and killed using hydrogen bombs. Scientologists claim this, but we don't accept the idea that there must be a kernel of truth to it because people sincerely and genuinely believe it's true.

 

I accept that and I agree it's plausible. But I also know that similar stories often start with some real event, the pearl with a bit of grit at the center sort-of-thing. Even as I'm typing this I'm sort of remembering something I heard on oral tradition and history and how it's transmitted that would challenge my claim...I'll have to see if I can Google it up.

Just because some stories start off with real events doesn't make every story based on real events.

[elegantlion]

As a child I didn't have much trouble with the traditional stories. It was like anything else we were discovering at that age. Bad guys vs. good guys and in my mind I felt it was God protecting us against the bad guys. 

 

Confusion set in when you start to realize that if God loves all of his children, why is he happy that we are killing each other. And who were those bad guys anyway? Sorry, I just started watching Supernatural, so my mind is there. The bad guys are not evil entities that you can shoot with rock salt and they'll go away. They are human, they are us, even if we don't believe like they do. 

 

If we teach "Jesus loves the little children" shouldn't we quit trying to kill them when they grow up, or when they're little. If God is our creator, then aren't we all precious in his sight - without a list to judge us by, without creating a dividing line. As parents we tell our children to be nice to each other and go play. I like to think God is like that, just be nice to each other and go play.

[JenniferB]

I don't mean to badger you, so this is the last I'll say. I hope you'll forgive me if I'm coming off crudely.

 

I think it goes back to what a previous poster (Quill, perhaps?) said. Why can't the writing be clear, if in fact God had it divinely created? Oh, we can't read it ourselves and understand it. It doesn't mean what it says. In fact, we just need other people to spin it and make all the bad parts seem nice, make them suit what we want them to mean, and then say, "YES! This is what resonates with ME. This is what it must actually mean. Not what it says. See, now I've explained it so that it shows God to be the good, benevolent being we know He is." (Except for the actual verses which don't seem to indicate that)

 

But, to read it, and to point out these verses. . . and to have "oh, but it doesn't mean what it says" as the only response makes it that much less believable.

 

I do understand that you don't want it to mean what it says, its horrible. And, when you find some kind of other interpretation that makes it suit your own pre-conceived beliefs--and what you want it to say-- well, I'm glad its meaningful to you, but that doesn't change what the original writers wrote, and what they actually meant.

 

Now, sit on my hands :)

Don't worry, I don't feel badgered, and I don't want to argue either - so, I'll say no more to you on this matter after this too. Just to be clear where I'm coming from, I don't "look for" a way to spin something. In have chosen my communion based on my belief in Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Son of the Eternal Father and the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox communion had the history and Truth that resonates with me the most of all the Christian communions. Since I have entered this communion my view of the Scriptures is through this lens. It's not a way to spin the Scriptures, it's how we understand the Scriptures, through the accumulated wisdom of the Fathers through the ages who were led by the Holy Spirit. So, if I don't take the words as written in plain meaning its because I don't believe that's how they are meant to be read, exclusively. Sometimes Scriptures have layers of meaning, such as historical and Spiritual. But, it's always the Spiritual lesson that's more desirable. We can find the Spiritual meaning through reading the Fathers and recognizing the particular use of the Scripture in the Church calendar readings and in the hymns of the church, not to mention the guidance of a priest. All these things work in cooperation to understand the Scriptures.

 

Because I'm puzzled by a particular Scripture doesn't mean that it has to puzzle forever either. I don't despair like I used to as an evangelical. The massive amount of teaching available to us Orthodox Christians always leaves me with hope that someday I'll run across a teaching that will explain the puzzling passage or idea. It's a journey and I just move along organically. But spin it is not. It is a legitimate way to understand the Scriptures, through an ancient tradition.

[JenniferB]

My "spin" comment was too flippant, and I apologize. I should have chosen my words more carefully. It wasn't directed at you and your tradition, but it sounds like it was, and that's not ok.

I forgive. :D

[JenniferB]

An understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures as Herbrew Scriptures can have great meaning for Christians. That's where are roots are. Why wouldn't understanding those roots be meaningful and useful?

Maybe you are right. However, I only scarcely have time to learn what the Fathers have to say at this point in my life, dig in to the participation of the Church calendar and let the graces of God work through these actions. I can't see it as a pursuit that would be helpful to me at this juncture. But, I can see your point that it could be.

[WishboneDawn]

A written claim is not evidence that the claim is true. There's no reason to assume the story was based on a kernel of truth because there's no evidence to support that idea. This doesn't have anything to do with my opinion of the Christian religion, but everything to do with facts of history. In the same way, there's no reason to accept the idea that 75 million years ago, billions of people were brought to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked around volcanoes, and killed using hydrogen bombs. Scientologists claim this, but we don't accept the idea that there must be a kernel of truth to it because people sincerely and genuinely believe it's true.

 

 

Just because some stories start off with real events doesn't make every story based on real events.

Got it. I was actually questioning my last post mussels when I read this one.

[laughing lioness]

? I have a little joke I sometimes tell: "What do you call a person who has read the entire Bible cover-to-cover?"

 

"An atheist." ;)

 

But, seriously, if God intends the Bible to be the way we learn about Him and draw closer to him, why would it ever have the opposite effect? 

As someone who has read the Bible cover to cover multiple times and is still a Christian I would have to respectfully disagree with your little joke.

And your logic is confusing. If I said, "if God intended children to be a blessing, why would they ever cause us heartache?" and they did- would you then kick your children out of the house?

My dh is a true scholar, knows original languages and studies like you wouldn't believe (Biblical scholarship is not his day job) and he understands connections and things that I would never understand no matter how long I looked at them. I don'thave the answer to your question. I do know that when I ask God for wisdom and seek Him for help, it does come. Often not when or how I want it to and frequently not in church- i.e. most of the preaching out there now days is pretty milk-toast.

 

Christianity is a religion. More than that it is a relationship with the person of Jesus Christ. His Lordship is a paradox. As Creator of the universe, He made himself man and dwelt among us, willingly laid down upon the cross and poured his blood out for us. Makes no sense. A real god would have ruined the Romans and put his people up in positions of Power- or brought peace to earth, or something completely different that made sense to us. Jesus is the great paradox and following him- really seeking who HE is has turned my life, and the lives of millions of others upside down.

 

I'm sure I'll be bashed for writing this. My reality- the one I will claim until the day I die is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Creator of the Universe, the Living God. I can't transmit my belief to you. I can't explain the paradoxes or the pain. All I know is that He is Truth. It's easy to belive in a god that gives us all good things, what we want and a life of ease. The God I know is truly just, which does not equal fair. That is difficult to wrap my brain around. All I know is that there are principals in place that transcend our undersanding - "the deep magic" - and there is a priori to man and a priori to our mortal understanding (which Lewis gives a great apologetic for in his Space Trilogy). I get somethings and am baffled/ lost/confused by others. But Jesus is still God, still Savior, even in my confusion. Whatever my strugggles, it does not diminish who He is (Yes, I'm using masculine pronouns--and yes, I believe that God has truly feminine qualities, but that is a different discussion).

 

and fwiw: I wasn't raised in a Christian home. I was raised in a very religious pagan home. I became a Christian on a dare- a dare to God. I didn't come to Him in some nice, pretty church becasue it was expected. I became a Christian because I saw no good thing in the world and the despair was literally killing me. My "accepting of anyone, wherever they are at" pagan family, btw was furious with me for becoming a Christian and acted that out in ways big and small= they were petty and mean for decades- to me, my husband and my children.

 

Honor, Patronage and Kinship and Purity by David De Silva

The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert by Rosario Butterfield:

My Train Wreck Conversion interview with Rosario

The Screwtape Letters

Perelandra, C.S.Lewis

[Erin]

 

 

and fwiw: I wasn't raised in a Christian home. I was raised in a very religious pagan home

I was raised by a fairly do-nothing agnostic, and a religion-is-the-opiate-of-the-masses intellectual atheist.  They weren't outright hostile when I made my decision to follow Christ, but it did make me a bit soft in the head, apparently.  ;)

That's why I tend to back out relatively early from these types of conversations.  If someone is genuinely wrestling with a heart-issue, I want to be there to offer suggestions and support, but if it seems more like a chance for people to prove intellectual superiority....eh.

I get enough of that from people I genuinely care about.  lol

[Seasider]

As someone who has read the Bible cover to cover multiple times and is still a Christian I would have to respectfully disagree with your little joke.

And your logic is confusing. If I said, "if God intended children to be a blessing, why would they ever cause us heartache?" and they did- would you then kick your children out of the house?

My dh is a true scholar, knows original languages and studies like you wouldn't believe (Biblical scholarship is not his day job) and he understands connections and things that I would never understand no matter how long I looked at them. I don'thave the answer to your question. I do know that when I ask God for wisdom and seek Him for help, it does come. Often not when or how I want it to and frequently not in church- i.e. most of the preaching out there now days is pretty milk-toast.

 

Christianity is a religion. More than that it is a relationship with the person of Jesus Christ. His Lordship is a paradox. As Creator of the universe, He made himself man and dwelt among us, willingly laid down upon the cross and poured his blood out for us. Makes no sense. A real god would have ruined the Romans and put his people up in positions of Power- or brought peace to earth, or something completely different that made sense to us. Jesus is the great paradox and following him- really seeking who HE is has turned my life, and the lives of millions of others upside down.

 

I'm sure I'll be bashed for writing this. My reality- the one I will claim until the day I die is that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Creator of the Universe, the Living God. I can't transmit my belief to you. I can't explain the paradoxes or the pain. All I know is that He is Truth. It's easy to belive in a god that gives us all good things, what we want and a life of ease. The God I know is truly just, which does not equal fair. That is difficult to wrap my brain around. All I know is that there are principals in place that transcend our undersanding - "the deep magic" - and there is a priori to man and a priori to our mortal understanding (which Lewis gives a great apologetic for in his Space Trilogy). I get somethings and am baffled/ lost/confused by others. But Jesus is still God, still Savior, even in my confusion. Whatever my strugggles, it does not diminish who He is (Yes, I'm using masculine pronouns--and yes, I believe that God has truly feminine qualities, but that is a different discussion).

 

and fwiw: I wasn't raised in a Christian home. I was raised in a very religious pagan home. I became a Christian on a dare- a dare to God. I didn't come to Him in some nice, pretty church becasue it was expected. I became a Christian because I saw no good thing in the world and the despair was literally killing me. My "accepting of anyone, wherever they are at" pagan family, btw was furious with me for becoming a Christian and acted that out in ways big and small= they were petty and mean for decades- to me, my husband and my children.

 

Honor, Patronage and Kinship and Purity by David De Silva

The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert by Rosario Butterfield:

My Train Wreck Conversion interview with Rosario

The Screwtape Letters

Perelandra, C.S.Lewis

Thanks, laughinglioness, especially for this reading list. Looks fascinating!

 

I agree that there are many layers of meaning to the OT books (and the new, just focusing on the old for OP's question). We are short changing our understanding of the nature and character of God if we read them simplistically.

 

I love when some of our Jewish hive members comment on such things. I hope one or more will pop in on this thread...

[Saddlemomma]

First of all, let me sympathize with you and tell you I was in your situation just two short years ago.  The only difference was I was dealing with my eldest dd, who is now 23.

 

This post may be long, but I believe it is applicable to your situation.  I became a Christian in 2000. At the time my dd was just 9.  Adjusting to a new step-father and me becoming a Christian, was a terrific change for dd.  She handled it great -- too great in my mind, and I worried that there would be repercussions later.  How right I ended up being.

 

Our family attended a Pentecostal-type church, and I hung on the pastor’s every word,  never thinking to question anything.  I mean, he was a pastor and well-versed in the Bible, right?  Who was I, but a babe in Christ trying to learn and grow in the Lord.

 

In 2008, my now 17 YO dd, left home to attend college.  I felt proud of what she had achieved and thankful that she re-dedicated herself to the Lord before leaving for her college experience.   I never saw what would happen.

 

She stayed strong in the Lord for the first two years, even to the point of dropping  a class because the professor told her that by the end of the class, she would no longer be a Christian, she would see to that.  However, her third year was a different story.  DD was constantly bombarded by so-called friends, professors, media, and even so-called Christians to bow to peer pressure and accept those things that are antithetical to Christians.

 

Unfortunately, because she was not prepared to give sound, solid REASONS for her beliefs, she felt the Atheists, Agnostics, and secular people who were questioning her, had the better arguments just because they actually COULD argue for or against her theology.  They had done something we, and the church, had failed to do.  They had dug deep and actually researched things.  Granted, their arguments for the most part were not sound (I didn’t find this out until later either), but my dd didn’t know that because she hadn’t been taught to DEFEND her beliefs through sound Biblical reasoning.

 

I was devastated.  My dd turned into someone I didn’t know.  She started using foul language, her ideology took a 180.  She turned on us too, to the point where we were getting threats from her friends on Facebook.  One thread stated I needed to be shot and our youngest dd abducted to get her away from us.  We didn’t speak for a year.

 

During that terrible time, I began to have doubts too.  So I started searching for answers.  I didn’t go to the church for answers, as I felt they had let me and my dd down.  I stumbled upon the Stand To Reason  website (http://standtoreason.org)  It blew my mind.  I quickly became hungry for what they were teaching.  I began to realize I had been participating in my Christian walk with just half the picture.

 

You know, the Apostle Paul in Romans admonished that we should be prepared to give an account of why we believe what we do.  Apologetics does just that.  It’s not a dirty word or false theology.  On the contrary, I have found that apologetics makes me a more informed Christian better able to stand up to those who seek to discredit my faith.  It provides me with rock-solid arguments to defend Christianity and points out the failings of alternate beliefs.  It also shows me the weaknesses in my faith that I need to brush up on. 

 

Historically it’s been the Atheists and secular individuals demanding Christians prove God exists.  Apologetics demands that Atheists PROVE that God does not exist.  It reveals the intolerance of those who claim to be tolerant while promoting bigotry and discrimination within their own thinking; demanding that Christians assimilate to their worldview or be excluded, called names, or lose rights.  (BTW – I’m not bashing  Atheists as a whole.  I’m mainly talking about those such as Richard Dawkins and the like.)

 

What apologetics has taught me so far:

1. Never read just a Bible verse – it’s too easy to miss the actual context of the Bible passage when you site just a verse and claim it as your own.  Most often that verse has nothing to do with what you’re claiming it for.
2. Read the Bible without modern lenses.  In other words, remember when, where, and for whom the Bible was originally written.  We can’t apply life today to that of 2000 years ago or vice versa.
3. God has a bigger picture in mind and it may never be revealed to the individual.  Think of a stone dropped into water.  There are many ripples that radiate out from the impact, but the stone has not clue, because it’s sitting at the bottom of the pool.  God works to the greater good, which may mean that innocents will suffer to promote something even more important and beneficial in the end.
4. Don’t add to the Bible what’s not there in the first place.  The Bible, for the most part is pretty straight forward other than the parables.  However, pastors and others seem to read into the text what isn’t really there.  This has led to a lot of confusion and doctrines which simply aren’t there.  I won’t get specific, but I no longer believe in some long-held doctrines simply because I went back to the text and really read (without any preconceived notions) what is stated there.  It was quite revealing and made me question how I could have believed such a notion which was clearly never in the Bible.  So, just read the text – don’t read “into†it.
5. Always respectfully ask questions of those challenging your faith.  For example, when your dh asks you how can you believe that some mythological man in heaven created all this, ask him what the alternative is.  If he responds with evolution, ask how evolution originated.  What put the singularity in space to cause it to explode?  How can nothing create something?  What is the definition of nothing?  How does that theory jive with the physical Law of Causality and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?  Which sounds more plausible: An intelligent being, outside of time and space, created the universe and the order that appears within it; or that nothing created something that exploded and then things swimming in a pool of water just happened to get together, formed a fish, which eventually grew legs, crawled out of the pool, developed into apes (after many different  mutations) and then became us?

I would encourage you to read and research Apologetics.  It will strengthen your faith.  It will show you that yes, Christians do have reasonable answers for the types of questions your dh is asking, and it will also show you the fallacies of his arguments.  You don’t need to be confrontational or anything.  You can have sincere, meaningful, winsome discussions.  Don’t seek to force him to change his mind; just put a stone in his shoe, an idea to chew on.  I can tell you that my youngest dd now gets a healthy dose of apologetics within every class and nook and crany of learning where I can insert it.  I want her to be prepared for the challenges to come.  I refuse to make the same mistake twice.

 

Some websites/books that may help you:

• http://www.str.org
• http://www.reasons.org/
• http://www.reasonablefaith.org/
• http://www.godandscience.org/
• http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/
• Apologetics Study Bible for Students (my #1 go-to Bible resource – Excellent!)
• Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace
• The Big Book of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler
• I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler, Frank Turek (Haven’t read this one but it’s on my list)
• Have your dh research and read about the Ipuwer Papyrus.  It will help to address his questions about Moses and the 10 plagues.

I’m sorry this was so long, but I hope it helps you.  My dd and I are talking again.  We both asked for forgiveness.  Me for being a legalistic, condemning Christian with no answers except Bible verses to quote, and she for being intolerant while asking for tolerance.  We can now discuss our differing views with civility, humor, and thoughtfulness.  I have retained and strengthened my Christian faith, and she is asking more questions and actually thinking about what I say because I say it in love, with actual knowledge and conviction.  I pray that you and your dh can do the same.  I will certainly keep you in my prayers.  May God bless you and yours.

[Saddlemomma]

FYI - regarding the 10 plagues of Egypt and their validity, here are some links to information about the Ipuwer Papyrus:

 

• http://newtest.ohr.edu/838
• http://www.bible-archeology.com/2012/09/the-ipuwer-papyrus-does-it-provide.html

 

These are just a few of the sites for this papyrus.  Whether you are a proponent of it or a skeptic, it is still a fascinating historical document.

 

The Ipuwer Papyrus is just one of the 50 "Bones & Dirt" archeological notes found in my Bible - Apologetics Study Bible for Students.

 

This Bible also contains 121 articles such as:

 

• How Do We Know Jesus Was Born of a Virgin?
• Can Something Be True For You, but Not For Me?
• Why Would A Good God Send People to Hell?
• Evidence for God: The Moral Argument
• Hasn't Science Disproved Miracles?
• all written by different authors

 

60 "Twisted Scripture Notes" which are verses traditionally taken out of context

20 Personal Stories from various Christians

20 Fast Facts regarding different topics

 

I use this Bible in our hs to supplement themes that arise in history, science, worldview, and, of course, Bible study.  I don't know what I would have done without it.  It really is a fantastic resource.

 

[Seasider]

I use this Bible in our hs to supplement themes that arise in history, science, worldview, and, of course, Bible study. I don't know what I would have done without it. It really is a fantastic resource.

ISBN, please? I'd love to look this up.

[6packofun]

Adding this article about OT genocide into the mix because I read it today and found it helpful.  http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2013/08/the-amalekite-genocide/

 

I think that Christians will always--and should always--struggle and wrestle with these issues because 1) others want to try to understand it, too, (1 Peter 3:15) and 2) they inform our view of God and His nature.  Sometimes I don't care for what I (think) I see in Him, but I press on and continue to try to gain the biggest, most complete picture of God while I live here in the imperfect before I finally see the perfect.