Anyone else struggling with Bible stories?? (CC)

[livetoread]

I agree. This thread is the first time I've ever seen Lot's actions justified. He was deemed righteous because of his faith, but his actions were very often not righteous! I find it sick and creepy that anyone would try to justify his offering of his daughters. It may have been culturally acceptable in that time and place, but I don't think the story is included in the Bible to show us that God condones that kind of behavior, but rather to show us that He doesn't!

 

God not only condones but insists on all sorts of awful behavior in the Bible. In this particular story, Lot's behavior is considered good by the storyteller, and certainly not bad enough to be punished by God. Look at what happened to Lot's wife just because she looked back at the city. God didn't like that one bit and immediately killed her, but offer your daughters to be raped? That gets a pass. So no, the story doesn't have God ordering awful behavior (that's elsewhere), but it does clearly suggest that God is much more upset by disobedience than cruelty. Disobey and look back? Dead. Offer your daughters? Nothing. Not even a stern talking to!

[albeto.]

You bring up examples of evil done in the name of religion as proof that the teachings of religion in general are bad. You say that religious teachings erode compassion.

"Evil Done In The Name Of Religion," and "Religious Teachings Are Bad" is not equal to "Religion Or Belief In God Is The Root Of All Evil." Religion does not encompass or provide a foundation for the entire set {evil} simply because it resides in part of it. 

 

You have admitted more than once on this board that you are an anti-theist. That is more than simple non-belief. So, yes, I think you believe that religion and belief in God is the root of evil and atheism is the best alternative. If you don't believe that, then by all means say so.

 

Atheism isn't actually a belief system, by the way, but in this thread I'm challenging is the claims made by religious faith, I'm not promoting an alternative. This isn't a thread about humanism, secularism, atheism+, anti-theism, or anything along those lines, and I'm not trying to steer it in that direction. There is one thread "ask an atheist," in which I hogged some broadband space myself and explained my own opinions. If you'd like to engage me there I would be happy to answer any questions, field any challenges you might have. The idea that religion is the root of all evil is a common misconception, perhaps we can discuss that a bit. If there's interest, we can have an "ask an anti-theist" thread, since that is a positive belief whereas atheism is simply a lack of a particular positive belief. 

[JenniferB]

My issue is God and how he seems to condone and even order people to do these awful things. The Bible states that he is unchanging and the same yesterday today and forever. So did he or did he not condone or order these things?

Yes! This is the question! Jesus doesn't seem like this at all. He gets upset at pride and hypocrisy, but He seems to promote peace and non-violence at one's own - His own - expense.

 

So, is the God of the Old Testament different, or misunderstood? Jesus was constantly clearing up misunderstandings about God and/or the way things are and changing perspectives. I have to guess that God was misunderstood because of the dimness of man's ability to know God and his distance from God, and this was communicated in the stories we read. But, those stories were meant for our good through the light that Jesus and ancient Christianity brought to them.

 

I just read last night the Orthodox explanation for Noah and the Flood - WOW - mind blower! My eyes are opened.

 

You can read it free here:

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008SHIDT2/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1376359390&sr=8-1&pi=SL75

 

To understand the Scriptures through the Fathers is not picking and choosing either. If one decides to accept the Fathers of the Church, the ones who picked the books of the Bible in the first place, and also preached, explained, and expounded on it, then you are looking to a source of wisdom to explain what you are lacking. This is the ancient way. Remember the Eunich in Acts? He didn't understand what he was reading and it had to be explained to him. This is the Biblical way to read and understand the Scriptures.

[Parrothead]

Okay, let me try this.  I mean no insult to anyone's beliefs by stating my own. 

 .

The examples I gave are all supported in written scripture (one source), the community (another source), and one's own conscience (the last source). The community lauded them because they were consistent with all three sources.

Then this is a community of sick wackadoodles.  Admittedly I did not read the article.  The headache was starting about that time.  IMO anyone who used the Bible (or other religious texts) to persecute those who are different or belief differently are in the wrong.  No question.

 

Even when we take these stories as analogies and teaching moments and not as historical records of real events, they characterize God in an arguably terrible light: he's an egomaniac tyrant who requires sacrifices to appease his anger. These teaching moments are centered around the idea of staying on Yahweh's good side. Or else.

Yes, exactly.  The OT tells the story of the unique relationship between God and the Jewish people.  Today Christians try to look at the stories in the OT with a very different lens than how they originally were intended to be viewed.  This link talks about how Torah is Interpreted.  I don't know if this is helpful to anyone. 

 

The NT tells us (Christians) what it is out of the OT that applies to Christianity.  As far as I'm aware, the biggest reason the ancient church kept the OT is because of the overarching messianic nature of the OT.  It finishes the story in quite a different way than it started.  In the OT the Jewish people were given 613 mitzvot by God.  Jesus gave Christianity 1 Commandment.  Only one.  It appears 13 times over 12 verses.   The sick wackadoodles are not following Jesus single commandment- to love one another.  IMO that makes the sick wackadoodles fanatics who shouldn't be in jail.  Nobody had the right to use religion to browbeat others.  That they are allowed to do it or that they get away with it is just wrong. As someone who believes in God, I have to believe they will answer for their crimes. 

 

Your fear of tomato throwing is an interesting example of the power of religion on one's own freedom of thought. Of course you made that comment tongue in cheek, but it reveals the reality of breaking ranks - you'll be punished by the community. You may face less support than you're accustomed to here, which is a far cry better than having been burned at the stake, but the reality is the same. Dissenters are dangerous, it's wise to stop that thought in its tracks than to let it play out. The OP (and others) show a measure of courage for facing possible ostracization. That's no small amount of bravery, in my opinion.

Somewhat.  Like other religions Christianity is also divided.  This group, this particular group we are involved with called The Hive can be a bit touchy about religion, among other things.  We are a bunch of girls who take offense easily.  You know these discussions get shut down quickly because someone gets their feelings hurt and runs to a mod.  I've been banned a handful of times.  I don't want to risk inadvertently insulting someone and getting permanently banned.  I like it here. 

 

So my reluctance in getting deeper into my own personal beliefs in the open chat forum are not so much fear of being blasted by others. I can handle that.  I have a firm grounding in what I believe.  I can explain it, but maybe not explain it in a tolerant-everyone-will-praise-my-words way. It is fear of being banned by not being sensitive to my neighbor's feelings.  In other words, I don't want to piss anyone off

 

However, with regard to the OT boiling down to a handful of points, I think you're following a rather popular trend, but reading the OT in the context it was written reveals a very different goal - obey the strongest god and enjoy the benefits, or reject him and suffer the [eternal] consequences.

Different strokes. I've come to my beliefs because of a reasoned, skeptical thinking.  I have fought every negative anti-religion demon who would have me and come out even stronger.  Sometimes it just happens that way.  I can't explain it at all.  I have no idea why or how it happens.

 

In my struggles I examined many religions very closely.  I have a bit more (but not much more than a bit) working knowledge of many religious beliefs than the average Joe.  But in many ways it is superficial.  Yet at the same time all religions fascinate me.  

 

I do agree that the outcome of the OT is that the Jewish people adhere to God's word  or risk the consequences. By the way the consequence weren't eternal damnation.   Jewish afterlife.

 

As for the popular trend, well, I can neither confirm nor deny.  Everything I know of Christianity in general and the RC in particular I've learned over the last 15 years or so.  At least anything beyond grade school catechism at any rate.

 

Personally, I think there are many, many good reasons to give up religious belief and replace it with reasoned, skeptical thinking.

 

The ten commandments are problematic ethically. The first three reinforce the need to hold Yahweh at the pinnacle of one's hierarchy of Important Things In Life. The other seven are general rules that any society can, and do, determine without this "divine revelation." No commandments exist to encourage the importance of washing hands after eliminating personal waste, boiling water before drinking it, the importance of avoiding HFCS, or protecting children against sexual or physical abuse. The Laws even regulate under what circumstances behaviors we'd consider cruel and abusive today are protected, if not justified (ie, rape, human trafficking, physical beating nearly to death, capital punishment for not being virgin, etc). For an omniscient, ethereal being, you'd think at least one of the Most Important Commandments Ever would include something like: Don't rape children, don't protect people who do rape children.
The first three commandments shouldn't be a problem for someone who doesn't believe in God anyway.  If one doesn't believe then one doesn't need to worry about breaking them.  In the Pentateuch there are 613 commandments that probably cover wash hands, clean water, and protecting children. HFCS is a very new phenomena.  I think prophecy only went as far as prophesying the coming of Jesus, not the coming of a nasty health hazard. 

 

I think Jesus covered the rest with His one commandment.  Rape in all forms, human trafficking, physical abuse, capital punishment are not loving one another. 

 

Saying more is one of those things that falls into Paragraph three above.

 

I think religion is a threat to human rights in all cases if for no other reason than rules and regulations are accountable to no one. When something is understood to be obtained by divine truth ("homosexuality is intrinsically evil"), there's no way to challenge it ("his ways are not our ways"). I think it's a violation of human rights to deny marriage based on sexual orientation, for example, but your church (my former church) is not only contributing enormous funds to this end, it's encouraging governments throughout the world to make this a legal issue.

The Church's stance on this is probably the only thing I don't agree with the Church 100%.  But again, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

 

What you call "bad apples" others call "devout." It's the old "legalistic/watered-down" debate where the individual making the call is the seen as the center of the spectrum. The problem is, this center is completely subjective, which means you are no more justified to call the "devout" person legalistic than the "watered-down" person is justified to call you "legalistic." It's the No True Scotsman fallacy at work here that justifies one's own personal opinion. The problem is, it works for the extremists, too.

Truly I think of myself as pretty darned devout. I see what you are saying though.  In regards to Christianity (I won't speak of other religions see the paragraph 3 rebuttal above), yes, there has been a history of extremists.   I suppose there are Christian extremists today.   Legalism does lead to extremism.  Once one is down that road it takes a huge effort to turn back.  On a personal note, all I can do as a single person is condemn the behavior as vehemently as possible.  That would include using both my vote and my blog.  But like many people I am wrapped up in my own little world.  So I don't do as much as I can.

 

All that said, I still see no reason to throw away religion.  At its core it is beautiful.  If we could all love one another the world could realize its potential. 

 

[Parrothead]

The information to the contrary is information that conflicts claims made, not proof of either one's nonexistence. I cannot prove Santa doesn't exist, but I can prove that a fat man cannot fly around the world in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer, dropping in on families via chimneys, dropping off presents for good girls and boys, all in one night. I cannot prove God doesn't exist, but I can prove that cell death in organisms follow a predictable pattern, and walking and talking and walking through walls three days later is not a part of that pattern, or that a man floating up from a hilltop through the clouds, into the upper atmosphere, and on to outer space would result in oxygen deprivation and physical damage due to pressure changes. 

 

Ultimately this is a matter of faith.  I have faith that Jesus didn't float off into space and so his head exploded.  My belief in Jesus' divinity is that He rose from the dead, hung around to instruct His followers a bit more, then ascended to Heaven.  The reality of it may be that He popped off to another dimension.  Or the mother ship beamed Him up.    How it actually happened is a mystery.  Mysteries are a matter of faith.  They can't be helped.

 

I am an odd duck in that I put faith in both science and religion.

 

[albeto.]

Okay, let me try this.  I mean no insult to anyone's beliefs by stating my own. 

 

All that said, I still see no reason to throw away religion.  At its core it is beautiful.  If we could all love one another the world could realize its potential. 

 

Oh no! I cannot reply because everything you wrote in the box is gone when I quote.

 

Would you mind terribly editing it so that your replies are outside the quote box?

 

pretty please?

 

It's not hard to do. Start by "flipping" the switch on the upper left hand side of your control box when you press "quote" (just click on it with your curser). Then put the portion you want to quote (for example, my words) inside a quote script. This is how: Put that word "quote" inside brackets [ quote ] (without the spaces). This tells the computer to start the quote box. When you reach the end of where you want to quote, do an "end-quote" which is the same thing, but with a backslash first [ / quote ] (without the spaces). This tells the computer to end the quote function.

 

It should look like this:

 

 

[ quote ] blah blah bladety blah [ / quote ]

 

(Your reply here) albeto, you're so full of baloney my dog is salivating...

 

[ quote ] yadda yadda yadda [ / quote ] 

 

Good grief albeto, now I need a drink the size of my head.

 

 

Once again, in real time:

 

 

blah blah bladety blah

 

 

(Your reply here) albeto, you're so full of baloney my dog is salivating...

 

 

yadda yadda yadda

 

 

Good grief albeto, now I need a drink the size of my head.

 

 

etc 

etc

etc

 

Now you can tell your kids you're a "script kiddie." And watch them look impressed.

:D

 

 

 

[albeto.]

Ultimately this is a matter of faith.

Yes. This is what I mentioned to Lioness earlier when I suggested, "At some point (and this point differs with each person), there is a point at which one must decide to believe anyway. If this wasn't the case, there would be no faith..."

 

It takes faith because it's not a reasonable belief.

 

I am an odd duck in that I put faith in both science and religion.

Only there's nothing scientific about this. It's pure faith, it goes against reason, it goes against all the evidence we have concerning physics, physiology, cosmology, biology, etc, etc, etc. You chose to believe it anyway. That's what faith is. That's not what science is.

[milovany]

I just read last night the Orthodox explanation for Noah and the Flood - WOW - mind blower! My eyes are opened.

 

You can read it free here:

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008SHIDT2/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1376359390&sr=8-1&pi=SL75

 

Jennifer, would love to read, but it takes me to a page that's selling the OT book you've been posting about.  Is there an article to read? 

[Parrothead]

Puts on my flame suit.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned having to understand that the culture and times were different and that can't judge these people in the Bible through the lens of our modern understanding. I totally get that and generally I understand that people in different times had different cultures and practices.  For me , the issue is not the poor behavior of people in the Bible.  People are known for all kinds of poor behavior throughout time including our time.

 

My issue is God and how he seems to condone and even order people to do these awful things.  The Bible states that he is unchanging and the same yesterday today and forever. So did he or did he not condone or order these things? 

 

I am open to developing a new understanding of the OT as not literal, but I have always been taught the Bible is God's Word and that we are to take in literally. (for the most part-Revelation comes to mind)  However, then I would have the new issue of what to take literally and what not to take literally.  Most Christians I know would say I was "picking and choosing" scripture to suit my liking.

 

Anyway it is interesting to see that others struggle also. Personally, these threads are very helpful to me in sorting through my thoughts. I appreciate the input from all points of view.

The stories are explanations for the world around the Jewish people.  As Albeto has pointed out there is no archeological evidence anywhere that the Jews were in Egypt or that they wandered the desert.  The story of the exodus should be seen in the same light as the story of creation. 

 

The creation story is the ancient way of thinking about how the earth was formed.  Science today says the big bang. 

If the ancients had the knowledge we have today I'm sure the creation story would read something like:

 

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form or shape with the darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind swept over the waters, then God said, "Let there be light." And BAM!  There was a huge explosion and there was light.  This is how the universe came into being.  And God saw the BAM! and the light and said it was good.

 

The exodus is the same. It is the story used to tell the Israelite people how they got to their land. The exodus being a story doesn't even take away from their claim that Israel is their land. There are accurate historical records that they were on that land at least from the Roman invasion.

 

The Word of God is Jesus. If you are interested in a different perspective.

 

The Catholic Church does not have an "official" position on the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. Whether they are literal or not has no bearing on whether the lesson they impart is true. Catholics are free to understand them as literal or not. The Church only insists that the Bible is inspired and inerrant and that what it teaches is the truth.  The above is my reasoning of events.

 

Literal or Literalist may be worth reading if you are interested.

[JenniferB]

Good grief albeto, now I need a drink the size of my head.

 

And today is a wine day, Yay!!!

 

(I know you were just kidding, but I thought I'd slip in a little of my "religion" again.  Hehe.)

[JenniferB]

Jennifer, would love to read, but it takes me to a page that's selling the OT book you've been posting about.  Is there an article to read? 

 

No, you just have to click on the Kindle version and then the picture of the e-book and it will give you the option to view a "sample" which covers up to Genesis Chapter 50.  It's really good.  I'm going to read the whole book for sure.

[Parrothead]

Oh no! I cannot reply because everything you wrote in the box is gone when I quote.

:D

 

I fixed it as best I could with what I have.  It doesn't want to do the old quote thingy in the brackets.  Anyway you can quote me now or copy and paste or however it works best for you.

 

[Parrothead]

Yes. This is what I mentioned to Lioness earlier when I suggested, "At some point (and this point differs with each person), there is a point at which one must decide to believe anyway. If this wasn't the case, there would be no faith..."

 

It takes faith because it's not a reasonable belief.

 

 

Only there's nothing scientific about this. It's pure faith, it goes against reason, it goes against all the evidence we have concerning physics, physiology, cosmology, biology, etc, etc, etc. You chose to believe it anyway. That's what faith is. That's not what science is.

 

Yes, to both. 

 

Yes, at some point I decided to continue believing.  Even this evening after reading you post I decided "She has a point, his head would have exploded if he went into space.  Yet, I believe there is another perfectly logical explanation we don't yet know."

 

Yes, nothing scientific about it (at this point).  I was just remarking that I am a creature who believes in both science and faith.  I'd just finished the "God said let there be light, and BAM!" post.  :laugh:

 

ETA: I know you know we will never see eye-to-eye on this stuff.  I don't mind continuing, but we are just going to keep going round and round.  Nothing I say will bring you back and nothing you say will make me leave.  And that is fine if someone learns something from our discussion. :coolgleamA:

 

[milovany]

No, you just have to click on the Kindle version and then the picture of the e-book and it will give you the option to view a "sample" which covers up to Genesis Chapter 50.  It's really good.  I'm going to read the whole book for sure.

 

Jennifer, maybe because it's showing up as a mobile version on my laptop, but I'm not seeing that option (to read a sample).  I'll figure it out, though, by going to Amazon directly.  Thank you. 

[Rosie_0801]

For the fun of giving Albeto something new to vigorously discuss, ( pulling your leg :P )I had a thought yesterday that I should like to share. I'm not quite drugged up enough on pain meds atm, so I may not be coherent...

I don't know much about native religions in other places, but one's ancestral country is very important to the Australian Aborigines. As far as I know, they did not war over territory because it would be rather like trying to steal another person's ancestors and nobody needs someone else's great, great grandma. So, territory and religion are both common things to war about, yet here, back in history, it seems religion was something that prevented genocide.

[unfrumpable.]

"Evil Done In The Name Of Religion," and "Religious Teachings Are Bad" is not equal to "Religion Or Belief In God Is The Root Of All Evil." Religion does not encompass or provide a foundation for the entire set {evil} simply because it resides in part of it. 

 

 

Atheism isn't actually a belief system, by the way, but in this thread I'm challenging is the claims made by religious faith, I'm not promoting an alternative. This isn't a thread about humanism, secularism, atheism+, anti-theism, or anything along those lines, and I'm not trying to steer it in that direction. There is one thread "ask an atheist," in which I hogged some broadband space myself and explained my own opinions. If you'd like to engage me there I would be happy to answer any questions, field any challenges you might have. The idea that religion is the root of all evil is a common misconception, perhaps we can discuss that a bit. If there's interest, we can have an "ask an anti-theist" thread, since that is a positive belief whereas atheism is simply a lack of a particular positive belief. 

 

I agree that religion is not the root of all evil. It just seems that a lot of people use religion as a tool to do very bad things. That is something that is very prevalent in history and up through modern times.

 

[unfrumpable.]

Ultimately this is a matter of faith.  I have faith that Jesus didn't float off into space and so his head exploded.  My belief in Jesus' divinity is that He rose from the dead, hung around to instruct His followers a bit more, then ascended to Heaven.  The reality of it may be that He popped off to another dimension.  Or the mother ship beamed Him up.    How it actually happened is a mystery.  Mysteries are a matter of faith.  They can't be helped.

 

I am an odd duck in that I put faith in both science and religion.

 

 

Those are some interesting interpretations. I don't think I have ever heard anyone put forth anything like that before. I like it. :) Definitely interesting.

[Parrothead]

Those are some interesting interpretations. I don't think I have ever heard anyone put forth anything like that before. I like it. :) Definitely interesting.

 

Well, we don't know where Heaven is. So we (or at least I) speculate on possibilities. ;)

[Jean in Newcastle]

I looked this up mainly to make sure I was remembering things right since the slant of this thread is very different from what I remembered from the actual text:

 

Lot - this portion of the Bible (Genesis 19) is a narrative passage that is just recording historical fact without commentary.  Any commentary on it is made by us or by later passages of the Bible.

 

The angels did not advocate that the daughters be given to the men.  In fact, they prevented Lot from doing so and blinded the citizens of the town.  

 

Lot was not rescued on his own merits.  In fact, it specifically says in vs. 29 that Lot (and his daughters) were rescued because of Abraham.  

 

2 Peter 2:6-8 is the commentary on Lot.  It is not complimentary of him.  While the word is often translated as "righteous" as in "righteous" Lot, the Greek is sarcastic and really is referring to him as "self righteous Lot".  And there is no merit in the Bible given to self righteousness.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

dp

[albeto.]

Then this is a community of sick wackadoodles.  Admittedly I did not read the article.  The headache was starting about that time.  IMO anyone who used the Bible (or other religious texts) to persecute those who are different or belief differently are in the wrong.  No question.

 

Even when the religious texts say it's right? How can that be?

 

 As far as I'm aware, the biggest reason the ancient church kept the OT is because of the overarching messianic nature of the OT.

 

I would submit that the biggest reason the ancient church kept the Jewish scriptures was for the same reason the Muslims kept many stories in Genesis and the Mormons kept the entire bible - it lends credibility to say a new religion is the "fulfillment" of the old. Replacing religions isn't nearly as easy as modifying them.

 

 

  It finishes the story in quite a different way than it started.  In the OT the Jewish people were given 613 mitzvot by God.  Jesus gave Christianity 1 Commandment.  Only one.  It appears 13 times over 12 verses.   The sick wackadoodles are not following Jesus single commandment- to love one another.  IMO that makes the sick wackadoodles fanatics who shouldn't be in jail.  Nobody had the right to use religion to browbeat others.  That they are allowed to do it or that they get away with it is just wrong. As someone who believes in God, I have to believe they will answer for their crimes.  

 

I don't accept on faith the idea that Jesus existed, so I don't think he said a thing. Nevertheless, the Christian scriptures say that Jesus did not come to abolish the law and that one who was found guilty of breaking one law will be found guilty of breaking the lot. In addition to that, there are a number of criteria the NT says will deny a person access to heaven. Clearly there are a number of requirements that were given to members of the community of believers.

 

Not only that, but many of the things you're calling "wackadoodley" were sanctioned by Yahweh himself. Destroy entire societies, kill every living creature, keep virgins as spoils of war, etc. I understand some people want to think the best and imagine these virgins were over the age of 18 and fell in love with these dashing Israeli soldiers, rather than the more plausible notion that Yahweh gave them as booty for the sake of relief of sexual tension without having to worry about the Law and uncleanliness and all that other sooper important stuff. He's promised to provide such spoils as virgins of the conquered in the future as well.

 

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished*; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.   (Zechariah 14:1-2)

 

* not to be confused with wooed, wined, and dined. 

 

I can hardly wait.   ;)

 

 

Somewhat.  Like other religions Christianity is also divided.  This group, this particular group we are involved with called The Hive can be a bit touchy about religion, among other things.  We are a bunch of girls who take offense easily.  You know these discussions get shut down quickly because someone gets their feelings hurt and runs to a mod.  I've been banned a handful of times.  I don't want to risk inadvertently insulting someone and getting permanently banned.  I like it here.  

 

Pissing off people, having conversations shut down, and perma-bans are are examples of the community of believers instituting or at least justifying some kind of punishment for the one who dissents too far. The idea that one's words will be understood as offensive if they are not shrouded in flattery is an indication of this. Ask me how I know. 

 

The first three commandments shouldn't be a problem for someone who doesn't believe in God anyway.  If one doesn't believe then one doesn't need to worry about breaking them.

 

They're not a problem for the non-believer, but they do expose the once-necessary emphasis placed on worshiping this one god above all others. When offered a plethora of gods to worship and appease, the wise man chooses Yahweh, the warrior god of the desert. Don't forget it, and don't let anyone trivialize his importance by suggesting showing the least amount of respect to other gods is okay (including allowing nonbelievers and believers of other gods to live among you - ouch).

 

In the Pentateuch there are 613 commandments that probably cover wash hands, clean water, and protecting children. HFCS is a very new phenomena.  I think prophecy only went as far as prophesying the coming of Jesus, not the coming of a nasty health hazard.  

 

Come on, we're talking about an omniscient god here.  We're talking about a god who would know about autism, and Monsanto, HFCS, and the bees dying. We're talking about a god who would know about cholera, and e-coli, and parasites, and other things that something as simple as boiling water could prevent even in the time of Moses. The bible is silent on such matters because of course no one knew about these things then. If the bible were written today, it would reflect not only our own moral code, but our understanding of health and wellness as well.

 

 

 I think Jesus covered the rest with His one commandment.  Rape in all forms, human trafficking, physical abuse, capital punishment are not loving one another. 

 

There's a couple problems with this. One is that Jesus didn't come to remove the law, so arguably they still stand, according to the bible anyway. Another is that rape, human trafficking, physical abuse, and capital punishment for things like lack of virginity or being a disobedient child wasn't only acceptable, it was formalized, legalized, and sometimes ordained by God himself. If this isn't loving one another, then it is by God's command.

 

All that said, I still see no reason to throw away religion.  At its core it is beautiful.  If we could all love one another the world could realize its potential. 

 

Personally, I can no longer find the beauty in the Christian religion. The only beauty offered comes after one has been convinced they are ugly at the core and in need of someone else to give them value. It teaches one to feel shame and guilt for things out of their control, it teaches one to be afraid to follow certain trails of thought, and it teaches one to reserve empathy and compassion according to arbitrary lines drawn around superstitious beliefs. The idea of loving one another is problematic, in my opinion. We're not all compatible, which is the way in which "love" is often understood in this context. What if instead we all learned how to resolve conflicts with mutual respect and dignity? What if instead we all learned to extend compassion not based on religious beliefs but based on human empathy for recognizing the pain of another human (or animal). What if instead we focused on sharing resources so as to maximize the well-beings of all humans, rather than rationalize who gets what they deserve. If that's what you mean by "love," I'll take it, but it's not what the early Christians meant when they talked about "loving your brother." Arguably, that "love" was meant to be reserved for religious kin. All others were to be "put away from among yourselves." (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) In other words, shunned, ignored, left behind. Without sympathy. I understand if you don't agree with that today, but historically speaking, this was sound theology. In fact, it was sound theology for far longer than it was understood to be a "wackadoodle."

[albeto.]

I agree that religion is not the root of all evil. It just seems that a lot of people use religion as a tool to do very bad things. That is something that is very prevalent in history and up through modern times.

 

But it's such a great tool! It teaches people when to stop asking questions and simply obey the given authority. It teaches people to police and censor their own thoughts lest they draw attention to themselves or talk themselves out of their belief. It teaches people to ignore or downplay the heinous actions of those who are held in high esteem for religious reasons. It's not the only tool to be used to manipulate people, but it's a darn effective one. And I agree with you, it's a preventable one.

 

For the fun of giving Albeto something new to vigorously discuss, ( pulling your leg :p )I had a thought yesterday that I should like to share. I'm not quite drugged up enough on pain meds atm, so I may not be coherent...

 

I don't know much about native religions in other places, but one's ancestral country is very important to the Australian Aborigines. As far as I know, they did not war over territory because it would be rather like trying to steal another person's ancestors and nobody needs someone else's great, great grandma. So, territory and religion are both common things to war about, yet here, back in history, it seems religion was something that prevented genocide.

*snort*

[livetoread]

Is Noah, who is also used as an example of a righteous man in that chapter being referred to sarcastically as well? Is the same Greek word for righteous used for both men, or is it different for Lot?

 

2 Peter 2 does seem to be holding both Noah and Lot up as positive examples as they are contrasted with the wicked. It specifically refers to both Noah and Lot as examples of God rescuing the godly while punishing the ungodly. They are the argument for God being both willing and able to save the righteous and not the unrighteous. I don't see how sarcasm could play a role there.

[Rosie_0801]

*snort*

 

Hey, you can give me points for tossing out something new.  :Angel_anim:

[albeto.]

Hey, you can give me points for tossing out something new.  :Angel_anim:

 

I hereby bestow upon you...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                               Ten Awesomeness Points!

[Jean in Newcastle]

Is Noah, who is also used as an example of a righteous man in that chapter being referred to sarcastically as well? Is the same Greek word for righteous used for both men, or is it different for Lot?

 

2 Peter 2 does seem to be holding both Noah and Lot up as positive examples as they are contrasted with the wicked. It specifically refers to both Noah and Lot as examples of God rescuing the godly while punishing the ungodly. They are the argument for God being both willing and able to save the righteous and not the unrighteous. I don't see how sarcasm could play a role there.

I'd have to get out my Greek text to see the word (too lazy at the moment but I can look later).  But no, Noah is not being referred to sarcastically.  Lot, however is "oppressed" and "tormented" and that is not a positive thing.  Noah and Lot are held up as examples of people who have faith in God.  Noah  is a positive example who believed and acted on his belief.  Lot is a negative example who escaped by the skin of his teeth (my interpretation from all the passages that talk about Lot).  Godly is a technical term having to do with having a relationship with God.  Ungodly is a technical term having to do with not having a relationship with God because of rejection of Him.  There are many examples of pretty raunchy people who still had a relationship with God and were still technically referred to as "godly".  Which leads to a big point - your own righteousness has nothing to do with you having a relationship with God in both the OT and the NT.  

 

Obviously this will still lead to your problem with all the people destroyed in Sodom/Gommorah and in Noah's generation.  But the Bible's message is that people are given a chance to accept or reject God and that rejecting Him leads to eternal death - a fate we all share at first and some escape because of their acceptance of Jesus Christ (or His promise in the OT).  You might not/ probably won't accept that as a reason but it is logically self consistent.   * Can't say more - family emergency.  bye.

[Cricket]

I agree that religion is not the root of all evil. It just seems that a lot of people use religion as a tool to do very bad things. That is something that is very prevalent in history and up through modern times.

 

Then why are stories of people committing evil in the name of God or religion used as an indictment against religion rather than of the people who commit those acts? If someone wants to argue that people use religion to justify evil, I'd doubt you'd find anyone who would disagree with you.

[albeto.]

Then why are stories of people committing evil in the name of God or religion used as an indictment against religion rather than of the people who commit those acts? If someone wants to argue that people use religion to justify evil, I'd doubt you'd find anyone who would disagree with you.

 

Those events expose the fundamental and problematic nature of the religion. This fundamental and problematic nature is in applying a belief based on faith, often to the exclusion of evidence, as the acceptable way in which one responds to any given situation. Religious belief does not require logic or reason to be justified. Heck, it doesn't even have to make sense. If it's a sincere enough belief, that in and of itself is expected to be enough. Reason and logic are second to a personal interpretation of any given experience, and people get hurt when addressing life this way. Horrendous things can and are done without justification because of this idea that faith explains reality.

 

I don't think anyone can offer a reasonable argument that suggests religion itself is evil, or I should say, I've never read anything to this effect. I think an argument can only be made to suggest religion is neutral. It is, however, problematic to be the preferred and protected tool people use to solve life's problems.

[JenniferB]

But it's such a great tool! It teaches people when to stop asking questions and simply obey the given authority. It teaches people to police and censor their own thoughts lest they draw attention to themselves or talk themselves out of their belief.

albedo. I'm super curious. Do you have any personal heroes or saints, people who have lived according to your ideals? If so, would you share who they are and why they are highly esteemed by you? No snark, I really want to put a face, a name to your ideal person.

 

Edited to note: the quote above is to tag albedo. the question above.

[Parrothead]

Even when the religious texts say it's right? How can that be?

 

In the same manner that religious texts say slavery is allowable. The human race has been trying to move away from slavery for decades. We aren't there yet on that front either.

 

I would submit that the biggest reason the ancient church kept the Jewish scriptures was for the same reason the Muslims kept many stories in Genesis and the Mormons kept the entire bible - it lends credibility to say a new religion is the "fulfillment" of the old. Replacing religions isn't nearly as easy as modifying them.

 

You are correct. The NT does fulfill the prophecies of the OT. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

I don't accept on faith the idea that Jesus existed, so I don't think he said a thing. Nevertheless, the Christian scriptures say that Jesus did not come to abolish the law and that one who was found guilty of breaking one law will be found guilty of breaking the lot. In addition to that, there are a number of criteria the NT says will deny a person access to heaven. Clearly there are a number of requirements that were given to members of the community of believers.

 

Do you not accept that Jesus existed or do you not accept his divinity? Even secular scholars believe it is possible he existed.

 

You are correct, Jesus did not come to abolish the law.

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "The Law has not been abolished, but rather man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master who is its perfect fulfillment" (CCC 2053).

 

This article explains it much better than I could.

 

Not only that, but many of the things you're calling "wackadoodley" were sanctioned by Yahweh himself. Destroy entire societies, kill every living creature, keep virgins as spoils of war, etc. I understand some people want to think the best and imagine these virgins were over the age of 18 and fell in love with these dashing Israeli soldiers, rather than the more plausible notion that Yahweh gave them as booty for the sake of relief of sexual tension without having to worry about the Law and uncleanliness and all that other sooper important stuff. He's promised to provide such spoils as virgins of the conquered in the future as well.

 

 

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished*; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2)

* not to be confused with wooed, wined, and dined.

 

I can hardly wait. ;)

 

Zechariah is prophecy. What you have quoted is about the devastation and subsequent rescue of Jerusalem. I don't think the nations against Jerusalem have gathered for battle. Again, not a literal happening.

Pissing off people, having conversations shut down, and perma-bans are are examples of the community of believers instituting or at least justifying some kind of punishment for the one who dissents too far. The idea that one's words will be understood as offensive if they are not shrouded in flattery is an indication of this. Ask me how I know.

 

:iagree: And it doesn't happen only when discussing religion. Politics, sex, illness and money are also hot topics. They always have been. Miss Manners recommends not discussing such at dinner parties.

 

But if we simply stick to the weather we would lose an opportunity for great fun.

They're not a problem for the non-believer, but they do expose the once-necessary emphasis placed on worshiping this one god above all others. When offered a plethora of gods to worship and appease, the wise man chooses Yahweh, the warrior god of the desert. Don't forget it, and don't let anyone trivialize his importance by suggesting showing the least amount of respect to other gods is okay (including allowing nonbelievers and believers of other gods to live among you - ouch).

 

Okay, for whatever reason this is not making clear sense to me. It went "Swoosh" right over my head.

 

Come on, we're talking about an omniscient god here. We're talking about a god who would know about autism, and Monsanto, HFCS, and the bees dying. We're talking about a god who would know about cholera, and e-coli, and parasites, and other things that something as simple as boiling water could prevent even in the time of Moses. The bible is silent on such matters because of course no one knew about these things then. If the bible were written today, it would reflect not only our own moral code, but our understanding of health and wellness as well.

 

There are scholars who have suggested the dietary laws of the Jews were set down to protect them from disease. Some things such as boiling water are so obvious they didn't need to be written down. Also the water of ancient times wasn't polluted the way ours is. At least our city water. When on a well, one drinks water straight from the ground without need for boiling. Maybe the need to boil water is a 1st world problem.

 

The ancients knew about disease. They had leper colonies. Eating pork can lead to parasites if not cooked properly. Just avoid pork and that problem is negated.

 

As I said in an earlier post, if the Bible were written today the big ban would be included in the creation story.

 

There's a couple problems with this. One is that Jesus didn't come to remove the law, so arguably they still stand, according to the bible anyway. Another is that rape, human trafficking, physical abuse, and capital punishment for things like lack of virginity or being a disobedient child wasn't only acceptable, it was formalized, legalized, and sometimes ordained by God himself. If this isn't loving one another, then it is by God's command.

Addressed in above paragraph 3

Personally, I can no longer find the beauty in the Christian religion. The only beauty offered comes after one has been convinced they are ugly at the core and in need of someone else to give them value. It teaches one to feel shame and guilt for things out of their control, it teaches one to be afraid to follow certain trails of thought, and it teaches one to reserve empathy and compassion according to arbitrary lines drawn around superstitious beliefs. The idea of loving one another is problematic, in my opinion. We're not all compatible, which is the way in which "love" is often understood in this context. What if instead we all learned how to resolve conflicts with mutual respect and dignity? What if instead we all learned to extend compassion not based on religious beliefs but based on human empathy for recognizing the pain of another human (or animal). What if instead we focused on sharing resources so as to maximize the well-beings of all humans, rather than rationalize who gets what they deserve. If that's what you mean by "love," I'll take it, but it's not what the early Christians meant when they talked about "loving your brother." Arguably, that "love" was meant to be reserved for religious kin. All others were to be "put away from among yourselves." (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) In other words, shunned, ignored, left behind. Without sympathy. I understand if you don't agree with that today, but historically speaking, this was sound theology. In fact, it was sound theology for far longer than it was understood to be a "wackadoodle."

 

No, Christianity doesn't teach those things. One does not sin if one does something unintended so there is no shame or guilt in things out of one's control.

 

I can't say that men haven't shamed other men. but that is the man. Not the the true teaching of the faith (specifically Christianity) Men want power, money, prestige. They get these things by hurting others within religious communities and outside religious communities. Many a secular person has walked over or past the little guy without offering a hand up. That is inherent human nature. Christianity teaches us to stop and offer a hand. To give the shirt off our back to help another. (ETA: I don't believe Christianity or other religions is the only way one learns compassion.)

 

Is that not what love is? Treating each person with dignity and respect?

 

Christianity teaches us to be kind and compassionate. It teaches us to give more of ourselves than we take from others. It teaches us to not kill, not steal, not covet.

 

Unfortunately human beings are so bloody small minded. We are greedy, rude and nasty to one another. As my dear friend says all the time. We are fallen.

 

If each and every one of us who profess to be Christians would actually follow what Jesus taught instead of backbiting, bitching and bickering among ourselves we could really make a difference in this world. Regrettably that isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

With your Corinthians quote you are trying to have it both ways. You want the wackdoodles punished, but when the Bible speaks of punishment* for the wackdoodles you don't want that either. That chapter goes on to tell the faithful to "...Purge the evil person from your midst."

 

 

 

*No it isn't a harsh punishment, but it is a start and from the book in which you find so much wrong.

[Parrothead]

 

But it's such a great tool! It teaches people when to stop asking questions and simply obey the given authority. It teaches people to police and censor their own thoughts lest they draw attention to themselves or talk themselves out of their belief. It teaches people to ignore or downplay the heinous actions of those who are held in high esteem for religious reasons. It's not the only tool to be used to manipulate people, but it's a darn effective one. And I agree with you, it's a preventable one.

 

 

*snort*

 

Not all religions do that.  Really.  They don't. 

[Parrothead]

Then why are stories of people committing evil in the name of God or religion used as an indictment against religion rather than of the people who commit those acts? If someone wants to argue that people use religion to justify evil, I'd doubt you'd find anyone who would disagree with you.

 

It is easier to blame the thing rather than the person. 

 

[Parrothead]

Those events expose the fundamental and problematic nature of the religion. This fundamental and problematic nature is in applying a belief based on faith, often to the exclusion of evidence, as the acceptable way in which one responds to any given situation. Religious belief does not require logic or reason to be justified. Heck, it doesn't even have to make sense. If it's a sincere enough belief, that in and of itself is expected to be enough. Reason and logic are second to a personal interpretation of any given experience, and people get hurt when addressing life this way. Horrendous things can and are done without justification because of this idea that faith explains reality.

 

I don't think anyone can offer a reasonable argument that suggests religion itself is evil, or I should say, I've never read anything to this effect. I think an argument can only be made to suggest religion is neutral. It is, however, problematic to be the preferred and protected tool people use to solve life's problems.

 

Do you really think people of no faith have not hurt others? Horrendous things have been and will be again be done without religious justification. 

 

Humans are funny creatures.  We do bad things in the name of religious. We do bad things in the name of nothing.  We do bad things and lay blame on others. 

 

I'm not saying I think humans are inherently evil.  But we do have a tenancy to not always do the right thing.  It could be laziness, fear, the voices.  Any number of things why we are not always good.

 

[Cricket]

I'm still processing how HFCS is an indictment against God...... Off for that glass of wine. Good luck everyone! Lol

[albeto.]

In the same manner that religious texts say slavery is allowable.  The human race has been trying to move away from slavery for decades.  We aren't there yet on that front either.

 

This is problematic from the standpoint of the OP, from the standpoint of reconciling ethics with the biblical message. If God is good, and God is omniscient, and God is outside time, why was there no mention of enslaving people in the ten commandments? Surely one of those three focusing on worshiping Yahweh could have been moved aside to mention slavery.

 

 

You are correct.  The NT does fulfill the prophecies of the OT.  There is nothing inherently wrong with that.

 

No, nor is it surprising.

 

 

Do you not accept that Jesus existed or do you not accept his divinity?  Even secular scholars believe it is possible he existed.

 

I think for the last umpteen centuries, scholars assumed Jesus existed because everyone "knew" that. It's possible he existed in the same way Dionysus could have possibly existed. Was there a man named Jesus in the first century Israel? Well, that's like asking if there was a Michael in twentieth century New York City. Was there a man named Jesus who was a rabbi? Sure why not. It's like asking if there was a man named Michael who was a fireman in NYC. But the claims of Jesus the god/man? No, I don't believe there was ever an individual the character in the bible portrays. I think evidence supports the increasingly respected academic hypothesis that there was a Jesus cult (many of them, probably, culminating in one unified one in the 3rd or 4th century), but the Jesus cult that existed no more supports the existence of a divine Jesus/God than the Mithras cult supports the existence of a divine Mithras/God. There were lots of redeemer god/man cults in the region over these centuries. The Jesus cult is the only one left over today. The others faded out or were incorporated into the one we call the Christian faith. 

 

Zechariah is prophecy.  What you have quoted is about the devastation and subsequent rescue of Jerusalem.   I don't think the nations against Jerusalem have gathered for battle.  Again, not a literal happening.

 

Do you really see no ethical problem with God promising women to ravage as an imagery of his delivering his people? This is the Big Prize he offers? Inescapable rape victims? This is a book supposedly written for all time. Surely God would know that eventually his community of believers would no longer look to women as mere receptacles for sexual frustrations.

 

:iagree:  And it doesn't happen only when discussing religion.  Politics, sex, illness and money are also hot topics.  They always have been.  Miss Manners recommends not discussing such at dinner parties.

 

No argument there. But you're freer to disagree with people here about sex, politics, and money. Talking about religion requires a kind of diplomacy in a class of its own.

 

Okay, for whatever reason this is not making clear sense to me.  It went "Swoosh" right over my head.

 

The first three commandments are about worshiping Yahweh and only Yahweh (and let's be clear, there aren't "ten" commandments, that list has been compiled from a couple sources in the OT). Why is that? Why does he need three? Why is the punishment for being a non believer death? Why is an entire society condemned to death for not believing and worshiping Yahweh? Why is there nothing about slavery, or human trafficking, or physical or emotional abuse? Why is there nothing about hygiene? How can a good commander make commands that don't look out for the well-being of his community? I think the moral take-away message here is that Yahweh was written up as the Chuck Norris of all the NME gods. I don't think it has anything to do with morality and everything to do with sticking together as Jews against a greater number of non Jewish cultures all living on the same, dusty, stretch of land.

 

There are scholars who have suggested the dietary laws of the Jews were set down to protect them from disease.  Some things such as boiling water are so obvious they didn't need to be written down.  Also the water of ancient times wasn't polluted the way ours is.  At least our city water.  When on a well, one drinks water straight from the ground without need for boiling.  Maybe the need to boil water is a 1st world problem.

 

The ancients knew about disease.  They had leper colonies.  Eating pork can lead to parasites if not cooked properly.  Just avoid pork and that problem is negated.

 

This leaves out washing hands to avoid e-coli, which is not a first world problem. It leaves out water contaminated with animal and human waste. It leaves out the fact that pork is not the only meat that can transmit disease when not cooked fully. It doesn't explain kosher butchery. I've heard it argued that pork smells like human flesh when it's cooking. It makes more sense to me that the restrictions on pork was to remove any reminder of human sacrifice than it was to keep clean. Otherwise, washing one's hands after pooping would have been right up there with under-cooked pork.

 

As I said in an earlier post, if the Bible were written today the big ban would be included in the creation story.

 

A lot would be different if it were written today. A lot would be different if it were truly inspired by an omniscient being who knows the future.

 

No, Christianity doesn't teach those things.  One does not sin if one does something unintended so there is no shame or guilt in things out of one's control.

 

Christianity teaches all these things. It just dresses it up and focuses on some parts more than others.

 

I can't say that men haven't shamed other men. but that is the man.  Not the the true teaching of the faith (specifically Christianity) Men want power, money, prestige.  They get these things by hurting others within religious communities and outside religious communities.  Many a secular person has walked over or past the little guy without offering a hand up.  That is inherent human nature.  Christianity teaches us to stop and offer a hand.  To give the shirt off our back to help another.

 

Or does it teach us to kick the dust off our feet and leave the town of those who do not believe? Does it teach us to not dine with the unrepentant sinner? In fact, it teaches both these things, and many other things that are diametrically opposed to each other throughout the texts. This is why there are different sects that focus on different things, some of these things polar opposites of each other. It's problematic in that it's not unified, it's all authoritative, and yet there is no accountability possible because all of it is subjectively determined. Reading this thread should reveal that glaringly - some defend a literal reading of the OT, some defend an allegorical reading of the OT, some defend the idea that it doesn't matter. They can't all be right because to be right means others are wrong. And yet each mini-community believes in the same assurance you do - the holy spirit itself wouldn't lead them astray.

 

 

ack - to be continued!

[albeto.]

 

*cont*

 

 

 

Is that not what love is?  Treating each person with dignity and respect?

I would think so, but it's not necessarily a biblical concept. Love is reserved for those who are disciples in the bible. Of course love is reserved for anyone who asks for it. Oh no wait, love is reserved for anyone and everyone. See the problem here? The OP is wondering how to reconcile today's modern idea of "love," "dignity," and "respect" with the OT idea of "love," "dignity," and "respect" (hint - it only includes the Israelites).

 

 

Christianity teaches us to be kind and compassionate.  It teaches us to give more of ourselves than we take from others.  It teaches us to not kill, not steal, not covet.

Within parameters. It also teaches to to shun the unbeliever and expect mother to turn against daughter, father against son, etc. Today's focus is on being helpful to the less fortunate, but that wasn't the focus four hundred years ago. Well, it was, but being "helpful" included ideas such as "compelling" conversion at the stake, lest the soul burn in hell forever and ever otherwise.

 

 

Unfortunately human beings are so bloody small minded.  We are greedy, rude and nasty to one another.  As my dear friend says all the time.  We are fallen.

This is what I mean about teaching shame. It's shameful to be a human? It's small-minded, greedy, rude, and nasty to be human? What about recognizing it's enormously fantastic to be a human! With all the countless sperm cells that fought to fertilize your mother's egg, the fact that YOU won the million and one lottery is AWESOME! Considering what, one in every four pregnancies naturally terminates, and of those that make it, a trillion, trillion combinations could go wrong, but you and I are sitting at our computers, sipping our coffee or wine, and marveling at each of the billions of experiences we've incorporated into our sense of self, and that's what we're sharing with each other. You and I are not small-minded, greedy, rude, and nasty, we're the culmination of every person we have had the privilege to know before this moment. We are creative, and inspired, and inspiring, and curious, and social, and sympathetic, and beautiful and wonderful! Carpe Diem! This is a precious opportunity we have - to get to experience life, to be cognizant of this experience, to share it with people we know, to know more people! Holy cow! There's no shame in being a human! Rejoice in your good luck!

 

 

If each and every one of us who profess to be Christians would actually follow what Jesus taught instead of backbiting, bitching and bickering among ourselves we could really make a difference in this world.  Regrettably that isn't going to happen any time soon.

No True Scotsman.

 

 

With your Corinthians quote you are trying to have it both ways.  You want the wackdoodles punished, but when the Bible speaks of punishment* for the wackdoodles you don't want that either.   That chapter goes on to tell the faithful to "...Purge the evil person from your midst."

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm showing you where the bible is teaching two different things. It's one of the reasons the moral component of the bible is so problematic - all this teaching of Jesus and love and bring the little children to me, this is the same religion that has as the foundation of the Christian faith the war god Yahweh who glorifies in smiting the enemy by giving them what they really deserve - smash their babies against the rocks as they watch. That'll teach 'em who's boss.

 

*shiver*

[Onceuponatime]

 

 

Obviously this will still lead to your problem with all the people destroyed in Sodom/Gommorah and in Noah's generation.  But the Bible's message is that people are given a chance to accept or reject God and that rejecting Him leads to eternal death - a fate we all share at first and some escape because of their acceptance of Jesus Christ (or His promise in the OT).  You might not/ probably won't accept that as a reason but it is logically self consistent.   * Can't say more - family emergency.  bye.

 

Funnily enough, I was recently in a Bible class on Romans (I still attend church for family reasons).  When the class got to the discussion of the Old Law and eternal life or eternal death, I was struck with the thought that the Law of Moses says nothing about eternal life or eternal death as consequences for not following the Law. There are only earthly blessings and curses. So I went home to make sure and after some research I found that the Old Testament doesn't really  have a doctrine of eternal hell as punishment for disobedience and access to eternal life in Heaven as a reward for obedience. That is a New Testament Christianity doctrine. If you had only the Old Testament to go by, you would have very little reason to expect that you would end up anywhere other than the grave.

[TracyP]

Funnily enough, I was recently in a Bible class on Romans (I still attend church for family reasons).  When the class got to the discussion of the Old Law and eternal life or eternal death, I was struck with the thought that the Law of Moses says nothing about eternal life or eternal death as consequences for not following the Law. There are only earthly blessings and curses. So I went home to make sure and after some research I found that the Old Testament doesn't really  have a doctrine of eternal hell as punishment for disobedience and access to eternal life in Heaven as a reward for obedience. That is a New Testament Christianity doctrine. If you had only the Old Testament to go by, you would have very little reason to expect that you would end up anywhere other than the grave.

 

Yes, and there in no belief or mention of Satan (the being) in the OT. I don't know what it means, but add it to the list of things that bother me...

[Cricket]

Yes, and there in no belief or mention of Satan (the being) in the OT. I don't know what it means, but add it to the list of things that bother me...

There is in Genesis and also in Job.

[Saddlemomma]

I don't accept on faith the idea that Jesus existed, so I don't think he said a thing. Nevertheless, the Christian scriptures say that Jesus did not come to abolish the law and that one who was found guilty of breaking one law will be found guilty of breaking the lot. In addition to that, there are a number of criteria the NT says will deny a person access to heaven. Clearly there are a number of requirements that were given to members of the community of believers.

 

 

Most secular historians today (95%) agree that Jesus did in fact exist.  They site the following non-biblical secondary source documents that point to his existence:

• Thallos (AD 55) History of the World (AD 160-240)
• Mara bar Serapion (post AD 70), Syriac Manuscript 14,658
• Tacitus (AD 56-120), Annals 15.44
• Pliny the Younger (AD 61-113), Letters 10.96
• Suetonius (AD 120), Life of Claudius 25.4
• Lucian of Samosata (AD 115-200), Perigrinus 11-13
• Celsus (AD 175), Contra Celsum 1.32-33
• Josephus (i) (AD 37-100), Jewish Antiquities 18.63-64
• Josephus (ii) (AD 37-100), Jewish Antiquities 20.200
• Talmud (i) (AD 100-200), baraitha Sanhedrin 43a-b
• Talmud (ii) (post AD 200), baraitha Shabbat 104b

In addition, most historians today accept the Gospels as primary source documents (in the context of witness testimonies).  They do, however, dispute his divinity.

 

Plus, no matter how you slice and dice it, Atheism is a religion:

re·li·gion[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

 

a·the·ism[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

noun

1.  the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

[Saddlemomma]

There is in Genesis and also in Job.

 

In addition to Genesis and Job, Satan/Lucifer is mentioned here:

 

Isaiah 14:4-20

Ezekiel 28:1-7  (the prince of Tyrus is Lucifer)

1 Chronicles 21:1

Psalms 109:6

Zechariah 3:1-2

[TracyP]

There is in Genesis and also in Job.

 

In Genesis Satan is never named, only assumed to be the serpent. Looking at the whole OT, I think it is safe to say that the Israelites would have believed that it was an actual talking (perhaps walking?) serpent.

 

There is definitely an argument to be made that Job is dealing with Satan (as in, the personal Satan that we see in the NT). But there is a strong counterargument that points out how we may be misinterpreting Satan in the book of Job. The fact that Satan isn't found elsewhere in the OT only gives strength to this argument.

 

Considering the prominent role Satan, heaven, and hell play in both the NT and many (most?) modern Christian churches, it is surprising to realize they play virtually no role in the OT.

 

FWIW, I am still a Christian. I hope my participation in this discussion isn't seen as anything but a struggle for answers. I have nowhere else to talk about this stuff. I have tried my pastor, and unfortunately he doesn't have many answers beyond, "the Bible says so." I have tried a few close friends and family members, but they simply don't want to discuss this stuff. They want to believe, and they don't want to think about what they believe or why.

[livetoread]

Yes, and there in no belief or mention of Satan (the being) in the OT. I don't know what it means, but add it to the list of things that bother me...

Different writers in the Bible had very different understandings regarding the nature of supernatural beings, why bad things happen, how we should treat each other, and what happens when we die. The Bible reports what these various authors thought the answers were, but I don't think there is coherence there. I don't think the authors *knew* the answers to those questions any more than we do. We ask them, we try and answer them, and we do the best we can to live meaningful lives. But I don't think they had any special leg up regarding the answers. I think if they did, there would be more agreement in the Bible on what those answers were.

[WishboneDawn]

I get the distinct impression that most in this thread who are "having trouble" aren't really having trouble. They're looking for an excuse to dismiss God and believers, and this was just a handy one.

My journey with Christianity, wherever I end up with it, has been one of community, growth, and intellectual challenge. It's hard for me to put stock in some of the outraged posts about OT stories that happened hundreds of centuries ago.

 

BUT, that's only a reflection of my experience.

 

I did not grow up in a stiflingly conservative or literal home. I did not have it drilled into m me that the bible was perfect and unquestionably good and dictated by God. I did not deal with intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and physical abuse by people of faith.I didn't spend years and risk alienating friends and family in order to challenge all of that.

 

Some people here did. And so a story that's come to represent very positive things in my life, like Abraham and Isaac, may only be something horrible and dark for them.

 

That doesn't mean my take on that story isn't worth consideration or that a wholesale condemnation of that story is correct but it does mean that outrage should be honored as something that they truly feel and that truly reflects their experience and that probably also harbors an insight and truth that those of us who don't feel that way may be lacking.

 

Christianity has earned that depth of hate and revolution by the way we've used the bible. We should acknowledge that.

[TracyP]

In addition to Genesis and Job, Satan/Lucifer is mentioned here:

 

Isaiah 14:4-20

Ezekiel 28:1-7  (the prince of Tyrus is Lucifer)

1 Chronicles 21:1

Psalms 109:6

Zechariah 3:1-2

 

These are all addressed in the link I provided to Cricket.

[Saddlemomma]

Funnily enough, I was recently in a Bible class on Romans (I still attend church for family reasons).  When the class got to the discussion of the Old Law and eternal life or eternal death, I was struck with the thought that the Law of Moses says nothing about eternal life or eternal death as consequences for not following the Law. There are only earthly blessings and curses. So I went home to make sure and after some research I found that the Old Testament doesn't really  have a doctrine of eternal hell as punishment for disobedience and access to eternal life in Heaven as a reward for obedience. That is a New Testament Christianity doctrine. If you had only the Old Testament to go by, you would have very little reason to expect that you would end up anywhere other than the grave.

 

Hell is mentioned in  the OT:

 

Deuteronomy 32:22

2 Samuel 22:6

Job 11:8

Job 17:16

Job 26:6

Psalms 18:5

Psalms 9:17

Psalms 30:3

Psalms 49:15  (according to this verse, they also knew about resurrection)

Psalms 55:15

Too many more references to list in Psalms as well as Proverbs

Isaiah 5:14

Isaiah 14:15

Isaiah 28:15

Isaiah 38:18

Isaiah 57:9

Ezekiel 31:16

Ezekiel 31:17

Ezekiel 32:21

Ezekiel 32:27

Amos 9:2

Jonah 2:2

Habakkuk 2:5

 

Okay, these people most definitely knew about hell!

[Cricket]

FWIW, I am still a Christian. I hope my participation in this discussion isn't seen as anything but a struggle for answers. I have nowhere else to talk about this stuff. I have tried my pastor, and unfortunately he doesn't have many answers beyond, "the Bible says so." I have tried a few close friends and family members, but they simply don't want to discuss this stuff. They want to believe, and they don't want to think about what they believe or why.

That's sad. The pastor part, not the still being Christian part. :-) Part of being a pastor is dealing with hard issues. I was blessed to have been raised in a Christian home. My father was a pastor and questions, especially hard ones, were encouraged. In the last two churches I have been in since leaving home, the pastors were/are the same way. Our pastors now don't skip passages when they are difficult. Sometimes it takes two or three weeks but we get through them. Most of what passes for teaching is churches these days is awful. Honest questions should always be answered and treated with respect.

 

Not sure what your background is but I lean Reformed so I'd recommend Ligonier and White Horse Inn as resources to begin finding answers. Contrary to some opinions in this thread, Christians are not illogical and they don't all ignore what they don't like or doesn't seem to fit.

[TracyP]

Hell is mentioned in  the OT:

 

Deuteronomy 32:22

2 Samuel 22:6

Job 11:8

Job 17:16

Job 26:6

Psalms 18:5

Psalms 9:17

Psalms 30:3

Psalms 49:15  (according to this verse, they also knew about resurrection)

Psalms 55:15

Too many more references to list in Psalms as well as Proverbs

Isaiah 5:14

Isaiah 14:15

Isaiah 28:15

Isaiah 38:18

Isaiah 57:9

Ezekiel 31:16

Ezekiel 31:17

Ezekiel 32:21

Ezekiel 32:27

Amos 9:2

Jonah 2:2

Habakkuk 2:5

 

Okay, these people most definitely knew about hell!

 

But this was not hell in the way modern Christians think of hell. This was the place where ALL the dead go.

 

[TracyP]

That's sad. The pastor part, not the still being Christian part. :-) Part of being a pastor is dealing with hard issues. I was blessed to have been raised in a Christian home. My father was a pastor and questions, especially hard ones, were encouraged. In the last two churches I have been in since leaving home, the pastors were/are the same way. Our pastors now don't skip passages when they are difficult. Sometimes it takes two or three weeks but we get through them. Most of what passes for teaching is churches these days is awful. Honest questions should always be answered and treated with respect.

 

Not sure what your background is but I lean Reformed so I'd recommend Ligonier and White Horse Inn as resources to begin finding answers. Contrary to some opinions in this thread, Christians are not illogical and they don't all ignore what they don't like or doesn't seem to fit.

 

In fairness, my pastor tries. It is just when I push back and explain why his explanation doesn't make sense he falls back on "The Bible says so. We don't have God's understanding, but we know God is good and we know the Bible is true." That is what every single Christian I know falls back on at the end of the day. Which is why I appreciate these discussions when they happen here. :)

[Saddlemomma]

These are all addressed in the link I provided to Cricket.

 

Thank you.  I will have to investigate that more.  I always like to learn something new.