posted
In the book "When Bad Things Happen to Good People," by Harold S Kushner, Kushner (a rabbi) presents the idea that The Old Testament portrays the Devil as being a part of God, and not a rebel angel at all.
He uses the verses about God being the source of both good and evil, the alpha and the omega, the source of all things, and the intro part of Job to show that the Devil really isn't outside of God's plan.
He argues (much better than I ever could) that the Jewish tradition (or at least a part of it) did not view the Devil as a separate being from God, but rather as the part of God sent to test them.
He also argues that the creation of the Devil as a being with a will independent from God is a Christian idea and poorly supported in the Old Testament, at best.
I wish I could find the book and present more of his argument. I am wondering what your views on the issue are? As an orthodox Jew, what do you believe when it comes to the Devil?
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, if whether He needed them or lacked them is relevant, then you need to demonstrate a need or lack of blind obedience.
God punishes disobedience more directly than He punishes a lack of love. The Bible is quite explicit about the failure to obey God. I don't know why He demands obedience, but His desire for obedience is made clear in the text. His desire for company is at least one order of magnitude less obvious.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I keep hearing that my God is evil (I'm LDS, not really sure if you're including my understanding of God in with the Christian God). Why are you deliberately working with just a portion of the available information to state this? You are willing to approach the matter hypothetically, saying that if God exists and really is telling the truth in the scriptures, then he murdered countless people, caused genocide, allows all the suffering in the world, etc and is therefore evil.
However, I don't see you taking into account the rest of the scriptures that offer a more eternal perspective on mankind's purpose in this life. Knowing Hatrack, this has probably been hashed and re-hashed, but I haven't seen it addressed. Would Tom, Squicky, or anyone else that has espoused this viewpoint mind sharing their reasoning?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because a God who does all the things that the Old Testament God is said to have done is clearly capable of lying.
Often, a part of being an abusive parent is telling your children that they deserve their treatment or that you are really doing this for their own good.
---
Also, this holds true if this God doesn't exist and it is a series of stories that people tell. The lessons of the story are built around an evil, childish deity.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I give the LDS version of God a pass because He didn't create the universe and isn't omnipotent. He may well be bound by rules which require Him to act in ways that appear non-optimal. Omnipotent hypothetical gods are not so bound, and can be held to a higher standard.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure what translation those are stopped on. The cite makes it very easy to switch to whatever translation you prefer though, so I'm not concerned.
People have tried to explain this "miracle" to me in really strange ways. I think it's clear that JC is being a jerk. The moral lesson JC attaches to his actions is "Have faith and ye shall receive," with the implied ending "a whithered tree."
What makes it even more absurd is how, in the version from Mark, it's stated that it's not even the season for figs. That really makes JC look... well, childish and stupid. I wouldn't call his behavior evil, but i would call it selfish and bad.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Because a God who does all the things that the Old Testament God is said to have done is clearly capable of lying. --- Also, this holds true if this God doesn't exist and it is a series of stories that people tell. The lessons of the story are built around an evil, childish deity.
Capable of lying because there is evidence of Him lying, or because in your view He did so many other horrible things that He is morally bankrupt and therefore lying is not also out of the question?
In response to your last paragraph, I've actually read many of your posts on the place of myths in a culture and found what you've had to say to be very interesting, FWIW.
Also, thank you for your response Tom.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Because a God who does all the things that the Old Testament God is said to have done is clearly capable of lying.
Often, a part of being an abusive parent is telling your children that they deserve their treatment or that you are really doing this for their own good.
---
Also, this holds true if this God doesn't exist and it is a series of stories that people tell. The lessons of the story are built around an evil, childish deity.
Sometimes that is also part of being a good parent.
I have said this before, too. The Scriptures are not all one thing. They include history - not as we would record it - but in the style of the people who recorded it; laws - most of which make a lot of sense even today, some of which might have made sense at the time but don't now, some that might have just been people getting it wrong; poetry, allegory, letters, legal documents.
People who record things generally record them from their own perspective. Not our perspective. Not a post-Enlightenment perspective. A bronze age (is that right?) perspective. What we call the Old Testament is a record of one people's understanding of God from the perspective of people who lived in a fairly brutal culture.
Why do atheists and agnostics insist on taking the Scriptures more literally than most Christians take them?
edit to add: DD, even a cursory examinination of the gospels would indicate the fig tree story is understood to be a lesson rather than an actual happening. It is tied to the parable of the fig tree (see Luke 13 6-9).
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: How could such an act not be classified as genocide? AFAIK, they qualify as a religious group and the Israelite war criminals inflicted all of a) through d).
The world is different now. At the time, we killed only those who posed a clear and present danger. They would not be considered, in modern terms, as having posted such a clear and present danger, yet they did at the time. We had fresh Israelite corpses to remind us of that fact.
That is actually an interesting proposition. Keep in mind that all I know about the situation at hand is that related in this thread. That is the sequence of events is like this (as gathered from Lisa and BB:
1) There are two groups of people, group A (Isralites) and group B (Midianites). 2) A third party C (God) gave a set of instructions to group A to kill the males and the non-virgin members of group B. 3) Group A refused or failed to do so. 4) Party C killed some of group A to force the issue 5) Group A followed the orders and killed the males and non-virgin members of group B. 6) The remaining members of B were taken as slaves (possibly married)
I'm assuming from your post, that you accept that using the definition that the set of circumstances qualifies as genocide. However, you are also arguing that the genocide was justified, or indeed necessary for self-defence.
The thing is, it was not group B that posed a threat, but party C, God. In this case, the defence would be "I was just following orders (defiance of which was punishable by death)"
This would appear to be the Nuremberg Defence. However, if there is anything that the associated trials demonstrated, it is that "I was just following orders" is *not* a defence for war crimes. Indeed, even if it was a valid defence, it would only be shifting the charge/title of "war criminal" from the Israelites to their God.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Lisa, You didn't actually answer my post. I get that there may be entities that know more than we do. That's not really an issue. What I'm saying is, how do we know that they are good? From what I can see, your God is pretty clearly evil. Why should I trust that he is not?
What's your evidence for Him being evil? I mean, what has He done that you see as evil? Maybe a better question would be, How do you define good and evil? We should probably nail that down before using the terms, no? We could be using them differently.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Because a God who does all the things that the Old Testament God is said to have done is clearly capable of lying.
God may be capable of anything, but He doesn't lie. "God is not a man that He should lie".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but Lisa, what you are quoting is only a reliable guide if your god is not a liar; therefore, it cannot be used to show that your god always tells truth.
As for evil, I don't think a general definition is going to be forthcoming, but I can point to some specific instances: The killing of the Midianites was evil; the killing of all the world's people and animals in the flood was evil; and the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah was evil.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: In the book "When Bad Things Happen to Good People," by Harold S Kushner, Kushner (a rabbi) presents the idea that The Old Testament portrays the Devil as being a part of God, and not a rebel angel at all.
Sure. The satan (notice the definite article, rather than a personal name) is only an aspect of God Himself. All angels are. That's what an angel is -- essentially a finger of God, so to speak. That's why in Judaism we say that two angels cannot have the same task, and one angel cannot have more than one task. Because the angel is the task. If it had two tasks, it would be two angels.
The whole idea of a rebelling angel is a purely Christian concept. It's utterly foreign to Judaism. We view it as no different than a dualistic/Zoroastrian concept which is not consonant with monotheism.
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: He uses the verses about God being the source of both good and evil, the alpha and the omega, the source of all things, and the intro part of Job to show that the Devil really isn't outside of God's plan.
See, we don't have a devil at all. A satan is a misleader. It comes from the word "soteh", which means to deviate from a path. A satan is just one who engages in that behavior. A person can be a satan.
You know what? Try pronouncing it "sah-TAHN", instead of "SAY-tin". That's how it's pronounced in Hebrew, and thinking of it that way is a good way to distinguish it from the character of Satan in Christian mythology.
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: He argues (much better than I ever could) that the Jewish tradition (or at least a part of it) did not view the Devil as a separate being from God, but rather as the part of God sent to test them.
Yup. But that's not the concept you were talking about. You were invoking a deity concept of a Devil who could "kill God". That has nothing to do with the idea of the satan in Judaism.
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: He also argues that the creation of the Devil as a being with a will independent from God is a Christian idea and poorly supported in the Old Testament, at best.
Indeed.
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: I wish I could find the book and present more of his argument. I am wondering what your views on the issue are? As an orthodox Jew, what do you believe when it comes to the Devil?
Pretty much what you described. But we wouldn't call that "the Devil". That term refers to a Christian concept of Satan -- a demigod who is more or less God's opposite number.
(Caveat: I know not all Christians share this view, which is why I say "a Christian concept" rather than "the Christian concept".)
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why do atheists and agnostics insist on taking the Scriptures more literally than most Christians take them?
edit to add: DD, even a cursory examinination of the gospels would indicate the fig tree story is understood to be a lesson rather than an actual happening. It is tied to the parable of the fig tree (see Luke 13 6-9).
Really? So, in this case, Jesus is acting as the impatient man who owns the vineyard, and not as the man who is willing to fertilize the tree and wait another year? How is that good?
I think you'll also notice that most parables do not contain the words, "Jesus said to the tree, `No one will ever eat a fig from you again!' His disciples heard what he said."
Both "parables" from Matthew and Mark establish JC's disciples as witnesses to the event. I don't think that's how parables usually work. And the discourse at the end of the parable has JC explaining that Faith is what allows him to "do these things." Again, simply looking at what is written indicates that the event actually happened. I mean, he explains how he did it, implying that the deed was indeed, done.
Even if we ignore that the "lesson" establishes the disciples as witnesses, even if we ignore JC saying that he did it, and try to tie this to the parable from Luke, I am at a complete loss, because JC still looks like a jerk. Compare him to the man who wants to fertilize the tree and wait another year. I mean, it's not even fig season, what did JC expect? In the parable from Luke, the tree had not born fruit for three years. That's very different from not bearing fruit out of season. And the ultimate lesson appears to be, "If you have faith, you can perform miracles." The one from Luke seems to be about how, if you don't bear any fruit from God, God will kill you (right, that's not evil...)
In Mark, in part of what I originally cited, we see JC throw another temper tantrum when he turns over tables and chases out the shop keepers. Note the seamless transition between the account of the fig tree and the tantrum at the temple. Oh wait, and back to the tree again. Since the tantrum at the temple is contained within the story of the fig tree, are we to assume that also did not happen?
What cues are you using to determine fact from fiction?
I'll try not to take things so literally in the future, it is a problem I have. But as someone who finds logical fallacies inherently funny, I get much more joy out of taking things literally than I would out of ... whatever it is that you're doing. Looking at the situation in an abstract way, perhaps we can call it?
edit: Thank you Lisa. I did not know if Kushner accurately represented things or not. Yes, I invoked a view of the Devil as a demigod, but only because BlackBlade did it first. I enjoy discussing religion and I find the Devil particularly interesting. Not that this has anything to do with anything, but throughout this and other threads, I have gained much respect for the Jewish religion, and less and less for Christianity.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: That is actually an interesting proposition. Keep in mind that all I know about the situation at hand is that related in this thread. That is the sequence of events is like this (as gathered from Lisa and BB:
1) There are two groups of people, group A (Isralites) and group B (Midianites). 2) A third party C (God) gave a set of instructions to group A to kill the males and the non-virgin members of group B. 3) Group A refused or failed to do so. 4) Party C killed some of group A to force the issue 5) Group A followed the orders and killed the males and non-virgin members of group B. 6) The remaining members of B were taken as slaves (possibly married)
Nope. You have the Israelites wandering in the desert. The Midianites saw the Israelites and thought they were scary, so they hired a guy named Balaam to curse Israel. Balaam tried, but God didn't let him.
Balaam went off and advised the Midianites on how to destroy the Israelites. He told them that God would actually do the job for them if they could get the Israelites to sin. So the Midianites sent their women out to entrap Israelite men. Some of them fell for it, and God slapped Israel with a plague.
God told Moses to have the Israelites deal with the Midianites by all but wiping them out. The Israelites went out and did it, but spared the women. Either because they weren't explicitly commanded to kill the women, or because they were hot. Moses was annoyed at the illogic of the troops, and explained that the women were front line troops in the spiritual attack on Israel. Except for the virgins, who were, by definition, innocent of that. So the Israelites finished the job.
Very different story than the one you just described.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yeah, but Lisa, what you are quoting is only a reliable guide if your god is not a liar; therefore, it cannot be used to show that your god always tells truth.
True.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As for evil, I don't think a general definition is going to be forthcoming, but I can point to some specific instances: The killing of the Midianites was evil; the killing of all the world's people and animals in the flood was evil; and the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah was evil.
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: edit: Thank you Lisa. I did not know if Kushner accurately represented things or not. Yes, I invoked a view of the Devil as a demigod, but only because BlackBlade did it first. I enjoy discussing religion and I find the Devil particularly interesting. Not that this has anything to do with anything, but throughout this and other threads, I have gained much respect for the Jewish religion, and less and less for Christianity.
Have you read Steven Brust's To Reign in Hell, or John De Vito's The Devil's Apocrypha? The first is a retelling of Milton's war in heaven, told as a fantasy novel. The second is weird, but kind of interesting. Neither one makes God look particularly good. But they're fun to read.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a ton of things to read as it is, thanks to school and all, but I ordered these because I like to abuse my temporary status as an Amazon Prime member, and they do seem interesting.
Most of the basic assumptions I play with for ideas come from the Bible or Dante or Milton or Blake, I've never read a narrative by a contemporary writer about the issues, so these should be interesting. Well, at least nothing so straight-forwardly about the issues.
Thank you for the recommendations, I look forward to seeing how they go.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I understand that. The point is, if these things had been done by anyone other than your god, you would agree that they were evil. But your god gets a special pass. Why?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I understand that. The point is, if these things had been done by anyone other than your god, you would agree that they were evil. But your god gets a special pass. Why?
I predict the answer will be "Because He's God."
Edit: Oh, I thought we were talking about God ordering Genocide still.
Yes, I understand that. The point is, if these things had been done by anyone other than your god, you would agree that they were evil. But your god gets a special pass. Why?
For the same reason that if my parents had sent me to my room, it would have been completely different than if someone had kidnapped me and confined me to a room.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that's a good analogy. Genocide is not the equivalent of being sent to your room, it's the equivalent of being told to kill your brother or else you're going to get it yourself. The flood is not being sent to bed without supper, it's being hung upside-down in the basement and hit with baseball bats. We would consider such parents evil even if they only did it to their own children.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why do atheists and agnostics insist on taking the Scriptures more literally than most Christians take them?
You don't want me to speculate on this, I'm sure.
Speculate away. Why do you take a literal view of Scripture when that isn't accurate? When it doesn't take into account the audience for whom it was written, the literary conventions of the culture, when it doesn't generally convey the truth of what the various writers were saying? Why do you insist on a fairly recent practice that often leads to misunderstanding a lot of it?
I'll address the fig tree thing tomorrow when I am at a computer.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Very different story than the one you just described.
Not particularly, omitting the the spin, the only changes are that Party C now kills some of group A in part 4) before giving instructions in part 2) (a change which makes it seem even less fair) and that the instructions are changed from targeting the males and non-virgins to "all but wiping them out."
These changes do not change the basis for my following remarks (that the events still match the convention) and thus the crime is still genocide and your implied defence is still that they were just following orders (albeit coerced by the threat of death). However, AFAIK (and again, I emphasize that I am not a lawyer, perhaps Dag might know) "following orders under the threat of death" was established to not be a full defence against a charge of war crimes but can only act as a mitigating circumstance. Otherwise, practically every defendant at Nuremberg could have claimed that they were following orders under the threat of death and have gotten off.
I also believe that you're implying that the seduction counts as an attack. The problem of course is that the seduction itself is harmless. Seduction isn't even a crime, unless they actually raped the Israelites. The crime is the murderous plague, for which God is responsible.
Thus your revisions only really add the charge of mass murder to the existing charge of war crimes (genocide) against God.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't been around to post for a while. My apologies for backtracking on the thread a bit, but I think these posts warrant replies.
Barabba,
quote:
quote:I have to ask; what about all the laws prescribing stonings, and the ones that conflict with Jesus' doctrine of grace? It seems like a contradiction rather than an expansion in those cases.
It goes back to the purpose of the Law, and the purpose of the Savior. The Law is there to condemn you, he is there to save you. Because of him, a sinner can be saved/redeemed. God took away from the Law the power to make the final decision.
That's really not what you said earlier; you've moved the goalpost on this debate.
It also makes no sense, especially when Jesus himself that most people will end up going to hell (Matthew 7:14). There is still a morality there, condemning people to damnation (sometimes irredeemable, such as speaking blasphemies about the spirit, which I've done repeatedly), and so far what you've done is obscure and obfuscate the relationship between the morality and mosaic law.
Further, you weren't answering my question. The doctrine of grace, which includes forgiveness and love for one's enemies, conflicts with laws which prescribe stoning for crimes like wearing a jumper of wool and linen. How do you resolve that conflict, other than by evading it?
And I've already explained why I don't buy the god as parent analogy.
quote:Let me explain: When you love someone more than you love yourself "fear" of disappointing them becomes a factor of your thought process.
Most of the time, that was not the fear Jesus talked about. He was definitely referring to fear of punishment and eternal damnation.
BlackBlade,
quote:Scott: It does not state for what purpose the virginal women were kept. "Keep alive for yourselves" could mean ALOT of things.
1: Keep alive for yourselves as maid servants. 2: Keep alive for yourselves as adopted children 3: Keep alive for yourselves as slaves edit: 4: Keep alive for yourselves as future wives/concubines (Decided to add that as a possibility but IMO an unlikely one.)
Why is it unlikely? There are precedents indicating Moses and the Israelites didn't find rape as objectionable as we find it today. Consider for example Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
quote:Genocide is an extremely misleading word in this instance. They left the virginal women alive did they not?
And the Nazis didn't get all the Jews, either.
quote:If you want to take what details you do know and say, "No way could this be fair, the God of the OT is evil." that's your business, but I disagree that it's impossible to justify His actions in this instance.
You give god the benefit of the doubt in saying that there could be a complicated higher reason for acting immorally. Would you extend the same possibility to the Nazis?
quote:Why do you keep looking at the harsh measures God took in the OT rather then also taking into account the terrible things the people at the time were doing?
Because I'm judging god, not bronze age humans.
quote:More often then not, God simply does not help the Israelites when they disobey. Foreign armies are permitted to molest them, drought is allowed to blight their crops. It's no different from a parent who initially spanks their child and down the road just stops letting them borrow the car when they keep coming home drunk.
It's very very different. God created those foreign armies and droughts, and knowingly allowing people to be killed does not compare with refusing to loan someone your car.
quote:Instead they turn to the idols of their neighbors some of whom belonged to religions that were nothing short of evil. Where men and women mutilated their bodies sometimes inviting spirits to posses their bodies so that they could divine the future. Where children were placed bound in the arms of bronze bulls...
Do you seriously want to start cataloguing the evils of other religions at the time? Was the law of Moses much better?
Dagonee,
quote:
quote:6: Systematically manifested himself to those who would listen thus preserving these teachings. - But not so systematically that even all the various Judeo-Christian sects agree on them.
Your complaints seem to have a common theme - "God didn't give us everything I think he could have."
A lot of your rebuttals seem to revolve around the argument "It could have been worse."
DevilDreamt,
quote:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, wow! A Golden Compass Satanist! It's cute!
*pats head*
There's something charming about buying into an entire foundational myth and then deliberately choosing the losing side.
I don't know how to feel about your comment. It is condescending, but you seem so pleased by my obscure world view that I'm not sure what to do.
I for one thought you were an atheist playing devil's advocate.
Kate,
quote:I have said this before, too. The Scriptures are not all one thing. They include history - not as we would record it - but in the style of the people who recorded it; laws - most of which make a lot of sense even today, some of which might have made sense at the time but don't now, some that might have just been people getting it wrong; poetry, allegory, letters, legal documents.
I have asked this before many times too. What parts are to be taken literally, and what parts metaphorically? How do you know?
Can the cruelty of mosaic law be chalked up to the brutality of human culture at the time? It had nothing to do with god? And all the evil things Jesus said were mistranslated or misunderstood, whereas all the good bits were true?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: DevilDreamt,
quote:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, wow! A Golden Compass Satanist! It's cute!
*pats head*
There's something charming about buying into an entire foundational myth and then deliberately choosing the losing side.
I don't know how to feel about your comment. It is condescending, but you seem so pleased by my obscure world view that I'm not sure what to do.
I for one thought you were an atheist playing devil's advocate.
I was trying to, but no one wanted to play with me, so I ended up engaging in a fruitful conversation with Lisa instead, so everything's okay.
For the record (if there is such a thing) if I did believe in God and Satan representing a battle between good and evil, I would side with neither of them, because I find them both to be over-controlling lunatics, and I have all sorts of trouble distinguishing between the two of them anyway.
It also makes no sense, especially when Jesus himself that most people will end up going to hell (Matthew 7:14). There is still a morality there, condemning people to damnation (sometimes irredeemable, such as speaking blasphemies about the spirit, which I've done repeatedly), and so far what you've done is obscure and obfuscate the relationship between the morality and mosaic law.
I don't know how I moved the goal post, but what I do see is that when you read Matthew 7:14, you see condemnation. In my reality (due to my relationship with God) I see guidance. To me 7:14 tells me that the road to "heaven" is not the popular one. It's a road that requires my attention to ensure I don't veer off to the right or left.
If your view of God is of a hateful, vengeful, dictating God, then no matter how much evidence I use to show otherwise will gain him any credit. The reason being that the same evidence I present, you will use to condemn him.
Euripides, I understand the difficulties to see him as such at times. I've experienced the same questions and played the Devil's advocate. (Don't you find that a funny expression?)
[quote}
Further, you weren't answering my question. The doctrine of grace, which includes forgiveness and love for one's enemies, conflicts with laws which prescribe stoning for crimes like wearing a jumper of wool and linen. How do you resolve that conflict, other than by evading it?
[\quote}
Of course it conflicts. All the Law did was show the consequence of sin - death. Grace gives someone underserving the opportunity to live, to be saved through Christ. That's why he was crucified. The elder's didn't by that. They made their living on observing the law to the "T". They didn't, wouldn't, and couldn't understand the concept of grace.
Why am I going to advocate for the Law when my salvation is the product of grace. Why do I not care now that if someone commits adultery they are NOT stoned to death? I'll tell you why. Because of Christ's teachings. He preached forgiveness, understanding, and redemption. You know what else pissed off the elders? The fact that he hung out with sinners, the condemn by the Law.
I'm trying to help you see why a Christian does not have an issue between the Law and Christ's grace. The Law is important to me because it tells me what sin is, but it's through God's grace that I'm able to live by it. If I slip from time to time (and repent); I have Jesus to act as my mediator to the Most High. Jesus knows my struggles. He's been human, and knows the struggle we have trying to live by the Law to the "T". I'd rather be judge by him than by the Law.
I hope you don't think I'm trying to reach through the "touchy feely" approach, but I can't explain it any differently. I hope you find an answer adequate to meet your criteria.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my reality (due to my relationship with God) I see guidance. To me 7:14 tells me that the road to "heaven" is not the popular one. It's a road that requires my attention to ensure I don't veer off to the right or left.
You can call it guidance, and you wouldn't be wrong. But it's god's guidance that we follow his way, or else we will face damnation and hell; according to rules he made.
quote:If your view of God is of a hateful, vengeful, dictating God, then no matter how much evidence I use to show otherwise will gain him any credit. The reason being that the same evidence I present, you will use to condemn him.
No, I wouldn't. There are many passages in the bible that encourage good. Otherwise Christianity is unlikely to have survived to this day.
The problem is that those passages conflict and in some books are outnumbered by examples of god's evil.
Can you read the old testament and see god as forgiving?
quote:I've experienced the same questions and played the Devil's advocate.
Just to be clear, I'm not playing devil's advocate; I mean what I'm saying.
quote:Of course it conflicts. All the Law did was show the consequence of sin - death. Grace gives someone underserving the opportunity to live, to be saved through Christ.
But god is the one who gave sin those consequences in the first place.
quote:Why am I going to advocate for the Law when my salvation is the product of grace.
I really don't expect Christians to advocate the law. I started this thread wondering how a Christian could be okay with the fact that their god advocated so much stoning and violence. And thank you for trying to answer it: "I'm trying to help you see why a Christian does not have an issue between the Law."
quote:Why do I not care now that if someone commits adultery they are NOT stoned to death? I'll tell you why. Because of Christ's teachings. He preached forgiveness, understanding, and redemption.
Okay, I understand why you don't stone people. But is it still a sin with the same metaphysical consequences it had in old testament times? Surely not everything is forgiven?
I think I understand what you're arguing, which is that the law was an instrument used to define sin, and that the doctrine of grace released humanity from having to observe or enforce it. But if what constitutes sin still has not changed, and you can still be sent to hell for many of those sins, I don't see how that should be comforting for a moral Christian. The same moral precepts are there; just that they no longer have the same corporeal consequences, and there is now more room for forgiveness.
Is homosexuality still an abomination? Is it still wrong to wear a jumper of wool and linen? Or is that a particular sin that we're always forgiven for? If so, which ones are we forgiven for and which ones still earn us damnation?
I have to say that the whole "died for our sins" story has no logic to it either. God had to send his son (which was also himself at the same time) down to earth and have him sacrificed, so that he could then change his mind about a set of laws that he gave to Moses in the first place?
quote:The Law is important to me because it tells me what sin is, but it's through God's grace that I'm able to live by it.
Sorry, I don't understand this. You need god's grace to be able to follow the law (but the law is not in effect)? So you do try to follow Moses' teachings?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Can you read the old testament and see god as forgiving?
Honestly, it's a mix. In the OT I see a God that exercises "tough" love as a method of correction. But he does show compassion and love at the same time.
Look at the books at Kings for an instance, when I read how stubborn the people of Isreal were time and time again, God shows his Grace by forgiving them until he had to cast them out of the promised land. (Because there are consequence when you sin. God is a righteous judge that CAN'T let sin go unpunished if it isn't rectified by his grace. Can the pot complain to the potter?)
But their toss out falls on their shoulders on not God.
You know who fits the best example for mankind from the OT to the today, Judas. Here is a man who walks along side the living God. He is an eyewitness to numerous miracles. Get's preached/taught the truth of life directly from God, and yet is tempted by evil. What more does it take for God to tell mankind that the secret of life is to worship him?(I know this sounds a bit out there from an "unbeliever's" stand point.) Anything would take away our "free" will to choose to love him. He wants us to love him out of "free" will. If he didn't, we'd be just Robots to him.
quote:
But god is the one who gave sin those consequences in the first place.
Do you know what is sin's ultimate consequence? Sin separates you from God. Sin and God can can not be together. That's why the Bible talks about being cleansed by the blood. God is Holy. The definition of Holy means that there is no sin within him. If a man even commits one sin through out his whole life (meaning he was a pretty good guy in our standards) he would die in God's prescense, because God can't be in the same vicinity of sin.
quote:
Is homosexuality still an abomination? Is it still wrong to wear a jumper of wool and linen? Or is that a particular sin that we're always forgiven for? If so, which ones are we forgiven for and which ones still earn us damnation?
Homosexuality is still a sin. Sin is sin Euripides. There is no scale to it. Sin carries the same consequence if you cheat, lie, steal, or murder.
Here is the difference now - as oppose to OT times. I will not stone a homosexual. I have family members that are gay that I still love. They don't have to answer to me for their gayness. All I can do is love them and pray for them that God may touch their life in such a way that they may be saved. Jesus preached about let a man that has no sin cast the first stone. Meaning, who are we to judge.
I would gaurantee my downfall if all I did was go around and judge people. (This coming from a man whose in his youth got off on judging people.)
quote:
Sorry, I don't understand this. You need god's grace to be able to follow the law (but the law is not in effect)? So you do try to follow Moses' teachings?
I follow the teachings of Jesus. His teaching boils down to this; Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Who can treat me better than I treat myself? Do you know how difficult it is to try to treat someone else the same way? It's impossible by my own strenght. But through God's grace/love/power I may strive to accomplish it.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't think that's a good analogy. Genocide is not the equivalent of being sent to your room, it's the equivalent of being told to kill your brother or else you're going to get it yourself. The flood is not being sent to bed without supper, it's being hung upside-down in the basement and hit with baseball bats. We would consider such parents evil even if they only did it to their own children.
The analogy doesn't speak to the concrete used. It speaks to the dynamic. I'm surprised to see you make that mistake.
We weren't told "Kill the Midianites or God will kill you." We were told "The Midianites killed you and will do it again, so kill them."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Very different story than the one you just described.
Not particularly, omitting the the spin, the only changes are that Party C now kills some of group A in part 4) before giving instructions in part 2) (a change which makes it seem even less fair) and that the instructions are changed from targeting the males and non-virgins to "all but wiping them out."
I'm not using your inane "party" nomenclature. The Midianites tried, twice, to wipe us out. We wiped them out both in response and to prevent them from trying again. I have no qualms about that whatsoever.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Barabba: Homosexuality is still a sin.
No, it's not. All God forbade was anal sex between two men. Not "homosexuality" in general. There are far more prohibitions that relate to men and women.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly, it's a mix. In the OT I see a God that exercises "tough" love as a method of correction. But he does show compassion and love at the same time.
Well, if you want to call it that. I personally wouldn't use the phrase 'tough love' to describe class-A war crimes.
I'm also unconvinced that he showed compassion at the same time, and wouldn't see that as excusing such evil in any case. How about in the book of Numbers, where the Israelites understandably hunger for meat, and cry in their suffering. When Moses asks god for meat on their behalf, god is angered, and sends millions of dead quails to their camp. When the Israelites start to dig in, god strikes them with a plague. Compassion?
quote:Look at the books at Kings for an instance, when I read how stubborn the people of Isreal were time and time again, God shows his Grace by forgiving them until he had to cast them out of the promised land. (Because there are consequence when you sin. God is a righteous judge that CAN'T let sin go unpunished if it isn't rectified by his grace. Can the pot complain to the potter?)
I don't see how god's hand was forced, which I think you're implying. He's the one who defined sin and its consequences in the first place, as I've said.
quote:
quote:But god is the one who gave sin those consequences in the first place.
Do you know what is sin's ultimate consequence? Sin separates you from God. Sin and God can can not be together.
But do you disagree that god is the one who defined what sin is?
quote:
quote:Is homosexuality still an abomination? Is it still wrong to wear a jumper of wool and linen? Or is that a particular sin that we're always forgiven for? If so, which ones are we forgiven for and which ones still earn us damnation?
Homosexuality is still a sin. Sin is sin Euripides.
Well that's disappointing.
quote:There is no scale to it. Sin carries the same consequence if you cheat, lie, steal, or murder.
Does the bible say that?
quote:Here is the difference now - as oppose to OT times. I will not stone a homosexual. I have family members that are gay that I still love. They don't have to answer to me for their gayness.
I'm glad.
quote:I follow the teachings of Jesus. His teaching boils down to this; Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Well, this summary is part of what I take objection to. I can't disagree that this is a great rule to live by, but such a simplification whitewashes all the ugly stuff in the bible.
In fact I think the salient characteristic of Christianity is actually obedience to god, more often than not on the basis of fear or guilt. In the book of Genesis for example, after god stops Abraham from sacrificing his son (I can't imagine the psychological trauma Isaac must have endured), he says that he now knows that Abraham fears him. Nevermind that god, being omniscient (if you believe that; some Christians don't), would have known Abraham's mind beforehand.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you take a literal view of Scripture when that isn't accurate? When it doesn't take into account the audience for whom it was written, the literary conventions of the culture, when it doesn't generally convey the truth of what the various writers were saying?
You start from the assumption that your religion contains truth; you have previously said that you can't imagine any amount of evidence that would sway your opinion on this issue. Therefore, where the Scriptures deviate from what you observe to be truth, you assume those Scriptures are metaphorical, or speak of truths for a different era, or simply written by fallible men.
I -- and most non-believers -- do not start with the default assumption that your religion is True. Consequently, when the Scriptures contain obvious contradictions and/or conflict with observed reality, we do not make the extra effort to come up with apologia; we see it as further evidence that the religion is not True.
In fact, arguing that different people find different "truths" in the Bible, to a non-believer, often looks like a powerfully compelling argument for the non-divine origin of the Bible.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, arguing that different people find different "truths" in the Bible, to a non-believer, often looks like a powerfully compelling argument for the non-divine origin of the Bible.
Equally, it can look like a powerfully compelling argument for the non-divine way in which the Bible has been handed down for thousands of years.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you take a literal view of Scripture when that isn't accurate? When it doesn't take into account the audience for whom it was written, the literary conventions of the culture, when it doesn't generally convey the truth of what the various writers were saying?
You start from the assumption that your religion contains truth; you have previously said that you can't imagine any amount of evidence that would sway your opinion on this issue.
And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between faith/belief and conviction. I don't share the view that no amount of evidence would sway my opinion as to the truth of my religion. Furthermore, I don't start from the assumption that it's true.
As you say, the proposition that it contains truth is almost completely tautalogical. If God is lying, we're pretty much screwed. It's a pretty negative proposition, though. Because... well, we really are screwed if it's the case.
Now... if you wanted to come from a POV that said that maybe God wanted us to grow up and rebel against him, and that the object of the exercise is specifically that... I can see that POV. I don't think it works, but it least you can start with it.
For me, the main thing is consistency. Is my religion consistent? Yes. Does it contain inherent self-contradictions? No. Do I need to resort to "Credo quia absurdum"? Absolutely not. Any of that would be a deal-breaker for me. God doesn't get to tell me to turn my brain off.
Has God punished my people except when it was appropriate? Not that I can see. That in and of itself seems to indicate good, rather than evil.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I allow for the possibility of metaphor in the Bible because Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold, and it's obvious he didn't mean that he had hinges installed on him and people moved him to let sheep out.
I allow for the possibility of metaphor in things I don't consider true, like novels, because when Frodo told Sam "I am naked in the dark" (before the Eye of Sauron), it was obvious he didn't mean that he'd gone to Sauron's palace and taken his clothes off.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: In the book of Genesis for example, after god stops Abraham from sacrificing his son (I can't imagine the psychological trauma Isaac must have endured), he says that he now knows that Abraham fears him. Nevermind that god, being omniscient (if you believe that; some Christians don't), would have known Abraham's mind beforehand.
Jewish tradition holds that Isaac was 37 years old at the time. And both aware of what God had commandment, and as willing as his father to carry it out if required to. I wouldn't worry so much about trauma.
Also, the Hebrew term that's translated as "fear" means that, but it isn't synonymous with the English word in all its senses and connotations. It also means "awe". It also means "respect", in the sense of respecting and recognizing the relative positions of two or more parties. When we talk about fearing God, we don't mean cowering at an omnipotent being with lightning bolts at his disposal. We're talking about recognizing who God is and what His status is vis a vis us.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I allow for the possibility of metaphor in the Bible because Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold, and it's obvious he didn't mean that he had hinges installed on him and people moved him to let sheep out.
There is a difference between obvious metaphor and/or parable and saying "Oh, that whole story there is a metaphor, even though there's no reason to think so except for its obvious falsehood."
The New York Times will sometimes compare people to inanimate objects. That does not mean that we should conclude that stories in the Times which conflict with our worldview are meant to be taken metaphorically.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because I'm judging god, not bronze age humans.
But the bronze age humans are part of the equation when you judge Scripture. You are judging a "picture" of God drawn by the bronze age humans. Here is a (necessarily imperfect)analogy*. A child who owns two crayons - orange and blue - sees a beautiful flower and draws a picture of it and gives it to you. The child is a remarkable artist for a three year old and the picture is beautiful. But it isn't a photograph. The colours are limited by the crayons that the child has, he only drew three leaves, there is no sense of perspective and depth. You wouldn't assume that, as beautiful as the drawing is, that the whole flower is conveyed accurately and completely by the drawing.
quote: I have asked this before many times too. What parts are to be taken literally, and what parts metaphorically? How do you know?
You could spend years, a lifetime, learning the accumulated scholarly research of centuries. You could study the work of people who have done that. There are probably hundreds of thousands of books that explain scripture. We don't assume that we can understand Shakespeare without some knowledge, study etc. this is considerably more true when reading ancient religious texts.
The Gospel writers weren't reporters or biographers. They were writing down stories that were part of the larger story of Jesus for specific audiences to make specific points.
Even making guesses as who wrote it and when, whether what we use is an early version or a later version, whether the other synoptic gospels use it as a source or whether all three used a different, lost source, how much was lost and so forth, are matters of considerably scholarly, historical, archeaological, literary, and theological debate.
Often the writing was hugely symbolic, and Jesus's actions were also symbolic much of the time. One example: when a gospel writer says that "Jesus stood" or "Jesus sat" that is significant to the listener, it is a clue about what is coming next. Body position was symbolic. If I recall, sitting was a teaching position, "Jesus sat" would be a clue to the listener that what comes next is a lesson.
This is just a tiny fragment of how the scripture takes scholarship to understand.
Barring this, you could just bear in mind that it is not as simple as it might seem.
For example: The Fig Tree
I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a biblical scholar. There plenty of people around here who have spent years studying. My understanding is in no way definative. With that caveat, here is a possible way of looking at that story that makes more sense to me than Jesus having a "tantrum".
Many scholars,looking at the combination of story and parable, see it as prophecy and allegory. "Fruit" is a common enough metaphor that we still use it. "Our plans bore fruit" doesn't mean they sprouted oranges. "Bearing fruit" is used all over Scripture to refer to good things happening, good works, things coming to fulfillment. The juxtaposition of this story with the story of Jesus at the Temple likely has a purpose. It leads some scholars to believe that both were commentary/prophecy regarding the Pharasiacal teaching. That is wasn't "bearing fruit" (wasn't being fulfillied by good works, wasn't making the world better, wasn't "fruitful") and was going to be "withered". Luke's parable is kinder, it is often interpreted as Jesus wanting to give the Jewish people another chance.
Bear in mind that this was written around the time of the revolt and the destruction of the Second Temple. It looked very much as if the Jewish people were in danger of being withered, scattered, possibly destroyed. Whether just before or just after is a matter of some controversy and leads to questions of how much of the gospel reflects prophecy either of Jesus or of the writer and how much is reflecting what was going on when it was recorded. My best guess is a lot of all of that.
As I said, this is hardly definitive and I am not a biblical scholar. I only use it as an example to show that understanding even a single passage can be considerably more complicated than it seems.
The idea that anyone can just pick up the Bible and understand it is a fairly recent one. I don't think it is particularly useful except to use as a stick with which to beat other people who think you can do that.
*I am not calling Bronze Age (someone tell me if it is indeed Bronze Age) Jews children. I am talking about human understanding of God in general.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bear in mind that this was written around the time of the revolt and the destruction of the Second Temple. It looked very much as if the Jewish people were in danger of being withered, scattered, possibly destroyed.
So what you call "Truth" here is actually a pretty bald-faced "lie." The Bible presents it as if it happened; it's clearly not intended to be read as parable, even if it IS parable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, it is "clearly" nothing of the sort. The people for whom (in one sense) it was written would have known the literary conventions of the time. They would have understood it as it was meant to be understood.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Not particularly, omitting the the spin, the only changes are that Party C now kills some of group A in part 4) before giving instructions in part 2) (a change which makes it seem even less fair) and that the instructions are changed from targeting the males and non-virgins to "all but wiping them out."
I'm not using your inane "party" nomenclature. The Midianites tried, twice, to wipe us out. We wiped them out both in response and to prevent them from trying again. I have no qualms about that whatsoever.
It does not matter to me what qualms you may have.
The question is whether the Israelites committed genocide (and whether God is responsible for the same crime as well) according to their own Old Testament. I'm not 100% sure which two attacks you are referring to, but in any case, self-defence is not a justification against genocide and it is my hope that no modern leader would ever contemplate such an act. Furthermore, the one attack that I am sure you are referring to is the seduction "attack". However, if you would read my post, I clearly covered that.
The nomenclature is very significant and is far from inane. It highlights the fact that if Party C were anyone but God and if Group A were anyone but "the chosen people" we would not remotely look to them for moral guidance. Indeed, they would be reviled and prosecuted for their crimes if possible.
Furthermore, the charge of genocide is a crime. If we are considering whether the term applies, we have to consider the basic principles of justice. For the Israelites, "Equal justice under law" and "No man is above the law" and all that good stuff. As for God, the question is whether a a deity should get a free pass for criminal behaviour simply by the fact of being a deity.
The answer is quite clearly no. We have no qualms about reviling the Aztec practise of human sacrifice (of prisoners of war), even though they were also ordered to do so by their gods. If their gods actually existed, we would be disgusted by them. Why should we not similarly revile the Israelite practise of genocide (or their god), when their justification is exactly the same, "God told me to do it"?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't "my" evidence. As I said, I am not a biblical scholar. People who study the literary conventions of ancients texts and place the writings in context could explain the evidence. Would you like me to recommend some books or classes in hermeneutics?
Of course, some of it is "common sense". We assume, for example, that someone watching Hamlet in 1600 would know what a "bodkin" is without having to "study" Shakespeare. For us to understand it takes a little research.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a matter of uncommon word usage; we have translations for that. It's a matter of claiming that the common person, reading that story, would not conclude that Jesus zapped a fig tree.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Most people wouldn't have been reading Mark, they likely would have been listening to it. And it was a scholarly convention common during that time. And it is possible that Jesus did zap a fig tree - which would have been understood as a prophecy regarding the "fruitlessness" of the Pharisees and the destruction of the Temple.
quote:And it is possible that Jesus did zap a fig tree - which would have been understood as a prophecy regarding the "fruitlessness" of the Pharisees and the destruction of the Temple.
I'm of the opinion that any time you start requiring an oral tradition to explain your scripture, you've pretty much moved beyond the utility of the scripture.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
