Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:13:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1805 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> God has chosen to have His message spread by a bunch of incompetant, sinful,
> *human* followers. I'll certainly give you that.
Good choice, God.
<snip>
> If you think about
> it, is actually amazing that *anyone* accepts the Christian message *at all*
> (because of its incompetant messagers). But the very fact that it does speaks
> volumes (to me at least). God works through and *despite* His people.
That is a very bizarre way for an all-powerful being to go about getting
across a message when it would be far simpler, and presumably far more
effective for him to just give it to people directly without some
incompetent go-betweens garbling it.
> And, knowing you, you probably rather have this wild story rather than some
> irrefutable, proof text. And even if we did have that, wouldn't that
> necessitate a forgone response? Where is the choice when faced with certainty?
>
> God has decided to make life interesting-- bully I say!
Imagine that, for some reason, you won't be able to see or have any contact
with your young son for the next ten years. Those will be some important
years for him, and you wish you could be there to guide him through it, but
you can't. All you can do in the next 48 hours before you leave is write
down everything you can think of to help him out for those next ten years
while you are away.
What do you think is a better idea:
a) Write down your message to you son in your own words, being as clear as
possible about every important topic.
or
b) Tell your message to some intermediary, but don't let him write it down.
Then have that person tell it to another intermediary, and so on, several
times more before it is written down. Then translate it from one language
into another, and then from that languange into yet another, finally back
into English.
Would you choose b) because it makes life more interesting? And would you
fear that giving your son a) would make all his actions a forgone conclusion?
God chose b), but I don't see any reason why a) wouldn't have been a far
better choice for him. I don't see the forgone conclusion thing at all. In
the few cases in the Bible where God does give very clear and precise
commands directly to his people, they often immediatly disobey them. And
then God destroys them. @8^)
So I think my point is still valid that if God has some important message
for his people, he should not beat around the bush, using incompetent
messangers, and revealing pieces of the puzzle over thousands of years, but
just come right out and say it clearly and consistently to everyone.
> But you're correct; this is a classic dilemma, but I have made peace with this
> issue. God made a covenant with the Jews, and He will abide by that covenant.
> God also made another covenant, this one to the whole world. God gave the
> Jews the Torah (The Law), and God gave the rest of us (and the Jews who accept
> him) Jesus.
Why not hit us up with Jesus right from the start? What was up with having
a chosen race of people for a few thousand years first? I don't see why an
all-knowing God would change his policies over time.
> > Christians posit that Jesus was the messiah of God
> > predicted by the Old Testament. These are incompatible beliefs. You have
> > to give up the first to accept the second. And certainly Christian beliefs
> > conflict the beliefs of an atheist!
>
> I look at them as levels of understanding. The Jews will acknowledge Jesus
> after death, and atheists will acknowledge God after their deaths.
By that logic, I can just as easily claim that Christians don't have to give
up their beliefs to accept atheist beleifs. They're not incompatible, you
see, it's just different levels of understanding. When they die, Christians
will acknowledge that there is no God.
> > I don't think we need any more people going out and committing horrific acts
> > to increase the number of atheists. Christians and members of other
> > religions have already committed enough of them throughout history that
> > adding a few more to the total would be pretty inconsequential. Besides,
> > horrific acts, such as those of 9/11, seem to make more people turn toward
> > religion than away from it.
>
> Well, which is it? Holocausts make atheists, but 9/11s make believers? :-)
I think horrific events can push people strongly in either direction. When
I brought up the Holocaust, it was to show that persecution doesn't
*necessarily* result in strengthening of the religious beliefs of the
persecuted, especially because there are cases in which the persecuted
religions are completely wiped out. When I brought up 9/11 it was show that
horrific events don't *necessarily* turn flocks of people toward atheism.
> > It does seem that as education increases, so do the percentage of atheists.
> > Is it this fact alone that is the cause if your seeming distrust of
> > "education", or is there something more to it?
>
> It also seems that the higher one's education, the more liberal one becomes
> politically as well.
I've heard that too. You still haven't really explained your distrust of
"education" and people becoming "too smart". You don't really have to,
since it's tangential, and this debate thread is already getting behemoth,
but I would be curious to hear a little more about that.
> I have to say that I personally don't believe that God calls for violence and
> death--
Well, he certainly used to, if you go by the Bible.
> that it is a misinterpretation of God's will.
As a non-Christian, judging God's will only from what is recorded in the
Bible, and not later Church teaching, it doesn't seem like a
misinterpretation to me at all.
> I, too, find much of the OT disturbing, but I write it off as misunderstanding,
> an incomplete knowledge of the nature of God.
This seems to be typical of Christians, that they feel comfortable "writing
off" all the disturbing parts of the Old Testament. How can write off some
parts of it, and consider other parts theologically accurate and important?
How do you know which is which? Did Jesus write off parts of the Old Testament?
> The true nature of God was fully revealed by Jesus.
How can you be sure that the Jesus part isn't the one that was written with
an incomplete knowledge of the nature of God? Maybe that's the part that
was garbled by incompentent humans, and you should be writing off most of
the New Testament. How do you make these judgements about which parts of
the Bible are accurate and important, and which parts should be written off?
> > I've read the Bible, and I don't see a particularly strong "loving and
> > caring for one another" message.
>
> A-ha! It's there, loud and clear. You are ignoring it! :-)
OK, so we are now both accusing one another of ignoring the bulk of the
Bible, and only focusing on a smaller, less significant part. I don't know
if there's any way one of us will convince the other on this issue. I'm not
sure what it would take. For my part, I will keep on illustrating all the
parts of the Bible that I feel show God's nature as a hot-headed, petty,
vengeful, mass murderer who issues some very questionable moral
commandments. Eventually, I intend to show through this that the *bulk* of
the Bible is disturbing, and that you have to ignore *most* of it if you are
trying to find Biblical support for a truly loving, caring, and merciful
God. I'm not sure what you can do to convince me. You could make a big
list of all the things in the Bible that you feel support your view on the
matter. I don't know if you want to take the time for something like that,
but I'd go through it if you did. But we are probably both already pretty
sure that we won't actually convince one another of much. @8^/
> > On my reading, if I had to sum up the two parts of the Bible,
> > it would be as follows:
> >
> > Old Testament = Do whatever God commands or he will destroy you.
>
> I'd say: OT = The history of God chosing a people to bring light into the world.
> >
> > New Testament = Repent because God is about to end the world.
>
> I'd say: NT = The story of Jesus, and the issues of the early Church.
Yours are decent summaries of the contents of each Testament, but what I was
trying to sum up was what struck me as the main, overriding *message* of
each section.
> > If God has something to reveal, why on Earth would he deal it out in a
> > piecemeal process over thousands of years? He can obviously step in at any
> > time and talk directly to individuals or groups of up to a million. If he's
> > got something important to convey, why not just say it to everyone?
>
> If ever there was a futile task, it would be second-guessing God. Why did/does
> God do anything?
That comes off to me like a total cop-out response. If God's actions are
beyond questioning, and you just take as an axiom that God is perfect, then
you never really evaluate his actions in any real sense, instead you just
assume they are perfectly right every time no matter what they are.
I think the first big step for me in becoming an atheist was to drop that
line of reasoning. If you don't assume from the start that God is perfect,
you can then properly evaluate whether or not that is a reasonable belief.
Instead of judging God's actions by his nature, you judge God by his actions.
> > Why should an all-powerful God have to "pursue" a relationship with humans?
>
> Because He gave us the power to do so, and we reject Him (because we think we
> know better). And so we are lost, and He wants to help us along the way.
OK, it's just that "pursue" sounds like such a strange word to describe the
actions of an all-powerful being. If God wants a relationship with a human,
you would think BAM! it would happen immediately. If he wants to help
someone who is lost, you would think BAM! there's your help. It's weird to
think that God could try to help us, or try to establish a relationship with
us, and fail. Can God fail at stuff?
> > Nice of God to put in that one brief appearance on Earth in the form of a
> > Jewish male 2,000 years ago who got crucified. That really fixed
> > everything. We're all set now! Thanks, God.
>
> He has given us free will to work to live our own lives. Anything more and
> that would infringe upon our free will.
I don't see that at all. But let's not go off into a debate on what it
means to have free will.
> You seem to be actively engaged in eisogesis rather than exogesis-- you are
> reading your own personal beliefs about the Bible onto the Bible rather than
> reading the Bible to get its message out.
Once again, I would accuse you of the same thing, and I'm not sure if either
of us will have any success in convincing the other of much. You have a
certain conception of what God is like, and a view of what is morally right,
and you look to the Bible to find support for that. In doing so, you have
to write off those parts of the Bible that don't fit, or can't be twisted to
fit with your views.
As a non-Christian, when I read the Bible, I try to clear out any
preconceived notions of what God is like, and evaluate him just based on
what I read. I don't ignore things like Jesus's seeming call for
non-violence, but I compare it with God's long, long track record of
terrible and unjust violence, and conclude that either a) God changed his
mind after thousands of years of being pro-violnce or b) Jesus/God must not
really be calling for non-violence.
> Yes, we believe that everyone has a "God-shaped void", and filling that void
> gives our lives meaning. You can try and fill that void with many things, but
> the only thing that will fill it completely is God.
I believe that everybody has a give-Brendan-$5 void in their lives. You can
try to fill that void with other things, but you can't really fill that void
without giving me $5.
I think you'll find my void theory about as convincing as I find yours.
> But you speak as if you know for certain, which certainly isn't true (that an
> afterlife doesn't exist). You can *hope* for one.
True, I can't be sure. But I see no indication whatsoever that it's
anything more than wishful thinking.
> > Pretending that there is one isn't going to make me any happier.
>
> Not pretending, but hoping can. It can give your life meaning, and give you
> the strength to endure when things aren't going so well, and provide the
> motivation to be able to act selflessly when things are.
I do hope there's an afterlife. I hope I'll hit the lottery, too. But just
as I wouldn't change my way of life on the hope that I'll win the lottery, I
wouldn't change it on the hope that there is an afterlife.
Just knowing that things will probably get better within my lifetime is
generally all I need to get me through the rough times. I would expect
people who believe in an afterlife to be much more inclined to commit
suicide when very depressed. They'd be convinved they're going somewhere,
whereas someone who didn't believe in an afterlife wouldn't be so quick to
throw away their one and only shot at conscious existence.
> > You just
> > accept that you only live once, and that's all the more reson to enjoy life
> > while you can.
>
> At the expense of others? Why act morally? Why be good?
Atheists can adopt any set of moral standards, and justify them however they
choose. I consider myself amoral, but I generally find that the most
pleasing and beneficial strategy for me in my life is to be what most people
would consider "nice" and "pleasant to be around".
> I still need to grab one of your stories to explain. Man, these replies take a
> lot of time:-/
I know! I won't hold it against you if you don't get around to it.
> > But seriously, I don't see this in the Bible. I see God doling out cruel
> > punishment after cruel punishment in a mostly arbitrary fashion, failing to
> > make good on his promises, and acting so generally reprehensible that no
> > sane person could ever consider him worthy of continued existence, much less
> > worship.
>
> Hmmm, that is so *not* my take. Give me your best example, and we can
> analyze it.
Here's ten examples that I think reveal God's nature more clearly than
anything I've read in the New Testament:
1) Lv 10:1-7
Because of a slight irregularity in ritual, God burns Aaron's two sons to a
crisp.
2) Nb 11:1-3
The Israelites complain about the hardships of wandering in the desert.
This angers God, and he burns all the complainers to a crisp.
3) Nb 11:4-35
Tired of manna, some of the wandering Israelites long for the taste of meat.
Ever thoughtful, Yahweh responds by sending them all the meat they can
eat... along with a severe plague which kills them.
4) Nb 12:1-15
Moses's brother Aaron and sister Miriam both criticize Moses for marrying a
non-Israelite (something God generally forbids, and so a seemingly valid
criticism). Angered, God punishes Miriam with leprosy for seven days, while
Aaron gets off scott free.
5) Nb 16:1-35
Questioning the fairness of Aaron and Moses holding special positions of
authority over the rest of God's chosen people, a group of 250 Israelite men
non-violently challenge Aaron and Moses. God responds to this by first
attacking the families of the rebels (women and children first!), swallowing
them all into the earth. After that, God sends his fire to burn all 250
rebels to a crisp.
6) Nb 16:41-50
When people complain that the deaths of the 250 rebels was wrongful, God
sends a plague on the sympathizers. Aaron has to intercede to curb God's
wrath, and succeeds, but only after 14,700 are dead.
7) Nb 21:4-9
Again the Israelites complain about their life in the desert. This time God
sends venemous snakes to attack the complainers, many are killed, and only
the action of Moses prevents further deaths at God's hands.
8) Nb 25:1-15
In a strong show of support for multiculturalism, God calls for the impaling
of all Israelites who have chosen to worship a different god. 24,000
Israelites are killed, and afterward, God reserves special praise for a man
who ran his spear right through a man and a woman as they were having sex.
9) Dt 7:1-6 & 20:16-17
One example of God giving, in the most explicit of terms, the command for
the Israelites to carry out multiple instances of genocides.
10) 1 S 15:1-34
God once again orders the destruction of all "men and women, children and
infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" of one of the Israelites'
neighboring peoples. The newly crowned King Saul is responsible for
carrying out this order, but he doesn't quite get it right, because he is so
bold as to spare the life of one man -- the neighboring tribe's king.
Because of this, God says that he regrets having ever made Saul king of
Israel. The neighboring king, whose life was spared, is then brought to the
prophet Samuel, who promptly butchers him.
Any *one* of the above examples is enough to convict God in my book, and
there are plenty more examples I could give. There is nothing in the New
Testament that denies the accuracy of these stories or the Old Testament as
a whole, and in fact, it is appealed to by Jesus and the apostles as
authoritative.
> > > And it's about how God finally intervened in
> > > time and history to finally reconcile us to Him and reveal His true nature.
> >
> > By having his son/self get crucified by the Romans. Somehow I don't feel
> > reconciled.
>
> But what an amazing story. God coming to earth, not as a king, but as a
> servant. Allowing Himself to be crucified (irony of ironies!) for speaking the
> truth, and still forgiving His killers. It's too rich to be fictional!
You see it as amazing, I see it as silly.
What kind of servant was Jesus? He served a bunch of people food 2,000
years ago and did a handful of healings. That's an impressive servant by
human standards, sure, but not when you consider that he was God. And what
kind of servant goes around telling people how to live? I thought servants
were supposed to *take* orders from people.
And the whole forgiving the people who crucified him doesn't really jibe
with the portrait of God from the Old Testament, and since there's a lot
more evidence on that side, it's hard for me to think of the Biblical God as
anything like forgiving.
> > *Our* imperfections? No, the human imperfections are not what I consider
> > the dark side of Bible. It's *God's* imperfections that are so disturbing
> > to me. It may be the Israelites who carry out a genocide on their
> > neighbors, but it is God who routinely commands it of them. It is God who
> > continually smites his own "chosen people" for the smallest perceived
> > offences, and God who routinely punishes innocents for other people "sins".
>
> I meant their imperfect understanding of God (that they would suppose that God
> would have them commit such atrocities)
Again I have to ask, what makes you doubt the accuracy of certain parts of
the Bible while being absolutely sure of the accuracy of other parts? Both
the Old and New Testaments purport to tell you *exactly what God said and
did*, not merely their authors' best understanding of God. Why would you
believe the New Testament writers and not the Old Testament ones?
> Brendan- what part of what I have said to you isn't crystal clear? The basic
> message is pretty simple. Yeah, it's surrounded by a bunch of bizarre history
> and interjected theology, but the message is there. Don't get hung up in the
> gory details-- they aren't the point.
Again, we disagree on which one of us is ignoring the most telling parts of
the Bible concerning God's nature.
-Rev. Smith
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| I can answer much of this, including your examples, (though you may call it my opinion), but I wanted to ask before I interrupt someone else's debate. It may be of interest that like many christians I stand by the *whole* old testemant and of (...) (22 years ago, 4-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| First off, since the primary issue here seems to be God's love. I will write with assurance he exists. (It is just a waste to debate the character of someone while debating their existence in the same post). So I am skipping over a long argument (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Seriously. Consider for a moment that you may be referring to the entity that created you, and quadrillions of other living things that are/were but a speck on this insignificant planet in the course of time and history of the universe. Has (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) <snip> (...) God has chosen to have His message spread by a bunch of incompetant, sinful, *human* followers. I'll certainly give you that. Christians do not see eye to eye on much, especially on topics such as evangelism. It really can be (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
