Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:32:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1913 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> 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.
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 your self-imposed title clouded your ability to actualize how really
insignificant you and I really are. There could be a design that is infinitely
larger than our finite brains could even begin to grasp.
> > 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.
I think that anything greater would infringe upon our free will and free
thinking. Anything more definitive would make the response a "no brainer" and,
in a way, coerced.
<snip>
> 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^)
Well then, didn't you just answer your question for me? Neither way seems like
a slam dunk, does it:-) My response was merely speculation; nobody really
knows why God acts the way God does, and in the final analysis, I don't think
its particularily helpful to question it (if you were expecting an answer, that
is).
> 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 that's my point. Any message, no matter how clear and concise, will break
down in time. Haven't you ever played the game "telephone"? Add to that the
fact that the OT concerned an Eastern nomadic Semitic race that probably
couldn't be more opposite than Western modern culture. That we can understand
*anything* in the OT is a miracle!
>
> > 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.
Well, that's a matter of perspective. Jesus was, to many, the *fulfillment* of
Judaism. He was the ultimate intervention by God that started with Abram.
Jesus wasn't a policy change, he was the policy's *culmination*.
<snip>
> > > 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 make a distinction between knowledge and wisdom. There are many people out
there who have a lot of knowledge about "things". It's been my experience that
the more knowledge one accumulates, the more one tends to think of one's self.
Knowledge so often leads one down the path of pride and arrogance.
What academics tend to lack is the wisdom and humility to temper their
knowledge.
> > 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?
Let me clarify what I meant by "writing it off". What are we actually talking
about when we consider the OT? It is a collection of stories (oral and
written), laws, documents, histories (some borrowed), poems, songs, etc. It is
a mish-mash, redacted from various traditions over 100 of years. And by whom?
A culture of nomadic desert-dwellers who lived 1,000s of years ago! Imagine
that for a moment. The story of Moses is over 3,000 years old! That's
incredible! We can't even begin to imagine the mindset of such an ancient,
pre-science culture. And yet God somehow appears to one of them and it all
begins. Knowledge about Yahweh was a *process*-- heck, it took the Israelites
100s of years to get the fact that there was only 1 God Yahweh!
So when I read OT stories, it is through the eyes of one who takes these things
into consideration. Yeah, Yahweh is dropping folks right and left... or so
those ancients thought. I think that taking those stories at face value is
being more than disingenuous to the historical context of them. Now, some
Christians (or Jews) may call my view heretical, but it certainly isn't unique.
Ironically, it is the scholarly tact for which I just got done ripping above.
So does that mean that am I hoisted by my own Petard? Perhaps, but the
knowledge of critical biblical study hasn't destroyed my faith as it has so
many who teach at the University level and above.
>
> > 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?
A fair question. And I don't deny the possibility that some of Jesus' recorded
teachings could've been attested to him, but considering his overall message,
what people believed about Him, what they said about Him, and how His message
has been changing lives continuously for almost 2,000s years, I'd say that that
part was pretty important.
<snip>
> 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.
The reason you don't judge God's actions is because you can never be sure of
what they actually 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.
Again, you have no idea what God's actions are, so you simply cannot judge
them. Because in the final analysis, *nobody* can be certain of anything God
does or doesn't do. Now, that's not to say that one can't perceive *through
the eyes of faith* what God's actions are, but that is all. Assuming God is
perfect is, to me, by definition. Of course you cannot have faith in an
imperfect and unfair God. Who wants that? Go back to thinking of God as a
perfect entity that is everywhere, in every one of your thoughts. Imagine God
to be the kind of God you'd like to have around, if you dare.
>
> > > 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?
Yikes;-) By definition, I'd say "no", but if God actually gives us free will
and desires us to acknowledge Him and we don't, is that a failure? And if God
is perfect and has perfect knowledge, He would know that we would reject or
accept Him before we'd actually do it, and so it would appear that we would be
predestined to either accept or deny Him. But you are wise to eschew a debate
on free will-- it makes my head hurt:-p
> > 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.
<snip>
> 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.
Instead of a rather uncritical and literal interpretation, try evaluating God
through a critical eye, based on what ancients *supposed* about Him.
<snip>
> > 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.
Really? If fundamental Christians are correct, you may not want it;-)
> 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.
lol What assurance do you have of that?
> 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.
lol, my take (the exact opposite of yours): A person who believes in an
afterlife has the hope to endure depression or hardship because they know that
one day, they will be free and at peace. Someone without a belief in an
afterlife who is depressed or experiencing hardship will simply say, "what the
hell, this sucks, and what's the difference if I live or die".
> > > You just
> > > accept that you only live once, and that's all the more reson to enjoy life
> > > while you can.
As I mentioned before, this is a brave position to take. If you have a great
life, full of friends and stuff to distract you, you could probably do it.
What about if your life sucks? You are ill, infirmed, poverty-striken? That's
a pretty tough pill to swallow.
> 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.
Hmmm, all from the early OT. I'm sure it would make a lot of sense to a 3,000
year old Bedouin, but not me. Perhaps it would be analogous to extremist
Muslims justifying "Jihad" (Holy War-- a better oxymoron than military
intelligence;-) today. Jesus refers to the OT to correctly interpret it for
the Pharisees et al. He was constantly convicting *their* interpretations.
> > > > 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 wasn't a servant-- He was the Messiah, the King of the Jews, humbling
Himself *as* a servant.
> 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?
The kind who is actually, in fact, your Master.
> I thought servants
> were supposed to *take* orders from people.
He the order to be executed...
<snip>
> 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.
That is merely one interpretation, and a rather literal and uncritical one
at that.
> Why would you
> believe the New Testament writers and not the Old Testament ones?
There is a lot of unpacking to do in the NT as well. But for me, it would be
because of its message.
-John
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) That assertion hits upon a real dilemma for me. I should come clean and admit that I don't accept the argument that proof of God's existence would eliminate our free will to obey/disobey him; Adam and Eve certainly knew (in the context of the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I don't think it makes sense to speak of things being objectively significant or insignificant. I consider myself of extreme significance to me, though. (...) Sure, there could be, but if my finite mind can't begin to grasp it, then how can (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Good choice, God. <snip> (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
