Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Dec 2002 06:43:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1807 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I'm not sure we can have a meaningful debate about the nature of God as
> presented in the Bible if we don't question why God does what he does.
What I am contending is that we don't know much about what God does, so we
can't begin to question why He does what He does. What I *know* God has done:
1) Created the universe (but not Adam and Eve specifically BTW)
2) Made a covenant with Abram
3) Gave the Law to Moses
4) Came to earth as Jesus to redeem the world.
5) Made George W. Bush president (just checking if you were still awake;-)
> If I point out an action of God that seems arbitrary and cruel, you can
> always come back with "yes, but if you knew God's grand scheme of things,
> you would see that what seems arbitrary and cruel is actually perfectly good
> and right." But you can't really say that without assuming from the start
> that God is perfectly good, and that therefore all his actions must be
> perfectly good, and then you are taking as a given what we are trying to debate.
I think you are missing my point. Given: God is perfectly good. God gave us
free will. Now, in the course of human events, caca pasa. And good things
happen, too. How is God involved in these events? Who knows? Generally, the
religious will attibute the good to God, and not the evil (or the evil to some
perfectly wretched entity such as the Devil).
So the early Israelites may have seen a plague on their enemies as a punishment
from their God. They had an early "if you are good, you will be blessed" and
"if you are wicked, you will be punished". But even *their* understanding of
God changes in the OT. Look at the cynicism which borders on blasphemy in
Ecclestiates or Job. The Israelites learn that "Hey, sometimes the wicked
prosper and the good suffer! What's up with that???"
God never changes. Our understanding of Him does, from the earliest Israelites
to today. Any portrayal of God as vengeful, petty, cruel, whatever, is
speaking more about the portrayer rather than God. God is a loving God. Any
interpretation of Him in any other light is flawed at best and ignorant at
worse.
<snip>
> My point is that, just because there could be an super-intelligent being
> whose grand schemes we cannot truly grasp as lesser beings, it doesn't shed
> any light on whether that being is good or bad, benevolent or malicious.
There isn't any guarantee that God is good. I believe this because I believe
that He revealed this to me through the teachings of Jesus.
> > > 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"?
>
> But God doesn't *need* to play telephone with us. He could appear to
> everyone on Earth right now and deliver his message in person. He could
> deliver it directly to everyone, everyday if he wanted to.
Hmmm, I wonder. If God appeared to you right now in front of your computer,
what form could he take to best convince *you* that he is, in fact, God?
Wouldn't you as a skeptic doubt your very senses? Any "miracle" that you may
witness-- wouldn't you question it as a possible hoax? Wouldn't you
immediately try and process any information as you always do through the eyes
of science? And wouldn't you then want some *proof* that what you witnessed
was indeed what you thought you witnessed? And even if you did somehow accept
that this entity *was* a God, how could He prove to you that He was indeed
good? I don't see how you could *ever* be convinced that God exists, because
you have conveniently set up road blocks (science) that categorically deny the
possibility that such communication could ever take place.
You require specific conditions (I won't believe in God until I personally
witenss a supernatural occurance manifested just for me, or something of that
sort). But what if God doesn't, for whatever reason, work that way? Does that
mean He doesn't exist?
What if I said that God is speaking directly to you now, plainly and clearly as
you wish, right now through these very words? Is that so unbelievable, so out
of the question, and if so, why?
> If there is no benefit to delivering a garbled message through an ancient
> book and sinful evangelizers, it would certainly seem that God is not doing
> nearly all he can to get his important message across.
Again, I ask you: what part of the message aren't you getting? If God chooses
to manifest Himself through the witnesses of His people, then He is speaking to
you right now. The OT may be garbled, but what is garbled now?
<snip>
> > > 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*.
>
> How exactly is Jesus supposed to be a culmination of God's covenant with the
> Israelites?
He is their Messiah, their King, who will reign in righteous over Israel.
<snip>
> > 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.
>
> Agreed so far...
>
> > And yet God somehow appears to one of them and it all
> > begins.
>
> Why should this be impressive? God could presumably appear to anyone at
> anytime, so that he only makes sporadic appreances in the ancient past just
> seems weird more than anything else.
>
> > 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!
>
> Imagine that, God appears *in person* to the Israelites, talks with them
> *directly*, and yet they *still have the free will to disobey him*.
I don't understand. Isn't that what the OT claims happens?
> > 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.
>
> By the same token, why not say, "Yeah, Jesus was the son of God... or so
> those ancients thought."
I have personally encountered the Risen Christ. You may be surprised to hear
me say that, for all I know, some of the miracles attributed to Jesus didn't
happen (save for the resurrection, I guess;-) or that his birth narrative is a
myth, or any other such "confessions". But I can tell you this: I know who
Jesus is by my experience, not from what any ancients wrote about him
(directly).
> > 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.
>
> No, it seems quite common for Christians to doubt the historical, and even
> theological accuracy of the Old Testament. I just don't see why they don't
> apply those same standards to the New Testament.
Happens all the time. The Revelation as a map for the end times? Not for me.
Some of Paul's teaching on women? Dance, squirm, dance;-) They are there.
> > > > 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,
>
> Is this any different than what I am doing for the Old Testament? Am I not
> considering God's overall message, what people believed about him, and what
> they said about him?
The Israelites did not hate Yahweh-- they worshipped Him. Yahweh did not
despise His people; He *chose* them (think of it as an honor; they did), and
made Covenant promises to them (unilateral) of Hesed (Steadfast Love).
That is not the "overall message" I get from the BT.
> > > 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.
>
> But the Bible purports to tell you exactly what God's actions were, and so
> that is what I have used in my judgment. In my opinion, the God if the
> Bible is a hot-tempered, homicidal maniac.
Do you think that *they* thought of God as such? Why would you come to such a
conclusion if *they* didn't, and it all happened to *them*? Maybe the BT
should be qualified as "An outsider's view of the Bible". That to me would put
the BT in a much more honest position.
> > > 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.
>
> So the Bible is useless as an indicator of God's actions? It seems like
> you'd be better off dropping it altogether for a religion that is purely
> based on faith.
Not wholly. I mentioned before the actions of God of which I am sure. All
else is commentary or documentation, or teaching. And BTW, I am a Christian
purely based on faith. Apart from a few events, you could tell me that the
whole Bible isn't factual and it wouldn't matter to me one bit. I know this
because my faith has survived "Demythologizing" (explanation another time, if
you are interested).
>
> > Assuming God is
> > perfect is, to me, by definition. Of course you cannot have faith in an
> > imperfect and unfair God. Who wants that?
>
> As Dave! pointed out, what does want have to do with it? Maybe there's a
> perfectly good God, and maybe there's a perfectly evil God, but I can't see
> how what anyone *wants* there to be affects what actually exists.
I meant, "Who wants (to believe in) that? I don't want to worship and rever an
imperfect and unfair God. I don't even know if a perfectly evil God could
exist. I define evil as the absence of good, much like light and darkness.
There isn't such a thing as "dark", it is merely the absence of light.
This, incidently, is also how I define "hell"-- separation from God.
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, first of all, it wouldn't be a God who is everywhere and in all my
> thoughts! @8^)
Think of the advantages-- you wouldn't even have to move your lips or get up
from the couch to talk to Him:-)
> I'm not sure I see where you're going with this. I'll
> indulge you by providing a description of the most-desireable type of God I
> can think of, if you really want, but I'm not sure what the point is.
My point is that God *is* actually the way you would probably want Him-- a
being who is always there for you and who will never let you down, who loves
you far more than you do yourself; a being who knows you intimately (heck, he
created you!), a being that gave you the greatest gift you could ever
imagine--life, and existence for eternity. What *more* would you want?
<snip>
> > Instead of a rather uncritical and literal interpretation, try evaluating God
> > through a critical eye, based on what ancients *supposed* about Him.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "by what the ancients *supposed* about him".
> Is that different from what the believed about him, and what the wrote about
> him?
I meant try unpacking the OT and see if you can detect a God that loves His
people.
>
> When I read the Bible, I try to keep two separate viewpoints in mind. One
> view is to take everything at face value, and this is the view I have
> generally taken during this debate. For this, I assume that God exists, and
> that what the Bible says about him is true. This is the view I use in
> forming my opinion about God as he is presented in the Bible. The second
> viewpoint is an academic one, in which I try to think about what's really
> behind all these Bible stories. In this view, I assume as I do in the rest
> of my life, that God does not exist, and in light of that, I try to make
> sense of why these stories were written. I compare them to similar stories
> from other religions, I consider what value these stories had to their
> original audience, and I try to figure out the different authors' intentions
> for writing just what they did. It's the same for both the Old and New
> Testaments.
> > > 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?
>
> No assurance, it just tends to be what happens -- sometimes you're up,
> sometimes you're down. So if you're down, chances are you'll be up again.
> I know this from experience, so I keep it mind during rough times, and I get
> through them. What's the big mystery?
All I meant was that, for all we know, disaster (God forbid) may be right
around the corner.
>
> > 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.
>
> Why endure a crummy life when you could just end your fleeting existence on
> Earth and spend the rest of eternity in heaven? If you are so sure a
> bissful afterlife awaits, I don't see any reason to put up with even the
> slightest bit of crap in this life. Why postpone paradise for enduring
> hardship?
Personally, I don't like to think about the afterlife so much. I have hope for
it, and that gives me strength, purpose, and meaning. Armed with that, I can
face life in the here and now, which is, as you say, what it is all about. We
have been given the gift of life-- to merely take that gift and throw it away
is a big no-no. We have, for whatever reason, been put here on earth. Best to
get along the best we are able. I believe this is why God created us.
>
> > 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".
>
> Because they know the only other choice is complete non-existence! I could
> see being suicidal and atheist only if you are really, really suffering, and
> there's little to no chance of things getting better.
>
> > 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.
>
> Distract me from what? It's not as hard as you're making it out to be.
From the realization nobody *really* cares about you, that your existence is
ultimately meaningless, that you will soon die, and that you will be soon
forgotten as if you never existed at all.
> > > 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.
>
> And yet you don't dismiss the New Testament, saying, "I'm sure it would make
> a lot of sense to members of fledgling gentile churches of the early Jesus
> Movement scattered around to Mediterreanean 2,000 years ago, but not me."
What made sense to me was the Kergyma, the proclaimed Gospel, which is found in
the NT and has its roots in the OT.
> There's plenty of stuff in the Christian Bible that can and has been used to
> support holy wars. I guess the question is, how is it that *you* can read
> the Bible and be absolutely sure that God would not be in favor of war, and
> yet *someone else*, just as earnestly, can read the Bible and then go on a
> crusade to libaerate the Holy Land, absolutely sure that God is fighting on
> their side.
We are human. We are different. We don't know with certainty God's will, so
we act as we believe God would want. Sometimes we are wrong.
>
> > Jesus refers to the OT to correctly interpret it for
> > the Pharisees et al. He was constantly convicting *their* interpretations.
>
> Jesus refers explicitly to The Flood, comparing its sudden tragic events
> with what to expect when the son of Man comes. There is no indication that
> he doesn't take The Flood story at face value. He refers to the story of
> Moses and the burning bush, and makes several references to Abraham as the
> universal ancestor of the Jews. I don't see any evidence that he does not
> take the stories of the Old Testament at face value.
He uses these as examples in teaching with which He knows His audience is
familiar.
>
> > > > But what an amazing story. God coming to earth, not as a king, but as a
> > > > servant.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> How was he *as* a servant, but not a servant?
He IS the King. But He doesn't *act* as we would suppose a king to act;
instead He humbles Himself as a servant, as an example of love to us.
>
> > > And what
> > > kind of servant goes around telling people how to live?
> >
> > The kind who is actually, in fact, your Master.
>
> Ah, so he came to Earth, not as a king, but as our Master. That's humble.
What is humble is that the Master allows his own people to reject Him, even
murder Him in the most humiliating way, and *still* forgives them. How more
humble can one be?
>
> > > I thought servants
> > > were supposed to *take* orders from people.
> >
> > He the order to be executed...
>
> Does it say that in the Bible? He certainly predicts his own death many
> times over, but does he issue the order?
I meant to type, "He took the order to be executed", meaning He allowed it to
happen.
<snip>
> Is it just because you *like* the message of the NT that you believe it, or
> because there's some particular reason(s) beyond that to believe the message
> of the NT?
Well, I *do* like the message that the creator of the universe cares about
little ol' me, and that I will exist with Him for eternity.
And I do believe it because The Message rings true to me.
But it isn't all fun and games necessarily. I am acknowledging that I am a
servant of God, and thus must serve Him. I serve Him by the way I treat my
wife, my family, my friends, and my neighbors.
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) For clarification, how is it that you know these 4 things for certain, but at the same time, little to nothing else about God's actions? Do you know these 4 things *because of the Bible*, or aside from the Bible? (...) OK, but what is it we (...) (22 years ago, 9-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
