"the God of the Bible" (or "unbogging the IotD blog")
 

<a href="http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=3626" target="new">link to IotD discussion about God, humor, the origins of the universe and why Joy is not at all tempted to quit her day job and become a lawyer</a>

This is just an effort to pack it up over there. I'm open to criticisms and queries, though I can't guarantee excuses or answers that will satisfy.

also, as I mentioned over yonder...
matthew1344@hotmail.com

"thou shalt not kill"
 

This is leftover from the other blog....

God justifies the justifiable actions of civil authorities. Under the Old Testament law, the community leaders were sanctioned with the authority to judge communal affairs and carry out the punishments deemed. The death penalty was the designated penalty for certain crimes, primarily for murder. If there was a case of accidental manslaughter, the killer could run to certain pre-designated cities (cities of refuge) and seek refuge until his case could be cleared and his life saved. In the Old Testament, God also commanded the Israelites to slaughter entire cities full of enemies. These were pagan people who had sacrificed their children to idols and were known for blatant evil. If you read the OT, you will note that most of the Israelites were not holy-rolling angels themselves. They had plenty of problems and were by no means inherently qualified to serve as the purgers of humanity. That was not the point. God used them as a tool (1) to bring punishment to nations who had rejected him, (2) to prevent those nations from turning on them and (3) to prevent those nations from corrupting his people spiritually.

We do not live under a theocracy today. I do believe God is ultimately in control, that he is overseeing current events, that he is acting in a manner consistent with his own character when he does witness such events. No, God did not prevent that plane crash in the Sudan, nor did he prevent those plane crashes on 9/11. I can't explain his purposes for allowing those things to happen. I can tell you I would NOT be so presumptuous (as certain "spiritual" leaders have) to say that 9/11 was God's judgment on an America that has neglected him. Certainly those suicide bombers' actions were condemnable. They will be held accountable for taking "innocent" lives. Did God sanction their attacks? No. Was God there? Yes. Is God using those attacks in the lives of people today? Yes. Will we ever know the answers to all our WHYs when it comes to 9/11? I seriously doubt it. But God is not the creator of evil simply because men carry out evil.

God's Word is clear, both in the OT and NT, that he ordains civil authorities, whether they like it or not and whether we like it or not. Romans chapter 13 (NT) is a clear layout of God's view of civil authorities. I'm not "for" war when it is avoidable. And the preeminent purpose of the Bible is certainly not to lend credence to a warmongering people. But even in the book of Ecclesiastes it says "there is a time to kill." Wartime country-defense, wartime noble-cause-defense, home-/family-/self-defense, legislated capital punishment--all of these are justifiable instances where killing is not condemned biblically.

That being said, I would personally do my dead-level best (no pun intended) to avoid killing in all circumstances. As someone with some assurance about the afterlife, I would hesitate greatly before making the decision to send another person there. And God does not promise a fair life for the Christian. We are to expect opposition, maybe even persecution to death. If someone held a gun to my head and told me to kill someone else for no apparently just reason, I would rather die--and I would.

Whereabouts are you from? Chicago?

I'm from Arkansas, and I've met many, many people who share your beliefs around here.

roots
 

i was born in SC (11 years there, off and on), raised in the Indianapolis area (15 years there, off and on), Colorado for a summer. i've lived in the Chicago area now for almost exactly a year. left my heart in Colorado.

i knew one person in arkansas. guess i know two now. :biggrin: not sure to what extent it's a regional phenomenon.

Well sure,why wouldn't he? ;) But defining justice has proven to be a bit gray for those with civil authority. defense seems to be the great justification, so then define a just threat, ...It seems to shift with each Bible study.

Anyway, it seems you can find just instances for killing. So can I.

Recent events and encounters with some Mennonite relatives have sparked my thinking on this. My pacifist relatives would argue that nothing of this world is worth killing another for, not even in defense. It all about salvation. A philosophy of devotion that I admire. It is consistent and absolute. They say their Faith is the true Spirit of Christ. Walking the walk. But I cant get on that bus. I love what, I have faith, is goodness and truth in the present and I know I'd fight to keep it.

Okay, well I guess I'm going to try to tackle some of your points. I'm only going to pick a few, so as to narrow it down a little.

Do you really believe that? That the written word isn't open to interpretation? That translations don't skew the meaning? If it's so absolute, why all the different denominations?

And furthermore, on what evidence do you believe that God even wrote the bible? Or do you frown upon asking for evidence?

Great, so the massacre of 6 million Jews under the authority of the German government was okay? What about medeval governments who would routinely torture their subjects? Is that okay with God? Is it okay with God that the Iraqi government tortured dissidents?


One more question. I'm going to be a father in November. Let's say, hypothetically, that I become a Christian before then, and I decide that I now respect God and his decisions and choices. At some point, I'm going to have to learn how to discipline my child. I decide that I'll model my behavior after the most Good person I know, God.

So I say to my child, "Clean your room. If you do this, I'll buy you ice cream. If you don't, I'll bake you in the oven. I'm preheating it to 525 degrees fahrenheit right now. The choice is yours. "

Is my diciplinary style good or evil?

No, I didn't say it wasn't open for interpretation. But the Bible itself says that it is the Holy Spirit of God who gives insight (illumination) into the Bible's meaning. There are issues that the Bible is very black and white about--such as murder and adultery. Approached with a normal-literal literary approach, the ten commandments do not budge. Never is it right to kill in the sense of murder. Never is it right to take another man's wife. But the Bible is also a whole book that should be read as a whole. It should not be seen as a contradiction when the Bible says "Never" and yet allows for killing (under wartime circumstances for example) or for taking another's wife (say, if the guy dies).

There is a difference between skewed/biased/narrow interpretation and honest/as-objective-as-possible/measured-against-other-factors interpretation. We recognize this in the literary world. If I watch a movie like <i>The Matrix</i>, and I walk out of there and join you in a restaurant, and I say, <b>"You know--'There is no spoon.'"</b> Well, in what sense is that the weirdest thing you've ever heard? Taken in its context, understood in the scenario with which it was presented, that statement is a great symbolic representation of the movie's whole message. BUT... You're sitting with me in the restaurant, you hear me give that statement out of the blue, you look around the table settings and see spoons everywhere--well, you may be pretty confused and probably ticked at the apparently-ludicrous nature of the statement. You may start to worry that I'm a few French fries short of a Happy Meal.

But for some reason, people want to get all mystical and/or skeptical when it comes to the Bible. We want to jerk 10-word verses out of context and construct a system of guidelines by which we can read the rest of the Bible or just as soon not.

Being absolute truth and being interpretable are not mutually exclusive properties. I'm not saying the written Word isn't open for interpretation. On the contrary--I'm saying it is, but that we should acknowledge our human interpretations for what they are. By its definition, an absolute truth does not move--rather we are expected to live our lives in light of it. We can choose to ignore it, or we can twist it to mean what we want it to mean, but that action on our part does not necessitate change on its part.

As I mentioned above, there are issues that the Bible is black and white about. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. If there is an apparent contradiction, then the fault lies with the interpretation. When I read "God so loved the world" and I read "Jacob have I loved; Esau have I hated"--I realize that there are aspects of God that I will never be able to reconcile in my mind. I am unable to comprehend the mystery of a God who is fully good and a God who is fully great, a God who is just as loving as he is terrible. Too often, we try to squeeze God into a human-shaped box. We forget that we are like him, but he is not like us. There is a big difference.

There are other issues that the Bible is kind of grey on. For instance, good Christians have, throughout the centuries, agreed to disagree on issues such as prophecy--what is going to happen in the last times, baptism--what is the best method? sprinkling? dunking? pouring? These issues are not laid out in black and white in the Bible. They are therefore subject to broader speculation, and there are broader resulting viewpoints. You can still be a Christian and disagree with other Christians on issues like eschatology or baptism. These issues are not what we call "essential to the gospel," meaning, if they are not laid out for us in the Scriptures, then they are not essential to salvation or to a relationship with God, and are not part of the basic, fundamental creed of Christianity.

Where different people "land" on various grey issues usually does cause them to bundle up in distinct denominations--birds of a feather do flock together. Remember, there is a difference between <b>religions/faiths</b> (e.g. Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.) and various <b>denominations</b> within a religious category (e.g., Presbyterian, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.).

<b>A truly <i>Christian</i> denomination is...</b>

> one that adheres to the black and white truths of Scripture (not necessarily the passed-down man-made traditions of its institution),

> one whose basic/fundamental creed is faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ (no other Way to heaven),

> one made up of people who don't just talk all the above talk but genuinely walk it (as opposed to compromising, automatic, paid-for or inherited membership).

Wow, I'm out of time. I'll be back with other feeble explanation attempts later. :)

Is Jesus God, or was Jesus created by God? Are they similar, or are they the same thing? Christians warred and killed each other over this question for centuries. Is this justified, because if someone believed that Jesus was not God but God's son, they would be praying to a false diety and potentially (probably) go to Hell as a result?

You have stated that faith in the Bible requires some circular reasoning (I believe that it what you said). This implies to me that the Bible makes sense and verifies itself as being accurate and true, if the observer already believes that the Bible is true. From my perspective, it does not give the doubter reason to believe that it is true. This is also my perspective and problem with being awed by Christ: while impressive, what he is not spectacularly impressive if you do not take the Bible's word for his supernatural miracles, and being the son of God.

Mohammed, by contrast, did very impressive things, that seem to be possibly beyond the reach of a normal man; he excelled in so many different ways. I might be willing to stretch that he had God's help. The Islamic and Jewish view is that Jesus was one of the great Prophets but not Christ. In the 'Finger of God' Someone scowled at the Jews for not accepting Jesus' take on religion, why not scowl at Christians for not accepting Mohammed's take on religion? What would convince me, as someone who does not already wholly believe in the Bible, that Christianity is more valid than Islam or Judaism?

If God gave us free will, why would he have used the Israelites as a tool to punish those that rejected him? Isn't that part of the whole free will deal?

Comparing/defending the validity of various organized religions makes me flashback to hideous highschool pep rallies. We are number one! hey! Somehow I think God must be beyond all that.

Actually, to continue your pep rally idea:

Having competition amongst various sects pretty much ensures that MORE worship will occur. If everybody agrees that god/dess is cool and worthy of praise, does so in the same way all the time, over the centuries people will slack.

Set up a competition, though, with multiple smaller sects, each striving to prove to the others that THEIR worship is clearly more fervent and superior to the guys' next door (Particularly if the guys next door are either methodists or unitarians) ...

defining terms uniformly
 

Your statement reiterates the need to make sure we are all on the same page (sort of like getting our watches in sync) about the definitions for the terms we use. You say Christians warred and killed <b>each other</b> over the question of Christ's deity. Believing in the deity of Jesus is essential to being a Christian in terms of biblical Christianity. Although due to a misunderstanding that is shared by the majority of the world, this is nonetheless untrue.

By the popular definition, "Christianity" is a term used for any faith that includes Jesus Christ to any extent. Therefore, all kinds of religions (notice I say religions, not denominations) get lumped into the religion Christianity. Examples of this lumping phenomenon would be the fact that Christianity is also said to include Roman Catholics, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Nazis, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. I say to you, these are <b>other</b> faiths/religions. Personally, I don't really care to claim a particular label--but I recognize the inevitable fact that I will be categorized somehow and that labels are (if defined consistently) useful. Maybe I shouldn't call myself a Christian if I feel that "my brand of" Christianity differs so from that of others who are mentally bundled with me into the same group. Historically, I am quite justified in calling myself a Christian (followers of the biblical Jesus were first called Christians/"little Christs" as a derogatory label in Antioch, which is located in present day Turkey, and those early disciples' faith is still the faith that I follow). However, so many of the distinguishing lines are being rubbed out, and so many other groups are being given this label today that it is confusing, to say the least (especially in scenarios like this--an online, cross-cultural, open-ended, all-inclusive discussion).

You see, the deity of Jesus Christ is one of those basic fundamentals in the Christian Bible. It is one of those black and white issues that are not negotiable for "good Christians" to differ over. The Jesus Christ of the Bible claimed in the Bible to BE the God of the Bible, incarnate. He is indeed the Son of God. He is also God. There are many who believe that Jesus was merely a prophet or a good man. I say only that these do not follow the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Whether our human minds can grasp the possibility of a triune God (made up of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) is not the issue. The issue is that the God of the Bible revealed himself and the essential components of the Christian-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it-faith IN that Bible.

Therefore, it is impossible to conceive that true Christians (i.e., people who "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and "confess with [their] mouth[s] that Jesus Christ is Lord") would fight and kill other true Christians (i.e. people who "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and "confess with [their] mouth[s] that Jesus Christ is Lord") over the issue of Christ's GODness. Is that really what happened, or is that just the popular viewpoint (i.e., the lumping in and blurring of definitions from the perspective of outsiders looking in)?

Maybe one side of the battles was comprised of true Christians, or maybe there was a mix of true or duped Christians on either side. Maybe both sides of Holy War crusades were stocked full of ignorant men who could not read the Bible because it was not available to them in their own languages and they had been relying on pulpiteers and rumors and traditions to teach them their doctrine.

Either those fighters/killers believed in the Christ of the Bible--wherein he claims to be 100% holy God + 100% sinless man and therefore able to become the only sufficient/adequate sacrifice for sin--OR they believed in only the historical ambiguities (i.e., some guy who was really nice and maybe did some scientifically-explainable miracles or maybe the witnesses just had sunstroke that day and were hallucinating...i.e., some really good man who was just a little loony or a liar with loyal followers who stole him out of his grave so people wouldn't think he was insane for teaching what he taught or cruel for leading them on).

circular reasoning vs. faith
 

Absolutely nothing, friend. If you are looking for answers that come from flawless arguments within the realm of logic, I cannot go further than to use logic to prove to you that you rely on faith for other things and can therefore accept the Bible through faith as well.

I didn't say that circular reasoning was prerequisite to faith in the Bible. I recognize that it seems so to an extent, particularly to those in your position who doubt the Bible's qualifications and credibility. In the realm of logic/debate, using the Bible's self-claims about the Bible's authenticity and authority is not a valid method; it would be called circular reasoning. However, I am trying to point out that there may be other realms, beyond that of logic/debate. In the realm of faith (in which realm we all dabble every day on points far less consequential than the Bible's claims), circular reasoning is a non-entity.

Civilization sets the meanings of words, not you.

will & grace
 

I just watched "Henry V" last night, and I was reminded of various stories I've heard from WWII, how God seems to spare certain people/nations and allow others to get hit--regardless of the odds, regardless of the virtues and vices found on both sides of the battle. For centuries nations have asked themselves the question why fate seems to smile on other nations. God had claimed the Israelites as "his" people and was fighting for them (yes, he allowed them to conquer the pagan peoples but in highly unconventional if not miraculous ways--like marching around city walls 7x before they collapsed inward--and when incredibly outnumbered), irrespective of their many shortcomings and sin problems. There were other points in Hebrew history when God turned his back temporarily and allowed his chosen people to go into exile under the tyranny of various nations. There are other times where God has offered salvation and forgiveness to people who displayed more wickedness and seemed "far more gone" than the Israelites. For instance, when he gave the Assyrians in the city of Ninevah the opportunity to repent, and when they did, the Hebrew prophet Jonah was outraged because God had accepted the repentance of these wicked people. That is the beauty of his grace. None of us is truly innocent. All of us have a free will, but that very free will is still bent and stained with a corrupt nature. Even our free will, unaccompanied by his grace, is unable to choose rightly or respond to him rightly.

P.S.
Well, if civilization wins out on the name game regardless of its unfamiliarity with historical records and theological distinctions, it's understandable and acceptable. If we're talking about realms, this is how the cookie crumbles in the realm of linguistics/etymology. Meaning is attributed by society. I guess just call me whatever you wish. :) But if you want to know what <b>I </b>was talking about/referring to, and if we want to discuss things on the same plane, then acknowledging some parameters (even for a temporary, for-sake-of-argument scenario) is good.
Y'all are wearing me out. :D

Re: circular reasoning vs. faith
 

I posit that circular reasoning is prerequisite. If you can provide me with 'absolutely nothing', then it would seem that Christianity has no more claim on truth than any other world religion, from Islam to Hinduism to Shinto. Hence, people who believe that they are properly following their own religious faith slaughtering other people who believe that they are properly following their own religious faith is ludicrous. When two groups of people who both believe that Jesus Christ is their savior slaughter each other because they disagree slightly in how they feel Christianity should be, it is barbaric.

That this seems justified to you is scary.

As for Christians killing Christians en masse over Christianity, I cite the warfare between the Trinitarian Christians and the Arian Christians, and between the Protestant Christians and the Catholic Christians. I define anyone who looks to Jesus Christ and the Bible (as they understand it) as Christian.

Hi, Torrere. Either I miscommunicated or you misread me. I was actually criticizing the so-called "Holy Wars" and made my views on murder pretty clear. As I said, we do not live in a theocracy as the Israelites did in the Old Testament. The theocracy form of government ended long before Rome conquered the Jews. With the incarnation of Jesus and the instatement of a New Covenant, things changed bigtime. The God of the Bible does not call his people to fight crusades for religion during this time period following the New Testament, and, according to the Bible, he won't do so again until the end of the world when he comes (again, incarnate) to lead it himself.

True--it's your prerogative to call me what you want, but for myself I would deny a religious association with the groups you mentioned. I would not identify myself as an Arian (again, "Arian" + "Christian" = a contradiction in terms since an Arian refuses the doctrine of Christ's deity, a doctrine which is imperative to his salvific power), nor would I identify myself with Catholics (because of other major doctrinal deviations from the Bible). These are doctrinal points of contention, not slight disagreements. As I stated before, there may have been good-but-falsely-taught people on either sides of those wars, but I would not place much stock in either side being made up of truly Christian warriors.

Just as you do not seem to fault ALL Muslims for extremist acts of Islamic terrorism (that would be absurd), nor should you assume that the "Christians" who called themselves "Christians" in the crusades you mentioned are truly representative of all who would call themselves Christians throughout history.

As has been stated, we're talking about the God of the Bible here. The one who revealed himself in the pages of a book that has lasted down through the ages as the best-selling and the most influential book of all. We're not talking about the Arian idea of God. We're not talking merely about my own personal "take" on God, about the Catholic's "take" on God or the Muslim's "take" on God.

The God of the Bible. Not the contrived, passed-down, watered-down god of traditionalism-steeped, Bible-neglecting churches. Not the alternative man-made gods (whether wooden or merely inventions of the mind) that have no ears to hear or eyes to see or hands to help people with.

Humanly, we want a god who is our own creation--something we can wrap our minds around and comprehend and find the beginning and the end of. But what true and lasting security can the offspring of mortal minds offer? Show me a book besides the Bible that wasn't written by merely wise mortals. Show me a book besides the Bible that doesn't offer another man-made alternative.

I don't want wood, hay and stubble. I don't want a god that my own village silversmith made out of silver that got into the mines as the result of a big bang or some other fantastic non-God origin. I want something bigger than me to worship. I want something bigger than any man (even nice respectible prophet-type miracle-making men) to worship. No other religion on Earth offers me anything that matches up to the God of the Bible.

Frankly, I don't even want a religion. I want a relationship. That is what the God of the Bible offers me. I haven't found a better, more substantial, more well-documented, more proven object for my faith than I find in Jesus Christ the Righteous.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hi there Joy, sorry I didn't get involved in this discussion sooner, but life has kept me busy of late. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Never? Okay, let's test that with an example situation shall we? What if a member of that marriage has asked for a divorce and been refused? Even if they've been separated for a year or more? "Never" means that for this person to have a relationship would be wrong by both biblical and legal standpoints. Is this your stance? Oh, and any child would conceived in such a relationship would definitely be a child born of sin, correct? As the child of an adulterous relationship?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;By the by, I just choose adultery because it was more fun. I could go with murder too if you like. I can think of a couple of people that really deserve murder and yes, I would think less of a person that wouldn't pull the trigger given the opportunity. I'm sure you can guess the kind of examples I'd give. Like I said, adultery is more fun.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ok, I'll bite. Please use logic to prove that I rely faith. Note, Saying that I have faith the sun will rise or my brakes will work on my car is crap. I expect these things to happen because I understand them a bit. Expectation and faith are two different things, please don't confuse the two.

(Missed this earlier.) It's equally trivial to show you how you absolutely stake your life on things that are provable, and how you choose to avoid faith every single day, specifically as a means to staying alive and healthy.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh, I don't know UT. I think I'd like to hear this logical explanation of how I rely on faith. I really would. It sounds like a huge assumption about a large group of people she's never met and she says that she can make the argument logicaly. It sounds like a faith based assumption to me. Aren't you even curious? I am. I still want to hear it.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So relax UT. I understand that the vast majority of "Christians" us non-religious, or at least non-christian types meet belittle, insult and threaten us. Torture for all eternity is an impressive threat too. Still, you don't actually have to take offense and I'd really like to understand the point of view of somebody on the other side. No, the arguement won't win anyone over, but I want to understand the idea behind it, why they think it should. Joy seems willing to talk, let's let her.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I also want to address the absolutism of the ten commandments. Sounds interesting.

Well, I've avoided this thread because Joydriven's posts are way, way too long. Joydriven, I really think you'd do a better job of convincing people if made your points with fewer words.

And also, you only answered one of my questions. Could you respond to all the others as well? It's your choice, of course, but I'm curious as to your reponse. Especially my last question.

will work on it...
 

You guys are funny.

joy: This is hard to explain simply. Let me use an analogy. ANALOGY

others: Joy, your analogy rotted here and here and here. Explain your position.

joy: Um, an analogy is never going to be perfect in every point, but can't you see the benefit of finding some familiar point of reference that we can all identify with quickly? Like in ANALOGY ANALOGY ANALOGY?

others: Joy, all your analogies just do not cut it. Face it, you are not good at this. Can't you just talk in plain English?

joy: Ok. It's just really hard to size up succinctly AND clearly, but here goes another attempt... (insert on and on and on discussion).

others: Too long. Please explain the theology of entire world civilizations past present and future flawlessly. In plain English. And be brief now, mind you.

:D

I really will work on it. Thinking now. Believe it or not, I prefer concision myself. But concise AND clear is a real tough combination of goals when a gracious-but-skeptical audience brings such a vast spectrum of experience to the table. ( insert the 'one of me and lots of you' pity party spiel here. :) )

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Um, joy? How 'bout a simpler question then? Why is it that you always make it sound like we're being really rude, even attacking you when it's either simple discussion or constructive critisism?
&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Nobody said "you're not good at this" or "you're ananlogy rotted" nor even asked you to "explain the theology of entire world civilizations past present and future flawlessly" Why attack yourself when we aren't?

joy: Ah. Foiled again.

:)

I said you are a gracious but skeptical audience, and it seems like a fair evaluation at least on this subject. I was asked (about 20 pages back or so) to lay off the analogies, but I'm not offended. I'm actually kind of impressed that you guys are reading me in spite of me. I find that incredibly gracious. And if you weren't skeptical I would worry.

Sigh . . .
 

I was actually enjoying this thread, because of the quality of the exchanges, and because the tenor was so notably pleasant. I think joydriven has done a better job than most True Believers I have been forced to endure to try to make a case for chosing to believe, well, something.

As I have grown older, I have (finally!) realized that the differences among the various theists are but tiny gaps, compared to the giant chasm separating theists from agnostics and atheists. But why lump the latter two together? Because it seems that it is not what one believes, but the fact that one is capable of believing that separates the two groups of people.

This may seem obvious, but once I noted my own absence of "faith" I found that this was a condition which permeates my being, not just my religious beliefs (or lack therof). With interest, I noted that those of my friends who are truly faithful to their religious convictions (not just "following the rules" and who don't try to "prove" that theirs is the right or only way) seem to have remarkable amounts of "faith" or "belief" in other areas of their life, as well.

I have come to accept that no arguement, no amount of discussion, no proported "facts" will ever sway me, as I lack the essential ability (desire?) to believe -- to go on pure faith. There have been times of enormous strife in my life when I have wished that I could believe, so that some sense or reason or comfort could be gleaned, but it seems I just don't have it in me. I no longer scorn or privately sneer at those who do, however, if it gives them some of that sense or comfort. Sometimes I wonder if it is better to believe a whole lot of bunk and get something out of it, than to believe absolutely nothing.

Note: This takes no account of how organized religion has historically been used to subdue the masses and accomplish nefarious agenda; I'm talking merely of current, individual experiences of the comfortable, well-educated classes in one of the wealthiest countries in the most enlightened age in human history.

Re: Sigh . . .
 

I am an example of another variety... I have great faith in many things, just not in a Creator, at least not in the sense that the Creator is a sentient, all-knowing, all-seeing being which intentionally created All That There Is. Such a being would understand me, and would therefore know that I cannot accept His/Her/Its existence without solid evidence.

I have faith in my friends. I have faith that doing good things will bring one good fortune, whether you want to call it Karma or just a side-effect of society. I have faith that the laws of physics which I depend on for my very life will never change. These faiths, like many others, may be misplaced... but I have these faiths based on my own observations. I have good, solid reasons to have these faiths other than the fact that I want to, and/or that it makes me feel happy and whole.

I am aware of no religion which claims that the Creator will greet us in the afterlife, regardless of how wrong we were about everything, put to us the question "What did we learn from our time on Earth?" and accept us as we are. Such a religion might appeal to me, because it allows me to just go through life as a good, decent person without fearing the irrational wrath of a God who felt ignored... nevermind that He/She/It supposedly sent me here, removed my memory of Him/Her/It, and commanded that I worship Him/Her/It based on zero substantial evidence. If there is a God, I cannot accept that He/She/It would be foolhardy enough to create such an obviously dead-ended scenario. Thus my conclusions.

I don't know about other religions, but in Mormonism, it is considered a great sin to ask God for evidence that He exists. Hah! The needle on my bullshit-o-meter is getting bent from spending so much time against the peg. Bah.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a loving, forgiving Creator. I just don't like the idea of suspending logic and reason in favor of said Creator.

I don't frown upon asking for evidence, no. On the other hand, I can't guarantee that the 'evidence' that satisfies me as convincing will satisfy your curiosity. The Bible itself says 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' (Hebrews 11:1). In this scenario, my trust in invisible/intangible 'evidence' supercedes my trust in visible/tangible 'evidence.' Some would say they seek something more substantial than faith. My premise is that faith is the most substantial evidence, and seeking other = settling for less.

In spite of some apparent inconsistencies (which I've said before could be explained if approached in context of the whole book and with an understanding of basic scribal errors), the Bible shows an incredible unity in its parts and as a whole. For a book that was written over a period of 4000 years by hundreds of human hands, the Bible is unprecedented and unmatched by any other work throughout history. It has stood as a unified whole and yet can be divided into sections of history, poetry, prophecy, letters, etc., all of which have gathered note as excellent representations of the literary genre and style in which they were written. Considering the huge span of cultures/ages that were crossed and the diversity of the authors' styles and backgrounds, I see no other way to explain the fact that this one book manages to carry one main theme to generations of readers, and has been doing so for centuries now. Its historical and linguistic references are verified in countless extra-biblical, secular historical and linguistic accounts, and I could not begin to expound (briefly) the mountain of textual evidence that supports both the validity of the Old and New Testaments.

It really is too bad that the content of the Bible is so controversial, because otherwise I think we would count it far more reliable a resource than most other books selling like wildfire on shelves today.

The Bible's own testimony is that it was inspired by God, that 'holy men of old were moved by the Holy Ghost' to write it. And once I am willing to take that step of accepting such a preposterous suggestion, things start falling in place. That's why, for instance, there is such a harmony to the four gospel accounts,
even though Matthew had formerly been a tax collector working for the enemy and keifing his own share of his fellow countrymen's income, even though Luke was a Greek doctor who used the more scholarly sentence structures and wrote with Gentiles in mind after having traveled with Paul, etc. The Bible also says 'all Scripture was given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness,' and also quotes from the Old Testament in multiple locations. To me, these New Testament claims and quotes, made over 400 years after the last OT book was written--along with the numerous examples in the NT of specific OT prophecies that were fulfilled--combined with the physical and circumstantial phenomena that surround the Bible's existence, are too uncanny to be written off as mere coincidence or contrivances of men. I have to conclude that the Bible must be a supernatural book.

MAN. I WAS GOING TO BE BRIEF. :(

good or evil discipline?
 

Sorry, this is over my head. If you'd like, feel free to say you've stumped me. I cannot express the fathoms that separate these scenarios from the real thing. There is no way to up the stakes.

God didn't say 'clean your room.' God said, 'acknowledge me for what I am and what I've done.' By nature, we aren't scrambling around trying to do good or glorify God.

God doesn't work with ultimatums as we humans view them. If we were talking about a person drowning, it is not a matter of a precocious God withholding a lifeboat or popping the only available one, when some poor guy just fell into the water. It is a matter of God in his grace and mercy reaching down to miraculously save a drowning person who jumped in the first place, bent on committing suicide.

The Bible actually compares God to the father who is awaiting his runaway son's return, upon which he rejoices and throws a huge party in spite of all the things that son has done to grieve him. The Bible compares God to a shepherd who leaves his 99 safe sheep in the fold and goes searching because he notices 1 is missing. The Bible isn't even comparing when it describes God coming down off his judge's bench and saying, here I'll take his penalty so that justice is met. It just flat out describes the scene--a cross where a sinless God-Man died to wipe out the sins of any runaway sons and lost sheep who cared to look to that divine penalty-taker.

God made your son. God made the components for ice cream and ovens and your mind and he is indeed a good model for discipline. There just is no comparison.

OK, I normally stay out of the whole religious thing, being an ex-Mormon, but I felt compelled to discuss one of my issues with God.

It stems from the story in 2 Samuel, chapter 6. The following is the text from the King James Version:

1 Again, David gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand.
2 And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.
3 And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart.
........
6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.
7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.




OK, so to paraphrase, There were a BUNCH of folks taking the Ark to Jerusalem, and the oxen stumbled. The Ark of the Covenant was in danger of falling into the muck, mud and mire. This sacred, holy relic was about fall into uncleanness. So this guy, a son of Abinadab, one of the priests, reaches out, falls face first into the shit, and saves the Ark with one hand. Puts it back on the cart, then BAM!!!! God strikes him dead. Why?

He touched the ark.

This really pissed me off. Uzzah saved this precious thing, this devine relic, and how does he get paid back? He gets smited (smote?) right there by the Ark.

I've talked to priests, preachers, bishops and other assorted religious "leaders" about this, and they all say the same thing: Uzzah was told not to touch the ark. Ever. He disobeyed, so God killed him as divine punishment for breaking the law.

That's not good enough for me. God is supposed to be benevolent, forgiving. Just. Uzzah was only trying to save the Ark. God was, in essence, being an asshole to prove a point. I can't get behind that.

Do I believe there is a Creator? Yes. A god/dess? Yes. The bible says there are many Gods. I also belive in Karma, and the threefold rule. I believe in the afterlife. If I had to classify myself as anything, it would be Wiccan/Druidic. I believe the Yahweh of the bible is a spiteful, jealous God.

And that's my (already too long) rant.

No problem, Onyx. When the Jews broke the covenant with God that ended the old testament. Done/Fini/Closed. Has no bearing on us today, just ancient history.

Another ex Mormon? The whole Mormon thing is freaky. Didnt Smith rewrite a new "inspired" bible with the help of God? that seems pretty ballsy. Whats the whole latterday saints thing? I guess I could surf around and learn this meself, but hey...

http://www.religioustolerance.org - So you can find out all the fucked up stupid shit about various religions.

Ummm... I guess Susquehanna County PA has to take some credit for the Mormon movement, ... our apologies (although whatever works for you, its your life your deal, just stay off my deck). Its interesting how ugly the locals were towards the movement then and how accomodating they are now that they're established and are have some economic clout. The town of Susquehanna is positioning itself as the LDS Mecca since Smith had his visions near there. I've surveyed in the area where it all went down and there were some interesting notes about the whole thing in the deeds we researched. The Mormons went through some serious abuse to get where they are though. If you read some of their history folks were practically killing them for sport.

He started an inspired version, but was martyred before he could finish it. I have never seen a copy of it, but from the excerpts I've seen on ex-mormon.org, which shows King James version next to NIV next to JSR (Joseph Smith Rendition), the guy was wack. It's just not even close.

The major idea is that Joseph Smith brought about the restoration of the church through revelation as a prophet of God. All Mormons are called "Saints" and we are living in the Latter Days. Hence the name.

Wow! I learned a bit from some disgruntled former mormons at http://www.utlm.org/ Yikes. Christianity it aint.

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbspHey, anybody remember this thread? It's pretty old but I still like the fig tree and fish things. http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=2954

There's a new book on the church by the guy who helped get those yuppies killed on Everest a while back.

[NY Times.... register.... blahblahblah]

Is it Jon Krakauer, by any chance? If so, cool. Who did he kill this time?

Yeah, author of Into Thin Air. Damn good book.

Looks like he's killing American made fundies.

In the book, Mr. Krakauer examines Mormon fundamentalists, the tens of thousands of true believers living mostly in Utah who broke away from the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The splinter groups are the American Taliban, Mr. Krakauer says, living in desert theocracies where pubescent girls are forced into marriages with old graybeards who rule with an iron fist. These polygamous communities are against the law, but usually tolerated by officials who see a little bit of great-grandpa's pioneering ways in the modern sects.

WARNING: Blatant attempt at thread hijacking ahead

After a few minutes of reflection, I realize that that was a nasty thing to say about Mr. Krakauer. He didn't really kill anybody. At 28,000 feet, hypoxic, frostbitten and dehydrated, I'm sure he did the best he could.

If you liked <u>Into Thin Air</u>, you'll also enjoy <u>Everest: Mountain Without Mercy</u>. It's a National Geographic book written by a guy named Broughton Coburn. It's chock full of photos from the IMAX crew that happened to be on the mountain at the same time as the doomed pair of yuppie moron expeditions, and subsequently helped drag the surviving yuppies down off the mountain after half a dozen of them found out the hard way that buying a $400 Mountain Hard Wear jacket doesn't really make you a rugged, outdoorsy type.

I found my copy in the bargain bin at B&N a while back. It's worth $6.99 if you can find it.

Sort of nasty but its my understanding that thats pretty much his own assessment. Although he may just be feeling guilty about the gobs of money he made.

HB - I've already got it. It's a good one. :) Another one too, of which I can't remember the name... but it's got pictures of <b>dead people</b>, and in <b>vivid color</b>. Good stuff!

One really interesting bit to the original question is, "Did God say that?"

In college a friend made an interesting discovery in her Ancient Greek class. They used the Bible as thier translation medium at the time (Greek on the left, English on the right).

The Greek text used the words most literally translated as "Thou shalt not murder" (apparently, in Greek there is a word better suited to Murder than Kill...) but the translation we all came to read was "Thou shalt not kill".

Puts a different twist on it, eh?

reminder
 

interesting thought, BryanD. and a good reminder that i need to come back here sometime and answer to warch's invitation.

I saw a license plate frame on a VW Jetta today that said, "God can't be everywhere at once. That's why he made grandmothers."

And I thought, "Cute, except that directly contradicts the notion that 'God is Omnipotent'. Jesus Christ, don't religious people even attempt logic anymore??"

Of course, that also reminds me of another recent, un-religous conversation I had.

I asked my mom why strangers and aquaintances kept asking me what Kathy's due-date is. The information is completely worthless to them. What possible use would they get out if it? The question just serves to irritate me, because I know all they'll do in response is nod and then never, ever use the answer for anything.

But in response, she just told me I was too serious. :)

That, or you're being a firestarter (which you seem to do here too). :)

Did you just call me a troll?

It's not your sole purpose, so I wouldn't call you a troll.

It's not the religious people that are illogical, it's grandmothers.

I'm not casting any aspersions here but when coworkers tell me about their pregnant wife that's all I can think of to say. Maybe subconsciously I'm marking the date to start avoiding them. That's when the baby stories and pictures start.;)

.

Maybe the grandmothers in question subscribe to a religion where God isn't omniscient.

And lo, Mike finally enters the fray
 

Sorry, been busy for the last few days. Damn shame, this has been a pretty juicy topic.

I personally walk the Roman Catholic path, as any good Irish boy from Queens is wont to do. Now, despite the efforts of the Plum soccer moms to deny me my education in my chosen faith, I have succeeded in learning one thing or another - namely, purgatory.

When I first heard of purgatory, I figured it was a dogmatic cop-out, and dismissed it from my mind. But after reading up and learning, I'm thinking that it's probably the core solution here. To infer from Matthew and Revelations, only those of a perfect soul can stand there and see God without turning into metaphysical goo. As follows, since no one is perfect, one spends some time to dust off the lint before stepping into the club.

Now, of course, the Catechism has this as a Catholic-only thing, all non Catholics will be subject to one circle of Hell or another, etc. etc., but to look past that, it gives one the impression that so long as you fly right, whatever minor things you pick up will be taken care of later no matter what you believe.

Do I believe that Jesus is the qualifier for the club, yeah. But it's like a classy restaurant - If you show up without a jacket and tie but look nice, clean, etc., they'll spot you one at the door. You just have to wait around for a bit.

Re: "thou shalt not kill"
 

Hi Joy,

You give a rare perspective to Christianity in these three sentences. When I read the first sentence I thought, "what decision do I make in sending other people there *unprepared* because I didn't live in obvious relationship with God and didn't speak to them about God?"

I don't mean to try to motivate myself by guilt, but not sure how I can escape guilt if I just avoid the responsibility and opportunity to participate in God's working. And it isn't guilt I feel so much as the importance of the opportunity. I think your last two sentences are important in that our transformation is best accomplished, and best revealed to others, in the unfairnesses and oppositions of life and how we face and endure them.

Anyway, I enjoyed your very thoughtful posts and wanted to let you know you got me thinking.

Re: And lo, Mike finally enters the fray
 

Great explanation of purgatory. It seems to me you've nicely summed up the relatively minor difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestants with this example.

For both Roman Catholic and Protestant, Jesus' death for us is critical to salvation and heaven. For the Roman Catholic, His death provides us opportunity to enter purgatory to be cleansed from minor unconfessed sins and thereby be made ready for heaven. For the protestant, Jesus' death on the cross makes us ready for heaven, not just ready for purgatory.

Protestants think of Jesus as having cleansed us of the penalty for all sin in His death for us; taking care of both hell and purgatory; removing the dirt and grime of sin as well as the lint and dust.

Yeah, my mother was originally Scots Presby before converting when she married my father, and she still has that core of confident faith about how things will turn out. I, however, can't even make plans for an afternoon next week without worrying what might happen to derail them.

The fact that Abraham didn't end killing his son does not make the story any less ridiculous.

All that would make the story MORE ridiculous would be if God actually said, "Just kidding!" or "You're on candid camera!"