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

[joydriven]

<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

[joydriven]

This is leftover from the other blog....

<b>warch</b> Tuesday Jul 8 07:55 PM
I feel compelled to pop in ...
So what about "Thou shall not kill"
I'm curious JD, about your thoughts, your personal beliefs and biblical interpretation of recent events like 9/11 or the long violence in the middle east. Is God angry and trying smite us all or something? You've stressed your faith in the absolute truth of biblical God, salvation in heaven; so can a soldier that kills another human be a true Christian? Can a leader that orders others to kill be a Christian? Could you ever imagine a time when you, as a Christian, would be justified by God in killing another human?

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.

[juju]

Whereabouts are you from? Chicago?

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

[joydriven]

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. not sure to what extent it's a regional phenomenon.

[warch]

God justifies the justifiable actions of civil authorities.

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.

[juju]

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.

Originally posted by joydriven
It does not matter what I think or say, nor what you think or say. God is very absolute in the Bible--very specific about how Creation took place, very specific about the only Way to heaven.

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?

Originally posted by joydriven
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.

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?

[joydriven]

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?

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.

[Torrere]

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?

[warch]

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.

[wolf]

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) ...

[joydriven]

Torrere: 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.

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).

[joydriven]

Torrere: The Bible makes sense and verifies itself as being accurate and true, if the observer already believes that the Bible is true. What would convince me, as someone who does not already wholly believe in the Bible, that Christianity is more valid than Islam or Judaism?

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.

[Undertoad]

Civilization sets the meanings of words, not you.

[joydriven]

dave: 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?

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.