Judges 19-21 is a Major Obstacle to Why I Cannot Believe the Bible
Before reading further read Judges 19-21. Okay?
Can someone tell me why I should trust ANYTHING that these people wrote? I know, you'll say God didn't approve what they did and that these chapters merely record without comment what happened. But my point is that they depict the barbaric nature of a people who also claimed to have a divine revelation from God. I will not listen to what they have to say about God if that's the kind of people they were. Q.E.D.
Can someone tell me why I should trust ANYTHING that these people wrote? I know, you'll say God didn't approve what they did and that these chapters merely record without comment what happened. But my point is that they depict the barbaric nature of a people who also claimed to have a divine revelation from God. I will not listen to what they have to say about God if that's the kind of people they were. Q.E.D.
71 comments:
Do Biblical scholars ever consider the complicity found in giving the concubine to be raped?
Phyllis Trible has a classic feminist analysis of the story of the Levite's concubine in Texts of Terror.
"Judges 19-21 is a Major Obstacle to Why I Cannot Believe the Bible"
Well, I just finished reading it, and there sure is some creapy stuff in there. But that's why I do believe the Bible. It's not trying to make something look good, it's actually just recording the stuff that happened. If you read the ending it sums it all up. Judges 21:25 "In those days there was no King in Israel, everyone did what was right in his own eyes".
Peace out, feeno
Of course, this scriptural account has the Lord directing them in some of the slaughter. I agree with John completely.
Logically speaking, there are several ways of interpreting the Bible. They range from "Complete and utter rubbish" through "a mix of myth and factual history" to "complete and absolute truth".
Of the people who suggest that we (re. nonbelievers) should take it as 100% factual truth, I think the passages you've selected present a rational rejection of the idea.
But - there are plenty of Christians and theological historians who point out that the Bible appears to be a blend of fact and fiction.
So, my question is this: which interpretation of the Bible are you rejecting here?
It goes to show that we need the Lord Jesus Christ! When Christ returns, then your mouth will finally be closed.
I would hate to be in your shoes having rejected love for eternity... Of course, this is your choice and what a poor choice it is.
Of course, you have been living without love for a long time so it feels normal to you.
You preach hopelessness and only offer simplistic arguments against Christianity that extremely unconvincing.
Why do you do it John? You know in your heart that it is true. God is speaking to you and you know it to be true. Why keep denying what you know to be true?
Yes, Judges is an obstacle for me, too! The one that kills me is Judges 1:19 . So iron, the most abundant element in the universe he supposedly created, it his kryptonite? How does this passage fit in with an omnipotent god?
Hey thanks for the OT scripture - quite a sensational story of human endeavor.
Have you ever noticed that the only appearance from God is Him saying,"Go, for tomorrow I will give them into your hands." I can't find where God tells anyone to be destructive or murderous, can you? As a matter of fact I know that once my adrenaline gets going, I'm hard of hearing that small whisper, "love the enemy" and I know it would be exponentially more difficult to hear that advice if it were not for Messiah and the promise of spiritual salvation. I think natural instincts cloud our capacity to hear the divine.
Nonetheless, I don't judge the OT folks, because even with the Messiah, I too have been hard of hearing God's promptings to love my enemies. I honor the hard work Abraham did in establishing that God didn't desire the sacrifice of offspring to appease Himself.
If one knows Jesus and then reads the OT (Jesus said the OT folks did the hard work) one can begin to see what was of divine nature and what is done out of base infected nature.
The best to you,
3M
Whateverman said... "But - there are plenty of Christians and theological historians who point out that the Bible appears to be a blend of fact and fiction."
Whateverman ...Doesnt sound so handy for a holy book, to me anyway....Specially when it doesnt come with directions of exactly how folks are supposed to be unblending it!....Still i suppose it has created a mega huge blend of Christians,many snobbing other Christians who they seem to fear might have sadly got the blend recipe a bit wrong somewhere.
Ive heard Christians worry about devilish spirits traveling down radio and TV waves with real ease,and christians even felt impowered by the holy spirit at times to stop rock concerts happening in their towns.
Strange it seems these devilish spirits dont bother choosing holy books blended with fact and fiction etc as a medium to latch onto unsuspecting folks??
Although i did see one church had taken to bible and ministry burnings,and was even throwing all ungodly records and tapes and CDs etc on top as a bonus!...The Big Burn Up !! evening was to finish the night with fried chicken and refreshments being served.
Why cant folks see how absolutely crazy it all seems?
MMM says...I can't find where God tells anyone to be destructive or murderous, can you?
I Samuel 15:
1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Thanks, Walter - but my point still stands - I don't think I would believe it was God talking to me if I heard "turn the other cheek" - and without the promise of salvation that would be a pretty cruel expectation
Can someone tell me why I should trust ANYTHING that these people wrote?
Those Benjamites, the ones who murdered that woman and the ones who protected the murderers, they didn't write the bible. They obviously didn't follow the law that they had either. And scripture doesn't remove free will.
So what about what followed? I think there's a great lesson to be learned here. To fail to protect one man's loved ones is to betray your own. The Benjamites betrayed their own towns and families by betraying one Levite and his family. They are responsible for what happened. If that's not a message about the importance of solidarity of humanity, I don't know what is. It just makes you think about how hollow and empty those "good" family men are amongst the mafia or the Nazi's.
So now we should go and slaughter the families of those who've harmed someone else's family. Right? Sure, if you treat scripture as a homogenous set of moral principles and ignore the place of this story in the Judeo Christian narrative. But that would have nothing to do with an real evaluation of Judeo Christianity and how its scripture works.
Rob, any answer even if it's a dumb one is good enough for you when seeking to confirm that which you were brought to believe in your Christian culture, eh? Okay, I guess.
Listen, it just stands to reason other types of these things took place by other tribes during that time and that the people telling these stories shared much of this same bloodthirsty outlook. What you're proposing is that these things were aberrations describing people totally out of sync with what the other tribes of Israel thought was morally acceptable. You somehow think that these incidents took place on a segregated oasis unconnected with what other Israelites thought and did, and I find that lacking any plausibility at all.
No wonder you believe. You cannot think, sorry.
Rob offers an alternative interpretation and your response is "No wonder you believe. You cannot think, sorry"? So you disagree over what lesson/conclusions to draw from this story, I hardly think we need to resort to insults.
We may not like the violence in places like this, but I think we should be cautious to assume that necessarily precludes its divine origin.
If we’re trying to understand the meaning of a passage or whether it means God endorsed the violence, etc., then let’s ask the people who actually recorded these words- i.e. the Jews. As we know, Judaism does not believe only in a written law, but an oral one along with it (ie. Talmud). So John, I think we ought to ask what Jewish commentators (Talmudic, right down to Rashi, 11th century), had to say.
I don’t see how it’s relevant to be asking 21st century evangelical Christians to explain what these passages mean. Let’s ask the ancient Jewish commentators and thinkers who were recording an oral tradition from even earlier.
So in other words, if we’re going to read a text, I think it makes more sense to read it from the perspective of the people who gave it to us in the first place. Otherwise, I guarantee we’ll be reading it wrong.
Here’s an interesting observation to demonstrate my point. The “violent and intolerant God of the OT” somehow produced the Jewish people, who, by all standards, have not left such a legacy at all. If they believed the OT really was a horribly violent God, I think we would have seen some vestige of that in their long history.
Furthermore, if the OT God killed people, at least that was the end of it. According to the NT, God tortures people eternally for a mistaken belief. That makes the OT God look like a pussycat in comparison.
So John, perhaps your fury is directed at the wrong place.
ZDENNY said, "Why keep denying what you know to be true?".
No matter how many times I hear or see a statement like that it never fails to utterly amaze me. I honestly cannot understand their reasoning. It must be something like, "I believe it so everyone else does too, whether they admit it or not". Isn't that called "projection"? Projecting one's own thoughts, beliefs and so on to everyone else.
The fact is, there are some of us who actually DON'T believe. Please, ZDENNY, understand this fact and deal with it so you can stop projecting your own world-view and beliefs onto others.
Peace
Lynn wrote the following: It must be something like, "I believe it so everyone else does too, whether they admit it or not". Isn't that called "projection"?
I think it's more complicated than that. For a believer (like Zdenny, apparently) to admit there are logical, rational and plausible reasons to reject the Christian God is equivalent admitting their faith is only belief. Not fact.
Christians who parrot this idea (ie. that we really do believe in God) are admitting they're afraid of the baseless nature of their own beliefs. In reality, real faith doesn't need to be confirmed by intellectual dishonesty - and a faithful person should be able to readily admit they can't prove what they claim to believe in.
Some Christians seem to think that "thinking" is dangerous. I submit that Zdenny is one of those...
It looks like all the guilt and shame and fear that has been dumped on you through the years is taking its toll.You bought into all of it ,didn't you?Do you wonder,"Have I done and said absolutely everything that I needed to say and do today in order to stay in God's graces"? "Did I miss ANTHING"?
Zdenny,whether you realize it or not,you have sentenced yourself to a life that will have constant insecurities during every waking moment of its existence.You will always constantly scrutinize every thought,word and deed that proceeds from your life.Are you sure you are saved?What about those "perfection" verses that are in the bible?.Do you REALLY love your neighbor as yourself?
It's so sad that you do not have the luxury of implementing logic and common sense such as the natural man relies upon. Your bible forbids such acts of mental "carnality".Oh,and never,ever,lean on your own understanding about anything . You have a good nights sleep now....and pleasant dreams!
Professor Loftus, your presumption is that the history of Israel isn't special and separated by God's guidance. Of course I don't share that. As a believer, why wouldn't I look for the reasoning behind the Christian and Jewish belief that God's guidance was indeed a distinguishing element in this situation and then work out the reasoning behind that guidance? Well, the only reason is because I'm supposed to follow your outsiders test of faith. But I don't agree with it and I've explained plenty up and down on this blog why I don't find it compelling.
I'm sorry but if it's dumb not to take for granted what it is that makes human life worthwhile and what it is that can compromise that value or who is responsible in these situations for others lives in order to make judgments about these texts, I guess that's me. If it's foolish to question the moral senses or interpretations of scripture that may be immediately intuitive or on the surface, I always hope that I'm getting close if not right on that foolishness which I hopr is that foolishness of God.
I didn't offer a full explanation of the chapters you posted though I assume what I've said could be more or less continued to be applied. I do have in my mind how I would do so, but I felt that I already addressed the biggest doozies.
Do I think I have the answer? I think I have a reasonable explanation but I'm willing to hear others. I certainly wouldn't mind Robwalker's suggestion about the talmudic perspective though I could do without the pot shots to Christianity which very well may be able to use the perspective he suggested. But I'm not going to back away from what I said just because you call it dumb. Wouldn't that be... well... dumb?
And while I understand that you have a lot of ground to cover and have much to write, edit and think about even apart from your blog, with all due respect, you make demands of me when you don't deal with what I say even though I deal more with what you say. I don't care if you interact with me, but the asymetry seems to be an issue if you offer the kind of judgement that you just did.
Just to follow up and extend a comment I made above:
Do I think I have the answer? I think I have a reasonable explanation but I'm willing to hear others.
Also, putting my opinion out there on a blog of an opposing view point, you can also rightfully expect that I am willing to hear what is wrong or limited in the reasoning I set out. But I didn't get that.
Rob Walker wrote the following: We may not like the violence in places like this, but I think we should be cautious to assume that necessarily precludes its divine origin.
I suppose that's true, Rob. Personally, I view the Bible as part history, part fable and part myth. Some portions of it seem to "instruct" the reader; Judges 19-21 is probably a good example of this.
And yet, Christians inconsistently identify the history fable and truth as fact. It's very difficult to look at what's written, and to know with any certainty exactly what the writer intended.
While you're right about not assuming the book can't possibly be divine, when taken as a whole with the claims and actions of believers in general, it quickly becomes obvious (to me, at least) that a healthy does of skepticism is warranted.
There is a scripture where Jesus challenges the divinity of the OT - He spoke of it when He addressed the issue of divorce. He indicated that the law for divorce was written due to the influence of Moses's surrounding community of hard hearted ppl. So the law is, in part, the work of human nature.
If Jesus indicated that God's divine nature does not condone divorce, why would you think God would make an exception to condone killing?? Jesus didn't demonstrate killing the enemy or those who are weak and vulnerable.
By faith, Jesus advised to conscientiously pick the battles we are prepared and equipped to engage in - some things are worth fighting for and giving one's life for. The ultimate demonstration of faith is to love one's enemies and to turn the other cheek, but not all are chosen to do so.
Hi MMM,
I like what you said about the ultimate demonstration of faith is loving one's enemies. I think this shows the power and truth of Christ more than anything. I think Jesus gave the key to this kind of living when He said, "Blessed are you when men cast insults against you, and persecute you on account of me. Rejoice and be glad for your reward in heaven is great." Jesus said that not only can you endure the persecutions of the enemy but rejoice in it. If I could rejoice in being persecuted then It would be possible to love my persecutors.
Jesus gives the key to joy when He says, "Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great. I believe this joy is the freeing power to love our enemies. I think to love is to set our minds on the things that are above. To love the enemy is to find my hope and my satisfaction in God and His great reward. I am convinced that in the midst of my agony that the love of God is better than life. I don't earn eternal life by loving my enemy but in treasuring the reward of heaven I am empowered to love my enemy.
"Whateverman", you raise a very valid point which I'd like to add to.
You said: "...when taken as a whole with the claims and actions of believers in general, it quickly becomes obvious (to me, at least) that a healthy does of skepticism is warranted."
Agreed.
However, I want to ask you- exactly who are the 'believers' we're talking about? We're talking about the Hebrew Bible, so let's look at the people who wrote it- the Jews. I don't think looking at Christians is relevant. Why? Well, they neither recorded the OT and the OT is not talking to or about them. It's to, and about, Israel. Christians often find offense with that, but it's true.
Thus, I think we ought to look at Israel (ie. the Jews). I don't think their history or ideology is a violent one at all, and yet they revere this "violent and intolerant" text. Logically, it doesn't make sense...unless we recognize that perhaps the Jews (who recorded this text) don't understand it the way we are looking at it. After all, they believe in an oral law along with this, along with copious (and very old- 900 to 1,500 year old commentary).
So all I'm saying is that if we're going to evaluate a text (ie. OT), let's do it according to the standards of the people who gave it to us in the first place (ie. Jews).
Then, and only then, can we see whether the text is really teaching us what it on the surface seems to.
Hi MMM
Are we free to reject parts of the bible as being the scribbling of sinful humans and not the divine word of God?
If that is so, then I submit that we can never know how much of the Gospels are divine revelations or just human theological stories. How about when Paul writes--are we seeing the mind of God or just the mind of Paul?
I Samuel 15 says that the LORD commanded genocide--if I am free to reject this statement, then I am free to reject any part of the bible that I don't particularly like.
Liberal Christianity leads to agnosticism--which is why I am now agnostic.
John, this is an ad-hominem. Would you want the issue of someone's history be the determinant of their trustworthiness? I think I rightly defended you a while ago when guys were calling your trustworthiness into question because of your past.
And please quit putting Q.E.D. after your posts, it's unbecoming after a while.
MT you said,
"treasuring the reward of heaven I am empowered to love my enemy."
So you love people so that you get a pay-off. You can't intrinsically practice benevolence or charity towards those that hate you without gaining some sort of status (imagined or otherwise)?
Here's what I don't understand and Christians maybe you can help me out okay?
The Levite gives up his concubine to be raped sohe doesn't get raped. She is raped. She is then psychologically damaged because of the rape and the levite cuts her up into 12 pieces and sends those pieces out to the 12 tribes of Israel so they will gather and fight the guys who wanted to rape him but instead raped his concubine (whom he gave to them to be raped).
The tribes gather and they kill the rapists (except for the Benjamites who probably wisely didn't want to associate with the freak in the story who gave his concubine to be raped and then cut her up.)
But then they get angry the Benjamites didn't help out and they kill them too.
So, the hero of this story is a man who helped an innocent woman to get raped and then cut her up because he was offended she was raped and then kills another group of people who didn't help him kill the rapists.
How is this a lesson in any kind of morality beyond a barbaric psychology where mysogynism and "might makes right" are the benchmarks of value?
Thanks.
Chuck, personally, I don't read the story with any hero. It seems like the writer is condemning the society in general. The tipper is the bracket verse on the story "and everyone did was what right in his own eyes."
Chuck,
There is no way to exclude self- intrest from love, for self intrest is not the same as selfishness. Selfishness seeks its own private happiness at the expennse of others. Love seeks its happiness in the happiness of the beloved. It will even suffer and die for the beloved in order that its joy might be full in the life and purity of the beloved. This is what Jesus did. For it was by the joy that was set before Him that He endured the cross.
God gives the grace. I get the joy. And He gets the glory. Joy in God. Not self.
Brad you said,
"Chuck, personally, I don't read the story with any hero. It seems like the writer is condemning the society in general. The tipper is the bracket verse on the story "and everyone did was what right in his own eyes."
I was using the word "hero" in the dramatic sense of the character who wins the conflict.
And, didn't the Levite's team appeal to God so why would they need a King? They appealed to God? And didn't God say that Israel wouldn't have a king so, why do they need a king? Would a king help people do the right thing more than God?
Do you see Brad why the arguments made for the Bible's superlative insight really seems confusing?
Rob you said,
"So all I'm saying is that if we're going to evaluate a text (ie. OT), let's do it according to the standards of the people who gave it to us in the first place (ie. Jews).
Then, and only then, can we see whether the text is really teaching us what it on the surface seems to."
So on that basis I suppose you consider the Koran to be God's final revelation to mankind and the Hadith the record of his last prophet's life. I mean if you hold to that standard than all that matters is we recognize the rationalizations of a sacred text's authors.
And, if the Jews are peaceful then can you explain The West Bank, Gaza and forced resettlment of indigineous people. The Jews are peaceful here because you don't occupy what they consider to be sacred land but, try owning some land in Israel and you might see a different people all together.
MT you said,
"There is no way to exclude self- intrest from love, for self intrest is not the same as selfishness."
I agree with you on this but, the definition of Christian love is nothing more than selfishness because it places its focus on an invisible god so that adoration will provide victory over death. It does nothing for the interest of others. It only allows the person worshipping to feel joy while staying fixated on their heavenly treasure.
Of course there is the cop-out for this selfishness due to holy worship and the pseudo-humility of giving Christ all the glory while the Christian feels comfortable really doing nothing.
Systematic theology is really just childish wishful thinking where powerless people feel empowered without risking anything or making any real effort towards truth or justice.
Chuck,
Christian love is the overflow of joy in God that gladly meets the needs of others. The overflow is experienced conciously as the persuit of our joy in the joy of another. We double our delight in God as we expand it in the lives of others. There's nothing selfish about Christian love.
Did anyone notice the size of those armies? Even Alexander the Great didn't have such a huge army as Irael in this silly story, yet Alexander conquered the whole known world.
Doesn't that make one wonder how Israel was conquered by Babylonia's puny army?
A Levite turns his wife/concubine over to a bunch of thugs and just goes to bed and gets a good night's sleep. Wow! He really loved her, didn't he?
Then he commands her to "Get up!" but, alas, she is dead as a door nail - she had died at the door while he was getting his good night's sleep.
They say that ignorance is bliss and this story proves it with the Levite's blissful night's sleep.
A good lesson in this story is that if a bunch of hooligans want to do you harm, just give them your wife or daughter so that they don't harm you and you can go get a blissful night's sleep.
But, remember to get all indignant the next day and have 400,000 other people exact revenge for you - you yellow coward.
Chuck- I'm not saying read the OT assuming it's divine. I'm not talking historical criticism- I'm asking about the meaning of particular passages.
BUT- if the Jews (who wrote it) say the OT can only be read with the accompanying oral tradition to be understood, then if you and I read it in whatever way we want (ignoring what they say), it's guaranteed we're not even TRYING to understand it.
If the very people who wrote the OT say that a verse means a particular thing, then it seems both illogical and irrelevant to be ignoring what they have to say.
If particular OT quotes were never interpreted that way by the 1,500 year old Talmud, or medieval Jewish thinkers (or any other Jewish teachers) then it is logical to at least begin any meaningful discussion at that point. Let's see what the people who wrote it have to say about how it's to be read.
Even if it were divine, we'd never know it because we're not even analyzing the OT the way the very people who gave it to us told us to!
We both know current politics is irrelevant, not least because Israel is not a theocratic state and is not governed by Jewish law. Arabs are much better treated there than Jews are in either the Islamic world or were in medieval Christendom. But if you feel inclined, research Jewish history and show me a violent, bloodthirsty, vengeful people. That's what we'd expect from a people believing such a gruesome OT. But it's not the Jews who were that way.
MT,
You said, "Christian love is the overflow of joy in God that gladly meets the needs of others."
Except when Christians lie for Jesus to obscure science in the name of Intelligent Design.
Or, Chrisitians fund legislation that denies Homosexual Americans their constitutional rights.
Or, Christians block useful science because the soul in a Petrie dish is more important than using medical technology to cure things like Juvenile Diabetes and Parkinson's.
No, a Christian's imaginary relationship with God makes him/her feel loved and important but the modern Christian Church's stance on these issues obscures any real morality they claim.
Sorry but, I enjoyed the same delusions you entertain and once I investigated these three issues outside of the Christian Dogma I realized that I believed what I believe so that I can feel special. There was little morality inherent in that belief.
Rob,
How about I do this instead, I will trust my post-modern perspective and respect the ideas of the enlightenment and recognize both the OT and NT scriptures are ancient myths holding little necessary moral relevance. They exhibit barbaric tendancies and hightlight bloody conclusions wrought by people whose lives were too short.
They are neither enlightened nor special.
Additionally, you cannot argue that the current Israeli behavior towards re-settlement is divorced from their concept of being the "chosen people" and Israel being "their land".
Robwalker,
you've referenced the Talmud twice now, but it'd be nice if you actually told us what it is that the talmud says that is relevant to the issue.
Of course, suggesting that the text doesn't belong to Christians because it belongs to the Jews is somewhat self defeating don't you think, unless you are trying to communicate with other Jews here?
But why presume the Old Testament is only for the Jews. Obviously the Old Covenant was specifically between them and God, but that hardly means that the Old Testament as a whole is really intended only for them when it tells the story of the creator of the whole world and all humanity and the whole principle behind the founding Jewish people, the Abrahamic covenant is for the benefit and blessing for everyone else. Then we see much scriptural concern for many outside of the covenant community including so many judgements against gentile nations. So the Scriptures can judge us goyim but it's not for us anyway?
Rob R Vs. Rob W.
This should be fun.
I put my money on Rob R but that is only because his 1 of 3 style responses will probably bore Rob W to death.
"Except when Christians lie for Jesus to obscure science in the name of Intelligent Design."
Chuck,
I don't hold to the intelligent design movement as many Christians don't.
"Or, Chrisitians fund legislation that denies Homosexual Americans their constitutional rights."
Not all christians do this either.
"Or, Christians block useful science because the soul in a Petrie dish is more important than using medical technology to cure things like Juvenile Diabetes and Parkinson's."
Not aware of this one.
"No, a Christian's imaginary relationship with God makes him/her feel loved and important but the modern Christian Church's stance on these issues obscures any real morality they claim.
Sorry but, I enjoyed the same delusions you entertain and once I investigated these three issues outside of the Christian Dogma I realized that I believed what I believe so that I can feel special. There was little morality inherent in that belief."
Chuck,
I don't see God as a delusion or imaginary. He's a living reality to me.
Anyway,
Good talking to you Chuck!
Thanks for the mixed compliment Chuck, but I'm not lookin for a competition here on these grounds.
Rob R, the OT is extremely clear that it is a correspondence between God and Isrel. There are probably hundreds of passages which make that clear. One can't read a letter from one person to another, and then apply it to yourself. That's what the Catholic church does in calling itself the "new Israel."
As for the Talmud and Jewish commentaries, it's not my responsibility to explain it (nor am I an expert). If you want to know what the Jews say a text means, then ask them yourself. If we're going to try to evaluate what a text means, it seems foolhardy to ignore ancient commentary from the very people who wrote it. That should be obvious.
Chuck- you can believe what you want about the text. But if the people who wrote it have a long-established means of interpretation (and commentary), then I think we owe it to ourselves to at least hear what they have to say before throwing it out entirely. That is fair, is it not?
As for current-day Israel: the country and its people aren't perfect, but we can both see whatever imperfections it has, it doesn't now (or has ever) come close to personifying the "violent God of the OT." That obvious fact should cause us pause and wonder why there's such a huge gap between how we perceive the God of the OT and the actions of the people who believe it.
MT,
If the Church you associate with defends Gay Marriage or Embryonic Stem Cell Research then I stand corrected.
I believe you believe you have a relationship with God but I doubt there is any objective test that can verify or measure that relationship. I therefore can only conclude that it is imaginary. The fact you claim it's power causes me to consider it a delusion.
I believe we seek transcendent belief but don't believe the conclusions we come to constitute person-hood.
I wish you good luck but don't subscribe to your beliefs any longer and am better for it.
As for the Talmud and Jewish commentaries, it's not my responsibility to explain it
Okay, so you point in the direction. Thanks for the half measures anyhow. Of course any of us could just point and say, "well, go consider what the biblical scholars say". That's all well and good and good advice, but not conducive to the conversation when it ends there without bringing it back to the discussion.
Rob you said,
"Chuck- you can believe what you want about the text. But if the people who wrote it have a long-established means of interpretation (and commentary), then I think we owe it to ourselves to at least hear what they have to say before throwing it out entirely. That is fair, is it not?"
No, I think modern textual criticism utilizing non-religious criteria can be more useful than thousands of years of rationalization. Sorry.
"As for current-day Israel: the country and its people aren't perfect, but we can both see whatever imperfections it has, it doesn't now (or has ever) come close to personifying the "violent God of the OT." That obvious fact should cause us pause and wonder why there's such a huge gap between how we perceive the God of the OT and the actions of the people who believe it."
The huge gap can be attributed to non-religious secular influence which Israel has probably integrated in a syncretic way. Their belief that they can turn land-owners into refugees due to their "letter from God" is however a vestige of their pre-enlightenment barbarism captured well in the OT scriptures.
Chuck,
That's fine that you don't suscribe to my beliefs. I don't try to force them on others. As far as testing God. I don't see God as a scientific hypothesis. He's more of a person to me. Anyway, I don't like puting God to the test anyhow. Although, I see no evidence that would disprove His existence.
MT you said,
"Although, I see no evidence that would disprove His existence."
How about this:
http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/HARDIN/md/geneticdisorders.html
It is hard for me to reconcile the "loving father God" who is living and acting in history with these blunt facts.
Here's a test. Would you trade places with these folks?
Chuck- Jews for thousands of years were as religious as you could get, believing absolutely in the OT, yet never acting in the violent manner which you would think they would. They were not influenced by secularism until the 1800s, so that doesn't explain anything.
As for scholarship- nobody would ever critique the NT without evaluating the arguments of Christian scholars and thinkers, since they are the spiritual progeny of the authors of the NT.
Likewise, to evaluate the OT and to COMPLETELY ignore commentary from the very people who wrote it is not intellectually honest. I'm not saying accept what they say wholescale- I'm just say READ what they have to say.
Rob R- I only mentioned it as a caution that before we get caught up in trying to figure out what a text means, let's ask the people who wrote it! If we're not going to read Jewish thinkers on it, then we can't really pretend to be evaluating the text in the setting of which it was created.
And for Christians, it would certainly be self-contradictory to accept the Jewish Scriptures, while rejecting the Jewish oral commentary on it.
Chuck,
Let's just say for the moment that the problem of suffering goes through (which I don't think that it does)
The most that you can claim is a probabalistic argument. You still have to take into consideration two dozen or so theistic arguments for the other side. It seems to me that when we take everything into consideration (argument wise) that the nod goes to agnosticism as the defalt position as John says in his book. We're not left with proof that there is no Creator God.
And for Christians, it would certainly be self-contradictory to accept the Jewish Scriptures, while rejecting the Jewish oral commentary on it.
I'm neither accepting it nor rejecting it out of hand, but google hasn't found me a user friendly talmud to consider it's interpretation.
I wouldn't accept it out of hand for sure as Judaism before the writing of the Talmud was not a monolithic entity anyway. We can misread a texts today after all so why should the Jews who were of various positions misread their own texts. And of course, we Christians side with the Jews who founded our perspective on the old testament, Jesus and his followers and authors of the New TEstament. And they certainly had their disagreements with those of the tradition that resulted in the Talmud. But of course, those issues may very well not be relevent on what we could learn about Judges 19-21
MT,
You said, "You still have to take into consideration two dozen or so theistic arguments for the other side. It seems to me that when we take everything into consideration (argument wise) that the nod goes to agnosticism as the defalt position as John says in his book."
And that is why I hold the beliefs I hold which you can read about here: http://chuckoconnor.blogspot.com/2009/10/i-dont-like-buddy-jesus.html
Rob you said,
"I'm not saying accept what they say wholescale- I'm just say READ what they have to say."
Why?
Do you do the same with the Hadith? The Book of Mormon? Dianetcs?
It is a book of storied myth made up by men who didn't have the scientific method to understand their world. I'm sure some parts of it are quite interesting but doubt that it means much.
Oh, and doesn't the passage we are all arguing about discredit your perspective that Jewish people have been historically peaceful?
Walter wrote: "If that is so, then I submit that we can never know how much of the Gospels are divine revelations or just human theological stories. How about when Paul writes--are we seeing the mind of God or just the mind of Paul?
I Samuel 15 says that the LORD commanded genocide--if I am free to reject this statement, then I am free to reject any part of the bible that I don't particularly like."
If you hold Jesus in contempt then of course you'll be confused about God's will and the OT..
Just answer this - if Jesus indicated that the OT law for divorce was of the result of human infuence why then do you insist on assigning "genocide" to God's nature? Again, Jesus was very courageous in making that statement to the religious elite and He was crucified for challenging what they had come to idolize.
Are you afraid to challenge the religious indoctrination that you received? It takes courage - Jesus did it and was crucified.
The commentaries I find on-line justify this as a story of how badly man screws things up when he does things without God. But Judges 21:15 says "The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel."
The Levite, the rapists of Gibeah, and the people of Israel may have seemed to have done this, but the scripture says the LORD made this happen.
My guess is that there were a series of tribal fights for political/economic reasons and a justifying story was made up. That story celebrated pointless violence and justified the murder and rape of uninvolved women and children.
What I don't understand is why this becomes part of a people's scripture. What thought process would lead one to include a story like this? It doesn't make anyone look good, especially God. If it is believed to be true, any moral person would want to disassociate from that group and their God.
mmm states-"..Jesus was very corageous in making that statement(regarding divorce) to the religious elite.."
Actually, Jeebus could have just quoted his "Father". Malachi 2:15-16--..for let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. "For I hate divorce" says the Lord God of Isreal.
mini me, please don't let us at DC take your valuable time away from some worthy fundamentalist fruitcake blog who would feel truly blessed by the inane babble that flows like the river Nile from your mind.
Thanks for the links Chuck. I will be checking them out.
Earlier you said that you have a hard time reconcilling a loving God with the facts of suffering. I use to have the same problem and I understand your point. The way I see it is that God's ways are the ways of infinite wisdom and knowledge and are beyond tracing out. I see God as being distinct and in a different category than His creation. He cannot be compared to anything or anybody. While there are ways that I'm to be like God there are also ways that I'm not to be like God. He has rights and prerogatives that I don't have. I don't try to figure out what God's hidden or sovereign will is. It's hidden in mystery to me. I just try and go by what He has revealed which is loving Him above all else and loving my neigbor as myself. The secret things belong to the Lord. God's wisdom is fathomless and His decisions are unsearchable and His methods are mysterious and untraceable. No one can even completely understand His mind or advise Him to the proper course of action. It is arrogant for me to seek to determine what God is doing in a particular event or circumstance. I cannot search out His reasons behind His decisions or trace out the ways by which He brings those decisions to pass. God's ways are infinite in wisdom and cannot be comprehended by my finite mind. I'm learning to trust God even when I don't understand why. To demand that God explain why is arrogant and untrusting. I trust that God has moraly justifiable good reasons even when I don't know what His reasons are.
MT,
The special pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) necessary in accepting your bias demands I reject it.
Sorry. All I see is another adult wanting to live within childlike fantasies because life is hard. This thinking of course leads to conclusions that limit thought and individual liberty.
If Christianity had stayed in churches, I might still be a Christian but the incoherent message of humility you deliver (which is really just disguised arrogance e.g. "I don't know why things happen but I know it is of my understanding of God, and therefore I am humble?") only empowers unthinking people to command virtue while practicing ignorance.
Chuck,
I never said that we shouldn't investigate why things happen. I just recognize that I can't get inside the mind of an infinite Being and fully comprehend and fathom His infinite wisdom. I'm finite and limited. I'm not God.
Again, I don't see God as a scientific hypothesis or something that should be tested but a person who wants a relationship with me and therefore trusted.
I'm in the midst of listening to the "my ways are not your ways conference" also, and the basic response from Christians there and in this thread is that God has morally justifiable good reasons we just may not know of, or are capable of understanding. Aren't you christians admitting that you really don't know this God you claim to know otherwise?
What if I say that I believe in a god who is evil by nature. The complete opposite of the god you believe in. Would I not be able to say also that my god has justifiable moral reasons for allowing all the good that we see, and we just can't understand his infinite ways? By this logic being used by christians, how is your belief rational and mine is not?
All I see is the leaps and bounds of faith taken to maintain your beliefs, which I myself would feel dishonest knowing this is what I'd have to keep doing. In the case of God testing Abraham with his son Isaac for example, on the one hand christians will say God was just trying to see how much faith Abraham has. Which would indicate I assume that both the author and God thought that it would be wrong if Abraham went through with it in this case. But on the other hand, if God had allowed it, the christian response as usual would be "God has his reason, and we just have to trust him". Where do you draw the line? I say there isn't one, any and everything goes if God is presumably behind it.
Andre,
What I clim is that I don't know everything about God. I don't know His hidden or sovereign will. It's wrapped up in mystery to me. The secret things belong to the Lord. All I know is what He has revealed or His revealed will and it is this:
To love God above all else and love my neighbor as myself.
If you believed in an evil God who was evil by nature what you would say is that His intentions were evil for allowing this good to happen with immoral unjustifiable reasons for allowing it. Whereas my God being good has good intentions and morally justifiable reasons for allowing something evil to happen.
Andre,
It's like this. God allowed evil men to murder His only Son at the cross. Man's intentions in doing it were evil but Gods intentions in allowing it were good. Moreover, God had morally justifiable reasons for allowing evil men murder His Son. One was that so He may atone for the sins of the whole world and save those who repent and place their trust in Him from perishing. He then also saved His own Son from perishing by raising Him from the dead.
kilo said,"mini me, please don't let us at DC take your valuable time away from some worthy fundamentalist fruitcake blog who would feel truly blessed by the inane babble that flows like the river Nile from your mind."
Thanks! Jesus wasn't talking about divorce - He was establishing the nature of divine versus the nature of mankind in need of salvation.
Even while claiming to be agnostics and atheists those who write here to debunk evangelica Christian religion, have never actually escaped the religious indoctrination that Jesus intended to set ppl free from. You guys continually defend what Jesus did not advocate.
The best to you!
MT said:
"If you believed in an evil God who was evil by nature what you would say is that His intentions were evil for allowing this good to happen with immoral unjustifiable reasons for allowing it. Whereas my God being good has good intentions and morally justifiable reasons for allowing something evil to happen."
First, here you are admitting that an all-evil god can do good. It should then follow that your all-good god can do evil. If this is the case, it would seem that both gods can do anything and it is never really a good or bad thing. Nothing is evil and nothing is good. This is evident if you say your god can do evil for the sake of a good outcome. But can it then really be called evil? Since your god will always have his justifiable reasons.
However, since nothing is then really evil from your god's perspective, all of christianity crumbles since their will be no need of salvation. So seen as you agree that evil exists, your god is a living contradiction. And as I mentioned in my example of Abraham and Isaac above, God on the one hand seem to think it would be wrong if a sacrifice was completed. This therefore shows that if God himself thinks something would be wrong, then not even he himself can have a morally justifiable reason for any good outcome.
Now, if God can not have any justifiable reasons for some things, wouldn't this present an error in presuming on behalf of God that he simply must have some reasons for allowing evil, that we probably just don't understand?
As for your last paragraph: From the get go I would disagree with using term evil describing those men per se. According to the story, it seems to me they must have simply been morally ignorant and superstitious to conclude that Jesus deserved to die. This whole thing would have never happened if they didn't believe in "this same man" that they killed. If we compare then with the ignorance and superstitions of today, would Jesus have been killed for said reasons and like manner?
Andre,
I never said that an all evil God could do good. If he ALLOWS good to happen with evil intentions and an immoral reason then this is clearly evil not good. Man does something good but this evil God does something evil in His actions.
There are things evil from my God's perspective. He just allows such things to happen with good intentions and a morally justifiable reason for allowing such evil. The murder of God's innocent Son was evil on the part of man just as the Bible clearly teaches. God's intentions were good and He had a morally justifiable reason for allowing it. Yet man was responsible for their evil actions and God held them responsible. My God does nothing evil in this situation. It's man who does the evil.
OK, but why would the evil god not be able to do good or allow it? If it cannot be said that the good the evil god allows is "good", then the evil that the good god allows is also not evil, since it is with good intentions.
Again, as we can see though, you agree evil exists. But it seems you are claiming that your god when he commands, and allow evil, it is ultimately and always "good" in the end.
Furthermore, (not to turn this totally into a problem of evil post) you Christians claim evil exists because of free will, while at the same time claiming God has his reasons for allowing it. On the one hand it's because he loves us so much that he chose to give us free will, and therefore evil. And on his right hand....I mean I mean...on the other hand he allows evil because of his mysterious ways. It can be seen that God having his "reasons", is a different reason from the free will argument. I thought it was suppose to be enough that free will would explain evil. Why the need to inject that he has his reasons? If I'm allowing evil, that is not the same as evil being manifested as a result of free will.
Andre,
Here's a scripture that describes what I'm talking about that might help you:
Genesis 50:20
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.
The intentions on the part of man were evil and God held them responsible for their evil deed. Yet the actions on the part of God were good in allowing the evil.
This goes along with the promise that God will work all things together for my good when my faith is in Him. Becauase of this promise of future grace I can rest content that no matter what happens God will work it out for my good.
When I live inside this promise my life becomes stable and solid. Outside this promise in Romans 8:28is confusion, anxiety, fear, and uncertainty. When I trust in this promise and walk into the door of love into the unshakable structure of Romans 8:28 everything changes. There comes into my life stability and depth and freedom. When my future is in the hands of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise God who promises to work all things for my good, I am free to take any risk that love demands.
Chuck, what I'm saying is that ***IF*** you are evaluating a text, then as part of research, one should at least hear what the followers of it have to say.
YES, if you were researching the Koran and interpretations of particular verses, it would behoove you to read what Islamic scholars have to say. Of course!!! If you were studying the book of Mormon, you would absolutely need to read what Mormon scholars have to say. Ignoring them would be foolhardy. Likewise, if you're going to be learning and critiquing the "Jewish" Bible, it would seem logical to at least read what "Jewish" thinkers have to say about it. I think that's a very rational proposition.
Biblical scholars (at least in my limited experience) try to understand a text in a number of ways, including reading into who the intended audience is, and what the setting/place of the 'book' is, and putting it in that perspective. So yes, I think if you want to really examine the OT, you owe it to yourself to at least hear out what the Jewish perspective is on it, since it is, after all, the Jewish bible.
As for this text, what I'm saying is that if traditional Jewish thought never saw passages like this the way you're describing, then it would explain why they have never acted that way in history.
Rob R- I think we at least understand each other. The Talmud is a compilation of what Jews to believe to be the oral law (mishna, 200ce, gemara, 500ce), so if you read the Talmud text alone, it will make little to no sense. The text is terse and often seems incomprehensible. Jews believe that the oral tradition (the Talmud, which they believe records oral law from God to Moses, which accompanied the written law), like the sinai tradition, is taught rabbi to student, so they certainly believe it can only be learned from a teacher, not on its own.
But as for the competing strands of Judaism, again, we both accept the OT as divine based on this "strand" of early Jews who gave it to us, and believe that they were the recipients of divine revelation. Those same people said they also received an oral tradition from God. What I'm saying is that if we're going to accept they received divine revelation re: written law, it makes less sense to reject the oral tradition which they say is equally divine, and which they say is the only method to understand the written text at all.
Best,
RW
kilo papa wrote "Actually, Jeebus could have just quoted his "Father". Malachi 2:15-16--..for let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. "For I hate divorce" says the Lord God of Isreal."
And why do you think He didn't, Kilo? Why do you think He mentioned that the influence for hard hearted behavior came from human nature?
Then, I had written, "Jesus wasn't talking about divorce - He was establishing the nature of divine versus the nature of mankind in need of salvation."
More accurately, what I intend to say is that Jesus wasn't Solely addressing the issue of divorce, but was attempting to compare the difference between God's divine nature and the nature of
humanity-in-need-of-salvation from mistreating one another.
Although the OT folks could not completely discern the nature of God without Messiah, Jesus never dishonored them or made a change to the law - instead He honored the hard work they did and invited them to progress forward in light.
That is grace.
That is grace.
mini me, the simple point of my post was that it didn't take courage for Jesus to speak agianst divorce. It is clearly forbidden in the book of Malachi,contra to "Moses".
None of your meandering nonsense actually addressed that point.
jesuspuzzle.com--mini me, go forth and let some light shine on your deluded idea of faith. Your brain needs this, trust me.
Kilo, you wrote, "mini me, the simple point of my post was that it didn't take courage for Jesus to speak agianst divorce."
The simple point of my post was that Jesus was challenging the divinity of Moses's writings - He wasn't talking solely about divorce, and obviously, the Pharisees understood His intention or else they wouldn't have indicted Him as a blasphemer! It was a very courageous thing to do and I bet you never challenged this aspect of your religious indoctrination because the god debunked here is one that at one moment says, "kill your enemy and those who are vulnerable" and then, upon the arrival of Jesus says, "okay, I was wrong - maybe we should love the enemy afterall."
It was God's nature to love the enemy all along. He doesn't condemn ppl for being human - it would be cruel to expect ppl to turn the other cheek without the promises of salvation. It is difficult to discern the spiritual without a visual aid/spirit to allow us to overcome our natural inclinations to mistreat one another in some way or other.
I won't explain this again but I sincerely hope that three times is a charm in helping you to understand this, but if not, the best to you Kilo!
3M
Post a Comment