The Moral Argument Against God?

[Craig.Paardekooper]

New message pending

[Rose]

I have decided to look at each chapter of the book of Genesis in turn, to see if God acts morally, starting with the call of Abraham

Genesis 12 v 1-3

God calls Abraham : I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curse you.

If this promise is taken literally then even if someone has the moral right to curse Abraham, that person will still be punished by being cursed by God. Conversely, a criminal and murderer might bless Abraham, and therefore would automatically receive the blessing of God.

It is odd that God should show such favoritism. Favoritism leads to moral inconsistency, since God will end up cursing people who don’t deserve to be cursed, and blessing people who don’t deserve to be blessed.

This is the beginning of the idea that Abraham is a Chosen People – God’s elite – who receive special treatment from God.

It definitely does not fit in with our concept of God as Just and Fair.

Imagine if the promise had been : 'I will bless those who support the Labour Party, and I will curse those who support Conservative.'

You can see how unjust this law might turn out to be. It is very tribal. If you are nice to Abraham’s tribe you will be blessed; if you are nasty to Abraham’s tribe you will be cursed.

Genesis 12 v 4-9

Abraham travels throughout Canaan marking out his territory by building altars at key points. The Canaanites were living in the land at the time. Abraham was going into someone else’s back garden and claiming the territory as his own. Would an impartial God grab land from other people in this way? How would you feel if a Hebrew turned up in your back garden, and started marking out their territory? Would you feel that it was right, just or fair. Should not the people who had settled there already be consulted, and maybe offered resettlement elsewhere? Remember, we are not talking about God here – who claims to be the absolute moral good – never doing wrong to anyone.

Genesis 12 v 10-20

Abraham’s wife, Sarai, pretends to be Abraham’s sister. Pharoah takes Sarai as his wife, and provides Abraham with animals and servants in return. However God inflicts serious diseases on Pharoah as a result. This does not seem fair, since Pharoah was deceived, and Abraham received goods and services under false pretences. However, Pharoah may have killed Abraham if Abraham had claimed that Sarai was his wife, so this may have been the lesser of two evils.

However, it is possible that ALMIGHTY GOD could have protected Abraham and Sarai without the need to deceive. And to punish Pharoah was unjust. God could simply have made Pharoah aware of the truth and then given him a chance to do the right thing, rather than punishing him instantly before he even knew what he had done.

And Abraham and Sarai are not rebuked at all for their deception. Neither do they return the goods that they obtained under false pretences. This seems unjust too. And Pharoah seems scared of Abraham and Sarai, since he does not try to get his things back, nor does he try to punish them.

So within the first chapter of the calling of Abraham, we see a very strange god.

Hi Craig,

I applaud your endeavor...:clap2: Doesn't it feel good to be able to clearly view what is being said and speak freely? I know for myself it's like a huge burden has been lifted from my shoulders. So many accounts recorded in the Bible have always been troublesome, and unsettling to me. It was such a relief when I realized that much of what is recorded in the Bible is no more than pagan rituals that the Hebrew copied from surrounding cultures, and just because the Hebrews say "God" told them these things, does not necessarily mean he did.

We as intelligent, modern thinkers need to use the minds that we were created with to discern and make moral judgments....not to blindly follow writings in an ancient book written by people who had faith in myths and practiced pagan rituals, because they believed those things to be true.

One thing the Bible does give us is great insights into the thoughts and practices of ancient man.

Blessings,
Rose

[Bob May]

I have decided to look at each chapter of the book of Genesis in turn, to see if God acts morally, starting with the call of Abraham

Genesis 12 v 1-3

God calls Abraham : I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curse you.

If this promise is taken literally then even if someone has the moral right to curse Abraham, that person will still be punished by being cursed by God. Conversely, a criminal and murderer might bless Abraham, and therefore would automatically receive the blessing of God.

It is odd that God should show such favoritism. Favoritism leads to moral inconsistency, since God will end up cursing people who don’t deserve to be cursed, and blessing people who don’t deserve to be blessed.

This is the beginning of the idea that Abraham is a Chosen People – God’s elite – who receive special treatment from God.

It definitely does not fit in with our concept of God as Just and Fair.


You begin this post with the words, "if this promise is to be taken literally."
there are four levels of reading the bible.

Literal,
Implied,
Allegorical and
Spiritual.

You are spending much energy to prove the literal meaning does not make sense.
Then you are implying that God is somehow immoral.
Then you go off on a side trail, coming to the conclusion that God did not write the bible. Or only parts of it.

You would do better to spend that much energy to prove that the implied and allegorical meanings do make sense.
Then you could pray that the Spiritual meaning come to you.

Because that Spiritual meaning IS the land that was promised to Abraham and his seed after him.

Just my take,
Bob

[Craig.Paardekooper]

New Message Pending

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You begin this post with the words, "if this promise is to be taken literally."
there are four levels of reading the bible.

Literal,
Implied,
Allegorical and
Spiritual.

You are spending much energy to prove the literal meaning does not make sense.
Then you are implying that God is somehow immoral.
Then you go off on a side trail, coming to the conclusion that God did not write the bible. Or only parts of it.

You would do better to spend that much energy to prove that the implied and allegorical meanings do make sense.
Then you could pray that the Spiritual meaning come to you.

Because that Spiritual meaning IS the land that was promised to Abraham and his seed after him.

Just my take,
Bob
Hey there Bob,

I agree that there are multiple levels of meaning. But your list begins with the "literal" and I don't see how we can just ignore that aspect of the text if it happens to present God as immoral. It's just a form of "picking and choosing" what we like and throwing away the rest. If that's what we must do to save the text from presenting God as "immoral" why believe any of it? And it doesn't answer a very obvious question: If God really is the author of the Bible, why did he choose to present himself as immoral? Merely rejecting the literal sense of the text does not answer this question.

And why not do the same thing with all other religious texts? It's pretty much the same thing that the Sufis (Islamic mystics) do with the Quran with great success. They repeat "There is no God but Allah" over and over to enter into a mystical perception of identity with God. Thus the Sufi mystic is forced to say "I am the Truth" just like Jesus. Indeed, there was a Sufi named Mansur Al-Hallaj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_al-Hallaj) who was publicly executed from making that claim. Do you think that God wrote the Quran too? If not, why not?

Of course, your approach of "spritualizing everything" is a good path towards peace amongst all religions since it allows us to deny all the contradictory doctrines! The Bahais seem to take that path, declaring that all religions are one and the differences are caused by interpretations that are too literal (or otherwise erroneous). It's a lovely thought, but something in me doubts it is really true. And even if true, all it would mean is that all religions are false or meaningless, since they can be made to mean whatever we want them to mean.

All the best,

Richard

[Bob May]

Maybe you are right Bob, that there is a deeper allegorical and spiritual meaning.

I just think that it is surprising that an impartial, universal God of compassion and perfect ethics, should appear to say and do things that are ethnocentric and quite controversial, from the very first chapter.

Why God would want to "appear" to be ethnocentric when He is quite the opposite doesn't make alot of sense. Why clothe beautiful allegorical meanings about universal love in ethnocentric stories?

Why would Aesop clothe stories of morals behind talking animals like foxes and crows, etc.?
Do you think the people reading those stories really think or thought back then that he was serious, or do you think maybe ancient peoples had two brain cells to click together and assume that there might be something more to the story?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Why would Aesop clothe stories of morals behind talking animals like foxes and crows, etc.?
Hummm .... that sounds like the typical atheist criticism of Scripture. They say it's nothing but a bunch of "fairy tales."

[Bob May]

Hey there Bob,

I agree that there are multiple levels of meaning. But your list begins with the "literal" and I don't see how we can just ignore that aspect of the text if it happens to present God as immoral. It's just a form of "picking and choosing" what we like and throwing away the rest. If that's what we must do to save the text from presenting God as "immoral" why believe any of it? And it doesn't answer a very obvious question: If God really is the author of the Bible, why did he choose to present himself as immoral? Merely rejecting the literal sense of the text does not answer this question.
Richard

It's not my list. But it is obvious that we, in our fallen state first see the literal meaning of things. Outward appearance is available to everyone. It takes effort to try and see past it.
Some people never do and for those Their life is also very surface oriented.

I see the "picking and choosing" in deciding which parts that God wrote and which parts were added by ancient man.
I am not rejecting any of the bible. There are things I don't understand though. Those I make no decision on. If I am supposed to understand it, it will be given to me in due time.

I honestly do not know why God chose to present himself that way.
And that is and should be the legitimate question here, in my opinion.

But in looking at the Patriarch's response to God's OT law I can see that they were looking more deeply at his word.

Ps 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

Why would David need his eyes opened to see those wonderous things?
Wouldn't they have been apparent?
We recieve Grace and the OT law loses it's hold over us. We are free.
But the law is perfect.
So now we go back and look for what is in the law that we missed being that now we have the mind of Christ. It is a different book now. Because we are different now.
The law leads us to Christ because we realise we cannot keep the law. It was never meant to be kept. It was meant to bring us to the end of ourselves.
To go back and re-read the law with the intent to disprove it by reading it literally boggles my mind.



And why not do the same thing with all other religious texts? It's pretty much the same thing that the Sufis (Islamic mystics) do with the Quran with great success. They repeat "There is no God but Allah" over and over to enter into a mystical perception of identity with God. Thus the Sufi mystic is forced to say "I am the Truth" just like Jesus. Indeed, there was a Sufi named Mansur Al-Hallaj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_al-Hallaj) who was publicly executed from making that claim. Do you think that God wrote the Quran too? If not, why not?


I don't know enough about the Quran to comment exept to say that if it is true that they believe Jesus was just a prophet and not the son of God or a manifestation of God in the flesh, then no, I do not believe it was wriiten or inspired by God.



Of course, your approach of "spritualizing everything" is a good path towards peace amongst all religions since it allows us to deny all the contradictory doctrines! The Bahais seem to take that path, declaring that all religions are one and the differences are caused by interpretations that are too literal (or otherwise erroneous). It's a lovely thought, but something in me doubts it is really true. And even if true, all it would mean is that all religions are false or meaningless, since they can be made to mean whatever we want them to mean.


You call it spiritualizing. I think everything is spiritual and we make it carnal by not seeing it as it is.
Jesus did not come to bring peace. "Peace on earth good will toward men" is our peace with God. Not with men.

Allegory can be used to make anything we want only if we put our own meanings to the types. If we use the symbolism in Scripture it gives us the meanings to those types.
Jesus gave a few of those keys to the disciples. Paul gave more later.
We find some ourselves by comparing spirtual things to spiritual things...

(That is the allegorical level of reading scripture.)

...and the rest are given to us.

That is the forth level of reading scripture.

Isa 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.




All the best,

Richard

All the best to you too Richard,
Bob

[Craig.Paardekooper]

New Message Pending

[Rose]

Ask any Jewish believer of the Bible. You will find that they are EXTREMELY SERIOUS about believing that God made a promise to Abraham about inheriting the Promised Land of Canaan.

And they have all been serious about it over the last 4000 years !!

If you had told them it was just an allegory, they would have had you on some heresy charge.

Moses and Joshua certainly thought the Promised Land was a real place. They tried to conquer it. Have you ever tried to conquer an allegory.

That's quotable....:hysterical:

Rose

[Bob May]

Ask any Jewish believer of the Bible. You will find that they are EXTREMELY SERIOUS about believing that God made a promise to Abraham about inheriting the Promised Land of Canaan.

And they have all been serious about it over the last 4000 years !!

If you had told them it was just an allegory, they would have had you on some heresy charge.

Moses and Joshua certainly thought the Promised Land was a real place. They tried to conquer it. Have you ever tried to conquer an allegory.

Yes, I have.

You think Moses and Joshua were real people. I don't care whether they were or not.
If they were then Moses was not believing what God told him about smiting the rock to recieve water. Moses was the bringer of the law.
Jesus brought Grace and Truth. Joshua as a type of Jesus brought us into the promised land.
By Grace we are saved and that not of ourselves it is a gift.
Grace also means influx from God as well as a gift.

There again is the idea of the forth level of reading scripture. We can only figure it out to a certain extent and then we are the recipients of Grace and we know something we did not know a moment before.
The Spirit bearing witness to our spirit that we are the sons of God.

Those are the little stones (Petros, stones plural) that Jesus told Peter came from God (not from flesh and blood) and became the Rock (singular) upon which he would build his church. He builds his church, not us.

This is also why Jacob layed his head down with "stones" plural for a pillow and a vision "that reached from heaven to earth" came to him from the Lord standing at the top of the ladder.
Then he took the "Stone" singular and set it up for a pillar.

Ge 28:11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, (Plural)and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.

Ge 28:18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone (singular) that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. (A remembrance of this anointing)

1jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

Bob

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Thanks Bob,

I see your point. You are seeing the inner meaning and typology of all these events. Whether they actually took place is not important in that scheme. I know that many scholars see the Bible as a symbolic journey.

Jesus probably wanted us also to regard the OT in this way.

Best Regards

Craig

[Bob May]

Thanks Bob,

I see your point. You are seeing the inner meaning and typology of all these events. Whether they actually took place is not important in that scheme. I know that many scholars see the Bible as a symbolic journey.

Jesus probably wanted us also to regard the OT in this way.

Best Regards

Craig

Hi Craig,
I'm glad you are hearing what I am saying. It is a spiritual journey but the language that God uses to point the way to the goal is symbolic and allegorical. But God teaches us the language along the way.
My point is not to stiffle speculation and wonder what these things mean. It is that I sense the danger of pulling out spokes of the bible wheel because we think we do not need them. Because we do not yet understand their purpose.

Pretty soon we are riding around on a bent wheel that is no longer Alpha to Omega,... Aleph to Tav. Which spokes or pieces of spokes can we do without?

Because Jesus, The Rock, is the goal.
We are actually learning a new language. And we are disciples of Christ. We don't make it up as we go along, we are being taught.
That is a promise. Sit back and watch it happen.

[Rose]

New message pending
Hey Craig! Why did you delete your post? I'm glad I quoted it in my post so it still remains. I thought you brought up some very good points.

Blessings,
Rose

[Rose]

Thanks Bob,

I see your point. You are seeing the inner meaning and typology of all these events. Whether they actually took place is not important in that scheme. I know that many scholars see the Bible as a symbolic journey.

Jesus probably wanted us also to regard the OT in this way.

Best Regards

Craig

I agree, it is very important to try and see the typological and symbolic meanings of events contained in the Bible, but that in no way should cloud our vision of the actual words that are written and interpreted as literal by countless multitudes over the centuries.

We must acknowledge the fact that if the Bible was truly written by the hand of God it could have been composed in a much different way....without seemingly commanding, and condoning such things as genocide, slavery, killing of innocent people, women treated as property, rape, trickery and deceit along with numerous other actions that most people today would consider to be abominations that are immoral, unjust and unfair!

Truth must always be spoken, and never compromised.

Blessings,
Rose

[Rose]

If one looks to the Bible for moral condemnation of slavery they would sadly find it missing....instead what one would find is a record of God condoning slavery. The verses are too numerous to quote so I will just use a few to make my point of what appears to be the biblical idea that some humans are less valuable than others simply because of their race or gender, starting with Abraham the father of the faith.
Gen.17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant....23) And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

Exo. 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

These are just a couple of the numerous verses that condone, promote, and encourage slavery. If a Christian went to a court of law seeking a ruling that would condemn the keeping of slaves they would be overruled on biblical grounds...:eek:

As I have said in many other posts, and the point I am trying to make is that while the Bible has many good teachings in it....one must be realistic...if every word in the Bible is truly from God then he is presented as a moral monster...:eek:

Rose

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Hi Rose,

I withdraw all my critical statements about God, even the ones that you have chosen to preserve.

Craig

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Rose,

I withdraw all my critical statements about God, even the ones that you have chosen to preserve.

Craig
Hey there Craig,

I understand you are going through some changes in your understanding of Scripture. But I see nothing wrong with anything you have written. I think it is important to distinguish between "criticizing God" and "critiquing what is written in Scripture." For example, suppose there was something horrendous written in Scripture that was a mistake or a deliberate corruption? It would then be a grave error to let folks believe that lie about God. So we must critique Scripture because it has been received through fallible human hands. A good example of this problem is Adam Clarke's response to the very disturbing story in 2 Samuel 21 in which God causes a famine for three years and is not appeased until seven of Saul's innocent descendants are murdered and their bodies "hung before the Lord" for months. Here are his comments (source (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=2sa&chapter=021))
That he should require seven innocent men to be hung up in place of their offending father, in whose iniquity they most likely never had a share, seems inconsistent with justice and mercy. ... That there have been attempts to remove some of these objections, I know; and I know also that these attempts have been in general without success. Till I get farther light on the subject, I am led to conclude that the whole chapter is not now what it would be, coming from the pen of an inspired writer; and that this part of the Jewish records has suffered much from rabbinical glosses, alterations, and additions. The law, the prophets, and the hagiographa, including Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, considered as possessing the highest title to Divine inspiration; and therefore have been most carefully preserved and transcribed; but the historical books, especially Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, have not ranked so high, have been less carefully preserved, and have been the subjects of frequent alteration and corruption. Yet still the great foundation of God standeth sure and is sufficiently attested by his own broad seal of consistency, truth, and holiness.
So there is no way we can be free from critiquing Scripture. Not only do we need to analyze it to check for alterations and corruptions, we must also closely analyze the traditional interpretations.

Again, I see nothing wrong with anything you have written. But I understand how you could fear that it might cause others to misunderstand your position or that you might harm the faith of a weaker brother.

All the best,

Richard

[Rose]

Hi Rose,

I withdraw all my critical statements about God, even the ones that you have chosen to preserve.

Craig
Hi Craig,

I'm sorry you have chosen to cover up what you clearly see written in Scripture because you somehow think you're being critical of God. Did you ever stop and think that maybe the immoral things that you see written in the Bible and attributed to God just might be human interpretations of what they perceive God to be? If that is the case, wouldn't it be our duty as clear thinking people to make others aware of those immoral teachings? Why should anyone remain trapped under the bondage of a false perception of God.

Blessings,
Rose

[Clifford]

Hi Craig,

I'm sorry you have chosen to cover up what you clearly see written in Scripture because you somehow think you're being critical of God. Did you ever stop and think that maybe the immoral things that you see written in the Bible and attributed to God just might be human interpretations of what they perceive God to be? If that is the case, wouldn't it be our duty as clear thinking people to make others aware of those immoral teachings? Why should anyone remain trapped under the bondage of a false perception of God.

Blessings,
Rose

I applaud Craig for coming to his senses and rescinding his criticisms of God and judging him to be immoral in certain instances. Who are we as mortal men to judge the Almighty God? Job thought he was being unjustly treated by God and thought God was unjust. What was God's response to him?

The LORD said to Job:
'Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!'
Then Job answered the LORD:
'I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.'


Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:
'Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
'Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
Job 40:1-8

Paul addressed a similar issue in Romans 9:10-22

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?' But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles

And then in Romans 11:33-36 Paul sums the whole issue up beautifully.

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
'Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?'
'Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?'
For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.

We need to be careful about judging God and his ways. God has infinite knowledge and understanding so he knows what is best, but us finite humans don't see the whole picture.

If we start going through the Bible and cut out all the things we don't like, or think are immoral, or evil then we will have a very small book made in our own image containing only what we think is right. If we don't take the Bible as the authoritative word of God then we are free to discard what we don't like and end up with a book that just reflects our moral judgment. If we just use our reasoning to determine what is right and wrong we will come to the wrong conclusions. It is just as Paul said in 1Cor 18:25

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.'
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Clifford

[Rose]

We need to be careful about judging God and his ways. God has infinite knowledge and understanding so he knows what is best, but us finite humans don't see the whole picture.

If we start going through the Bible and cut out all the things we don't like, or think are immoral, or evil then we will have a very small book made in our own image containing only what we think is right. If we don't take the Bible as the authoritative word of God then we are free to discard what we don't like and end up with a book that just reflects our moral judgment. If we just use our reasoning to determine what is right and wrong we will come to the wrong conclusions.

Clifford

Hi Clifford,

The big question that needs to be asked is what are we really judging when we criticize immoral laws that we find in the Bible....God, or ancient mans perception of God?

My innate moral judgment says that it is wrong to kill innocent people, and even the Ten Commandments say it is wrong to murder, so why would you think that God would say sometimes its OK to kill innocent people? I would much rather look at those words and attribute them to humans not to God.

I am not judging God! I am judging the things that people say about God recorded in the Bible....there is a big difference. The Mormons think that Joseph Smith got revelations from God through his golden spectacles, but Christians believe that is false, and discard the book of Mormon even though it is based on the Bible....so why shouldn't we do the same with the immoral laws we find in the Bible?

From a lot of the things I read in the Old Testament, I have to say my moral judgment seems to be of a much higher standard.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I applaud Craig for coming to his senses and rescinding his criticisms of God and judging him to be immoral in certain instances. Who are we as mortal men to judge the Almighty God?

Hey there Clifford,

I think that is a complete misunderstanding of what we have been doing. We have not been "judging God." We have been judging the statements some men have made about God in the Bible. There is a world of difference between the one and the other.

Did you read my comment to Craig? We have received the Bible from our ancestors. They were fallible men just like you and me. Most people know that the Bible contains errors. Some say they are minor, some say they are major. But no one can deny they are there so we are forced to critically examine the Bible to see how much of it should be believed. For example, suppose there was something horrendous written in Scripture that was a mistake or a deliberate corruption. It would then be a grave error to let folks believe that lie about God. So we must critique Scripture because it has been received through fallible human hands. A good example of this problem is Adam Clarke's response to the very disturbing story in 2 Samuel 21 in which God causes a famine for three years and is not appeased until seven of Saul's innocent descendants are murdered and their bodies "hung before the Lord" for months. Here are his comments (source (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=2sa&chapter=021))
That he should require seven innocent men to be hung up in place of their offending father, in whose iniquity they most likely never had a share, seems inconsistent with justice and mercy. ... That there have been attempts to remove some of these objections, I know; and I know also that these attempts have been in general without success. Till I get farther light on the subject, I am led to conclude that the whole chapter is not now what it would be, coming from the pen of an inspired writer; and that this part of the Jewish records has suffered much from rabbinical glosses, alterations, and additions. The law, the prophets, and the hagiographa, including Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, considered as possessing the highest title to Divine inspiration; and therefore have been most carefully preserved and transcribed; but the historical books, especially Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, have not ranked so high, have been less carefully preserved, and have been the subjects of frequent alteration and corruption. Yet still the great foundation of God standeth sure and is sufficiently attested by his own broad seal of consistency, truth, and holiness.
So there is no way we can be free from critiquing Scripture. Not only do we need to analyze it to check for alterations and corruptions, we must also closely analyze the traditional interpretations.



If we start going through the Bible and cut out all the things we don't like, or think are immoral, or evil then we will have a very small book made in our own image containing only what we think is right.

Are you aware of what you have just said? If we take all the "immoral and evil" things out of the Bible, we won't have much of a Bible left??? :eek:

All the best,

Richard

[Clifford]

Hey there Clifford,

I think that is a complete misunderstanding of what we have been doing. We have not been "judging God." We have been judging the statements some men have made about God in the Bible. There is a world of difference between the one and the other.

Did you read my comment to Craig? We have received the Bible from our ancestors. They were fallible men just like you and me. Most people know that the Bible contains errors. Some say they are minor, some say they are major. But no one can deny they are there so we are forced to critically examine the Bible to see how much of it should be believed. For example, suppose there was something horrendous written in Scripture that was a mistake or a deliberate corruption. It would then be a grave error to let folks believe that lie about God. So we must critique Scripture because it has been received through fallible human hands. A good example of this problem is Adam Clarke's response to the very disturbing story in 2 Samuel 21 in which God causes a famine for three years and is not appeased until seven of Saul's innocent descendants are murdered and their bodies "hung before the Lord" for months. Here are his comments (source (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=2sa&chapter=021))
That he should require seven innocent men to be hung up in place of their offending father, in whose iniquity they most likely never had a share, seems inconsistent with justice and mercy. ... That there have been attempts to remove some of these objections, I know; and I know also that these attempts have been in general without success. Till I get farther light on the subject, I am led to conclude that the whole chapter is not now what it would be, coming from the pen of an inspired writer; and that this part of the Jewish records has suffered much from rabbinical glosses, alterations, and additions. The law, the prophets, and the hagiographa, including Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, considered as possessing the highest title to Divine inspiration; and therefore have been most carefully preserved and transcribed; but the historical books, especially Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, have not ranked so high, have been less carefully preserved, and have been the subjects of frequent alteration and corruption. Yet still the great foundation of God standeth sure and is sufficiently attested by his own broad seal of consistency, truth, and holiness.
So there is no way we can be free from critiquing Scripture. Not only do we need to analyze it to check for alterations and corruptions, we must also closely analyze the traditional interpretations.


Are you aware of what you have just said? If we take all the "immoral and evil" things out of the Bible, we won't have much of a Bible left??? :eek:

All the best,

Richard


I think that is a complete misunderstanding of what we have been doing. We have not been "judging God." We have been judging the statements some men have made about God in the Bible. There is a world of difference between the one and the other.

I think its clear from reading the NT that Jesus and the Apostles and the other writers held that the OT was a record of God's dealing with man and that the laws and ordinances were given by God. So to criticize or find immoral those laws or commands given by God to the people at that time is the same as criticizing God, if you believe in the inspiration of the NT and the statements of Jesus about the scriptures.


Did you read my comment to Craig? We have received the Bible from our ancestors. They were fallible men just like you and me.

Don't you think God was able to preserve his word even though he used fallible men? Sure there are a few minor copying errors but they are insignificant to the message.


So there is no way we can be free from critiquing Scripture. Not only do we need to analyze it to check for alterations and corruptions, we must also closely analyze the traditional interpretations.

One of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity for the past 2000 years has been the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible. Sure people have critiqued it and have had different interpretations but the fundamental foundation has been the divine authority of the scriptures. Once that foundation is taken away then men are free to discard what they don't like and retain only what suits them.


Are you aware of what you have just said? If we take all the "immoral and evil" things out of the Bible, we won't have much of a Bible left??? :eek:

I actually said "If we start going through the Bible and cut out all the things we don't like, or think are immoral, or evil then we will have a very small book made in our own image containing only what we think is right."

I said if we remove what WE THINK is evil or immoral then all we will have left is our own little book of what we think is right and wrong and everybody would have their own unique version of the Bible that would suit their tastes and tickle their ears.

Clifford

[Clifford]

Hi Clifford,

The big question that needs to be asked is what are we really judging when we criticize immoral laws that we find in the Bible....God, or ancient mans perception of God?

My innate moral judgment says that it is wrong to kill innocent people, and even the Ten Commandments say it is wrong to murder, so why would you think that God would say sometimes its OK to kill innocent people? I would much rather look at those words and attribute them to humans not to God.

I am not judging God! I am judging the things that people say about God recorded in the Bible....there is a big difference. The Mormons think that Joseph Smith got revelations from God through his golden spectacles, but Christians believe that is false, and discard the book of Mormon even though it is based on the Bible....so why shouldn't we do the same with the immoral laws we find in the Bible?

From a lot of the things I read in the Old Testament, I have to say my moral judgment seems to be of a much higher standard.

Rose


The big question that needs to be asked is what are we really judging when we criticize immoral laws that we find in the Bible....God, or ancient mans perception of God?

I think one of the reasons you think some of those laws are immoral is because you are not taking into consideration their cultural and historical context. God was dealing with a people that had come out of a pagan culture that practiced many harsh customs. God could not change them overnight so he allowed some of those practices to continue. It would be like if a primitive tribe was found in the Amazon jungle and you were put in charge of their moral development. You would not be able to change them overnight so many of their practices you would have to tolerate until they changed, which we know if a slow process with people.


My innate moral judgment says that it is wrong to kill innocent people, and even the Ten Commandments say it is wrong to murder, so why would you think that God would say sometimes its OK to kill innocent people? I would much rather look at those words and attribute them to humans not to God.

But how do you know if they were really innocent based on the very limited knowledge you have about them. Its kinda like a criminal trial you hear in the news. From the little bits of information you pick up from the news you might conclude the person is innocent. So when the jury comes back with a guilty verdict you might shake your head in disbelief and wonder how they could have come up with that verdict. Well the jury was privy to much more information then you heard in the news, therefore they are basing their judgment on much more information then you had. So it is the same way with God. We are only seeing a limited perspective while God is judging based on complete knowledge.


I am not judging God! I am judging the things that people say about God recorded in the Bible....there is a big difference.

If you believe what Jesus and the other NT writers said about the divine inspiration of the OT scriptures then those things recorded in the OT and attributed to God were the actual words of God and NOT just man's perception of God.

Clifford

[Craig.Paardekooper]

The reason why I have decided to withdraw all critical statements about God is -

1. Jesus supported the OT, so it is possible that things that appear immoral, will ultimately be moral.

2. A judgemental attitude - for example referring to the Bible as a "putrid stench" - does have one undesirable effect, for me atleast. When my mind is open to God and empassioned with a vision of God, then I find things. You could call it inspiration or revelation or what ever you will. Conversely, if I adopt a judgemental attitude then this stream of creativity immediately dries up. So, for me, being judgemental is very costly.

There is so much more to know and to find out. I want to let God have His say. It is best to keep my mind open so inspiration can flow.

For example, did you realise that the Hebrews invented the alphabet while they were in Sinai??? Did you realise that our alphabet and all other alphabets derive from the Proto-Sinaitic Alphabet. ?? The Alpha and the Omega.

I have been finding some new things that cast the Exodus in a completely new light.

[joel]

I realize that I have asked this question before, so, please forgive me if I seem not so informed as you guys..........and, I know that Richard provided a dictionary definition when I did inquire.........but......
can you give me scripture that helps define the word "moral", or "immoral"?
If you use the word search function in the Biblewheel database, neither moral, or immoral appears.
This means that when the KJV was provided, no such words were used.
What would be the words in either the Greek, or the Hebrew?

Joel

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Hi Rose n' Rich

I thought you might enjoy this link to lectures in Old Testament held at Yale.
The first lecture touches upon the inspiration issue, and I am sure you will like it. It is interesting to see what they are teaching at Yale, since it is a very prestigious university.

I downloaded the lectures as MP3s so I can listen to them on my ipod as I stroll through the park.

Link - Yale Lectures (http://www.academicearth.org/courses/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible)

The moral or legal code of the ancient Hebrews may not have been their invention since surrounding nations had similar codes. However, the Hebrews did introduce monotheism, and the idea that God is beyond time and space and the idea that God is Holy, and interested in people following the law.

Prior to the Hebrews, the surrounding nations believed in gods who were finite - having a birth (ie theogony) - and who were often in conflict with each other. Consequently, their religions were amoral. For example Olympian gods behaved like adolescents - always up to mischief, and always competing against each other. These gods asked nothing from their followers in terms of repentance or good behaviour.

In contrast, the Hebrews introduced a supreme God who was holy, and who demanded repentance from sin.


Monotheism - the One God - the Holy God

One of the results of introducing a moral/holy God was that external legal codes were now enforced by a holy God. Other nations had man-made laws that were difficult to enforce, since if you were not caught then there was no punishment. The gods themselves were always at war with one another and quite immoral, so how could the gods underwrite social law. However, a single, all-powerful and moral God could underwrite social law. You can never escape punishment - because God is always watching.

By introducing a single Holy God, the Hebrews had introduced perhaps one of the strongest possible ways of enforcing good behaviour. As a consequence, it is highly probable that the Hebrews were more law abiding than the surrounding nations - they were a holy people. This would have made them fairly distinct as a people. The ancient world was full of moral relativity. In such a world the Hebrews would have stood out like "a nun in a brothel". This would also explain why they were so intollerant of other gods. It was not just a case of "your god is different from mine" - it was because Yahweh was the only Holy God.

A God such as Yahweh would not appeal to self-interest, or ultimately even tribal interests. The moral laws were enforced even if they destroyed Israel itself. Also, since such a God was seen as universal - and God of all the earth - then this too negated appeal to self interest or tribal interests.

Because Yahweh demanded a change in behaviour from His people, this would have internalized their commitment to Yahweh, leading to a much stronger religion than one that made no behavioural demands on it's people.

So, in a way, the Hebrews greatest strength was this Idea - a distinct, powerful idea that enforced Law, leveraged people away from self-interest and gained their commitment. The Hebrews were not strong as a fighting group, but their Idea would persist forever.

The problem wasn't so much with the laws - other nations had similar laws. These laws were their rational choice based on their best, though still developing, understanding. The problem was that people were not accountable to any of the laws until a holy God underwrote them. The immediate effect of monotheism was to make the Hebrews into a law-abiding people - with absolute rather than relative morals. Like I said, they really did stand out "like a nun in a brothel".

Even today, many people only respect the law if they think they will get caught. Imagine society without a police force. Our problem has never been one of rationality. We know what is right most of the time, and we can define "right" in the most splendid philosophical way. The problem was one of accountability.

Of course, God did not want to leave them at this stage of moral and social development. But it was CERTAINLY a big step up from the moral relativity of surrounding nations. We now had a people who were law abiding. And, through time, they would internalize the law. This was the basic ground work for developing an ethic of empathy and compassion.


The Alphabet

Strangely enough, the Hebrews also seem to have invented the alphabet. According to Wikipedia, all modern alphabets originate from the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet, which itself was introduced by the Semites while they were dwelling in Egypt, and with the Exodus, this alphabet was spread to the Canaanites, and through Greece.

First Alphabet (http://www.ancientscripts.com/alphabet.html)

Infact, the Greeks ascribe the creation of their alphabet to Danaus and Cadmus, who were Semites, and who brought it with them from Egypt about 1490 B.C. when they fled the holocaust by ship.

We refer to the Bible as the Word, and say "In the Beginning was the Word". Given this, it seems curious that Genesis was first written in Proto-Sinaitic - the first alphabet.

It is extraordinary that the Semites who were enslaved to the Egyptians, should be the originators of our modern alphabets. This puts the Exodus in a new perspective. A big mystery surrounds the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions that have been found in the Sinai. Some of these inscriptions seem to contain eye-witness accounts of the Exodus, though their translation is not complete.

Many of these Proto-Sinaitic scripts have been found on a mountain in the Sinai that the Egyptians dedicated to the Goddess Hathor - the Great Cow. Could this be the golden Calf to whom the Hebrews made sacrifice?


Summary

The Exodus was a religious revolution - a change from the moral relativity of living in a world ruled by self-interested and mischevious gods - a change to the worship of One God who was also a God interested in a law-abiding people, who demanded repentance from "sin". The effect of this was to make His people accountable, and through law-abiding obedience they would grow to internalize those laws in their hearts.

The Shema (1118) sums up Gods intention - One God - God's love - 13 x 86

13 x 13 + 13 x 73

And the law applied to God's people (3182)

13 x 37 + 37 X 73

These were a people created by God (2701)

37 x 73

This was Genesis



13 is the Star of David inside of 37

37 is the Star of David inside of 73

A star within a star within a star

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Hi Joel,


I realize that I have asked this question before, so, please forgive me if I seem not so informed as you guys..........and, I know that Richard provided a dictionary definition when I did inquire.........but......
can you give me scripture that helps define the word "moral", or "immoral"?
If you use the word search function in the Biblewheel database, neither moral, or immoral appears.
This means that when the KJV was provided, no such words were used.
What would be the words in either the Greek, or the Hebrew?



I think you will find the word is "Holy" . Also God does show an interest in us being law-abiding. Perhaps "moral" is too internal a word. "Legal" is certainly a word that describes God. "Compassionate" also, since He instituted the sin offerings and burnt offerings to spare us the same fate.

I would hazard a guess that holy, law-abiding and compassionate adds up to what we understand by "moral"

Though it should be born in mind that God was sculpting a people, and this was a slow process.

[joel]

Thanks, Craig, for your response.

So......that which is "holy" has been consecrated to God......set apart for His purposes. It may bethat a city which is to be destroyed. Or, it may a certain group of people (including all of those who are joined with them)....whether infants, and adults......if they are consecrated to destruction.....then they are "holy" unto the Lord, consecrated to His purpose.

As such, if He says to "destroy them".......then they must be "destroyed".

The problem which we are discussing is that we, as humans, would be tempted to claim such an action as "immoral". But it is not according to God's definition.

Craig, you said "........I think you will find the word is "Holy"......."

It may be that our problem, in addition to the action, is that we look at "destruction" as permanent. Where God sees it as temprorary. What do you say?

Joel

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Thanks, Craig, for your response.

So......that which is "holy" has been consecrated to God......set apart for His purposes. It may bethat a city which is to be destroyed. Or, it may a certain group of people (including all of those who are joined with them)....whether infants, and adults......if they are consecrated to destruction.....then they are "holy" unto the Lord, consecrated to His purpose.

As such, if He says to "destroy them".......then they must be "destroyed".

The problem which we are discussing is that we, as humans, would be tempted to claim such an action as "immoral". But it is not according to God's definition.

Craig, you said "........I think you will find the word is "Holy"......."

It may be that our problem, in addition to the action, is that we look at "destruction" as permanent. Where God sees it as temprorary. What do you say?



Well, I say that another word for moral is "righteous", "just", "lawful" Perhaps these are more inline with your original question.

Yes, Holy means consecrated or set apart for God.

Yes, from God's perspective destruction is not the end. If people believed that their soul would go on after death, it is doubtful that they would be so upset by destruction. If they knew that they would live another billion or more years in another 100 million more lives, then destruction wouldn't seem so bad, just a temporary inconvenience. So our perspective has a strong effect on how we feel about life and death.

I wish I knew more about the afterlife. Perhaps you can tell me Joel. I think it would make me a better person if I had a better perspective.

[joel]

Craig, it is my opinion that a major impediment to our understanding of God's ways and purposes is "time".....a dimension of the creation that because the words used, if translated in such a way that the perspective is clouded, we see only a dim view.

A significant example is the word, aion. It is applicable to time periods of unspecified duration but which seem to have definite beginnings and ends. The translators, however, extend the duration to the infinite realm which we cannot even begin to fathom.

If disciplinary judgment of God is but temporary, and corrective in nature, and, we ascribe to it a permanance..........then, the negative aspects of the discipline are magnified to obscure the glory of God's act.

How can anyone be thankful for discipline that never ends?

In your field of endeavor, it seems that the identification of precise, exact formulas of the composition of genetic strings of "letters" are high level activities and pursuits which you would encourage of others.

It is my opinion that sloppy phrasing and interpretation of God's Word has diminished His glory and obscured His purposes. The element of "time" is just one area of truth which when left to un-exactness causes a reproach upon God. Let's get to the truth of the matter.

Joel

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Hi Joel,

Here is a web page that talks about the fact that Hell is never mentioned in the OT at all.

Web Page (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html)

Concerning references in the NT to hell - it is interesting to look at Wikipedia

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell)

Hope this helps you Joel.

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Dear Rose n' Rich

If there are moral or factual errors in the Bible then , because the doctrine of inerrancy is never stated in the Bible, we should naturally adopt the simplest explanation (in accord with Occams Razor) that

"the Bible is neither directly written by God, nor inspired, but rather is the product of human authors only - writing about divine events."

In other words, God has entered history, but humans have recorded those events in their own way - adding their own interpretations in many places. So when the Bible declares "And the Lord spoke to Moses" it is recording that event as a tabloid might record it today - somethings are right, somethings are mistaken, and events are interpreted in the light of their primitive knowledge and superstitions.

This explanation still allows that God dealt directly with the Jews, but allows for all errors, both moral and factual without diminishing God thereby.




However, if this is the case, then how do we explain gematria such as Genesis 1, or patterns such as the Bible Wheel?

Whilst the Bible is written completely by humans about divine events in Jewish history, God also placed signs within the writings themselves to show that He really was working through Jewish History.

However, if there are errors in the Bible then this sign cannot mean "Yes, everything the Bible says comes from me". At most it can only mean "Yes, they are talking about me"



In Summary

The Bible is a collection of books written by ordinary human beings about some extraordinary events - namely the intrusion of God into the history of a nation. Like any tabloid of today, the people who wrote about these events made factual errors, and also their records were influenced by their own primitive interpretations of events, personal political views etc.

In some cases they attribute natural disasters to God, in other instances they attribute human laws to God.

We don't stop reading newspapers simply because they are not perfect. In the same way, we should not discard the Bible simply because it was written by human beings.

The Bible is a collection of ordinary human documents about extraordinary events. In accordance with Occams Razor I shall adopt this point of view - since it is the simplest explanation - and it protects the dignity of God from the attribution of errors - and in fact it is the most natural explanation especially in the absence of any direct statement for the inerrancy of scripture.


Some interesting resources

Here is a web page concerning this issue - Web Page (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_insp.htm)

Also, there is a really good podcast of the whole of "Varieties of Religious Experience" By William James.

Varieties of Religious Experience (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SpiritualClassics/~5/5fqoxSoQ5zc/SC-020207.mp3)

You can download this audio podcast to your computer, by right clicking on the link and choosing "save target as". It is in mp3 format. Then transfer it onto your ipod, so you can listen to it anytime

[Rose]

Dear Rose n' Rich

If there are moral or factual errors in the Bible then , because the doctrine of inerrancy is never stated in the Bible, we should naturally adopt the simplest explanation (in accord with Occams Razor) that

the Bible is neither directly written by God, nor inspired, but rather is the product of human authors only - writing about divine events.

In other words, God has entered history, but humans have recorded those events in their own way - adding their own interpretations in many places. So when the Bible declares "And the Lord spoke to Moses" it is recording that event as a tabloid might record it today - somethings are right, somethings are mistaken, and events are interpreted in the light of their primitive knowledge and superstitions.

This explanation still allows that God dealt directly with the Jews, but allows for all errors, both moral and factual without diminishing God thereby.




However, if this is the case, then how do we explain gematria such as Genesis 1?

Whilst the Bible is written completely by humans about divine events in Jewish history, God also placed a sign within the writings themselves to show that He really was working through Jewish History.

However, if there are errors in the Bible then this sign cannot mean "Yes, everything Bible says comes from me". At most it can only mean "Yes, they are talking about me"

Hi Craig,

I think it is a wise idea when reading the Bible to interpret it with a method that employs the least assumptions, and that would be as ancient literature depicting the human experience of the supernatural. You are correct in stating the Bible was written completely by humans and as such records their own understanding of who and what they thought God was and the role that belief played in their lives. Many of their ideas were drawn from the culture and belief system they came out of, which is very evident in the parallel myths that were written hundreds of years before the Bible stories, and some of their ideas were new.

It is truly a mystery as to how such displays of design like the Bible Wheel, and the Gematria Holographs could be manifest in a book that was complied over thousands of years by hundreds of Scribes and Authors. The one explanation that I am leaning towards right now is that the Bible displayed as the Bible Wheel manifests symbols that map directly onto foundational archetypal principles, this in turn reveals the progress of the rise in consciousness level of the Jewish race (influenced by races around them) by depicting the many small and a few large transitions along their journey....like the transition from polytheism to monotheism, or from the OT to the NT.

Blessings,
Rose

[Craig.Paardekooper]

as ancient literature depicting the human experience of the supernatural.

I agree. Human beings describing divine events.


Many of their ideas were drawn from the culture and belief system they came out of, which is very evident in the parallel myths that were written hundreds of years before the Bible stories, and some of their ideas were new.


The Bible accounts of events such as Creation, Flood, Babel are found in other cultures simply because these WERE universal events that affected the whole world. Records of these events were passed on orally and in writing from generation to generation after the events themselves. Abraham would have had records that he brought with him from Haran, and passed on through his family.

We would expect them all to share the same records of these events, because they all shared the same history. So "parallel myths" are actually like independent witnesses to a common event.

Use of the word "myth" is an assumption on your part. Rather than use the word myth, I would say we have half remembered accounts of major events that affected every nation on earth.

My stance is that the Bible is written by humans about divine events - not myths. It is a human record of man's experience of the divine - rather than a fiction.


The Human Layer
In the human records of these divine events we find clear evidence that God was working with the Jews -

1. Symmetrical patterns in Jewish history

2. The fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Jesus - See my book "One God Many Faces", "Sign of the Son of Man" and "Enoch"

3. The record of miracles


The Sub Layer

However in addition to this human record, we find a sub-layer - consisting of the numerical patterns of gematria, and the Bible Wheel. This sublayer cannot be attributed to human authorship, since in many cases it only appears when the Bible is viewed as a whole. Consequently we should attribute it to a non-human intelligence.

This sub-layer (divine layer) does NOT make the human layer divine (ie inerrant) anymore than the human layer makes the divine layer human. They are two distinct layers.

The function of the sub-layer, at it's simplest, was to show that God presence was among the Jews - and that's all. It didn't convey divinity upon the Jews themselves or upon their writings.

So there is no need to posit realms of archetypes. Keep things simple (just as Occam says).



I would also say that there is a definite difference in the level of spiritual development between Moses and The Prophets and Christ.

Moses was a statesman, a politician rather than a mystic. The Torah is focused on external ritual, external events (God reaching into history and doing physical things). There is an absence of internal communion - found in for example mystical awareness. Everything is on the factual, matter-of-fact level.

Later on , with the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah etc, we find a more personal communion with God, and with this comes a higher ethic.

The level of ethics expressed in the human layer is also a function of the society of the time. By the time of Isaiah, society had changed dramatically, and religion was entering a phase marked by compassion - known as the Axial Age.

[Charles Wade]

My stance is that the Bible is written by humans about divine events - not myths. It is a human record of man's experience of the divine - rather than a fiction.

I would also say that there is a definite difference in the level of spiritual development[/B][/B][/B] between Moses and The Prophets and Christ.

I agree with your post in total.Although scripture was inspired by God, it has passed through many translations,scribes and canonization, and all concerned in its evolution had free will to omit or add or even attempts to clarify with brackets[for what ever the intellectual reason], because intellect can sure over-rule the spirit in an non perfected person, like all of us here on earth.

The pure truth was taught by the perfected Messiah, but man in his imperfect state, and the translations & the canonization, has left the KJV & all errant. Of course this is my humble opinion & I do not want to offend anyone, as we all have our God given chance to discern for ourselves what to be true, except the loved & protected ones of mental disablement.

Now,agreeing as to the level of spiritually increasing through the prophets, I believe the reason for this is because of the mature level of the spirit that our wise Father put into these prophets.

Take Jeremiah for example, and the first few verses that are recorded from his book. The Spirit incarnated in the body of Jeremiah was a pure spirit of whom was known of God that had always done His will,remained in His Love never rebelled.

Then, evidently this pure spirit was incarnate into man and sent on a mission to earth by the spirits free will and was chosen by the Father, to leave such a high position and then descend to earth to be born like us all, through procreation.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

John the Baptist had a perfected mature spirit incarnate in his body also. Jesus told his disciples Twice in Matthew and also recorded in Luke that it was the spirit of Elijah that was incarnate in John the Baptist.

Mat 11:14 And if ye will receive [it], this is Elias, which was for to come.
Mat 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

For further evidence to this truth of the divine perfected spirit that gave John's body life, it is recorded here that also in the womb, John was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Luk 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

And look what occurred when two mothers,one carrying the first born son of God and the other carry a perfected divine spirit also,when the two mothers visited.

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

This, I give as of my reasoning to agree with what Craig posted, as to the higher development of spirituality, because they delivered the pure unadulterated truth from their mouths as living perfected spirits in a human body,still doing the will & love & service as they fulfilled their mission to mankind. This mission, as they elected to do, of their own free will.This was while their abode was still with the Father, as they never left nor rebelled or apostatized themselves from Him and His eternal love.
In His love, Chas.

[Rose]

I agree. Human beings describing divine events.



The Bible accounts of events such as Creation, Flood, Babel are found in other cultures simply because these WERE universal events that affected the whole world. Records of these events were passed on orally and in writing from generation to generation after the events themselves. Abraham would have had records that he brought with him from Haran, and passed on through his family.

We would expect them all to share the same records of these events, because they all shared the same history. So "parallel myths" are actually like independent witnesses to a common event.

Use of the word "myth" is an assumption on your part. Rather than use the word myth, I would say we have half remembered accounts of major events that affected every nation on earth.

My stance is that the Bible is written by humans about divine events - not myths. It is a human record of man's experience of the divine - rather than a fiction.


Hi Craig,

The reason I use the word "myth" is because it is extremely hard to differentiate between what was an actual event (even if it be half remembered) and what began as a story to convey an unknown. For example we have no proof that there ever was a real world wide flood....the oldest copy of a flood story is the Epic of Gilgamesh which dates to around 2100 BC, which in turn was copied and augmented by many other cultures most notably the Hebrews, so we have no real way of knowing whether or not the original story was even true since so many parts of it that deal with the many gods of the time and their continual waring with one another which we know to be myths.

It's not like the parallel stories we find recorded in different cultures all happened at the same time, rather there is usually one that is the oldest and from which the others have been copied and altered, changing the names of the gods and the reasons for the event to fit the needs of the people. This hold true for the major stories of the OT like: Creation, the Garden, and the Flood, even the name El used for God in the Bible came from the Canaanite god El, who was called the "father of all creation". All these stories were present in pre-Israelite cultures many hundreds of years before they were recorded in the Bible.

I too believe that the Bible is a record written by humans about how they experienced the divine, through the eyes of their understanding pertaining to the time period in which they lived.

Blessings,
Rose

[Craig.Paardekooper]

I am not sure if Gilgamesh was the oldest Flood story. The Epic of Zuisudra is a bit older.

Actually most of the Flood stories did originate about the same time -

The Flood taking place in the reign of the Emperor Yao in China c 2500 B.C.

The Flood taking place after the Mahbarat War in India c 2500 B.C.

The Greek legend of the imprisonment of the Titans was followed by a Flood


to mention a few.


I should refer you to my book "Enoch" since it provides an interesting array of facts on this topic.

"Tradition" would be a better word to use than "myth" since the people regarded their traditions as founded in historical reality. There are many traditions and accounts of a Flood from around the world, and a careful analysis of them may uncover something interesting.

[Rose]

I am not sure if Gilgamesh was the oldest Flood story. The Epic of Zuisudra is a bit older.

Actually most of the Flood stories did originate about the same time -

The Flood taking place in the reign of the Emperor Yao in China c 2500 B.C.

The Flood taking place after the Mahbarat War in India c 2500 B.C.

The Greek legend of the imprisonment of the Titans was followed by a Flood


to mention a few.


I should refer you to my book "Enoch" since it provides an interesting array of facts on this topic.

"Tradition" would be a better word to use than "myth" since the people regarded their traditions as founded in historical reality. There are many traditions and accounts of a Flood from around the world, and a careful analysis of them may uncover something interesting.

I read your book awhile back, but I'll go check it out again....:signthankspin:

The Epic of Gilgamesh is the best known of the Flood stories, so I guess that is why it usually gets mentioned as the oldest. The main point I was making is that the Flood account in Genesis was written many hundreds of years after the other Flood stories, so it's pretty obvious that it was just copied and augmented from other written accounts, rather than the common belief amongst Christians that it was given to Moses by God.

Blessings,
Rose

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Well Abraham came from Chaldea only a few centuries after the date of the Flood. The Bible traces Abrahams lineage back to Noah.

So it is also possible that his family preserved their own traditions in either written or oral form, and did not need to copy a tradition from another family.

No doubt there were several lines of descent from Noah, and Gilgamesh was just one of them.

[Clifford]

Dear Rose n' Rich

If there are moral or factual errors in the Bible then , because the doctrine of inerrancy is never stated in the Bible, we should naturally adopt the simplest explanation (in accord with Occams Razor) that

"the Bible is neither directly written by God, nor inspired, but rather is the product of human authors only - writing about divine events."

In other words, God has entered history, but humans have recorded those events in their own way - adding their own interpretations in many places. So when the Bible declares "And the Lord spoke to Moses" it is recording that event as a tabloid might record it today - somethings are right, somethings are mistaken, and events are interpreted in the light of their primitive knowledge and superstitions.

This explanation still allows that God dealt directly with the Jews, but allows for all errors, both moral and factual without diminishing God thereby.




However, if this is the case, then how do we explain gematria such as Genesis 1, or patterns such as the Bible Wheel?

Whilst the Bible is written completely by humans about divine events in Jewish history, God also placed signs within the writings themselves to show that He really was working through Jewish History.

However, if there are errors in the Bible then this sign cannot mean "Yes, everything the Bible says comes from me". At most it can only mean "Yes, they are talking about me"



In Summary

The Bible is a collection of books written by ordinary human beings about some extraordinary events - namely the intrusion of God into the history of a nation. Like any tabloid of today, the people who wrote about these events made factual errors, and also their records were influenced by their own primitive interpretations of events, personal political views etc.

In some cases they attribute natural disasters to God, in other instances they attribute human laws to God.

We don't stop reading newspapers simply because they are not perfect. In the same way, we should not discard the Bible simply because it was written by human beings.

The Bible is a collection of ordinary human documents about extraordinary events. In accordance with Occams Razor I shall adopt this point of view - since it is the simplest explanation - and it protects the dignity of God from the attribution of errors - and in fact it is the most natural explanation especially in the absence of any direct statement for the inerrancy of scripture.


Some interesting resources

Here is a web page concerning this issue - Web Page (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_insp.htm)

Also, there is a really good podcast of the whole of "Varieties of Religious Experience" By William James.

Varieties of Religious Experience (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SpiritualClassics/~5/5fqoxSoQ5zc/SC-020207.mp3)

You can download this audio podcast to your computer, by right clicking on the link and choosing "save target as". It is in mp3 format. Then transfer it onto your ipod, so you can listen to it anytime


"the Bible is neither directly written by God, nor inspired, but rather is the product of human authors only - writing about divine events."

In other words, God has entered history, but humans have recorded those events in their own way - adding their own interpretations in many places. So when the Bible declares "And the Lord spoke to Moses" it is recording that event as a tabloid might record it today - somethings are right, somethings are mistaken, and events are interpreted in the light of their primitive knowledge and superstitions.

Hi Craig,

Some of the statements that Jesus made regarding the Law and the Scriptures seem to dispel the notion that the OT was just man writing down what he observed and thought God was saying. For example in John 10:34-35 Jesus made this statement:

Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are 'gods'’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—

Notice what Jesus said "to whom the word of God came. Here he clearly says the word of God came to them. Also notice he says "Scripture cannot be set aside. The reason it can't be set aside is because it is of Divine origin.

In Matt 5:17-18 Jesus said:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

If the Law was merely of human origin why would it have to be completely accomplished before it could disappear? This shows me that the Law was of Divine origin.

Also all the other writers of the NT held the same view. So I have it on good authority that all
of the Bible is the word of God.

Clifford

[Rose]

Hi Craig,

Some of the statements that Jesus made regarding the Law and the Scriptures seem to dispel the notion that the OT was just man writing down what he observed and thought God was saying. For example in John 10:34-35 Jesus made this statement:

Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are 'gods'’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—

Notice what Jesus said "to whom the word of God came. Here he clearly says the word of God came to them. Also notice he says "Scripture cannot be set aside. The reason it can't be set aside is because it is of Divine origin.

In Matt 5:17-18 Jesus said:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

If the Law was merely of human origin why would it have to be completely accomplished before it could disappear? This shows me that the Law was of Divine origin.

Also all the other writers of the NT held the same view. So I have it on good authority that all
of the Bible is the word of God.

Clifford
Hi Clifford,

One thing to keep in mind when reading the Bible is that just because words are written that you interpret to mean are of divine origin does not necessarily mean they are. The Bible also speaks of Tartarus, and Hades as real places and we know those places are mythological.

People of ancient times believed many things we know today to be untrue, those beliefs of the times got recorded in the Bible as truth merely because the writer thought they were from the being they perceived to be God. Many other gods are spoken of in the Bible as being true such as Baal and most Christian believers do not hold Baal to be a real god.

Another point to think about is the meaning of statements like "all things must be accomplished", do we really know what that means? It appears from history the only thing that got accomplished concerning the law and the Jewish people is their temple was destroyed in AD 70. This is the struggle people have with interpreting Scripture, there are just so many unknowns.

Rose

[CWH]

Hi Craig,

Some of the statements that Jesus made regarding the Law and the Scriptures seem to dispel the notion that the OT was just man writing down what he observed and thought God was saying. For example in John 10:34-35 Jesus made this statement:

Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are 'gods'’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—

Notice what Jesus said "to whom the word of God came. Here he clearly says the word of God came to them. Also notice he says "Scripture cannot be set aside. The reason it can't be set aside is because it is of Divine origin.

In Matt 5:17-18 Jesus said:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

If the Law was merely of human origin why would it have to be completely accomplished before it could disappear? This shows me that the Law was of Divine origin.

Also all the other writers of the NT held the same view. So I have it on good authority that all
of the Bible is the word of God.

Clifford

Great post Clifford :thumb:

I think we are talking to a group of atheists who call themselves Christians! No Christian would deny the Bible is book of God. No Christian will say that God is just human imagination. No Christian will say that what is written in the Bible is not God inspired.

Psalm 10:4
In his pride the wicked man does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.

Psalm 14:1
For the director of music. Of David. The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

Psalm 36:1
[ Psalm 36 ] For the director of music. Of David the servant of the LORD. I have a message from God in my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Psalm 53:1
[ Psalm 53 ] For the director of music. According to mahalath. A maskil of David. The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.


Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper
Dear Rose n' Rich

If there are moral or factual errors in the Bible then , because the doctrine of inerrancy is never stated in the Bible, we should naturally adopt the simplest explanation (in accord with Occams Razor) that

"the Bible is neither directly written by God, nor inspired, but rather is the product of human authors only - writing about divine events."


Many Blessings.

[Rose]

Great post Clifford :thumb:

I think we are talking to a group of atheists who call themselves Christians! No Christian would deny the Bible is book of God. No Christian will say that God is just human imagination. No Christian will say that what is written in the Bible is not God inspired.

Psalm 10:4
In his pride the wicked man does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.

Psalm 14:1
For the director of music. Of David. The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

Psalm 36:1
[ Psalm 36 ] For the director of music. Of David the servant of the LORD. I have a message from God in my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Psalm 53:1
[ Psalm 53 ] For the director of music. According to mahalath. A maskil of David. The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.



Many Blessings.
Hi Cheow,

My advice to you would be: Never be afraid to question your beliefs, if they are true they will hold up to the test. It never hurts to keep an open mind to discovery, only greater depths of wisdom will come from it. We are created with minds that seek answers, that is why the knowledge level of mankind continues to grow.

Blessings,
Rose

[CWH]

Hi Cheow,

My advice to you would be: Never be afraid to question your beliefs, if they are true they will hold up to the test. It never hurts to keep an open mind to discovery, only greater depths of wisdom will come from it. We are created with minds that seek answers, that is why the knowledge level of mankind continues to grow.

Blessings,
Rose

Continue to doubt the Bible as not the book of God, continue to doubt the Bible as not God inspired, continue to doubt God as human imagination will eventually lead one to atheism.

Tell us plainly Rose, are you an atheist? I have asked you once before and you seems to be avoiding my question. RAM has proclaimed he is no more a Christian...... so sad. He has made the biggest mistake in his life. Woe to those who lead people to atheism.

I have decided to create a new thread call "what is God" to refute the issue that God is a humsn imagination. This I think is what caused the doubts.

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

Continue to doubt the Bible as not the book of God, continue to doubt the Bible as not God inspired, continue to doubt God as human imagination will eventually lead one to atheism.

Tell us plainly Rose, are you an atheist? I have asked you once before and you seems to be avoiding my question. RAM has proclaimed he is no more a Christian...... so sad. He has made the biggest mistake in his life. Woe to those who lead people to atheism.

I have decided to create a new thread call "what is God" to refute the issue that God is a humsn imagination. This I think is what caused the doubts.

Many Blessings.

What exactly do you mean by asking if I am an atheist? Is it because I do not accept all the moral abominations presented in the Bible as coming from God? Or is it because I question the myths spoken of in Scripture as being divinely inspired?

I have been given a mind that is able to reason and to judge what is moral....is it wrong to speak up when I see actions that are clearly immoral? I think not!

Just because something is written in a book that is called the word of God does not automatically mean that it comes from God. Like I said in my last post, a person should never be afraid to question ones beliefs....if they are true they will stand up to the test.

Blessings,
Rose

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Some of the statements that Jesus made regarding the Law and the Scriptures seem to dispel the notion that the OT was just man writing down what he observed and thought God was saying. For example in John 10:34-35 Jesus made this statement:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—



I am a Christian. So every word and command in the OT must be from God. Others can be skeptics, but I am going to have faith that the commands of God are correct. John 10 v 34-35 shows that Jesus believed all the OT to be without error.

Therefore, all the laws must ultimately be good and perfect for that time..

[Clifford]

Hi Clifford,

One thing to keep in mind when reading the Bible is that just because words are written that you interpret to mean are of divine origin does not necessarily mean they are. The Bible also speaks of Tartarus, and Hades as real places and we know those places are mythological.

People of ancient times believed many things we know today to be untrue, those beliefs of the times got recorded in the Bible as truth merely because the writer thought they were from the being they perceived to be God. Many other gods are spoken of in the Bible as being true such as Baal and most Christian believers do not hold Baal to be a real god.

Another point to think about is the meaning of statements like "all things must be accomplished", do we really know what that means? It appears from history the only thing that got accomplished concerning the law and the Jewish people is their temple was destroyed in AD 70. This is the struggle people have with interpreting Scripture, there are just so many unknowns.

Rose

Hi Rose,


One thing to keep in mind when reading the Bible is that just because words are written that you interpret to mean are of divine origin does not necessarily mean they are. The Bible also speaks of Tartarus, and Hades as real places and we know those places are mythological.

It is not what I am interpreting, but what Jesus said and what all of the writers of the NT maintained, the scriptures are the word of God. How do you know that Tartarus and Hades are mythological? Just because they are part of Greek mythology does not mean they are not real places. If Jesus and the NT writers said they are real places then thats enough for me.


Many other gods are spoken of in the Bible as being true such as Baal and most Christian believers do not hold Baal to be a real god.

The Bible consistently speaks of only one true God and all the other "gods" of the people as false, including Baal.


Another point to think about is the meaning of statements like "all things must be accomplished", do we really know what that means? It appears from history the only thing that got accomplished concerning the law and the Jewish people is their temple was destroyed in AD 70. This is the struggle people have with interpreting Scripture, there are just so many unknowns.

The Law was accomplished in that it accomplished its intended purpose, to show the people they could not live up to God's standards on their own and needed a savior. Also the prophecies contained therein concerning the Messiah were fulfilled. AD 70 and the destruction of the Temple was only a part of it.

Clifford

[Charles Wade]

Tts 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Hbr 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which [it was] impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

If we really believe that our creator is PERFECTED,love & light & truth, then the verse which I think we can all agree is that our creator CAN NOT LIE!


I honestly do not know why God chose to present himself that way.
And that is and should be the legitimate question here, in my opinion.
Bob

So,it is simple discernment for me, these scriptures that show God having an Immoral thought or action or reaction is impossible. Such scriptures that do, come from human's own vain imagination and was not inspired ,nor authorized to be recorded by our creator.

If scripture does not show our creator in His true pure light and the loving, impartial agape love that Father has for all His creations, then it is a lie and not authorized from above, by our Father.

That is why I question the validity of the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament. Man the scripture from some O.T. books really keep me wondering.
In His love, Chas.

[Rose]

I am a Christian. So every word and command in the OT must be from God. Others can be skeptics, but I am going to have faith that the commands of God are correct. John 10 v 34-35 shows that Jesus believed all the OT to be without error.

Therefore, all the laws must ultimately be good and perfect for that time..

As I have said in many other posts, I am on a journey for truth, my eyes are open to it wherever I find it. I will not allow any religious dogma to impair my vision, even if that dogma is called the word of God....I am free to declare falsehoods when and where I find them.

I have been created with a mind that can reason and judge, and I will use that mind to the best of my ability to fight for moral integrity, and if the finger points at the Bible...who am I to say otherwise.

I am sure most Christians would have no problem pointing to all the immoral statements in the Koran that millions of people hold to as the word of Allah given to Muhammad, so why should it not be the same for the Bible?

Just because I call myself a Christian does not mean I have to declare every word in the Bible must be from God!

Blessings,
Rose

[Charles Wade]

Sorry...a double post

[Charles Wade]

I am a Christian. So every word and command in the OT must be from God. Others can be skeptics, but I am going to have faith that the commands of God are correct. John 10 v 34-35 shows that Jesus believed all the OT to be without error.

Therefore, all the laws must ultimately be good and perfect for that time..

Hi Ya Craig. I enjoy reading your posts.
I was wondering if you would elaborate as to how John 10: 34 & 35 shows that Jesus believed all the O.T. to be without error.

The way I read it: Jesus states the "The scripture" can not be broken is singular, not plural as scriptures, to which he was referring to.
What am I missing,that has led you to this commitment?
Thank you & in His love, Chas.

[Twospirits]

CWH (Cheow) wrote,

Tell us plainly Rose, are you an atheist? I have asked you once before and you seems to be avoiding my question. RAM has proclaimed he is no more a Christian...... so sad. He has made the biggest mistake in his life. Woe to those who lead people to atheism.


I'm confused, what's going on here Richard? Cheow says you see yourself as no longer a Christian, or is this a misstatement? But if that's so, why are you arguing scripture with those who do not hold to your doctrine of Full Preterism if you no longer believe in the Bible or Christianity? I don't see the logic here??? Could you please explain this, I'm confused--:confused::confused:

Cheow, is your statement correct or did you make an error in your statement here?

God bless---Twospirits

[CWH]

I'm confused, what's going on here Richard? Cheow says you see yourself as no longer a Christian, or is this a misstatement? But if that's so, why are you arguing scripture with those who do not hold to your doctrine of Full Preterism if you no longer believe in the Bible or Christianity? I don't see the logic here??? Could you please explain this, I'm confused--:confused::confused:

Cheow, is your statement correct or did you make an error in your statement here?

God bless---Twospirits

I don"t think it is an understatement and the best person to clarify is RAM himself. You must have missed our transaction, here it is:

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2051&page=2


Originally Posted by RAM
Public would be best by far. I delight in serious reviews of my work, and there are far too few of them out there. (Almost none, actually. ) You have permission to post reviews, criticisms, synopses, or whatever you like from my work on your site, with the only condition being that you properly cite the source and notify me so I can respond, of course. Other than that, go to it! You can copy/paste, use my graphics, whatever. All in good faith, of course.


I had always been "non-denominational" myself until I finally quit going to churches a few years ago. I used to be pretty fundamentalistic, as you can see by my old "statement of faith":
Are you a Christian? Protestant? Catholic?

Praise God, I am a man saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesian 2:8). I am a non-denominational blood-bought Bible-believing Trinitarian Christian. I believe that the true "faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) is well stated in the early creeds of the church that Christ founded.
I no longer call myself a Christian. I can't even conceive of a "personal" Zeus-style god who intervenes in human affairs. Too much evidence against it. And as it turns out, my only two solid reasons for thinking there is anything to Christianity are 1) the witness of the fulfilled prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and 2) The witness of the supernatural design of the Scripture provided by the Bible Wheel. The irony is that neither of those witnesses mean anything at all to the vast majority of Christians.


Very pertinent questions!

I'm currently trying to figure out what I believe. I've eliminated traditional Christian theism as incoherent and hence impossible. It is also unbiblical. Most Christians believe in the philosophical theism created by the scholastic theologians in the middle ages. That "god" is not much like anything we see of the God of the Bible. Their extreme philosophical categories, like the doctrine that God is "absolutely simple" lead absurdities. Even the doctrine of God's absolute omniscience leads directly to a non-personal God, because such a God was never able to make a decision since he already knew what he would choose before he chose it. That god is some sort of "abstract principle" or "law of nature." But certainly nothing like a person that can love and be loved.

I've got a lot more to say - that is, to work out while thinking out loud - but I got to go run an errand.

Great chatting!

Richard

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm confused, what's going on here Richard? Cheow says you see yourself as no longer a Christian, or is this a misstatement? But if that's so, why are you arguing scripture with those who do not hold to your doctrine of Full Preterism if you no longer believe in the Bible or Christianity? I don't see the logic here??? Could you please explain this, I'm confused--:confused::confused:

Cheow, is your statement correct or did you make an error in your statement here?

God bless---Twospirits
Hey there Henry,

Excellent questions. The quotes from my post #15 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=28471#post28471) in the other thread that Cheow provided explain my current position. Here is what I wrote, with the specific answer to you questions highlighted red:

I no longer call myself a Christian. I can't even conceive of a "personal" Zeus-style god who intervenes in human affairs. Too much evidence against it. And as it turns out, my only two solid reasons for thinking there is anything to Christianity are 1) the witness of the fulfilled prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and 2) The witness of the supernatural design of the Scripture provided by the Bible Wheel. The irony is that neither of those witnesses mean anything at all to the vast majority of Christians.
So that's why I continue the debate concerning Full Preterism. In my estimation, it is one of the only two "solid reasons" for thinking there is anything to Christianity and the Bible. The fact that Futurists attempt to destroy the primary witness of fulfilled eschatology blows my mind. If Futurism is true, then the Bible is a worthless jumble of meaningless words.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Great post Clifford :thumb:

I think we are talking to a group of atheists who call themselves Christians! No Christian would deny the Bible is book of God. No Christian will say that God is just human imagination. No Christian will say that what is written in the Bible is not God inspired.

There are many problems with your claims here.

First, your assertion is logically absurd because the Bible does not contain a list of which books belong in it. Therefore, it does not tell you which books you are supposed to believe are "from God" and which are "from men." This is a primary point of dispute between Catholics and Protestants. It cannot be resolved without additional evidence, such as that provided by the Bible Wheel.

Second, there are many Christians who have wrestled with the moral abominations and logical absurdities found in the Bible and concluded that the only way they could remain Christian was to reject the fundamentalist doctrine of the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

Third, there is a fundamental error in you assertion that Christians are defined by their beliefs about the Bible. That is not the definition of a Christian. Christians are defined only by their relation to God through Christ.



Psalm 10:4
In his pride the wicked man does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.

Psalm 14:1
For the director of music. Of David. The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

Psalm 36:1
[ Psalm 36 ] For the director of music. Of David the servant of the LORD. I have a message from God in my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Psalm 53:1
[ Psalm 53 ] For the director of music. According to mahalath. A maskil of David. The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.

Many Blessings.
Your quotes are meaningless until you define what you mean by "God." This is a very important point because the beliefs you hold (or think you hold) are probably logically incoherent and unbiblical.

All the best.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am a Christian. So every word and command in the OT must be from God. Others can be skeptics, but I am going to have faith that the commands of God are correct. John 10 v 34-35 shows that Jesus believed all the OT to be without error.

Therefore, all the laws must ultimately be good and perfect for that time..
Hey there Craig,

I don't see the logic in your statement. Who are you to tell God that he must take responsibility for every word in a book that men put together???

How do you know that God is involved at all? And even if he was involved, how do you know that men did not corrupt it with their own fallible ideas? Indeed, we know that men have monkeyed with the Bible because different Bibles have different books in them!

Furthermore, your logic is logically fallacious because it is circular. You begin by assuming that the Bible is from God in every detail, and then quote some of those details as proof it is of God. This is a textbook case of the elementary fallacy known as Petitio Principii (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html) (Begging the Question).

All the best,

Richard

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—

In Matt 5:17-18 Jesus said:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.




Hi Richard,

I start from the position of believing -

1. that Jesus is God and
2. that the New Testament correctly records words ascribed to Him.

The two sayings above are ascribed to Him, and they seem to support the inerrancy of Scripture (by Scripture, Jesus was certainly referring to the Torah atleast). I cannot argue with God.

With my own understanding it is difficult for me to know that all the OT Laws were good. But I can have faith (trust) that they were good based on the authority of Jesus.

So my position is quite logical.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I start from the position of believing -

1. that Jesus is God and
2. that the New Testament correctly records words ascribed to Him.

The two sayings above are ascribed to Him, and they seem to support the inerrancy of Scripture (by Scripture, Jesus was certainly referring to the Torah atleast). I cannot argue with God.

With my own understanding it is difficult for me to know that all the OT Laws were good. But I can have faith (trust) that they were good based on the authority of Jesus.

So my position is quite logical.
Hey there Craig,

I can see the logic of your position, but it still appears to be circular. Specifically: It seems that you believe that Jesus is God because the Bible says so, and you believe the Bible because Jesus said so.

But there is a bigger problem. You assumption that the Bible "correctly records words ascribed to Him" is known to be false. We know this with great certainty because of the parallel passages. I began a discussion of this problem in a thread called What did Jesus really say? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1550):


The Bible Wheel gives tremendous insight into the meaning and purpose of the differences between the Synoptic Gospels. There are profound correlations between the elements unique to each Gospel and the meaning of the corresponding Hebrew letter. For example, Matthew is marked by an strong emphasis on the idea of Righteousness defined by the Tzaddi KeyWord Tzedaqah and Luke is marked by a strong emphasis on the idea mercy defined by the Resh KeyWord Racham. These differences are particularly prominent when we compare parallel passages (see Luke: The Tender Mercies of the Great Physician (http://biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Resh_Mercies.asp)):

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/Matt_Luke_parallels.jpg

I have found many parallels like these that follow the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet with great clarity. It gives strong evidence for the divine inspiration of Scripture. But this same evidence presents a huge challenge about how God intends for us to understand the Scripture that He inspired. We are now confronted with a question of primary significance:

What did Jesus really say?

I can not think of any good solution. It seems very unlikely that Jesus actually said both things at different times since the passages seem to be describing a single event. But what other choice is there? How does God intend for us to understand these differences?

It's almost as if the Bible is a divine historical novel - it is mixed with lots of real history, but the detailed synoptic narratives of what Christ actually did and said can not be made to fit any literal historical sequence.

One possibility is that the words of Christ had a kind of "divine fullness" that was captured in part by each of the different Gospel writers. But still, we don't know what He actually said - only what it meant to those who heard him.

Questions like this have vexed believers since the beginning because they felt that they had "nothing" if not a literal historical record of Christ in the Gospels. The revelation of the Bible Wheel helps free us from this limitation. We know that the Bible is of God, so now we can receive it as such and admit that the pieces do need to fit into human categories like "literal historical narrative" in order to be true and inspired by God.

Richard

Therefore, it is impossible to assert that the Bible "correctly records words ascribed to Him." Something else is going on. It does not mean that the stories about Jesus are "false" but it does mean that Biblical fundamentalism of the kind you are proposing is impossible.

All the best,

Richard

[Rose]

Hi Richard,

I start from the position of believing -

1. that Jesus is God and
2. that the New Testament correctly records words ascribed to Him.

The two sayings above are ascribed to Him, and they seem to support the inerrancy of Scripture (by Scripture, Jesus was certainly referring to the Torah atleast). I cannot argue with God.

With my own understanding it is difficult for me to know that all the OT Laws were good. But I can have faith (trust) that they were good based on the authority of Jesus.

So my position is quite logical.

Hi Craig,

Could you please explain to me the difference between:

1. God, commanding the Hebrew soldiers to slaughter all men, women, and children of a particular race, solely for the purpose of ethnic cleansing.

2. Hitler, commanding his soldiers to slaughter all men, women, and children of a particular race, solely for the purpose of ethnic cleansing.

Rose

[Rose]

If scripture does not show our creator in His true pure light and the loving, impartial agape love that Father has for all His creations, then it is a lie and not authorized from above, by our Father.

That is why I question the validity of the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament. Man the scripture from some O.T. books really keep me wondering.
In His love, Chas.

Hi Chas,

That wondering is what keeps me searching for truth. The creator of the heaven and earth must have higher moral values and exhibit a greater good than me....and sad to say that is something that is sorely missing throughout much of the O.T.

It is always good to question....truth will always stand.

Blessings,
Rose

[Craig.Paardekooper]

God, commanding the Hebrew soldiers to slaughter all men, women, and children of a particular race, solely for the purpose of ethnic cleansing.



Rose, if you cannot disprove the Nephilim connection then there is your answer.

The only possible justification is the Nephilim. Without that, your argument would be conclusive.


As you know, the Bible implies that this was a prime reason for the invasion of Canaan. If you like, I can provide you with a picture of a Nephilim skeleton.

[Craig.Paardekooper]

I no longer call myself a Christian. I can't even conceive of a "personal" Zeus-style god who intervenes in human affairs. Too much evidence against it. And as it turns out, my only two solid reasons for thinking there is anything to Christianity are 1) the witness of the fulfilled prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and 2) The witness of the supernatural design of the Scripture provided by the Bible Wheel. The irony is that neither of those witnesses mean anything at all to the vast majority of Christians.



Ram, I am a Christian. My personal faith is founded on -



The general evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature

The Resurrection, Ascension and Return of Jesus Christ (Destruction of Temple)

The Old Testament prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel fulfilled during the times of the Gentiles

Enoch and the 70 generations.



Actually, people such as Karen Armstrong argue that historical and metaphysical evidence is irrelevant to what religion is really about. She says that all the world religions aim at the development of the spiritual life. See video below.

Video (http://fora.tv/2006/04/05/Beginning_of_Our_Religious_Traditions)

According to her, the only necessary ingredient of a living religion is a process of spiritual transformation and this process is valid regardless of your personal knowledge of ancient history or cosmology. I find her approach interesting, since -

1. it may be possible to distill some scientific principles of spiritual development/transformation and build on that.
2. it would be a personal and direct foundation for belief, unaffected by differences in opinion regarding history, doctrine or any other high brow academic stuff. (I just pray that it involves more than singing to a Christian pop band.)

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Hi Richard,



I don't see the logic in your statement. Who are you to tell God that he must take responsibility for every word in a book that men put together???


Luckily for the rest of Christendom, it is not me saying these things but John - it's his fault. John 10: 34 & 35



How do you know that God is involved at all? And even if he was involved, how do you know that men did not corrupt it with their own fallible ideas? Indeed, we know that men have monkeyed with the Bible because different Bibles have different books in them!


Yes, different Bibles have different books, but some books are in all Bibles - and they constitute a more reliable core. Infact the core happens to be what we call the Protestant Bible - it contains those books that are common to all Bibles. See - Common core books (http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-orthodox-catholic-christian-bible-books.htm)



Furthermore, your logic is logically fallacious because it is circular. You begin by assuming that the Bible is from God in every detail, and then quote some of those details as proof it is of God. This is a textbook case of the elementary fallacy known as Petitio Principii (Begging the Question).

All the best,


I think I did not explain my position clearly -

1. I begin by acknowledging the evidence for Jesus's resurrection, and return in 70 A.D. which shows that Jesus is God.

2. I then look at what the gospels report Jesus as saying about the OT. This is a step of faith because I am assuming that these gospel reports are accurate.

3. I read what Jesus says that not one jot will pass from the Law.

4. So I conclude that God (Jesus) says that the OT Law is inerrant.

(The Law is in the Torah, which is found in all Bibles, both Jewish and Christian)


It is not a circular argument since the initial premise is based on evidence for something other than inerrancy and not dependent on absolute inerrancy.

[Twospirits]

Charles Wade wrote,

Hi Ya Craig. I enjoy reading your posts.
I was wondering if you would elaborate as to how John 10: 34 & 35 shows that Jesus believed all the O.T. to be without error.

The way I read it: Jesus states the "The scripture" can not be broken is singular, not plural as scriptures, to which he was referring to.
What am I missing,that has led you to this commitment?
Thank you & in His love, Chas.

Hi Charles, welcome to Biblewheel :welcome: Here's what Strong says about the word used in John 10:35:

From Strongs 1124. graphé

Original Word: γραφή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: graphé
Phonetic Spelling: (graf-ay')
Short Definition: a writing, passage of scripture, the scriptures
Definition: (a) a writing, (b) a passage of scripture; plur: the scriptures.

(graphḗ) is used 51 times in the NT – always of holy Scripture, i.e. the inspired, inerrant writings of the Bible (the 66 books of Scripture, 39 in Hebrew, 27 in Greek).

[The NT generally uses 1124 (graphḗ) for the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT) – but see also 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 3:16. 1124 (graphḗ) was used for the Hebrew Scriptures as early as Aristeas (about 130 bc; so MM).]

2 Tim. 3:16, “All scripture (graphḗ) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

God bless---Twospirits

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

So that's why I continue the debate concerning Full Preterism. In my estimation, it is one of the only two "solid reasons" for thinking there is anything to Christianity and the Bible. The fact that Futurists attempt to destroy the primary witness of fulfilled eschatology blows my mind. If Futurism is true, then the Bible is a worthless jumble of meaningless words.

Richard, correct me if I'm wrong please, but you seem to be implying that you are so absolutely sure that the preterist hermeneutics that lead to fulfilled eschatology are correct (infallible), that if futurism is true, or found to be true, then the Bible is a worthless jumble of meaningless words. The implication being that if futurism is true then the Bible is certainly fallible and meaningless because the preterist hermeneutics that leads to fulfilled eschatology is infallible even above scripture. Wow! That's a bold statement! I hope I'm reading you wrong! :pray::pray:

God bless---Twospirits

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Ram wrote,
So that's why I continue the debate concerning Full Preterism. In my estimation, it is one of the only two "solid reasons" for thinking there is anything to Christianity and the Bible. The fact that Futurists attempt to destroy the primary witness of fulfilled eschatology blows my mind. If Futurism is true, then the Bible is a worthless jumble of meaningless words.

I would agree that Preterism is true, but it is hard to weigh it's importance with regard to other parts of the Bible. For me, the two strongest witnesses are Creation and Christ. Creation at the beginning, Christ at the end.

Creation is all around us, and the intelligence that it displays is an eternally present witness. But who is the Creator? The passion of Christ and His return 40 years later tell me that He is the Creator - source of life - victorious over death - and final judge of all.

See - See book (http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/craigsbook.pdf)


The Most Powerful Witnesses

It seems logical that the most powerful witnesses are those that are readily perceived, and hence obvious. And what is more readily perceived than what exists in the present? For that reason the greatest witnesses may be Creation (our outer physical reality) and Spirit (our inner mental reality). By Spirit I mean the psychological reality of direct religious experience. These two would furnish an ever present and invincible faith.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, correct me if I'm wrong please, but you seem to be implying that you are so absolutely sure that the preterist hermeneutics that lead to fulfilled eschatology are correct (infallible), that if futurism is true, or found to be true, then the Bible is a worthless jumble of meaningless words. The implication being that if futurism is true then the Bible is certainly fallible and meaningless because the preterist hermeneutics that leads to fulfilled eschatology is infallible even above scripture. Wow! That's a bold statement! I hope I'm reading you wrong! :pray::pray:

God bless---Twospirits
Hey there Henry,

I am happy to inform you that your hope is fulfilled! You completely misread the intent of my comments. Let me clarify. In my view, the basic "Big Picture" of the Preterist understanding cannot be rejected without utterly destroying the meaning of the words of the Bible, as established by context, history, and many mutually confirming verses. That's all I mean. It is not appopriate to describe this as "infallibility" because there are many obscur aspects about which we have no certain knowledge. There are plenty of places for error. But that does not mean that there is any room for the Futurist doctrines any more than our uncertainty about aspects of WWII makes room for Holocaust denial. Some things can be known with absolute certainty - White is not Black, 2 + 2 = 4. Other things can be known with relatively great certainty - something like six million Jews were murdered in WWII.

My intent was this: If Futurism is true, then the Bible is a jumbled mass of meaningless words because the words don't mean what they mean, and all the prophecies that were fulfilled lose all their power as witnesses to the divine origin of Holy Scripture. That's all I really meant to convey.

All the best,

Richard

[Rose]

Rose, if you cannot disprove the Nephilim connection then there is your answer.

The only possible justification is the Nephilim. Without that, your argument would be conclusive.


As you know, the Bible implies that this was a prime reason for the invasion of Canaan. If you like, I can provide you with a picture of a Nephilim skeleton.

Hi Craig,

Could you please give me your strongest support for the existence of the Nephilim in the post Flood world.

In the verses quoted below there is no reference whatsoever to Nephilim. The Amalekites were attacked by Saul and he was told to slaughter every man, woman, child, and infant....also all the livestock! So what's going on there?
1 Samuel 15:1-3 Samuel 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. Thus 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.Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.

Blessings,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I would agree that Preterism is true, but it is hard to weigh it's importance with regard to other parts of the Bible. For me, the two strongest witnesses are Creation and Christ. Creation at the beginning, Christ at the end.

Creation is all around us, and the intelligence that it displays is an eternally present witness. But who is the Creator? The passion of Christ and His return 40 years later tell me that He is the Creator - source of life - victorious over death - and final judge of all.

See - See book (http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/craigsbook.pdf)


The Most Powerful Witnesses

It seems logical that the most powerful witnesses are those that are readily perceived, and hence obvious. And what is more readily perceived than what exists in the present? For that reason the greatest witnesses may be Creation (our outer physical reality) and Spirit (our inner mental reality). By Spirit I mean the psychological reality of direct religious experience. These two would furnish an ever present and invincible faith.
The evidence of creation tells us nothing about the identity of the creator. Muslims are equally thrilled to point to creation as evidence of Allah. The fulfillment of prophecy is different because it is specific to the Bible and objectively verifiable.

Now it is true that creation used to be the most powerful witness for the existence of a "designer God" but science has destroyed most if not all of it's power. Before the discovery of evolution, it was pretty much self-evident that complex biological life required a designer. But now, the vast majority of folks with expertise in the field of Biology rightly reject that view. And they do this not because they are trying to "deny God." For example, evangelical Christian Francis Collins - the director of the Human Genome Project and author of "The Language of God" - believes that all living creatures descended from a single common ancestor. That's evolution. Therefore, complex life does not provide any direct evidence for God at all. Granted, there is still the very significant problem of the origin of life, but that's just a "God of the gaps" argument - it has no real power.

Another line of argument - the Fine Tuning Argument - does not help either. I'm very familiar with this argument because my brother in law Robin Collins is a leading expert in this field and is writing a series of four volumes justifiying it. The problem is that it does not prove a "theistic" God at all. Perhaps Reality is a dream in the Cosmic Mind of the Hindu Atman! The "Fine Tuning Argument" tells us nothing about why the universe is fine tuned, let alone by whom or by what. The latter being the most important point. What does God "do" as "creator"? Are not his "actions" more like those of the "laws of nature" or "abstract principles" than those of a "person"? Indeed, the entire concept of the Christian God seems to be logically incoherent because it is said that he is a "person" with "absolute omniscience" which means he never could do something as simple as "make a descision" because he always knew what he would do. Think about this. God never had an opportunity to "choose" anything! In this conception, he is like a brute fact of nature. Unfeeling. Unloving and unloveable. Nothing like a person in any way at all. But don't worry, the problems caused by the philosophical idea of God's absolute omniscience are not Biblical. They were invented by medieval scholastic theologians who also blessed us with knoweldge about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

I'm loving this conversation. It is touching the core of many fundamental flaws in the popular religious mind.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Charles, welcome to Biblewheel :welcome: Here's what Strong says about the word used in John 10:35:

From Strongs 1124. graphé

Original Word: γραφή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: graphé
Phonetic Spelling: (graf-ay')
Short Definition: a writing, passage of scripture, the scriptures
Definition: (a) a writing, (b) a passage of scripture; plur: the scriptures.

(graphḗ) is used 51 times in the NT – always of holy Scripture, i.e. the inspired, inerrant writings of the Bible (the 66 books of Scripture, 39 in Hebrew, 27 in Greek).

[The NT generally uses 1124 (graphḗ) for the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT) – but see also 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 3:16. 1124 (graphḗ) was used for the Hebrew Scriptures as early as Aristeas (about 130 bc; so MM).]

2 Tim. 3:16, 'All scripture (graphḗ) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:'

God bless---Twospirits
Hey there Henry,

That verse from 2 Timothy was referring to the OT, right? Are you suggesting it applies to the whole Bible? If so, to which Bible does it apply? Different Christian denominations have different Bibles with different books, and the Bible does not tell us which is correct. So how do you know which books are supposed to be in the Bible?

All the best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

My intent was this: If Futurism is true, then the Bible is a jumbled mass of meaningless words because the words don't mean what they mean, and all the prophecies that were fulfilled lose all their power as witnesses to the divine origin of Holy Scripture. That's all I really meant to convey.

I disagree, did all prophecies that came to fulfillment in Israel's era (1500 B.C. to Christ's 1st Advent) lose their power as witnesses that the origin of the scriptures were from God? Not at all, it proved that they were Divinely Inspired by God, and the leaders and unbelievers of Israel who thought otherwise were proven wrong when they were destroyed in 70 A.D. It was their system, their view of eschatology they established that was wrong, not the Scriptures and those sent to them.

The same can be said of Fulfilled Eschatology, if futurism is true, (here I mean Christ's coming, general resurrection, final judgment, etc.), it is not because scripture isn't of divine origin, it is simply because the full preterist system of eschatology is wrong by holding that 'all scripture is fulfilled.'

God bless---Twospirits

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

That verse from 2 Timothy was referring to the OT, right? Are you suggesting it applies to the whole Bible? If so, to which Bible does it apply? Different Christian denominations have different Bibles with different books, and the Bible does not tell us which is correct. So how do you know which books are supposed to be in the Bible?

I don't know, and I don't pretend to know. I"ll leave that to those much better qualified then I am to answer. :yo:

God bless---Twospirits

[Craig.Paardekooper]

The evidence of creation tells us nothing about the identity of the creator. Muslims are equally thrilled to point to creation as evidence of Allah. The fulfillment of prophecy is different because it is specific to the Bible and objectively verifiable.

Now it is true that creation used to be the most powerful witness for the existence of a "designer God" but science has destroyed most if not all of it's power. Before the discovery of evolution, it was pretty much self-evident that complex biological life required a designer. But now, the vast majority of folks with expertise in the field of Biology rightly reject that view


The proof for creation is out there Richard. My approach is optimistic rather than skeptical. Gather all the proposed evidence and then probe deeper, as deep as you can go, and then keep going.

However if you check out the following, you will get answers -

First Cause
Irreducible Complexity
Entropy and the direction of Time
Anthropic Principle
Genetic Code
Definitions of Life
Genesis 1 patterns

I wish you the best of luck. It is a big task to investigate all this.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I disagree, did all prophecies that came to fulfillment in Israel's era (1500 B.C. to Christ's 1st Advent) lose their power as witnesses that the origin of the scriptures were from God? Not at all, it proved that they were Divinely Inspired by God, and the leaders and unbelievers of Israel who thought otherwise were proven wrong when they were destroyed in 70 A.D. It was their system, their view of eschatology they established that was wrong, not the Scriptures and those sent to them.

The same can be said of Fulfilled Eschatology, if futurism is true, (here I mean Christ's coming, general resurrection, final judgment, etc.), it is not because scripture isn't of divine origin, it is simply because the full preterist system of eschatology is wrong by holding that 'all scripture is fulfilled.'

God bless---Twospirits
I think you made an excellent point. The first century Jews had a faulty eschatology, and that's one of the reasons they failed to recognize their "day of visitation." I believe many Futurists hold to the same failed eschatology of the first century Jews, such as those who expect a literal earthly reign of the Messiah from Israel.

But I don't think you understand my position on Futurism. It's fine if Futurists want to believe in a future "Second Coming" and general resurrection and final judgment. There's no problem with that at all. The problem arises when Futurists deny the past fulfillment in order to use those prophecies as a biblical basis for their doctrines. It is this denial of the plain meaning of the text (supported by context, history, and many mutually confirming passages) that I say destroys the integrity of Scripture as well as the power of the witness of fulfilled prophecy.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The proof for creation is out there Richard, but adopting a skeptical approach from the outset is not the most productive approach. My approach is optimistic rather than skeptical. Gather all the proposed evidence and then probe deeper, as deep as you can go, and then keep going.

However if you check out the following, you will get answers -

First Cause
Irreducible Complexity
Entropy and the direction of Time
Anthropic Principle
Genetic Code
Definitions of Life

I wish you the best of luck. It is a big task to investigate all this.
Optimism is a wonderful personality trait, but it's not so good as a scientific method. But optimism and skepticism aren't contrary to each other. And that's a good thing since science and skepticism go hand in hand. I think I'm a very optimistic skeptic!

And I think this would be a great topic for a thread. But I'll just continue the conversation here for now.

First Cause - I have never found this to be a convincing or compelling argument, even in my most fundamentalist of days. I think it is fundamentally fallacious. The philosophy of "first causes" is obscure at best. It is not a sufficient foundation for proving the existence of something as fundamental as God.

Irreducible Complexity - I think this has been thoroughly debunked. For example, the precursors of the components of flagellum "motor" were being used for other functions before they became part of the motor.

Entropy and the direction of Time - This was the topic of my PhD thesis. I don't think it can be used as a proof of God.

Anthropic Principle - This is closely related to the Fine Tuning argument, which is the topic of my brother in law's four volume treatise. It may well support evidence for some sort of "intelligence" underlying Reality, but it tells us nothing of the nature of that intelligence. For example, it could be the Hindu Atman. Or Panpsychism. Or .... there are many possibilities.

Genetic Code - The origin of the Genetic Code is one of the greatest of mysteries in science. Unfortunately, it is far removed from any direct evidence of any specific God such as Allah, YHVH, Brahma, Cosmic Consciousness, whatever. And it's just another "God of the gaps" argument anyway.

Definitions of Life - Another fascinating area of discovery, but useless in regards to establishing the nature or reality of God.

I really do not think I am being over-skeptical. I'm just talking turkey. The proofs you offer do not seem compelling to me. But the fulfilled prophecies, the Bible Wheel, and gematria are quite convincing, and this proves, I believe, that I am not simply rejecting everything because of my skeptical attitude.

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Hi Craig,

Could you please give me your strongest support for the existence of the Nephilim in the post Flood world.

In the verses quoted below there is no reference whatsoever to Nephilim. The Amalekites were attacked by Saul and he was told to slaughter every man, woman, child, and infant....also all the livestock! So what's going on there?

1 Samuel 15:1-3 Samuel 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. Thus 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.Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.


Blessings,
Rose


Does it strike you as strange that God should command the destruction of all their livestock too. The tradition of the Nephilim was that they had attempted to modify animals - biologically. So everything had to be destroyed - just like it had been before the Flood.

Biblically the word "Amalekites" "Amalekite" "Amalecites" "Amalecite" "Amalek" Amalec" and “Amalech” mean giants. The Arabic word for giants is "Amalek" or “Amlaalek” or "Amalec" the word "Al-amaleka" "Amaalek" "Amaleek" means giants. The Arabic word for one giant is "Amlek" or "Amlak" or "Amelec", but the same word in Arabic with double (AA) in the middle convert the word from signaler to plural. Example: Amaalek means Giants.


In (Arabic: عملاق,ʿimlāq‎) is the singular of giant, and the plural is (عمالقة, ʿamāliqah) or (عماليق, ʿamālīq), suggesting the sons of this tribe were known for being unusually tall.

Wikipedia

[Rose]

Does it strike you as strange that God should command the destruction of all their livestock too. The tradition of the Nephilim was that they had attempted to modify animals - biological warfare. So everything had to be destroyed - just like it had been before the Flood.

Hi Craig,

First off, the Bible clearly gives the reason that God commanded Saul to utterly destroy all people and livestock of the Amalekites and that was because of what Amalek did to the children of Israel....not because they were "Nephilim".
Deut.25:17-19 Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee foran inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.
Also, the Bible never even gives a hint of genetic engineering of animals, so to say such things is pure speculation, and since you believe that it was God who commanded those things written in the Bible for his own purposes you should not try and invent reasons that are not explicitly stated as such.


Biblically the word "Amalekites" "Amalekite" "Amalecites" "Amalecite" "Amalek" Amalec" and 'Amalech' mean giants. The Arabic word for giants is "Amalek" or 'Amlaalek' or "Amalec" the word "Al-amaleka" "Amaalek" "Amaleek" means giants. The Arabic word for one giant is "Amlek" or "Amlak" or "Amelec", but the same word in Arabic with double (AA) in the middle convert the word from signaler to plural. Example: Amaalek means Giants.

Wikipedia

Richard has done some research into the etymology of the word "Amalek" , and at best it is unclear what the origins are (Strongs said it was related to Amal which means to labor), so there is no need to speculate that the Amalekites were somehow related to the Nephilim whose origins are also highly ambiguous. All we have in the Bible concerning the Nephilim is in Genesis 6 and Num. 13:33, and in Gen.6 the verses concerning the Nephilim are just stuck in there with no background information at all.

Blessings,
Rose

[CWH]

Hi Craig,

Could you please give me your strongest support for the existence of the Nephilim in the post Flood world.

In the verses quoted below there is no reference whatsoever to Nephilim. The Amalekites were attacked by Saul and he was told to slaughter every man, woman, child, and infant....also all the livestock! So what's going on there?
1 Samuel 15:1-3 Samuel 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. Thus 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.Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.

Blessings,
Rose


[COLOR=Red][B]Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.

I can understand why God did not spare the men, women, children, infants, oxen, sheep, camels and asses. The main reason is because they have all been defiled....some dedicated to the gods and goddesses. some even sexually abused. Craig view of Amaleks being Nephilims is also a good speculated reason for their destruction.

I have grappled with the question of why would God destroyed all living things including trees, plants, animals, insects during the Great Flood because humans have become very evil? Why can't God just destroy all evil humans without destroying all trees, plants, animals and insects? I believe it has something to do with economics....would you want to repair something say a computer or a pot that is beyond economic repair? More economical and easier to make or buy a new and better one.

Same analogy would perhaps goes to the Amaleks...better to destroy all that is related to and "defiled" by the evil Amaleks and create a better tribe to replace them.

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

I can understand why God did not spare the men, women, children, infants, oxen, sheep, camels and asses. The main reason is because they have all been defiled....some dedicated to the gods and goddesses. some even sexually abused. Craig view of Amaleks being Nephilims is also a good speculated reason for their destruction.

I have grappled with the question of why would God destroyed all living things including trees, plants, animals, insects during the Great Flood because humans have become very evil? Why can't God just destroy all evil humans without destroying all trees, plants, animals and insects? I believe it has something to do with economics....would you want to repair something say a computer or a pot that is beyond economic repair? More economical and easier to make or buy a new and better one.

Same analogy would perhaps goes to the Amaleks...better to destroy all that is related to and "defiled" by the evil Amaleks and create a better tribe to replace them.

Many Blessings.

Wow! I am utterly stunned...:eek: I cannot believe you actually tried to justify the killing of children and infants by saying they were defiled by being sexually abused! How low are you willing to stoop to defend moral abominations in the Bible?

The fact is that neither the Flood nor the slaughter of the Amalekites rid the earth of all the wicked people; the world today contains more people that are equally or worse than those who were killed in those events.

By your reasoning Hitler was justified in killing 6 millions Jews because he thought he was purifying the Arian race by ridding the planet of an inferior race.

Rose

[CWH]

[QUOTE=Rose;29813]Wow! I am utterly stunned...:eek: I cannot believe you actually tried to justify the killing of children and infants by saying they were defiled by being sexually abused! How low are you willing to stoop to defend moral abominations in the Bible?

I cannot really justified what the Amalekites did with their own peoples and animals due to the limited knowledge we have of the Amalekites. But we know they were evil peoples. I personally believed they were defied by being dedicated to their pagan gods. As such they were abominable to God and God's people. Let me asked you a personal question, if God were to ask you to killl an evil person so as to rid the country of evil, would you do it? If not, you would be considered as a rebel against God and would be severely punished. If God test you by asking you to kill your son, would you do it with no question asked like Abraham? Abraham did not questioned God at all because he knew what God did was always right and he had fulll faith and trust in God. And Abraham was rewarded by God for being faithful and righteous till the end.


The fact is that neither the Flood nor the slaughter of the Amalekites rid the earth of all the wicked people; the world today contains more people that are equally or worse than those who were killed in those events.

After the Flood, the world was populated by 8 righteous peoples from the seed of Noah so that there willl be more descendants with righteous characters. We know from genetics studies that intelliegent couples tend to produce intelligent children but not always the case because environment also plays a part as non-intelligent couples may also produce intelligent offsprings. Same with righteous couples, they tend to produce righteous offsprings but not always the case. Evil environment tends to produce evil people due to evil influence. Put a good person in an environment that have a lifestyle of killing, cheating, drugs, prostitution, robbery, homosexuality and soon the good person will become bad. A person's personality is developed as interaction between Nature and Nurture, both seems to play about 50% part each.


By your reasoning Hitler was justified in killing 6 millions Jews because he thought he was purifying the Arian race by ridding the planet of an inferior race.

It was not justified, God saved the Jews. That was Hitler's false thinking and evil delusion on ethnic cleansing of the Jews and in the end Hitler suffered severely and his Nazi party devastated. Is it by chance or by God that Hitler and his Axis collaborators were eventually defeated in WW2?... Thank God the Axis were defeated, if not all America and Europe will be saying "Heil Hilter" today with outstretched arm and talking German. And there will be no Jew in this world. And Asia will be talking Japanese and worshipping the Japanese Emperor today.

Many Blessings.

[Craig.Paardekooper]

The Hebrew pronunciation of Amalekite is עמלק (ah-mah-LEK). It appears to be a word of foreign origin because it has 4 base consonants instead of 3. It has no meaning in Hebrew other than a reference to the people called Amalekites

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Amalekite_What_is_meaning_of_Amalekite_in_Hebrew#i xzz1I4OWYzM0

However, it's Arabic meaning is "Giant", and the Amalekites originated from the south , ie the Arabian area


In (Arabic: عملاق,ʿimlāq‎) is the singular of giant, and the plural is (عمالقة, ʿamāliqah) or (عماليق, ʿamālīq), suggesting the sons of this tribe were known for being unusually tall. WIKIPEDIA


Biological manipulation is mentioned in the Jewish traditions regarding Enoch, and even the Bible states that the breeding of humans with angels produced something different than just another human being. Extra biblical traditions said that this was also extended to animals. In all the traditions what was produced was a hybrid race. Traditions ascribe negative moral qualities to these hybrids.

Here is a website listing evidence of giants in the Bible - Giants (http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Mid.East/Mid.East.html)

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Definitions of Life - Another fascinating area of discovery, but useless in regards to establishing the nature or reality of God.



Actually, it is useful.

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Richard wrote:


Optimism is a wonderful personality trait, but it's not so good as a scientific method.

Skeptics don't discover anything because they don't believe there could be anything worth discovering. This is a truism.

But optimism and skepticism aren't contrary to each other. And that's a good thing since science and skepticism go hand in hand. I think I'm a very optimistic skeptic And I think this would be a great topic for a thread. But I'll just continue the conversation here for now.

First Cause - I have never found this to be a convincing or compelling argument, even in my most fundamentalist of days. I think it is fundamentally fallacious. The philosophy of "first causes" is obscure at best. It is not a sufficient foundation for proving the existence of something as fundamental as God.

Actions of a living thing are first causes since they are not preceded by sufficient prior causes. Freewill is a first cause by definition.

Irreducible Complexity - I think this has been thoroughly debunked. For example, the precursors of the components of flagellum "motor" were being used for other functions before they became part of the motor.

Don't give up Richard so quickly. Nature has thousands of systems that exhibit irreducible complexity and remain irreducible to this day.

Entropy and the direction of Time - This was the topic of my PhD thesis. I don't think it can be used as a proof of God.

Natural processes are running down. It doesn't take a PHd to see that. The direction is from complexity and order towards disorder and equilibrium. So in the Beginning was maximum order and complexity.

Anthropic Principle - This is closely related to the Fine Tuning argument, which is the topic of my brother in law's four volume treatise. It may well support evidence for some sort of "intelligence" underlying Reality, but it tells us nothing of the nature of that intelligence. For example, it could be the Hindu Atman. Or Panpsychism. Or .... there are many possibilities.

Genetic Code - The origin of the Genetic Code is one of the greatest of mysteries in science. Unfortunately, it is far removed from any direct evidence of any specific God such as Allah, YHVH, Brahma, Cosmic Consciousness, whatever. And it's just another "God of the gaps" argument anyway.

Oh I wrote a paper on this showing that the Genesis 1 patterns are found in the genetic code


Definitions of Life - Another fascinating area of discovery, but useless in regards to establishing the nature or reality of God.

I strongly disagree. Life detection can be turned to God detection - the same criteria can be used to detect both.

I really do not think I am being over-skeptical.

Yes you are, or you would not have said this, since you are even worried about the level of your own skepticism.

I'm just talking turkey. I am not sure what this means maybe - this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4AgPSjzXkw)

The proofs you offer do not seem compelling to me. But the fulfilled prophecies, the Bible Wheel, and gematria are quite convincing, and this proves, I believe, that I am not simply rejecting everything because of my skeptical attitude.

[Rose]

I cannot really justified what the Amalekites did with their own peoples and animals due to the limited knowledge we have of the Amalekites. But we know they were evil peoples. I personally believed they were defied by being dedicated to their pagan gods. As such they were abominable to God and God's people. Let me asked you a personal question, if God were to ask you to kill an evil person so as to rid the country of evil, would you do it? If not, you would be considered as a rebel against God and would be severely punished. If God test you by asking you to kill your son, would you do it with no question asked like Abraham? Abraham did not questioned God at all because he knew what God did was always right and he had fulll faith and trust in God. And Abraham was rewarded by God for being faithful and righteous till the end.

Hi Cheow,

To answer your question on whether I would kill an evil person if God ask me to: I would say absolutely NOT. First off, if it really was God he would not be asking me to do his dirty work of killing the evil people that he created. Secondly, how would I know it was God speaking? People in ancient times believed all sorts of things that we know today to be false.

A good example is Abraham, he came out of a culture that believed in many gods, so why do we think that because he converted to believing in one god that it is more real than the many he believed in prior to his conversion? All we have today is words that people have written in a book we call the Word of God. How do we know that those words are true? I say only by using our minds to reason and test those words....truth will always stand.




It was not justified, God saved the Jews. That was Hitler's false thinking and evil delusion on ethnic cleansing of the Jews and in the end Hitler suffered severely and his Nazi party devastated. Is it by chance or by God that Hitler and his Axis collaborators were eventually defeated in WW2?... Thank God the Axis were defeated, if not all America and Europe will be saying "Hi Hilter" today with outstretched arm and talking German. And there will be no Jew in this world. And Asia will be talking Japanese and worshipping the Japanese Emperor today.

Many Blessings.

I absolutely agree that Hitler was an evil, wicked man and what he did was NOT justified, but what does that have to do with God saving the Jews? Why didn't God kill Hitler before he was born, that would have saved 6 million Jews. Instead God waited until the U.S. entered the war and Hitler was killed, seems backwards to me.

Blessings,
Rose

[Twospirits]

Rose wrote,

A good example is Abraham, he came out of a culture that believed in many gods, so why do we think that because he converted to believing in one god that it is more real than the many he believed in prior to his conversion? All we have today is words that people have written in a book we call the Word of God. How do we know that those words are true? I say only by using our minds to reason and test those words....truth will always stand.

John 8:58, 'Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.'


God bless---Twospirits

[Rose]

John 8:58, 'Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.'


God bless---Twospirits

You are just quoting to me words written down by men. How do I know those words are true? The Koran has many words written in it that say God spoke to Mohammad, and Christians do not believe those words to be spoken from God....that is why I say all things must be questioned....the truth will stand.

Blessings,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Optimism is a wonderful personality trait, but it's not so good as a scientific method.

Skeptics don't discover anything because they don't believe there could be anything worth discovering. This is a truism.

Say what? Most scientists (i.e. the folks who make most of the discoveries in science) define themselves as "skeptics." The word comes from scopos meaning "to look, to inquire" which is the essence of science and the only possible means of discovering anything. It appears in such words as "microscope" and "telescope," the latter being the center religiously motivated attack on the discoveries made by Galileo who was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church.

Here's a great lecture on the fundamental relation between science and skepticism by Eugenie Scott:

http://fora.tv/2010/04/24/Dr_Eugenie_C_Scott_Science_and_Skepticism




First Cause - I have never found this to be a convincing or compelling argument, even in my most fundamentalist of days. I think it is fundamentally fallacious. The philosophy of "first causes" is obscure at best. It is not a sufficient foundation for proving the existence of something as fundamental as God.

Actions of a living thing are first causes since they are not preceded by sufficient prior causes. Freewill is a first cause by definition.

Oh - you took that in a totally different direction than I anticipated. I thought you were talking about the "First Cause" argument for God which states that there must be a "First Cause" (God) or else we will have an infinite regression. I find that argument fallacious because there is no reason our universe could not be eternal, with the current state of expansion merely one state of the eternal universe.

As for free will - that is a philosophical swamp. It is a profound mystery. No one can speak with certainty about the nature of free will, and for that matter, a primary branch of Christianity - Calvinism - denies that we have any such thing! But even if we did, it would tell us nothing about the existence of a Creator.




Irreducible Complexity - I think this has been thoroughly debunked. For example, the precursors of the components of flagellum "motor" were being used for other functions before they became part of the motor.

Don't give up Richard so quickly. Nature has thousands of systems that exhibit irreducible complexity and remain irreducible to this day.

I know that many things "look" irreducibly complex, but the problem is that nothing can be proven to be irreducibly complex. Nothing! It's an argument from ignorance and incredulity. We look at a complex feature and say "I can't imagine how it could have evolved! Therefore, God did it!". The eye is the most famous example of this error. I doubt there are any steps in the evolutionary path of the eye that remain fundamentally "mysterious" and "inexplicable" through natural selection.

The idea of "irreducibly complexity" is a "God of the gaps" style argument. Every example you can give of something that is "irreducibly complex" simply evaporates the moment we discover the evolutionary pathway. And talk about "making no discoveries!" If science began with the idea of "irreducible complexity" we'd still believe that angels were pushing the planets in their orbits. It is anti-science.




Entropy and the direction of Time - This was the topic of my PhD thesis. I don't think it can be used as a proof of God.

Natural processes are running down. It doesn't take a PHd to see that. The direction is from complexity and order towards disorder and equilibrium. So in the Beginning was maximum order and complexity.

Your statements are misleading. It doesn't take a PhD to see that not all "natural processes" are "running down." Localized processes, like photosynthesis in a leaf, are "running up" because they are using the energy that is "running down" from the sun. Therefore, there is no argument against life and evolution from a thermodynamic perspective.

It is very important to remember that your statements apply only to idealized finite closed systems, like a cup of coffee with cream that swirls until it becomes uniform throughout, or the room containing the cup of coffee that ultimately cools to be the same temperature as the rest of the room. But the real world is not made up of idealized closed systems! There is a HUGE amount of energy put out by the sun that floods the earth. This is the energy that drives life.

Now I am guessing that you are arguing for special creation based on the idea of a "low initial entropy" of the universe as a whole. But cosmology is in its infancy and there are unresolved issues around the apparently "low entropy" of the initial state of the universe. For example, the entropy of a small amount of gas in a container will be maximized when it is distributed uniformly, but exactly the opposite happens in the universe where gravity causes the gas particles to collapse into stars which create a huge flux of energy that is used by life. And besides that, I doubt that the "total entropy of the universe" is even a well-defined concept, especially since General Relativity makes it impossible to define the total energy of the universe (http://mathoverflow.net/questions/38659/total-energy-of-the-universe). So I see no solid argument for God based on cosmological thermodynamics.




Genetic Code - The origin of the Genetic Code is one of the greatest of mysteries in science. Unfortunately, it is far removed from any direct evidence of any specific God such as Allah, YHVH, Brahma, Cosmic Consciousness, whatever. And it's just another "God of the gaps" argument anyway.

Oh I wrote a paper on this showing that the Genesis 1 patterns are found in the genetic code

I think the Genesis 1 patterns are strong evidence for "something supernatural" going on in the Bible, but that doesn't help because I do not believe that the Bible supports Christianity.




Definitions of Life - Another fascinating area of discovery, but useless in regards to establishing the nature or reality of God.

I strongly disagree. Life detection can be turned to God detection - the same criteria can be used to detect both.

You will need to explain what you mean.




I really do not think I am being over-skeptical.

Yes you are, or you would not have said this, since you are even worried about the level of your own skepticism.

No, I said it because I anticipated that you would say I was being over-skeptical. I have absolutely no "worry" about skepticism. I think skepticism is one of the most important attitudes a person should have, whether that person is a Christian, Muslim, Mormon, or Atheist. Without skepticism you could find yourself trapped in a cult like Scientology without knowing it! How then would you become free?

Wow ... we've got a lot of topics opened up now. This has really turned into a great conversation.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Hebrew pronunciation of Amalekite is עמלק (ah-mah-LEK). It appears to be a word of foreign origin because it has 4 base consonants instead of 3. It has no meaning in Hebrew other than a reference to the people called Amalekites

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Amalekite_What_is_meaning_of_Amalekite_in_Hebrew#i xzz1I4OWYzM0

However, it's Arabic meaning is "Giant", and the Amalekites originated from the south , ie the Arabian area

Yes, and why were they called "giants." Cuz they wuz tall. It's quite a stretch to claim it was because they were genetically modified by demons or space aliens!

Bottom line: If the only justification for the command to murder innocent babies is because they were genetically modified by demons, then I think we have a very serious problem that remains unresolved.

And besides, the text tells a different story. The text says that they were being wiped out in retribution for their attack on the weak members of Israel. It says nothing about any genetic manipulation.



Biological manipulation is mentioned in the Jewish traditions regarding Enoch, and even the Bible states that the breeding of humans with angels produced something different than just another human being. Extra biblical traditions said that this was also extended to animals. In all the traditions what was produced was a hybrid race. Traditions ascribe negative moral qualities to these hybrids.
Wonderful ... folks in the 21st century are supposed to base their understanding of the Bible on the extra-biblical superstitious traditions of primitive goat herders? It's one thing to claim that they received a book from God, it's quite another to accept all their ignorant superstitions as true.

I think we do more harm than good when we use ignorant primitive superstitions to justify the moral abominations in the Bible.

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Hi Richard,

Firstly I want to say thankyou to you especially and to Rose for all your detailed responses. I know how hard and long it takes to provide a good response, and I want to let you know that I appreciate it.

Anyway, we have raised some big points, and it will take a while to research and develop each one. So it might be a good idea to start a Thread on evidences for creation.

In some cases these really are big questions that require my careful thought and additional reading, so I will only be able to reply slowly.

However, with regard to giants, I am not quite sure that they are the product of superstition. Here is a listing of all the times that the Bible refers to giants -

Giants in the Bible (http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/Mid.East/Mid.East.html)

Craig

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It was not justified, God saved the Jews. That was Hitler's false thinking and evil delusion on ethnic cleansing of the Jews and in the end Hitler suffered severely and his Nazi party devastated. Is it by chance or by God that Hitler and his Axis collaborators were eventually defeated in WW2?... Thank God the Axis were defeated, if not all America and Europe will be saying "Hi Hilter" today with outstretched arm and talking German. And there will be no Jew in this world. And Asia will be talking Japanese and worshipping the Japanese Emperor today.

Hey there Cheow,

The relation between God and the history of the Jews is very strange. The traditional understanding amongst both Jews and Christians is that God has had an active hand directing the fate of the Jews. From this point of view, it was God Himself who directed history so that six million Jews met their doom in the death camps of Nazi Germany. We find many precedents for this view in Scripture. For example:
Leviticus 26:14 ' But if you do not obey Me, and do not observe all these commandments, 15 and if you despise My statutes, or if your soul abhors My judgments, so that you do not perform all My commandments, but break My covenant, 16 I also will do this to you: I will even appoint terror over you, wasting disease and fever which shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow of heart. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. 17 I will set My face against you, and you shall be defeated by your enemies. Those who hate you shall reign over you, and you shall flee when no one pursues you.
The list of punishments goes on and on with things as bad as what happened in Hitler's death camps. Furthermore, we know that God used pagan nations such as the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Romans to punish Israel. This is how I understood Jeremiah 16:16 back in the days before I learned to read prophecies in context:
Jeremiah 16:14 " Therefore behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "that it shall no more be said, 'The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,' 15 "but, 'The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands where He had driven them.' For I will bring them back into their land which I gave to their fathers. 16 ¶ " Behold, I will send for many fishermen," says the LORD, "and they shall fish them; and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks. 17 "For My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from My face, nor is their iniquity hidden from My eyes. 18 "And first I will repay double for their iniquity and their sin, because they have defiled My land; they have filled My inheritance with the carcasses of their detestable and abominable idols."
It seemed to me that this was a prophecy of the "return" of Israel to the land in 1948, and that it included a prophecy of the holocaust because it specifically included "carcasses" (dead bodies) in the list of sins for which God would punish them "double" before he let them return to the land. Of course, I don't believe this anymore since the prophecy was specifically speaking of the Babylonian exile. But many Futurists still believe and teach that Jeremiah 16 is a prophecy about the Holocaust and the foundation of the modern state of Israel. For example, here is what the wiki reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee) concerning the teachings of Futurist John Hagee:
Hagee's interpretation of the historical role of Hitler and the Holocaust in relation to the foundation of the state of Israel has also caused offense. Hagee interprets a reference in Jeremiah 16:16 to "fishers" and "hunters" as symbols of positive motivation (Herzl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl) and Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism)) and negative motivation (Hitler and Nazism) respectively, both sent by God for the purpose of having Jews return to the land of Israel, even suggesting that the Holocaust was willed by God because most Jews ignored Herzl's Zionist call.
As strange as it sounds, the Futurist understanding of the holocaust supports Hitler's frequent claim that he was doing the "Lord's work" (http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm) by killing the Jews! Pretty crazy stuff, ain't it?

All the best,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Rose wrote,

You are just quoting to me words written down by men. How do I know those words are true? The Koran has many words written in it that say God spoke to Mohammad, and Christians do not believe those words to be spoken from God....that is why I say all things must be questioned....the truth will stand.

The truth of Christianity stands or falls with one central issue: the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from death. To deny the resurrection, we'd have to conclude that all the apostles (Jesus' first disciples), most of whom were killed for their faith in Christ and the resurrection were liars and/or crazy, deluded fools.

We have the record of the original eye-witnesses of Christ's resurrection - the apostles - who gave their lives for their message. No one could prove them wrong by producing the body. In fact, they proved what they were saying by continuing the miraculous ministry of Jesus Christ through their own lives - in healing the sick and casting out demons.


The Empty Tomb.

The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ's tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

.

The truth of Christianity stands or falls with one central issue: the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from death. To deny the resurrection, we'd have to conclude that all the apostles (Jesus' first disciples), most of whom were killed for their faith in Christ and the resurrection were liars and/or crazy, deluded fools.

We have the record of the original eye-witnesses of Christ's resurrection - the apostles - who gave their lives for their message. No one could prove them wrong by producing the body. In fact, they proved what they were saying by continuing the miraculous ministry of Jesus Christ through their own lives - in healing the sick and casting out demons.

I agree that the truth of Christianity depends upon the the physical resurrection of Jesus, but the arguments you present are sufficient only for those who already believe. They are utterly unconvincing to an outsider skeptical of your claims. That's the hardest thing for a believer to understand.

What does an outside skeptic see when Christians claim the Bible provides "eyewitness accounts" of miracles? They see exactly the same thing as when they read similar claims in the Quran, the Hindu Vedas, and the Book of Mormon. In other words, Christians and skeptics agree on the reasons to reject all other religions. Given the number of religious texts in the world claiming to record miracles, everyone must be skeptical in general. It is a lot easier to write a story about a miracle than to actually perform one. Therefore, the normal, healthy mind - whether Christian or not - is smart to reject claims of miracles written in ancient texts. If you are consistent, you would have to be just as skeptical about the Bible as every other religious text that you reject, unless you had some method of showing that the Bible is uniquely distinct from all other texts. Say, by showing that it predicted events before they happened, or perhaps that the document had a highly intelligent and detailed structure that could not have been designed by humans. Merely appealing to the statements within the text as accurate and authoritative is utterly inadequate.

I am quite surprised that you present the argument that "No one could prove them wrong by producing the body." Nobody knows if that story is true, and it's obviously the sort of thing a polemicist would write thirty years after the event when no one could prove him wrong! This is why the arguments you present are so weak. You present reasons why we "should" believe the stories, and skeptics present reasons we should not. It just goes in circles. No one would ever come to a living faith in God by doing a forensic analysis of Scripture, especially since the historical/forensic evidence is decidedly on the side of the skeptics. (Remember, you introduced the idea of evidence, which means you need to prove your case. The default position is necessarily skepticism towards claims of miracles in ancient religious texts.)

And there is a huge problem with your whole approach. You claim that the disciples performed miracles like Jesus. Why did that end? If God was willing to provide solid, objective, physical evidence of Christianity to the first believers, why has He denied it to everyone since that time?

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

And there is a huge problem with your whole approach. You claim that the disciples performed miracles like Jesus. Why did that end? If God was willing to provide solid, objective, physical evidence of Christianity to the first believers, why has He denied it to everyone since that time?

Luke 16:31, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."


God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

And there is a huge problem with your whole approach. You claim that the disciples performed miracles like Jesus. Why did that end? If God was willing to provide solid, objective, physical evidence of Christianity to the first believers, why has He denied it to everyone since that time?
Luke 16:31, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."


God bless---Twospirits
That seems illogical. If no one would be persuaded by miracles, why did God perform miracles through Jesus and the disciples?

And besides, didn't you just contradict your argument? Weren't you trying to prove the miracle of Christ's resurrection so that people would have reason to believe?

[CWH]

[QUOTE=Rose;29823]Hi Cheow,

To answer your question on whether I would kill an evil person if God ask me to: I would say absolutely NOT. First off, if it really was God he would not be asking me to do his dirty work of killing the evil people that he created. Secondly, how would I know it was God speaking? People in ancient times believed all sorts of things that we know today to be false.
If God ordered you to do something and you won't, well you will have to face the music. God used the Romans to destroy the Temple and Jerusalem and killed more than a million Jews. God used Nero Caesar and other Romans to persecute the saints. God used Jesus and the apostles to spread the gospels. In other words, God used people to do things for Him. Abraham believed with sincere faith and trust and was wiling to sacrifice his son for God without a doubt and he was rewarded. Don't you want to be rewarded for doing the works of God with the guarantee of eternal life from God by killing an evil person? On a personal note, I will do anything for God for the guarantee of entering into the gates of heaven. Isn't that the goal of life is all about? If not why would Jesus, the apostles and saints sacrifice their lives for and giving everything up for the works of God?...or ...are you saying that they have believed wrongly, their sacrifices for God in vain and were hookwinked by God?


A good example is Abraham, he came out of a culture that believed in many gods, so why do we think that because he converted to believing in one god that it is more real than the many he believed in prior to his conversion? All we have today is words that people have written in a book we call the Word of God. How do we know that those words are true? I say only by using our minds to reason and test those words....truth will always stand.
So you are saying that what was written in the OT about Abraham were all wrong and most of the Bible were wrong since it was written by men? ....sounds atheist. Then why bother to believe in AD 70 and the Bible? I asked again, are you an atheist? Is it so difficult to answer Yes or No?


I absolutely agree that Hitler was an evil, wicked man and what he did was NOT justified, but what does that have to do with God saving the Jews? Why didn't God kill Hitler before he was born, that would have saved 6 million Jews. Instead God waited until the U.S. entered the war and Hitler was killed, seems backwards to me.
It's the same as me asking you a question, why didn't God killed Nero Caesar, Vespasian, Titus from being born so that thousands of Christians will not be persecuted and the Temple and Jerusalem would not be destroyed?..and more than a million Jews would have been saved and the remnants will not be dispersed? The answer is simple - to show that God have the power to save and to destroy; to show that eventually good will triumph over evil and the God's righteous people will be saved.

Many Blessings.

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

And besides, didn't you just contradict your argument? Weren't you trying to prove the miracle of Christ's resurrection so that people would have reason to believe?

Yes, but I was simply trying to make a point by giving that passage. That being, if a person rejects the Christian evidence presented to them, ie. the Word of God, the miracles, the cloud of historical witnesses, God's Word would ring true when he stated that they would not even be persuaded if one rose from the dead; they would still reject that evidence. How true. Bottom line is there's nothing more that can be done except to say "let the dead bury the dead," and pray for them.

God bless---Twospirits

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Actually, the historical evidence for the resurrection is NOT in the same league as evidence put forward for miracles in the Koran, Hinduism etc. The Christian evidence is far better quality. RAM should produce examples of historical evidence from other faiths as examples. So I think Ram is being unreasonably skeptical regarding the Ressurection evidence itself.

Basically, I think that as fellow Christians we should engage ourselves in trying to increase each others faiths by providing positive evidences to one another, rather than trying to undermine the little belief that anyone currently has. I see it a bit like a child learning the basics of a subject. I would not try to shred their understanding just so I could take pride in my own rational skepticism. Wouldn't it be better to use rationality to add to their understanding and enrich their experience of Christianity.

For anyone who wishes to strengthen their faith in Jesus, then I would direct them to a short book that lays out lots of evidence.

Sign of the Son of Man (http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/craigsbook.pdf)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Actually, the historical evidence for the resurrection is NOT in the same league as evidence put forward for miracles in the Koran, Hinduism etc. The Christian evidence is far better quality. RAM should produce examples of historical evidence from other faiths as examples. So I think Ram is being unreasonably skeptical regarding the Ressurection evidence itself.

Basically, I think that as fellow Christians we should engage ourselves in trying to increase each others faiths by providing positive evidences to one another, rather than trying to undermine the little belief that anyone currently has. I see it a bit like a child learning the basics of a subject. I would not try to shred their understanding just so I could take pride in my own rational skepticism. Wouldn't it be better to use rationality to add to their understanding and enrich their experience of Christianity.

For anyone who wishes to strengthen their faith in Jesus, then I would direct them to a short book that lays out lots of evidence.

Sign of the Son of Man (http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/craigsbook.pdf)
Hey there Craig, :yo:

You wrote:
I think that as fellow Christians we should engage ourselves in trying to increase each others faiths by providing positive evidences to one another, rather than trying to undermine the little belief that anyone currently has.
I think there is a fundamental flaw in your suggestion. It is very deceptive to present only one side of an argument, and authentic faith cannot be built on such a weak foundation. The best approach is to provide all the evidence both for and against a position, because only then will a person be in a position to make an accurate judgment. Only then can a person have genuine confidence concerning their faith.

This problem is particularly prominent in the field of religion because people are routinely taught to ignore the intellect and to simply "believe" and to accept dogmas "by faith." How then do we discern between the truth of God and the dogmas invented by men to enslave our minds? We have no choice - we must engage our minds to the fullest extent to discern truth. If the evidence for Christianity so weak that we must avoid the skeptical approach, then we have already lost the argument. No person with a properly functioning mind will believe in something that cannot stand under scrutiny.

Now I find it very interesting that you attack the "skeptical" mind as if it were a moral failure. Skepticism is an essential attitude for anyone searching for the truth. What hope would a Muslim or Mormon have if they were not skeptical of the beliefs they inherited?

As for the "evidence" of the resurrection used in popular Christian apologetics - I never found those arguments convincing, even in my most fundamentalist days when I described myself as a "blood-bought Bible-believing Trinitarian Christian." They seem convincing only to those already convinced. History has too many uncertainties, and there are too many other possible explanations to convince anyone not already inclined towards belief. That's the problem with that whole style of argumentation. Such arguments can never actually prove anything.

Another huge problem is that the Bible is filled with stories of supernatural events that seem utterly unbelievable to the modern mind, so the idea of the resurrection doesn't really sound much different than the than the story of Christ walking on water or the talking snake. The world is filled with ancient literature making unbelievable claims, and the Bible inevitably falls into that general class. But there is one important difference - the Bible is much more firmly grounded in what sounds like "real history" than many of the other religious texts, and this makes belief possible for those so inclined. But it is not sufficiently different to form convincing arguments to compel skeptics to believe.

And finally, your suggestion that we should only provide "positive evidences" is actually destructive to the cause of Christianity because the lack of critical thinking allows the evidence to degrade until it begins to appear patently absurd to outside skeptics. We end up just "preaching to the choir."

I know you think I am being "too skeptical" but I disagree. I'm just speaking truth as I see it. I still acknowledge the various lines of evidence for the Bible. I am not one-sided on this at all. I really enjoy talking about these things and searching out the authentic truth. Remember, truth can never be threatened by skepticism. On the contrary, truth shines most brightly under a skeptical light.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Actually, the historical evidence for the resurrection is NOT in the same league as evidence put forward for miracles in the Koran, Hinduism etc. The Christian evidence is far better quality. RAM should produce examples of historical evidence from other faiths as examples. So I think Ram is being unreasonably skeptical regarding the Ressurection evidence itself.

I think I should reiterate (again) that I believe the fulfilled prophecies set the Bible apart from all the other religious texts. But this does not mean that we should believe all the miracles really happened as stated. That's the problem with the Bible. It reads like a historical novel. On the one hand it is inextricably entangled in real history, but on the other it contains many statements that simply cannot be believed at face value. For example, it is impossible to harmonize the four Gospels into a single unified narrative sequence of literal events. We can't even harmonize the four accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ, so it is not clear how we are supposed to understand the Bible even if we conclude it is not "merely" a story.

[Abigail]

Could you please explain to me the difference between:

1. God, commanding the Hebrew soldiers to slaughter all men, women, and children of a particular race, solely for the purpose of ethnic cleansing.

2. Hitler, commanding his soldiers to slaughter all men, women, and children of a particular race, solely for the purpose of ethnic cleansing.

Rose
God and Hitler are different. God is able to restore life, Hitler has no such abilities.

Abigail

[Rose]

God and Hitler are different. God is able to restore life, Hitler has no such abilities.


1. God, commanding the Hebrew soldiers to slaughter all men, women, and children of a particular race, solely for the purpose of ethnic cleansing.

2. Hitler, commanding his soldiers to slaughter all men, women, and children of a particular race, solely for the purpose of ethnic cleansing.Abigail

Hi Abigail,

I wasn't asking for the difference between God and Hitler, rather what was the difference between the command to slaughter innocent men, women, children, and infants of a particular race for the sole purpose of ethnic cleansing? Both actions are the same....:confused:

Blessings,
Rose

[Abigail]

Hi Abigail,

I wasn't asking for the difference between God and Hitler, rather what was the difference between the command to slaughter innocent men, women, children, and infants of a particular race for the sole purpose of ethnic cleansing? Both actions are the same....:confused:

Blessings,
Rose


:yo:
Firstly I think the difference between Hitler and God is significant as I would think that God, being God, is able to command things that Hitler is not, specifically because God is able to recompense if He short-changed anyone. Hitler is not able to do this.

As for the specific command, how do you know the Canaanites (or whoever) were innocent. we do not have a record of how they were dealt with by God, if they were told to leave the land or what.

Abigail

[Rose]

:yo:
Firstly I think the difference between Hitler and God is significant as I would think that God, being God, is able to command things that Hitler is not, specifically because God is able to recompense if He short-changed anyone. Hitler is not able to do this.

As for the specific command, how do you know the Canaanites (or whoever) were innocent. we do not have a record of how they were dealt with by God, if they were told to leave the land or what.

Abigail

:icon_hello:

Of course God can do whatever he wants, but that is really not the point....and for that matter, God should not be short-changing anyone anyhow!

Secondly, to answer your question on the innocence of the Canaanites; I think the fact that children and infants were slaughtered should settle that point...:eek:

Blessings,
Rose

[joel]

Hi Abigail,

I wasn't asking for the difference between God and Hitler, rather what was the difference between the command to slaughter innocent men, women, children, and infants of a particular race for the sole purpose of ethnic cleansing? Both actions are the same....:confused:

Blessings,
Rose

Rose, there is a significant difference;

1.) In the case of Amalek, God has every right as creator and sovereign to destroy the enemies of Israel in total.

2.) In the case of Hitler, he attempted to destroy Israel.

How can these two cases be compared as equal?

Joel

[Abigail]

:icon_hello:

Of course God can do whatever he wants, but that is really not the point....and for that matter, God should not be short-changing anyone anyhow!

Secondly, to answer your question on the innocence of the Canaanites; I think the fact that children and infants were slaughtered should settle that point...:eek:

Blessings,
Rose
God's category as God is relevant Rose since His doings are more open-ended than a finite person like Hitler. Furthermore [I]if[I] God told the Canaanites to move to other land or their children would end up dying together with themselves, then arguably it would be their own fault their children died if they ignored the warning. There are so many factors we do not know about that time so to draw parallels between God and Hitler is dangerous. What we do know is that the Israelites had a relationship with God and obviously trusted Him enough to follow His directive.

Abigail

[Rose]

God's category as God is relevant Rose since His doings are more open-ended than a finite person like Hitler. Furthermore [I]if[I] God told the Canaanites to move to other land or their children would end up dying together with themselves, then arguably it would be their own fault their children died if they ignored the warning. There are so many factors we do not know about that time so to draw parallels between God and Hitler is dangerous. What we do know is that the Israelites had a relationship with God and obviously trusted Him enough to follow His directive.

Abigail

If the parallel is there to draw from why would it be dangerous? Why didn't God provide more details if they were important to understanding the legitimacy of the slaughter of the innocent? After all it is contained in a book called the word of God which billions of people have read.

There is no biblical record of God telling the Canaanites to leave their own land, the reason the Bible does give for the slaughter is because they were pagans and worshiped other gods. I can find no justification whatsoever for the slaughter of children and infants....killing innocent people is wrong no matter how you look at it, and in this case God supposedly told the Hebrews to do it (according to the biblical record).

Many other peoples have trusted in their own gods and followed what they thought was a prime directive to commit atrocities, but we know they were wrong!


Rose

[joel]

The sovereignty of God is a subject that many may reject.......especially those who embrace the doctrine of "free will"......which cannot be found in scripture. Take for example;

Romans 9:22-23 (Young's Literal Translation)

22And if God, willing to shew the wrath and to make known His power, did endure, in much long suffering, vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,

23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on vessels of kindness, that He before prepared for glory, whom also He did call -- us --

Either what Paul said is absolute truth,....or.....you may discard it as a fabrication, or, some other reason why you don't believe God's Word.

Joel

[Abigail]

If the parallel is there to draw from why would it be dangerous? Well because we are not sure that there is a match in the contexts so dangerous in the sense that it seems more likely to jump to wrong conclusions .



Why didn't God provide more details if they were important to understanding the legitimacy of the slaughter of the innocent? After all it is contained in a book called the word of God which billions of people have read. I have no idea. Maybe that answer will be discovered yet.


There is no biblical record of God telling the Canaanites to leave their own land, the reason the Bible does give for the slaughter is because they were pagans and worshiped other gods. I can find no justification whatsoever for the slaughter of children and infants....killing innocent people is wrong no matter how you look at it, and in this case God supposedly told the Hebrews to do it (according to the biblical record). Those records are of God's dealings with the Israelites specifically, so we have no idea how He interacted with others but in light of Jesus it is IMO reasonable to assume He always had a plan for everyone and therefore likely had undocumented contact with others.


Many other peoples have trusted in their own gods and followed what they thought was a prime directive to commit atrocities, but we know they were wrong!This tells us nothing about whether or not God really did order the Israelites to slaughter what appear to be innocents. (Can you list the scriptures you are thinking of :thumb:)

Abigail

[Rose]

Those records are of God's dealings with the Israelites specifically, so we have no idea how He interacted with others but in light of Jesus it is IMO reasonable to assume He always had a plan for everyone and therefore likely had undocumented contact with others.

This tells us nothing about whether or not God really did order the Israelites to slaughter what appear to be innocents. (Can you list the scriptures you are thinking of :thumb:)

Abigail

Here are a couple examples for starters.

1 Samuel 15:3 Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.

Num.31:15-18 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Rose

[Charles Wade]

Here are two instances neither of you have addressed.
1. The flood and according to our Bible only 8 survived.[many lives
2. The judgment that is coming or the last day.. [more lives]

I have wondered about these.
Would these be moral arguments against God?
Is there a difference ?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here are two instances neither of you have addressed.
1. The flood and according to our Bible only 8 survived.[many lives
2. The judgment that is coming or the last day.. [more lives]

I have wondered about these.
Would these be moral arguments against God?
Is there a difference ?
Good points. But I think the reason those are not addressed is because they are of a totally different character than the commands from God for "his people" to murder innocent babies.

[Bob May]

These things are allegory.
Canaan is the promised land. A land flowing with pre-digested spiritual food. Milk and Honey. Allegory.
The entire bible is telling us to wake up. To stop looking at the surface of this world. Appearances decieve.
Allegory is a literary training for seeing the Spirit in all things. All things are allegorical in nature. An inner and an outer.
Anything that stands in the way of us attaining to full realization of the truth that we are sons of God and fellow heirs with Christ must be destroyed.
These things that stand in the way are our own perceptions and thoughts.
Some large groups of thoughts. Some giants. Some very subtle like serpents.

Is it immoral for the Father to show us we are still sleeping?

Aesop had a fable in which a thirsty crow was unable to drink water from a pitcher because the neck was too narrow. He began picking up stones and dropping them into the pitcher until the water level rose to a height he could reach and he was then able to drink.
Recently crows were actually observed doing just that.

So was Aesop writing a Fable or was he recording what he had actually witnessed?
It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that a dumb animal was smart enough to change the way he looked at a situation in order to find the answer.

Jacob was called the suplanter because he took Esau's birthright and blessing.
What if he was also called the suplanter because he kept taking Israel's place?
Having begun in the Spirit are we now made perfect by the flesh?
Jesus taught the disciples allegory and expounded all of his parables to them in secret. He even scolded them for falling back into their old way of thinking.

Mt 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

Mt 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

[joel]

God creates both good and evil. And He does not sin, nor are any of His acts immoral, or wrong.
God uses evil to produce good. When He uses evil to produce good He does so either directly, or indirectly through an agent, such as the adversary, who is a liar from the beginning, and a man killer.
He is sovereign, and His ultimate goal is to produce good.........to God, good produces good, and evil produces good, even though in the short run, that may not be apparent.
Man attempts to excuse God when inexplicable evil seems to win out. This is a sign of unbelief and is not to be commended.
The most evil act in all of history occurred in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago and was predetermined by God. And from that single evil homocide, all things will be reconciled to God.........the highest good results.
If you don't understand why evil exists, don't discard the scripture where you read about it.......but acknowledge God's sovereignty, and seek for understanding. Look at the good that came out of it if you can.
Otherwise, be like Job who said to his wife who had told him to curse God and die.....shall we not receive from God both good and evil?

Joel

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Here is a website where they discuss the War of Joshua against the Canaanites.

An interestiing point that they make is that Joshua differentiates between 4 different groups of foreigners living in the Land, and these groups are treated very differently.

War of Joshua (http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952781)


Joshua's Conquest: Was It Justified?
Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
Manager, Apologetics & Interfaith Evangelism
North American Mission Board

In a separate article, "Joshua's Conquest: Did It Happen?" I have argued that we have some good reasons to accept the biblical account of the Israelites' conquest of the land of Canaan under Joshua as historically grounded.1 Many critics, however, argue that the idea that God authorized the Israelites to conquer the people of the land and kill not only men but, in some instances, women and children, is immoral, and therefore evidence that the Bible is not inspired. We will focus on this moral objection in this article.

As explained in the other article, the evidence shows that the idea that God wanted the Israelites to wage their war of conquest against Canaan dates from before the Conquest. It was most likely not an after-the-fact theological justification (since the same books portray the conquering Israelites as the children of fearful, rebellious parents who died in the wilderness). The question remains, though: How could such a divine command be morally just?

The Wickedness of the People of Canaan

Critics of the Old Testament's claim that God ordered the killing of whole tribes in Canaan typically neglect the reason expressly stated in the Old Testament: those tribes were depraved beyond redemption (Gen. 15:16; Lev. 18:21-30; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:29-31; etc.). According to the Old Testament, the Canaanites and other tribes in the land widely practiced child sacrifice, incest, bestiality, and other behaviors that almost everyone in history, including today, rightly regard as unspeakably, grossly immoral. If this explanation is even acknowledged, critics often claim that it is a later theological justification for Israel's displacing those peoples from the land. Even many mainstream biblical scholars make this claim.

I have already questioned the conventional wisdom that the wickedness of the peoples of Canaan was an after-the-fact rationalization. However, even if the passages were all composed after the fact, such a response really skirts the issue, which is whether that theological justification was true. If the people of Canaan were akin to the peace-loving, civilized folks of different religions living in our suburban neighborhoods and working in our colleges, hospitals, and fire departments, then the Israelite claim that God had condemned those peoples as hopelessly degenerate would be rightly questioned. On the other hand, if the Canaanites and other peoples in the land were a degenerate society widely practicing bestiality and publicly burning their children to Molech, might not the Old Testament writers have had a point?

In this regard an obvious question to ask is whether these horrifying Old Testament descriptions of Canaanite culture were at all accurate. Not surprisingly, our extra biblical sources of information are still very meager and fragmentary. Archaeology provides much more information about the classical period of antiquity, which corresponds roughly to the biblical postexilic and intertestamental periods, than it does for the second millennium BC. Moreover, the further back in time one goes the more disparate interpretations one gets from the archaeologists themselves. Still, some aspects of the Old Testament descriptions of Canaanite culture, including its religion, have been verified.

One point of special interest is the Canaanite deity Molech, to whom, according to the Old Testament, the local pagan peoples sacrificed their children in burnt offerings. It was fashionable during much of the twentieth century to assert that the Old Testament had this completely wrong. Molech was said not to have been the name of a foreign deity at all, but a ritual term of some sort, and the children were not burned to death but were living participants in harmless rites (perhaps akin to those in modern neopaganism and other forms of nature worship). Several studies in the 1970s and 1980s put this revisionist theory to rest. The scholarly tide began to turn with Morton Smith's 1975 article debunking the fanciful theory that the references to children in the fire were spiritual metaphors.2 John Day's study, published by Cambridge University Press, argued convincingly that Molech was the name given in Canaanite religion to the god of the underworld. He showed that the same deity is mentioned in the Ugaritic writings (MLK), the Mari tablets (Muluk), and in Akkadian records.3

Meanwhile, evidence is trickling in that supports the Old Testament claim that the indigenous peoples of the region were engaged in the practice of child sacrifice. In 1978 an Egyptologist reported that relief pictures on an Egyptian temple showed Canaanite children being sacrificed while their cities were under attack.4 That the Phoenicians, who at one time controlled Canaan, sacrificed children to their gods is well documented. "Archaeologists have recovered the gruesome evidence not only at the great Phoenician city of Carthage (in modern Tunisia), but also in Sicily, Sardonia, and Cyprus" (King and Stager, 361).5 The evidence is not yet a "smoking gun" but is consistent and indirectly supportive of the biblical picture.

Indeed, it is now so clear to biblical scholars that the Old Testament really does refer to child sacrifice and that it really did occur that some liberal scholars are taking a completely different tack. Some are now arguing that child sacrifice was part of the normative religious system of the worship of Yahweh until very late in Old Testament history. The biblical "evidence" for this claim is at best extremely slender and depends on a number of questionable assumptions. The principal text adduced for this dubious theory is Micah 6:6-8.

6Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah,
and bow myself before the high God?
Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings,
with calves a year old?
7Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams,
or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8He hath showed thee, O man, what is good;
and what doth Jehovah require of thee,
but to do justly, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with thy God?
(Micah 6:6-8)

The progression here is not merely from a humbler offering to a more impressive one, as some scholars have argued. Rather, Micah moves from a normative offering under Mosaic law (v. 6) to obvious hyperbole (v. 7a) to an extreme that is not hyperbolic but instead demands a negative response (v. 7b). In short, Micah is asking these rhetorical questions in order to present a reductio ad absurdum rebuttal to the notion that unremitting disobedience to God's demand for justice can be compensated by offering sacrifices. The passage therefore presupposes that sacrificing one's child is already understood to be very wrong.

What these liberal scholars are up to is not hard to see. The guiding assumption in their study of Israelite religion in the Old Testament period is that the Israelites, even at their best, could not have been all that different from their neighbors in Canaan. To concede that the religion of Israel's lawgiver and prophets was of a radically superior character to the religions of the larger culture both morally and spiritually would be fatal to the "methodological naturalism" (to borrow a phrase from the philosophy of science) that has been the presupposition of mainstream biblical scholarship for over a century. From the 1930s to the 1970s, the claim was that child sacrifice in the land was a myth and neither the Israelites nor their Canaanite neighbors engaged in the practice. As further study and new evidence overturned that claim in the 1970s and 1980s, liberal scholars decided that if child sacrifice was happening then everyone must have been doing it, and it must have been an accepted and authorized element even in the worship of Yahweh. To make this theory work requires a highly tendentious reading of the Old Testament, to put it mildly.

Those liberal scholars are partially correct, though: some Israelites sometimes did practice human sacrifice, including the sacrifice of their children. At least two kings are reported to have done so (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). According to the book of Isaiah, the Lord condemned Israel for sacrificing children to their idols (Is. 57:5-9). Jeremiah accused the Jews in Jerusalem of setting up idols in the temple and sacrificing their children in a nearby valley (Jer. 7:30-32; 19:5-6; 32:35). Ezekiel cited the practice as one of the reasons that Judah was plunged into the Babylonian exile (Ezek. 16:20-21; 23:36-39).

Again, the criterion of embarrassment militates against any speculation to the effect that the Israelites never did any such thing as these various biblical authors accused them of doing. We may regard it as historically a given that they did. That being established, we can hardly deny the unanimous testimony of all of these authors that the practice derived from the idolatrous customs of the indigenous peoples of Canaan. Ahaz, we are told, "even sacrificed his son in the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites" (2 Kings 16:3). According to Jeremiah, the Jews sacrificed their children to idols—particularly Baal and Molech (Jer. 7:30-32; 19:5-6; 32:35).

The lesson is surely not hard to discern. Although the Israelites under Joshua gained a measure of dominant control over much of the land of Canaan, they did not eliminate the peoples of Canaan completely and did not cleanse the land thoroughly of the corrupt religious and social practices of the Canaanites. Throughout the periods of the judges, the united monarchy, and the divided monarchy, Baal worship in particular continued to be a problem. One can only imagine how much more difficult it would have been to maintain with integrity any religion of the worship of Yahweh had the Israelites not been as aggressive as they were under Joshua. Elijah's infamously overstated lament that all Israel had abandoned the worship of Yahweh for Baal illustrates just how close Israel came at times to doing just that.

One final point regarding the wickedness of the peoples of Canaan: Moses warned Israel that they were not to claim that God drove out the pagans because Israel was righteous, but must acknowledge that he did so because the pagan nations were so wicked (Deut. 9:4-6). Throughout the Old Testament, the Israelites are told repeatedly that they were not righteous and did not deserve the land and other blessings that God was giving them. They may have been not so far gone as the Canaanites, but they had nothing to brag about as far as their own righteousness was concerned. This consistent denial of the worthiness of Israel really undermines the claim that the Old Testament was expressing some kind of "triumphalism" in attributing the defeat of Israel's enemies to God.

But the Children?

The sharpest criticism of the morality of the Conquest focuses on the Israelites' killing of the youngest children of the indigenous peoples. This is certainly the most difficult aspect of the account for us to understand. Oddly enough, there is no focus on this point at all in the Old Testament. It seems to be clearly enough implied by the statements that Israel left alive nothing that breathed in various cities, no survivors (Deut. 20:16; Josh. 10:29-40; 11:10-15). The book of Joshua states that Israel destroyed the people of Jericho, "both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey" (6:21), which may imply the killing of the babies, depending on how "young and old" is interpreted. So, it does seem that Israel killed young Canaanite children in these battles, though little or no attention is given to that aspect, assuming that is the correct understanding of the above passages.

Since the accounts give so little attention to the issue and no direct explanation for the inclusion of young children in the extermination order, we are left to surmise an explanation indirectly from what information we have. I have two suggestions on this point.

First, after generations of the sort of moral degeneracy that characterized these peoples, it may be that even the smallest children were beyond civilizing. Apparently even they were abused and forced to participate in obscene conduct, such that they would have grown up psychologically and spiritually scarred-and perhaps threatened to perpetuate the cycle.

Second, the STDs and other infectious diseases that must have pervaded those cities may well have been carried by the smallest children, and if so, they may have posed a grave danger to the physical health of the Israelites. Imagine some of the nations today most ravaged by AIDS, but living more than three thousand years ago, with no access to even the most basic medical resources. It may be that infectious diseases were also ravaging the domestic animals in these cities, which would also explain why they were destroyed.

It's horrible to contemplate that things were so bad that it was actually necessary for even the youngest members of that society to be killed in order to stop the generational cycle of degeneracy and disease. But something along these lines seems likely to be the reason for God's order to leave alive nothing that breathed.

Israel's Rules of Engagement

One of the evidences supporting the Old Testament's claim that God had ordered the Israelites to exterminate some of the peoples in the land is that the "rules of engagement" for these conquests did not give the Israelites carte blanche to do whatever they wished. The rules restrained the greed and lust typically exhibited by victors in ancient warfare (and in far too much modern warfare as well) in ways that were far ahead of their time.

God's law in the Pentateuch actually distinguished at least four different categories of non-Israelites and required Israel to act in markedly different ways toward each group. We may call these four categories indigenous peoples, border peoples, protected peoples, and sojourners.

By indigenous peoples I mean the people groups that inhabited the land of Canaan, specified in various texts as the Amorites, Hittites, Girgashites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Gen. 15:19-21; Ex. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23, 28; 34:11; Num. 13:29; Deut. 7:1; 20:17; Josh. 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; Judg. 1:3-5; 3:5;1 Kings 9:20-21; Ezra 9:1; Neh. 9:8). The dominant tribe or nation among these peoples was the Canaanite people, which is why the land was called Canaan and why the Canaanites are mentioned more than any of the others. Israel was required to exterminate the peoples of these tribes, men, women, and children—and in most cases, livestock as well (Num. 21:33-35; Deut. 2:32-34; 3:1-7; 20:16-18; Josh. 6:21; cf. Josh. 8:22-29). The Israelites were explicitly forbidden to take wives from any of these peoples (Deut. 7:1-4). Now, if Israel's claim that God commanded them to conquer Canaan was merely a theological pretext for their own wars of aggression, why did they not allow themselves to take women from those peoples? Why, in most cases, were they not allowed to take and keep livestock? The best explanation for their restraint in these matters was that they believed that God had forbidden them to take women or livestock from the peoples they conquered in the land. Such restraint—remarkable in that ancient culture—is evidence that their belief that God had ordered the conquest was quite sincere.

We might note that the command to wipe out these peoples did allow for exceptions. The obvious example is that of Rahab and her family, who were residents of Jericho. In return for her help, and in response to her plea for mercy, Joshua's two spies promised Rahab that she and her whole family would be spared when the Israelites destroyed Jericho (Josh. 2:8-21), a promise Joshua honored (6:17, 22-23, 25).

Border peoples lived in cities and villages on the outer edges of Canaan, who were not part of the seven or so indigenous tribes of Canaan. Cities outside the region inhabited by the Canaanites and other condemned peoples, but within the land designated as belonging to Israel, were first to be offered terms of peace, in which its people would become forced labor and serve the Israelites. If a city refused, Israel was to make war against it, kill all its men, and allow the women and children to live (Deut. 20:10-15). The distinction drawn between the outlying cities of the land and the cities of the Canaanites and other peoples clustered within the land reflects the belief that the indigenous peoples were too far gone to be shown any mercy, while other people groups were not deemed similarly degenerate.

The protected peoples were tribes or nations in the region that Israel was to leave alone. The most significant of these was Edom. When Israel sought to pass through the territory of Edom—even promising to pay for the use of its water—and Edom refused, Israel simply went another way (Num. 20:14-21). Yet when Sihon, the king of the Amorites, refused to grant the Israelites safe passage, Israel conquered and possessed the Amorite cities (Num. 21:21-32), destroying every man, woman, and child (Deut. 2:32-34). The reason for the differing treatments was that Israel considered the Edomites (who were descendants of Jacob's brother Esau) brothers (Num. 20:14).

Sojourners were individuals or families whose tribal origins were from outside the land but who had immigrated into the land of Canaan. The Old Testament refers to such persons as sojourners, aliens, or strangers (the terms are roughly if not entirely synonymous). Israelites were forbidden to wrong a stranger or oppress him (Ex. 22:21; 23:9). Anyone who took the life of any human being was to be executed; this standard applied for the stranger as well as the native (Lev. 24:17-22). Sojourners were to be permitted to offer sacrifices to the Lord; again, the point was made that the law was to be the same for the Israelites and the sojourners (Num. 15:14-16). Israelites were to love the alien, remembering that God loves aliens and that they were aliens in Egypt (Deut. 10:18-19). Israelites were not to pervert justice due to an alien (Deut. 24:17-18). Clearly, the Mosaic Law was not xenophobic (expressing fear or animosity toward people of other races). Since such sojourners were not part of the degenerate culture of Canaan, they were to be welcomed into Israelite society and placed under the same laws as Israelites.

[Abigail]

Here are a couple examples for starters.
[INDENT]1 Samuel 15:3 Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.

A few points to note:
1. The Amalekites had been plundering the Israelites - 1 Samuel 14:48
2. The Kenites who had shown kindness to the Israel were themselves shown mercy - 1 Samuel 15:6
3. Saul decided to spare the king and livestock but there is no record of him attempting to spare innocents in order to plead their case with God. King David had a lot of faults but he is shown as compassionate as seen in 1 Samuel 24 (whole chapter)

Abigail

[Abigail]

Num.31:15-18 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

[/INDENT]Rose

This passage has a lot going on in it and can in some ways be described as having all the pathos of a greek tragedy since we immediately identify with the suffering of those who seem to be caught up through circumstances they had no control over. The young boys seem to be representative of physical corruption and the women who had been intimate (and thereby become contaminated) seem to be representative of relational corruption. These are the categories Christ came to fix - redeem the flesh(physical) and bring truth.

Abigail

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Joel said :

God creates both good and evil. And He does not sin, nor are any of His acts immoral, or wrong.
God uses evil to produce good. When He uses evil to produce good He does so either directly, or indirectly through an agent, such as the adversary, who is a liar from the beginning, and a man killer.
He is sovereign, and His ultimate goal is to produce good.........to God, good produces good, and evil produces good, even though in the short run, that may not be apparent.
Man attempts to excuse God when inexplicable evil seems to win out. This is a sign of unbelief and is not to be commended.
The most evil act in all of history occurred in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago and was predetermined by God. And from that single evil homocide, all things will be reconciled to God.........the highest good results.
If you don't understand why evil exists, don't discard the scripture where you read about it.......but acknowledge God's sovereignty, and seek for understanding. Look at the good that came out of it if you can.
Otherwise, be like Job who said to his wife who had told him to curse God and die.....shall we not receive from God both good and evil?

Joel


I agree that God often seems to use evil for good ends. For example, the final judgement and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was brought about by the Romans, so here God was using the Romans as an instrument.

Similarly God used the Babylonians to punish the Jews, and appointed Cyrus to free the Jews from Babylonian captivity.

Craig

[Rose]

Here is a website where they discuss the War of Joshua against the Canaanites.

An interestiing point that they make is that Joshua differentiates between 4 different groups of foreigners living in the Land, and these groups are treated very differently.

War of Joshua (http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952781)

Hi Craig,

Thanks for the link...:signthankspin:
I went to Robert Bowman's article "Joshua's Conquest: Was it Justified?" and I must say I was once again deeply saddened and disappointed by his attempt to justify the slaughter of the innocent.

1. What a sorry state Christian apologetic's has come to when a person must stoop to using STD's and other infectious diseases as an excuse for killing children and infants, also why in the case of Num.31 were the virgin girls allowed to remain alive and given to the men for sex slaves?

2. Why would any rational person try and justify the slaughter of the innocent because those people are sacrificing their children to Molech? Is that the way justice is meted out....killing innocent for innocent?

3. Why would particular races of people be picked out for slaughter because of their wickedness when all the peoples on the planet at that time were worshiping pagan gods of one form or another, and most involved some type of human sacrifice.

4. Why was the land of Canaan picked for the "Promised Land" when it is said the land itself was defiled and would vomit out its people, besides the fact that the land already belonged to the Canaanites? I'm sure there was plenty of free land available for the Hebrews to dwell in without stealing someone's land.

5. It is made abundantly clear in the Bible that the Hebrews were far from perfect and they continually did wicked deeds in the eyes of God, yet it seems like when they were punished it was always a deferred punishment that came down upon the heads of those in future generations who had not participated in those particular evil deeds for which they were punished. I'm sure glad our judicial system does not work that way!


These are just a few of the things I have problems with. All in all the Old Testament contains many accounts that are no more than a jumbled up mass of confusion, and to try and figure them out it an impossible task...:dizzy:

Rose

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Hi Rose,

Here is a table of links to articles that shed more light on the Conquest.

Table of Articles (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12034)

[Rose]

Hi Rose,

Here is a table of links to articles that shed more light on the Conquest.

Table of Articles (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12034)

Thanks again for the additional links, I am in the process of looking them over.

I have come to the conclusion that no matter what justification apologists try to come up with, a couple facts remain.

1. The slaughter of the innocent is always wrong

2. The Bible gives far too little information for anyone to be able to accurately defend any account without being forced to speculate on a scale that is so vast there is no way to ever really know what happened.

Rose

[Craig.Paardekooper]

Thanks again for the additional links, I am in the process of looking them over.

I have come to the conclusion that no matter what justification apologists try to come up with, a couple facts remain.

1. The slaughter of the innocent is always wrong

2. The Bible gives far too little information for anyone to be able to accurately defend any account without being forced to speculate on a scale that is so vast there is no way to ever really know what happened.

Rose


I am starting from the position that Jesus accepted the Torah as true. So there MUST be a moral reason for God commanding those things. It is just a matter of time before I find the reason.

Craig

[Twospirits]

Craig.Paardekooper wrote,

I am starting from the position that Jesus accepted the Torah as true. So there MUST be a moral reason for God commanding those things. It is just a matter of time before I find the reason.


Say Craig, on the Tables of article links you posted, read William Craig Lane http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767 I found it quite reasonable as to why God commanded those things. Just my two cents on it.

Part of Article


Prior to Israel’s bondage in Egypt, God tells Abraham,

“Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. . . . And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites [one of the Canaanite clans] is not yet complete” (Gen. 15. 13, 16).

Think of it! God stays His judgement of the Canaanite clans 400 years because their wickedness had not reached the point of intolerability! This is the long-suffering God we know in the Hebrew Scriptures. He even allows his own chosen people to languish in slavery for four centuries before determining that the Canaanite peoples are ripe for judgement and calling His people forth from Egypt.

By the time of their destruction, Canaanite culture was, in fact, debauched and cruel, embracing such practices as ritual prostitution and even child sacrifice. The Canaanites are to be destroyed “that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God” (Deut. 20.18). God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.

God bless---Twospirits

[Rose]

I am starting from the position that Jesus accepted the Torah as true. So there MUST be a moral reason for God commanding those things. It is just a matter of time before I find the reason.

Craig

I wish you all the luck in the world, but I have little hope that you will find a valid reason. For thousands of years, billions of eyes have searched the Scriptures to find answers to these very questions we are asking. The reason that these questions cannot be answered is because there is not enough information recorded to accurately decipher the "why's" and "wherefore's"....they have been lost to history.

As I have alluded to before, the direction I am leaning towards in understanding the meaning behind the apparent intelligent design of Scripture is that of a collection of symbolic archetypes, manifest through metaphors and analogies of the human experience recorded in the Bible.

Rose

[Rose]

Say Craig, on the Tables of article links you posted, read William Craig Lane http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767 I found it quite reasonable as to why God commanded those things. Just my two cents on it.

Part of Article



God bless---Twospirits

I took a quick read through Craig's article and he could have saved himself a lot of words by simply declaring God is God and he can do whatever he wants! His whole article was one of justification.

William Lane Craigs moral argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

One of the big glaring problems I have with William Lane Craig's moral argument is:

1. Objective moral values do exist outside of whether or not God exists. For example: Before I learned of God I had innate moral values with which I judged the acts in the OT to be morally wrong....does that mean I am morally better than God?


Rose

[CWH]

Hey there Craig, :yo:

You wrote:
I think that as fellow Christians we should engage ourselves in trying to increase each others faiths by providing positive evidences to one another, rather than trying to undermine the little belief that anyone currently has.
I think there is a fundamental flaw in your suggestion. It is very deceptive to present only one side of an argument, and authentic faith cannot be built on such a weak foundation. The best approach is to provide all the evidence both for and against a position, because only then will a person be in a position to make an accurate judgment. Only then can a person have genuine confidence concerning their faith.

This problem is particularly prominent in the field of religion because people are routinely taught to ignore the intellect and to simply "believe" and to accept dogmas "by faith." How then do we discern between the truth of God and the dogmas invented by men to enslave our minds? We have no choice - we must engage our minds to the fullest extent to discern truth. If the evidence for Christianity so weak that we must avoid the skeptical approach, then we have already lost the argument. No person with a properly functioning mind will believe in something that cannot stand under scrutiny.

Now I find it very interesting that you attack the "skeptical" mind as if it were a moral failure. Skepticism is an essential attitude for anyone searching for the truth. What hope would a Muslim or Mormon have if they were not skeptical of the beliefs they inherited?

As for the "evidence" of the resurrection used in popular Christian apologetics - I never found those arguments convincing, even in my most fundamentalist days when I described myself as a "blood-bought Bible-believing Trinitarian Christian." They seem convincing only to those already convinced. History has too many uncertainties, and there are too many other possible explanations to convince anyone not already inclined towards belief. That's the problem with that whole style of argumentation. Such arguments can never actually prove anything.

Another huge problem is that the Bible is filled with stories of supernatural events that seem utterly unbelievable to the modern mind, so the idea of the resurrection doesn't really sound much different than the than the story of Christ walking on water or the talking snake. The world is filled with ancient literature making unbelievable claims, and the Bible inevitably falls into that general class. But there is one important difference - the Bible is much more firmly grounded in what sounds like "real history" than many of the other religious texts, and this makes belief possible for those so inclined. But it is not sufficiently different to form convincing arguments to compel skeptics to believe.

And finally, your suggestion that we should only provide "positive evidences" is actually destructive to the cause of Christianity because the lack of critical thinking allows the evidence to degrade until it begins to appear patently absurd to outside skeptics. We end up just "preaching to the choir."

I know you think I am being "too skeptical" but I disagree. I'm just speaking truth as I see it. I still acknowledge the various lines of evidence for the Bible. I am not one-sided on this at all. I really enjoy talking about these things and searching out the authentic truth. Remember, truth can never be threatened by skepticism. On the contrary, truth shines most brightly under a skeptical light.

All the best,

Richard

That's the problem with "skeptic' minds; scientists in the 19th century declared that atomic weapon can never be built; they claimed that heavier than air flying machines can never be built, and in the end they have to swallow their words.

What I am saying here is that it is ok to be skeptical but not ok to say this is impossible. To God anything is possible. Man had to learn from God's creation in order to understand aerodynamics and fusion energy. If God can do anything, the miracles in the Bible cannot be said to be impossible. One day I believe as technology advances, we will be able to do many miracles that was performed in the Bible which currently we are unable. In fact, there are a few miracles that were done in the NT that are currently technically possible such as walking on the water (using floats attached to the feet or using water waklng ball) and travelling in a "cloud" (of gases).

http://www.topnews.in/files/water-walking.jpg

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/3428900/Hulton-Archive

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/96FB2401-CA94-2147-BB31815440ED7FE7_1.jpg

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That's the problem with "skeptic' minds; scientists in the 19th century declared that atomic weapon can never be built; they claimed that heavier than air flying machines can never be built, and in the end they have to swallow their words.

You've got things backwards Cheow. It is not "skeptical" to declare things that you don't know and can't prove. On the contrary, it is the mind of the "believer" that is taught to declare things that are not proven or provable.

And where did you get the idea that 19th century "scientists" made any declarations about atomic weapons? That sounds like a strange urban legend. The basics of atomic theory were not discovered until early in the 20th century. It was Einstein's relation E = mc^2 published in 1905 that led to the idea of an atomic bomb. But even if some fool made some stupid statement about something he didn't know, that certainly says nothing about the meaning of being a "skeptic."

You seem to be missing the point. You are plenty skeptical about Preterism, right? So being "skeptical" is something you do when it suits you. I would recommend you adopt skepticism as a general practice concerning everything you believe. How else will you ever really know if your beliefs are valid?



What I am saying here is that it is ok to be skeptical but not ok to say this is impossible. To God anything is possible. Man had to learn from God's creation in order to understand aerodynamics and fusion energy. If God can do anything, the miracles in the Bible cannot be said to be impossible.

Who said anything about miracles being impossible? I never said anything about them being impossible. But I can say that they do not, in general, actually happen! We know this because God never answers the prayers of amputees.



One day I believe as technology advances, we will be able to do many miracles that was performed in the Bible which currently we are unable. In fact, there are a few miracles that were done in the NT that are currently technically possible such as walking on the water (using floats attached to the feet or using water waklng ball) and travelling in a "cloud" (of gases).

http://www.topnews.in/files/water-walking.jpg



The bubble on water has absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical miracle of Christ walking on water. The whole concept of a "miracle" is that it is something that happens NOT in accordance with natural laws. Your suggestion to explain miracles by advanced technology contradicts the definition of "miracle."

All the best.