Belief versus Piety

[At Peace]

Yes he is... everyday.

Why?
Jesus provided a way to kill the flesh, with the affections and lusts. (Gal 5:24)

Luke 9:23; And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.

Jesus wasn't talking to Christians, but to Jewish men still in the flesh.
You should have included the next verse too..."For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."
You are "saving your life", and shall lose it.

Rom 8:13; for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

You have the luxury of a bible interpretation that colludes to keep you in the flesh.
Your "putting to death" is my "mortify"..."keep dead".
As you already affirmed that you still are "living according to the flesh", you must die.

1 Cor 15:31; I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

Keeping the "flesh" dead is a full time job, accomplishable only to those who have been given the Spirit of God.

BTW, Jesus said the truth could free you from committing sin; in John 8:32-34.
Do you want to know what the truth is?

 

[Kirby D. P.]

...Taking blankets statements is difficult. I wonder if you can give a specific passage about
some of these monstrous ways.

HEY B-A-C! Great to ‘see’ you.

First, I absolutely appreciate that neither At Peace nor you, yourself, nor any individual speaks or worships exactly according to one identical creed followed by all who self-identify as Christian. I am always interested in as many perspectives as I can sample.

As for objectionable scripture, I’ll give you two passages I just cannot, twist and twist them though I might, see as anything other than monstrous.

First, the Hebrew army under Joshua’s treatment of Jericho, as related in Joshua 6:21 (KJV).

“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”

You may recall my mentioning an upbringing with a Jewish background. For me, a signal and singular event in Jewish and human history was (no surprise) the Holocaust. Yet it has never dawned on me that an ethical response to the Holocaust would have been the utter extermination of all “Germans” (whatever the heck that means), nor all card-carrying Nazis (like Pope Benedict in his youth), nor all the inhabitants of any German town, nor even a single child of Nazi parents at the end of WWII.

A strict reading of the text of Josh 6:21 depicts what I consider an immoral event. Even if it exaggerates, the fact of its treatment in scripture, and the fact that scripture is held forth as a moral guide, is (to me) ITSELF immoral. I have heard lots, and LOTS of apologia striving to frame it as anything other than a sheer horror. As yet, I have never encountered any interpretation that attenuates my sense of that horror.

Second is Psalm 137. I harbor special spleen for this abominable rhyme because, during my youthful religious education, my Sunday school classmates and I were taught its opening verses as a beautiful and poignant song expressing the homesick heartache of the Hebrew people during the Babylonian exile. We learned it as an exquisite, 3-part round, the lyrics of which being (updated for modern chorale), “By the waters, the waters of Babylon, we lay down and wept, and wept for thee, Zion. We remember, we remember, we remember thee, Zion.”

Odd, for all the liturgy and catechism we learned (and I attended from age 7 to age 15) they never bothered teaching us the REST of that particular psalm. And it never occurred to me to look it up myself until well into adulthood. Imagine my revulsion when, at the age of 30-something, I first read the words of Psalm 137:9 (KJV): “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

Excuse me? Er… hm, whu? Are you serious?

Now, admittedly, this is only a hypothetical infanticide –– the pipe dreams of Hebrews merely looking forward to that happy day when they will be able to murder Babylonian babies.

To me, it does not matter there may be some deeper, more sage and obscure significance to this verse that does not commend and validate the notion of exterminating the offspring of one’s enemies. I have never encountered ANY apologetic that adequately prevents use of this verse as a fiat for one type of inexcusably monstrous behavior. And that, by itself, is (to me) reason enough to find the Bible morally lacking.

Do you have any thoughts as to any deficiency in my apprehension of these examples?

 

[Kirby D. P.]

...Do you have some personal connection to the Midianites who were killed in Num 31?
Perhaps you are the fruit of the union of Midianite girl and Jewish husband?...

Please don’t take this as me splitting hairs, but I do not avoid governance by (to me) demonstrably just authority.

I DO INDEED enjoy a personal connection with Midianites. I enjoy a personal connection with ALL earthly living things. Assuming Midianites were humans, my connection with them is even closer than with most other living creatures.

But, even were I to sink to mere tribal affiliation as a reason for any sense of moral connection, Moses’s wife Zipporah was a Midianite. (And, believe me, I would give my eye teeth to have been a fly on the wall of Moses’s Thanksgiving dinner the year after the Midianite genocide. AWKWARD.) I am not fully educated on my own Jewish genealogy, but I DO know for certain I am no Cohain. Which means there is a 1/11 chance that I am a Levite (descended of Moses’s own tribe), hence there may be a 9% chance I am at least half Midianite. I accept there is a 1/10,000 chance I will die in a car crash on American roads each year. But (aside from straightforward human morality) I don’t like the odds of consigning an entire people to genocide if there is even a 1/11 chance they happen to be my close cousins. Indeed, one of the reasons I enjoy being human is my intensely developed human senses of compassion and empathy. Not even if the odds were 1/11,000,000,000. If I support saving the whales, it would be inconsistent (and immoral) of me not to support saving the Midianites.

I’ll forebear critiquing your own personal reasons for acting in a humane, moral, and compassionate way, and simply appreciate that you do. Don’t worry that I might not behave so if you find my own reasons for doing so spiritually lacking. That won’t affect whether I do or not. You are human. And, for me, that is enough to accord you the full symphony of human rights.

 

[B-A-C]

Ah yes, Johua and the battle of Jericho. I thought that might be one of them

Numb 13:28; "Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large; and moreover, we saw the descendants of Anak there.

Num 13:31; But the men who had gone up with him said, "We are not able to go up against the people, for they are too strong for us."
Num 13:32; So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size.

Num 13:33; "There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

Verse 28 says.... "we saw the descendents of Anak"... more about them later.
Verse 32 says.... these "are men of great size"
Verse 33 says.... We saw the Nephilim (giants) the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim. We were like grasshoppers to them.

The sons of Anak.. (the Anakim)
Deut 9:2; a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know and of whom you have heard it said, 'Who can stand before the sons of Anak?'

As I mentioned earlier. The inhabitants of Jericho were giants, the off-spring of fallen angels and human women.
God never intended for this to happen. And since they were living in the land promised to the Jews... why not "kill"
two birds with one stone (pun intended).

If Giants would have continued populating the earth. There probably wouldn;t be any human left today without God's "intervention".

 

[B-A-C]

Psa 137:6; May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth If I do not remember you, If I do not exalt Jerusalem Above my chief joy.
Psa 137:7; Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom The day of Jerusalem, Who said, "Raze it, raze it To its very foundation."
Psa 137:8; O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
Psa 137:9; How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

Remember Babylon destroyed and razed Jerusalem before this time. ( 2 Kings 20-25) Many women and children of the Jews were killed.
My family can relate. I had great grand-fathers in France killed by the Germans in WW1.
I had a grand-father and a great uncle in WW2. One killed by Nazi's and one killed the Japanese.
My father fought in both the Korean war and Vietnam. I had family join the military just for revenge.

The Japanese bombed Pearl harbor without provocation. Killed thousand of people there.
If it was your family you wouldn't retaliate?
Hitler killled 7 million Jews. It is unknown how many Babylon killed. If it was you, you wouldn't want revenge?

 

[B-A-C]

Gen 6:2; that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Gen 6:3; Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
Gen 6:4; The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Notice the language in verse 6. The sons of "God".. came into the daughters of "men".
If they were all angels... it would have said "daughters of God". ( I know of no verse with female angels)
If they were all humans, it would have said "sons of men".

Jude 1:6; And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
Jude 1:7; just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

i.e. flesh not of their own type.

 

[At Peace]

Please don’t take this as me splitting hairs, but I do not avoid governance by (to me) demonstrably just authority.

I DO INDEED enjoy a personal connection with Midianites. I enjoy a personal connection with ALL earthly living things. Assuming Midianites were humans, my connection with them is even closer than with most other living creatures.

But, even were I to sink to mere tribal affiliation as a reason for any sense of moral connection, Moses’s wife Zipporah was a Midianite. (And, believe me, I would give my eye teeth to have been a fly on the wall of Moses’s Thanksgiving dinner the year after the Midianite genocide. AWKWARD.) I am not fully educated on my own Jewish genealogy, but I DO know for certain I am no Cohain. Which means there is a 1/11 chance that I am a Levite (descended of Moses’s own tribe), hence there may be a 9% chance I am at least half Midianite. I accept there is a 1/10,000 chance I will die in a car crash on American roads each year. But (aside from straightforward human morality) I don’t like the odds of consigning an entire people to genocide if there is even a 1/11 chance they happen to be my close cousins. Indeed, one of the reasons I enjoy being human is my intensely developed human senses of compassion and empathy. Not even if the odds were 1/11,000,000,000. If I support saving the whales, it would be inconsistent (and immoral) of me not to support saving the Midianites.

I’ll forebear critiquing your own personal reasons for acting in a humane, moral, and compassionate way, and simply appreciate that you do. Don’t worry that I might not behave so if you find my own reasons for doing so spiritually lacking. That won’t affect whether I do or not. You are human. And, for me, that is enough to accord you the full symphony of human rights.

You've shown such compassion on those who have lost their lives, but don't consider the judgement that will follow...including a second death.
You seem to desire mercy on the now dead, but don't know how to show mercy to those who will suffer the second death.
Why not advocate for them?
Why not inform them of the way to live forever?
Your mercy is addressed to the skin, but mine is to the soul.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

...If it was you, you wouldn't want revenge?

I had two grandfathers and sundry great uncles who fought in World War II. They all emerged alive. However, all members (that we know of), but 3, of our family who were still living in Europe at the time did not. We don’t know anything more specific than that because the three survivors were a brother and two sisters who managed to escape a death camp and somehow survive in hiding in the woods until war’s end. They are still alive today, but were too young at the time to really know how many people are represented in the phrase “everyone else in the family.” Despite all that, I have never known any of my relatives, including those survivors, who expressed any desire for vengeance upon any segment of the German or Polish (The camp they were taken to was in Poland.) peoples for that slaughter. Prior to the Third Reich’s formulation of the Final Solution, the German war effort employed a corps of

Einsatzgruppen, German paramilitary units tasked with seizing and executing Jews and other undesirables on site. By contrast the victorious Americans did not seize Germans who were Nazis nor even suspected participants in the Einsatzgruppen program for extrajudicial summary execution. Instead there was an acknowledgment that war entails bloodshed and no collective punishment was appropriate with the cessation of hostilities. The Nurenberg tribunals were established and sought diligently, if imperfectly, to determine and administer justice. The power of this contrast crystallized for me when I saw an interview with a Jewish American WWII vet who took part in the liberation of one of the concentration camps. He was a conscript GI and his CO (I can’t remember if it was a captain or a lieutenant) told him that if he wanted to take one or more of the capture Germans and shoot them, the officer would not report it, that he understood if the Jewish GI wanted vengeance. The soldier took great offense and exclaimed, “No. Why would I want to do that, Sir?” The officer replied, “Why wouldn’t you?“ The soldier said, “because I’m not a Nazi.“

The Rwanda genocide was the most “efficient“ genocide in recorded history in the sense that, per capita, it slaughtered more victims more quickly then the similar ethnic cleansings of World War II, East Timor, Cambodia, etc. yet the Hutus and the Tutsis of Rwanda have deliberately pursued a policy of reconciliation rather than vengeance.

I am certain that, while conquering Jerusalem, the Babylonians caused a great deal of evil bloodshed. Their gory reputation extends far beyond just the descriptions of them in the Bible. But obviously I am living proof they did not commit utter annihilation (which I actually don’t think, based on other historical accounts, was their particular policy of empire). Just as I am living proof that Hitler failed to achieve his own goal. Could I possibly be provoked to want genocidal vengeance? Probably. I’d be surprised if that were impossible. But, to me, the moral thing for an omnipotent God to do would be to charge Kirby with forbearance and command that whatever action I take it be just. That is a squishy standard I admit, human justice being different things in different ages, but to my 21st century sensibilities, genocide is never ever ever just.

I consider many aspects of the Bible to be inconsistent and contradictory. But one thing I’ll admit it is explicitly consistent upon is the acceptance of, sanction of, and even commandment to commit this crime which by almost any standard is worse than wars of conquest. So you’ll forgive me that I consider the verses you have cited in your previous comment as evidence in support of my overall point.

Is it possible that a supposedly unchanging God might once have deemed genocide as acceptable, but no longer does? Perhaps. But I still do not consider that a description of a reliably moral being, and if that consigns me to an eternity being tortured in some lake of fire I will just have to accept that knowing my individual punishment is no more unjust than the organized, industrialized, wholesale torture, enslavement and murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

...Why not inform them of the way to live forever?
...

Since I remain unconvinced of any afterlife, second death, eternal reward or punishment, it would be dishonest of me to advocate others to behave as if these things exist.

As I hope I have already made clear, I entertain no fear whatsoever in the prospect of my own damnation. Or, at the very least, it gives me less concern that the inevitability of my earthly death.

I’m definitely in no hurry to die. In fact, since a do not hold out any hope there is anything beyond that destruction, I am very precious about every moment I do have.

But neither do I evangelize my atheism. Or, at least, I hope you don’t feel I have been trying to convert you. I strike up these dialogs (A) because, since I know how very imperfect I am, I think it would be incredibly reckless not to make absolutely sure there isn’t something to the faith in an afterlife held by so many of my fellow humans; and (B) religious people are often incredulous at my atheism and entertain a lot of misconceptions about my lack of faith. To the extent I can dispel and correct some of those misconceptions, I’m convinced it will be for the common good.

For instance, I don’t, as rule, eat babies. Well, not raw ones anyway.

>

 

[B-A-C]

For instance, I don’t, as rule, eat babies. Well, not raw ones anyway.

I know this is meant as a joke (it is funny).
But you bring up a good point here. How many millions of babies have been aborted in the US in the last 20 years?

Is this Gods fault? Or mostly "non-Christians" that advocate this?
You blame God for things you don't agree with. But do you agree with everything the world does?

 

[Kirby D. P.]

...How many millions of babies have been aborted in the US in the last 20 years?...

I don’t know if this is a path of conversation you’ll much enjoy. I will describe my opinion on this topic and hope you don’t take it with any malice. It is certainly not sent with any.

I do not consider abortion an act of murder. Under normal, clinically appropriate circumstances, I do not even consider it immoral.

As far as I have been able to understand it, no matter how long ago, nor how many times it happened and then failed, life on Earth no longer ever “begins.” Life exists. I do not consider “conception” a moment of supposed ensoulment. The English, biological meaning of “conception” is common vernacular, but it isn’t actually an accepted scientific term or concept in modern medicine. What we call conception, in earthly sexual reproduction, is a multifarious process of fertilization when two gametes merge to form a viable zygote and, hence, fetus. Just layperson resources, such as Wikipedia, list dozens of stages in human sexual fertilization. If there is one moment of “ensoulment,” it must occur by the time the united zygote is completely formed. So, is that moment at the conclusion of sexual intercourse? When the ***** has made its way to the ovum (hours later)? At the moment when the ovum admits one and only one ***** within its membrane? At the onset of genetic mitosis? At its completion? I have never discovered any clear hypothesis that clears up this rather vital understanding.

I do not ascribe to any person with the entire suite of legal and moral human rights until their time of birth. In matters of law and common usage, the most reasonable strategy seems to me to act as if a developing fetus accumulates certain legal and moral rights according to its level of development – an approach adopted by most first world countries as I understand it.

In any case, I do not consider any fetus that is not sufficiently developed to viably survive outside the womb to be a “person.” This consideration is tragically irregular as a newborn’s viability greatly depends on the social and medical conditions the child is born into. Yet another case in which the wealthy are unfairly advantaged over the poor.

I am also adamant that a woman deserves absolute and complete autonomy over her own body, and I have yet to hear any compelling ethical argument that any person should be forced to preserve the life support of another person against their will for 9 months, only then to endure childbirth and, usually, the burden of childrearing.

Until very recently, I used to be a bit more open-minded and philosophical on these points. Maybe a case could be made for denying abortions to pregnant women whose fetuses are mature enough to be independently viable? “Maybe,” I used to admit.

But recently I came across some facts (which I verified to the best of my ability and to my own satisfaction) that makes withholding of access to abortion a no-starter for me.

Maternal mortality (death of a mother in childbirth) in the US is depressingly higher than it is in other developed countries. (The ethics of our horribly inept healthcare system is a conversation for another time.) Because it is so high, and because modern abortion is such a relatively safe medical procedure, an American woman is 400 times more likely to die in childbirth rather than having an abortion. Not 400% (4 times). 400 TIMES.

My wife and I have the two most amazing kids in the world. In order to have them, I feel safe in saying my wife would have dared death 10x10x10x400 more times than to not have them. But I could not live with myself if I ASKED her (much less REQUIRED or FORCED her) to carry their pregnancies to term rather than not.

So there’s my “biopolitics” on the table. If you see any chink in my reasoning, I am open to discussing any of it. Also, if you can’t believe this weird, stark statistic I cite, please check my work. It was honestly jarring when I came to it and my math sucks. I couldn’t find any particular study that made the comparison (though I definitely think one should be conducted). But it was relatively easy to find the pertinent data on the two procedures and compare the stats.

I accept most of the other common wisdom in support of access to abortion: it conveys a host of more positive medical and economic outcomes for women; The Ordeal of Bitter Water, and several other passages in scripture, convincingly refutes any biblical basis to outlaw abortion, etc., etc. But, for me, that’s all window dressing.

 

[Christ4Ever]

As I hope I have already made clear, I entertain no fear whatsoever in the prospect of my own damnation. Or, at the very least, it gives me less concern that the inevitability of my earthly death.

You may apparently not be concerned for a tomorrow, but we are for you. Especially in a telling that may or should I say will mean very little to you outside of the intellectual exercise it provides.

"There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 "But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, "desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.' "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 'for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' "And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' "But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' " Luke 16:19-31

This can be taken in many different ways. Yet, for me to you that foregoing no change, you will know a never ending regret. When for all that you have, or may have, the unfathomable of Eternity in Wonder will lie in only in sorrow, due to a willingness in choosing an exercise that moves one away and not towards God. Realizing that this is, if you did believe, not a God you could believe in doesn't change the condition awaiting the one who fails to act upon what they have heard, regardless of the reasoning used as justification.

We have all been at one time or another obstinate in our unbelief. At least to a moment in time that changed it all. Still I do not give up on you and continue to pray for you. Now and again. That you too may have that moment in time to always rejoice in amazement for. I also include that we too will share in this who now read your disaffirmation in Him our Lord Jesus Christ, and Son of God.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick

 

[MadHermit]

Kirby D. P.: "These two heretical characteristics are:
"1. I do not believe in the existence of any god. (BTW, I do not argue there isn’t, or cannot be, any such thing as a god. I have simply never been convinced in the existence of one.)"

In life theological understanding is the booby prize because it offers just enough spirituality to inoculate you against the real thing--self-authenticating spiritual experience of the divine. Theological arguments are only as valid as their assumptions, and our assumptions are shaped by our experience.
So spiritual experience is logical prior to fact gathering in a Christian vs. atheist debate.
Here is a first step I'd suggest: in the Bible Jesus promises to enter our hearts if we open its door for mutual spiritual nourishment and God promises we can find Him if we seek Him with all our heart. So try this extended experiment. On a regular basis, invite God to make Himself real to you in a loving way and then simply listen with an open mind. There are x keys here: (1) Honestly promise God that if He does make Himself real to you, you will obey and serve Him with all your heart. (2) Regularly listen for His approach, but neither pass judgment on His silence nor try to make an experience happen. Trying implies doubt and ensures failure. (3) Recognize that the expected new inner knowing is often delayed and takes the honest seeker by surprise. C. S. Lewis, whom I quote below, was an atheist Oxford Classics professor whose conversion happened while he was being driven to Whipsnade Zoo. He didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God when he entered the car, but when he arrived at the zoo, he did. Yet he notes that he wasn't engaged in thought about God en route!

2. "And I do not find the edicts of God, as described in any Judeo-Christian scripture, to be moral, consistent, or just."

I would wonder if you quest has been harmed by misrepresentations of divine edicts in Scripture. e. g.
(1) Famed Oxford Christian author, C. S. Lewis, once said, "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside," meaning God sends no one to Hell; rather they gravitate there on the basis of the principle like attracts like.
(2) St. Paul teaches the possibility that those who have never heard the Gospel can be saved.
(3) As far as the violent conquest of the ancient Israelites is concerned, God twice expresses His vision of a world in which warcraft is no longer even studied. Don't confuse wonton Israelite violence with God's edicts. On the other hand, Israel needed a new place to stay after their divinely aided escape from Egyptian slavery and they surely had a right to protect themselves against hostile neighboring tribes.

 

[At Peace]

Since I remain unconvinced of any afterlife, second death, eternal reward or punishment, it would be dishonest of me to advocate others to behave as if these things exist.

As I hope I have already made clear, I entertain no fear whatsoever in the prospect of my own damnation. Or, at the very least, it gives me less concern that the inevitability of my earthly death.

I’m definitely in no hurry to die. In fact, since a do not hold out any hope there is anything beyond that destruction, I am very precious about every moment I do have.

But neither do I evangelize my atheism. Or, at least, I hope you don’t feel I have been trying to convert you. I strike up these dialogs (A) because, since I know how very imperfect I am, I think it would be incredibly reckless not to make absolutely sure there isn’t something to the faith in an afterlife held by so many of my fellow humans; and (B) religious people are often incredulous at my atheism and entertain a lot of misconceptions about my lack of faith. To the extent I can dispel and correct some of those misconceptions, I’m convinced it will be for the common good.

With your stated "very precious about every moment". why waste time here?
Don't you have anything precious to do?

 

[KingJ]

Hey, KingJ. Considering your (honestly) thought provoking points, I can’t take on board a positive view of a great deal of scripture without running afoul of two incongruous types of assumption. I’ll contrast two examples to explain what I mean.


1. Scripture is the manifest account of God’s immutable will and design and it is not for us to draw from its principles and concoct ad hoc lessons suited to our particular era. It is clear, explicit, and inaccessible to “interpretation” except through willful dishonesty.


2. Scripture is exquisitely composed by God to be immediately comprehensible to the Iron Age Mediterranean culture, in their specific time and place, who set it down as holy text.


Now, first I will agree that the Bible CAN be clearly explicit and, in certain places, is precisely that. I have never heard a credible “re-interpretation” of “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” ( Ex 20:3, KJV )


Then how so is it, as you yourself say, “After much thought… …I concluded it was … …because God wanted…” I have heard and read many Christians insist this need to grapple with understanding betrays imperfection on their part, that Christians suffer this plight because it takes deliberate effort to comprehend God’s flawless message.


For instance, as you raise the subject of public execution by the whole organized community, “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife…” ( Deut 22:23-24 KJV )


Forgetting for the moment I’ll never agree that simple adultery is a capitol offense, this statute is not NEARLY as unambiguous as Ex 20:3. Is the whole business about “in town” and “cried out” meant to exempt rape victims from this punishment? Maybe. But not absolutely necessarily. To grasp it, and more especially, to base legal principle upon it which can be applied to our own contemporary situations, requires interpretation and reference to other such scriptural material, even though there is no grant of permission to make such interpretations nor clear, specific instructions to guide the student to the appropriate cross reference.


But then, as you so correctly point out, “…ack in that day, every single Jew that witnessed a stoning, became TERRIFIED of being guilty of any grievous sin. Not afraid. Not concerned. Terrified!” Amen! I think it would have been hilariously funny if the punishment for one or two of these transgressions was “the electric chair.” An omnipotent God would absolutely have known about electric chairs. As well, he knew that it would have made little or no impression on his Iron Age readership. Their closest understanding might well have been, “Miracle Chair.” Maybe “Lightning Chair.” But nothing as visceral to the antique Levantine mind as stoning.


But, if this is so, I can’t think (or feel) my way around the fatal flaw it poses for the Bible’s eternal, inerrant utility as a moral guide. Its presentation was customized to the moral and judicial needs of its Iron Age adherents.


In my opinion, ethics and jurisprudence have evolved over the past 2-4 millennia since. To me, by 21st Century standards, stoning, public execution, summary capitol punishment (well, to be perfectly honest, ANY capitol punishment), disadvantaged discrimination against women, are all serious violations of human rights and constitute punishable crimes, whereas adultery by itself does not. As positive evidence of this I’ll simply point out this much more closely describes modern day society than that of biblical times.


How does all this affect my opinion of whether God exists? Not. At. All.


The only association I make between supposed Biblical inerrancy and God’s existence is: If God exists and the Bible is explicitly perfect, then we are doing something very, very wrong and we need to make some radical changes to how we live. For instance, it will necessarily entail dragging Donald Trump and his 2nd and 3rd wives into the public square where a body of stalwart, pious men shall stone them with stones that they die. That’s not a joke and it is in no way an exaggeration.

If God exists but the Bible is subject to interpretation (and, assuming there is one CORRECT interpretation) then humanity is obliged to do a much better job of sussing that correct interpretation out and extinguishing the promulgation of false interpretations.


Finally, if God does not exist, it seems to me we have a moral duty to supersede biblical doctrine with newer, more just ethical codes on a constant and evolving basis.

The Jews were a chosen race. The law was placed on them and them alone. When Jonah went to Nineveh, a non Jewish town, he did not tell them to start stoning adulterers. He told them to stop their grievous sins. It was upsetting God and His patience has run out. This is the message to sinners today. Repent or deal with God's wrath.

The Jews had the full curse of the law. Because of this, God counter balanced this curse with blessings and gave them literal help. Jews could test God for rewards and blessings. Jews had prophets, high priests who went beyond the veil and heard directly from God. Forced to attend weekly meetings to know God's law.

Stoning is not due to them being 'iron aged'. There were other means. God chose that specific punishment for reasons I have stated. But only on the Jews.

With regards to the bible. We have to understand that God has used humans to pen it. It is perfect for what it needs to be. If God wrote it, it would be placed on a tower in the Vatican with lightning striking it hourly. The concept of free will, will as I have explained with regards to God being physically present, be kind of non existent.

Now, when you find something wrong with scripture, don't blur it with all these other questions in your mind. Try and focus on one thing at a time. Take our slavery discussion as an example. You picked a contentious scripture. A logical rebuttal was provided. Slaves could leave at anytime and Jews were told to love them as themselves, as they too were once slaves in Egypt.

Now, lets focus on your next issue: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife…” ( Deut 22:23-24 KJV )

This is adultery. They cannot stone some adulterers and let others go.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

...Don't confuse wonton Israelite violence with God's edicts...

Hi, MadHermit.

I’m afraid I can’t hold God blameless in the biblical accounts of Hebrew bloodthirst during the conquest of Canaan. According to scripture they were under the direct command of Moses and Joshua and, vicariously through them, in constant consultation with God.
Before you think my opinion on this point is particularly sacrilegious, I hasten to add I don’t at all think any of this meshugas actually took place. There is no credible evidence of Hebrew bondage in Egypt nor any trace of the Exodus despite the best efforts of all the Israeli archaeological academy sifting the sands of the Negev when Israel occupied the region in the wake of the ‘67 war. PLEASE do not take this as any charge on my part against your faith. If God is as he is described in scripture, anything truly is possible. Even a centuries-long enslavement and massive human migration that leave no physical or documentary trace. I mention it only to demonstrate why I am not convinced of the biblical account.
Incidentally, if you are at all interested, plug the coordinates of the land of Goshen and of Jericho (I use the modern site of Ismaïlia for Goshen) into Google maps or any other navigational app. Any direct route connecting them takes a few hours by car and about a week on foot.

Before you protest there was a REASON why God kept the Hebrews idling in the desert 40 years, let me say I KNOW that and understand the rationale. I just think it amusingly detracts from the majesty of the biblical tale of you understand the Israelites could have regularly sent to Alexandria or Gaza for groceries during the entire sojourn.
Anyway, I accept a conventional academic diagnosis that Jews originated as A SECT OF Canaanites, and that the myth cycle of the Egyptian enslavement and the Exodus were invented during or after the Babylonian exile (which I do think was an historical event) to square how it is that the #1 favorite people of God could ever fall prey to defeat and captivity.

I don’t say any of this to insist you accept my view on things. But I definitely wanted to make sure you don’t dismiss my rejection of the biblical account of them because I just don’t like them. I was supremely disappointed when I came to accept the Egyptian captivity and the Exodus were not all they are cracked up to be. Still, my current understanding has had zero effect on my family’s observance of Passover. I cleave to the holiday that celebrates and sanctifies the concept of the inherent human right to freedom and the evil of slavery. I love it. My kids love it. And all day, leading up to Seder, we watch Chuck Heston in the Ten Commandments while I toil in the kitchen prepairing the matzo ball soup, the horse radish and heroses, etc, etc. I have never felt the need to conduct Seder or describe the Exodus as either “real” or “make believe” to my kids. They are pretty young, 9 and 12, but they are old enough to ask if these things really happened. I explain my best understanding of the affair and they don’t seem to allow my skepticism of the biblical version of “historical” events to detract from their joy in the festival, nor from their comprehension of freedom as a universal human right and of bondage as evil. They show their acceptance and internalization of these values on a regular basis and (full disclosure) it inspires me with no small amount of pride.

All this is to say:
In my experience, the value of a code of ethics need not depend on the literal veracity of the texts in which it is codified. And it shouldn’t. If I comprehend some element of moral behavior, I ought to be able to articulate it in the form of an instructive narrative. It shouldn’t matter how faithful to actual events that story is.

Don’t believe me? Here’s a thought experiment. I’ll allow that, to the extent biblical stories are the VERY BEST medium to communicate the morals they convey, is it, or is it not at least possible, no matter how imperfectly, to communicate those same lessons but using stories that are in no way based upon the narrative details of the biblical versions?
Boiled down, is it necessary that Jesus be the source of the Golden Rule? Recall, versions of the Golden Rule predate Jesus in lessons from Hillel to the Buddha to Confucius to the pagan texts of ancient Egypt.

Thoughts?

 

[Kirby D. P.]

With your stated "very precious about every moment". why waste time here?
Don't you have anything precious to do?

OUCH!, At Peace. I’ve received bad reviews before, but isn’t there anything at least a little precious about my material?

 

[Kirby D. P.]

...Now, when you find something wrong with scripture, don't blur it with all these other questions in your mind. Try and focus on one thing at a time. Take our slavery discussion as an example. You picked a contentious scripture. A logical rebuttal was provided. Slaves could leave at anytime and Jews were told to love them as themselves, as they too were once slaves in Egypt....

Good morning, KingJ.

I think we may have come to an insurmountable impasse. I get the feeling the closest we may come to an agreement on at least one point is one of us to say a thing is bluish green and the other that it is greenish blue. And I think even that may be painting it rosier than it deserves.

I’ll re-focus my complaint about biblical doctrine on slavery. To me its stands out in zero-sum contradiction of one element of your previous comment. If neither you nor I will budge on our readings of it, I’m willing to set it aside.

Exodus 21:7 (KJV) states clearly and specifically:

“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”

I take this to mean that if a man sells his daughter as a peace of sellable merchandise to another man, and into servitude, she is forbidden to leave of her own free will. The subsequent verses stipulate conditions to the arrangement, but none of them consider the girl’s own consent.

All my life I have been listening to “How it was in olden times…” and “Ours is not to judge God’s will…” and “When the ancient Hebrews did X, they treated Y better than most cultures treat Z even today…” forms of apologia on this point.

I can’t be honest with you and say I have ever seen in these proposals any loophole out of what I consider a perfect writ to subject a fellow human to abject slavery.

I am sorry and still intend no offense.

 

[B-A-C]

2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

In the context above. I have always taken verse 7, not as she can never go free. But rather, she is not to go out to do the same work the men servants do.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

“In the context above. I have always taken verse 7, not as she can never go free. But rather, she is not to go out to do the same work the men servants do.”

That would then be the only verse in the chapter that touches on the nature of work the servants are expected to perform. The balance being strictly a clear articulation of the terms and conditions of the sale and possession of humans. But this is a rather finely split hair, isn’t it? The girl is still sold to someone who owns her and I still see no verse offering any wiggle room that she can leave her owner any time she darn well pleases.