Xrikcus

Well I couldn't disagree, but the purpose of the discussion is not to insult, is it.

Agnostic Theist

Not an insult, merely an observation subtly implying that not all knowledge is in a religious book.

Dr_Paine

As the expression of a tribal religion, I confess certain expressed motifs may surface from time to time. Let's consider your #1:

"Bloody Sheep and Sacrifices" sounds a little primitive to me. Does this God demand the blood of animals in order to satisfy his bloodlust?

#2; that writers observed others failing to desire "Yahweh" of "Elohim" is more the consistent theme of a particularistic chauvinistic tribal religion than any indication of a divine hand.

#3; says who? Simply because the jeremiads of woe mongering prophets lament the falling away from their god is no indication that their imaginary friend is expressing such sorrow over a broken relationship.

#4; this is not really an overriding theme - I think your list was a little ad hoc.

#5; Once again the judgment of god is symptomatic of social anomie and cultural deterioration. The prophets yearning for the former glory (whatever that was) of their vanquished peoples attributed their plight to the judgment of God. There's no way they would have considered his impotence or nonexistence as a reason for his silence - he must be angry with us!

Again, the doctrine of redemption seen as an inexorable path from Genesis to Revelation is simply read back into the text. With such ambiguous writings and contradictory statements, I would suggest that a number of themes could be read back into the Bible.

Sven

Yes - after all, the Jews, who wrote a great part of the bible, don't find this doctrine in their texts ...

wardy

Thanks for the response. You're a very descriptive writer so dictionary.com is getting much play from me when you write! You confessed motifs may arise from time to time. I'm not sure if your five points are starting a new topic of discussion or if you think my list of 5 are inconsistant with the main topic so it's hard to know where to do with my response.

#1. Good question! Does God demand the blood of animals to satisfy His bloodlust?? Another question that must be asked as well is this, "Is God satisfied with the blood of these animals?" If he's not then why the sacrifice?

The answer on the Christian veiw to the first question is clearly found in Hebrews Chapter 9: The answer is no. The blood of animals does not satifsy God's "blood-lust" or what i'll call wrath. The Jewish priest would enter into the holy of holies the inner sanctuary once a year never without blood for his sins and the sins of the people. Heb. 9:8-9 says that this was a symbol. If you continue to read through the chapter it will state that Christ entered into a tabernacle not made with human hand and not of this creation and he entered not with the blood of goats or bulls but with His own blood. It's funny that you should use the word 'satisfy' as there is a word in the Bible called 'propitiation' which entails a satisfaction of wrath. Romans 3:25 is clutch in understanding this...whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed. God passed over the sins covered with animal blood untilled He nailed them all to the cross with His sufficient blood. covering vs. complete forgiveness. On the Christian view it is also God's blood (in the form of Christ) that is the complete satisfaction of wrath. Which also means that God is satisfied with the sacrifice and there's no need for man to find a way to satisfy God. Man needs to figure out how to get that satisfaction applied to his account....again on the Christian view.

#2. you just observed that this was a consistent theme no matter how you interpret what the writers view was. I disagree with this observation "particularistic chauvinistic" as the writers are quite aware of their own failings (Psalms, the gospels, paul's letters)

#3. Thanks for the insight on your observation of the prophets lamenting. What is there message? We were not arguing the existant of God or if the Bible is fact or fiction on this point. The argument is: (even if you take the Bible as a fairy tale) can one clearly see an overall themes spanning across the 66 books of the bible. I suggested that we see God desiring to interact with man: some specific points to observe: adam walking with God in the Garden, coming to the temple to worship, God taking on human flesh and walking on the face of the Earth, prayer, heaven. These are some examples that I failed to give earlier. My apologies. I was not defending an interpretation or any other point by making my statement.

#4. Does God value His name above all things including man? Is this a consistant thing in the Bibel? (if there is a god (i believe there is), then i think this is a qualification that God must posses in order to be God as well)
I would say that God values His name above man's obediance and man's salvation. I don't like quoting huge passages of the Bible but I think this is the clearest evidence to prove the point that we were discussing.
Examples:
On the Biblical view will God allow anything else to be worshiped?
What is the price people pay in the Bible when they do not worship God?
man's salvation:
1 Jn 2:12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name's sake.
Ezek 36:
20 "When they came to the nations where they went, they profaned (Hebrew: protistuted or treated commonly) My holy name, because it was said of them, 'These are the people of the LORD; yet they have come out of His land.' 21 "But I had concern for My holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations where they went. 22 "Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. 23 "I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight. 24 "For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. 25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. 28 "You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God. 29 "Moreover, I will save you from all your uncleanness; ...31 "Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations. 32 "I am not doing this for your sake," declares the Lord GOD, "let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel!" 33 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places will be rebuilt.

#5. I'm dying to hear how you validate your these points that you made:
The judgement of God equalling cultural deterioration?
The prophets yearning for former glory? (when did they have glory? they were mostly the bearers of bad news for the people living in rebellion and were murdered or chased out of the country for their message.)
They would not have considered His silence as impotence or nonexistence? Doesn't make sence...by definition a prophet is hearing the voice of God. They claimed to see him and hear his voice and about 90% of the prophets God validated through miracles.

With redemption what did I read back into the text?

Thanks for the discussion. For both of our sakes if there is anything that you would like to prioritize then lets try to keep the disussion with less than 5 points (it's my fault so many points in the first place..i'm taking the blame for that).

have a great day all.

Craigart14

My favorite part of the Bible is the section in Deuteronomy where it explains Bernoulli's principle. Lucky thing the Wright brothers were religious.

Wiat, there's a better one: that bit in Exodus where Harry Potter parts the waters of the Red Sea.

Craig

Craigart14

Do your homework. The thousands of errors in the Bible have been documented in numerous books. Go to the Freedom From Religion site and take Dan Barker's Easter challenge.

Believe it or not, you represent a great advancement over your distant ancestors, and your children may represent an advancement over you. In the meantime, learn something about evolution before you decide it's not true. And perhaps you could remind me where modern agriculture is found in the Bible. Or don't we need enough food for everyone? Better yet, point out Jesus' explanation of germ theory. Or do we find smallpox vaccine and suchlike on your list of luxuries?

Craig

Harry Bosch

Good Point. I am a very lucky guy. I have a great wife, incredibly fun, nice, witty, and just a great person. {She's also extremely attractive} She's an attorney, but spends more than half of her time doing pro-bono work. However, she's bi-polar. In the biblical days, right up until about 50 years ago, she would have been in an institution. In the biblical days, they thought that mental illness was caused by evil spirits. Nowadays, she is fully functional - as long as she takes her medicine.

Dr_Paine

By particularistic and chauvinistic, I mean to say that they presume some exclusivity in their relationship with God and some superiority of religion compared with other peoples. It has nothing to due with whether or not they are "aware of their own failings."

They yearned to return to a more pristine religiosity, one in which the people complied in general with the theocratic hierarchy (or at least in the myths they told themselves); the former "glory" being that of Israel, not the prophets personally. The syncretic effect of other religions was a constant complaint of the prophets. This yielded a sense of social anomie among the reactionary prophets. They called for a purity of religion, and bloodline, a preservation of Israel.

By definition a prophet is claiming to hear the voice of God. That's a rather circular argument. Whatever "validation" is given to any "miracles" is often affirmed by the prophet's own pen, or credulous hagiographers - hardly, non-biased observers. God's inaction in the face of both Israel's and Judah's devastation and subsequent subjugation was explained by reference to God's wrath. In other words, he allowed this to happen as punishmnet, yea he caused it to happen. This way God's existence or power is not challenged; he is doing nothing to rescue Israel because he chooses not to, not because he cannot, according to the Prophets.

Simple; given zero knowledge of the New Testament, one would not come to the conclusion that the Old Testament is on an inevitable course leading to man's redemption. Such things are "read back into" the text. Our prior knowledge of Christ inescapably poisons our perception of his antecedents. It is a fallacy that historians refer to as "presentism.� It denies the contingent nature of history by looking back and saying "Ah, I see...... every step was for the purpose and with the aim of bringing us to this present point." It eliminates the possibility of true free will, if God is orchestrating the course of history.

Crucifiction

Well, if we NEED to know that slugs can melt in the sun {Which they can't}, and that insects have four legs {Which they don't}, then the Bible really does have everything in it we NEED to know. :notworthy