diana

Good morning, Direct Current!

Actually, I do discuss the historical accuracy of anything I have reason to doubt because I'm well aware that, in most things I "know" about the past, I really "know" only what the writers of history books want me to, which is often misleading and occasionally (as it turns out) flat-out lies. However, this is just a matter of curiosity to me, as it doesn't have much bearing on my life, one way or another.

But in the case of a higher being, it potentially does have bearing on my life. I am of the opinion that it is the duty of every individual who lives, has lived, or will live to determine for himself, to as near certainty as he possibly can, if there is good reason to believe in a god at all; and if the answer is yes, to read--as objectively as possible--all the literature available on every god that has been conceived in order to be certain that he's pinpointed which god is real and if that god even wants his worship; and if yes, if he's worshipping that god the right way.

As a Xn, I felt passionately that there is nothing in my life that is potentially more important than answering these questions, as thoroughly and honestly as I can. To seek truth is to run the risk of discovering what one would hate to see, but if you aren't willing to accept that you may be wrong, you aren't really seeking truth--you're seeking rationalization.

It is because I took this individual duty so very seriously that I am now an atheist.

I continue to debate it for a few reasons:

1. I enjoy philosophy; it's pushups for the brain.
2. By continuing to listen to counter-arguments, I stand the chance to better understand the position of believers, and I can better refine my position as I learn.
3. I might be able to help others on their journeys, as they help me on mine.

Judging from the undertone of your comments above (i.e., "if we acknowledge the existence of God," "Isn't the threat of losing our autonomy the real reason we debate this?"), you seem to be working from the assumption that we all know God exists and are simply avoiding accountability by denying his existence.

I suggest to you that this would be the ultimate suicide: to know God exists and to do everything in your power to make sure you go straight to Hell. The underlying idea of your comments is insulting. No one would be so stupid.

To a degree, I think this is a great attitude to take. It's always wise to acknowledge that you have something more to learn, to stay humble.

However, my acceptance that I don't know all there is to know stops prior to my assuming there are some realities that are simply incomprehensible.

As a believer, you don't draw that line (which is how I interpret your last sentence).

Such is the difference betwixt thee and me.

d

[ December 25, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Vorkosigan

We all care to discuss god's existence because we were raised in the West. I live in Taiwan. Nobody gives a flying fuck in a rolling doughnut about god here, and most of my students never think about god, giving their supernatural time to ghosts, which they all fervently believe in.

In other words, the reason we care about a certain Canaanite sky deity is largely historical accident...

spurly

Hawkingfan,

Thanks for your response. It is obvious that you and I have looked a the same evidence and have come to different conclusions.

I would like to address some of the issues you raised in your post. You said:

I would like to address one of the Scriptures you mentioned right off the bat because I think it is one of the most important to this conversation. Here it is:

Before discussing what Jesus was talking about, I thought I would let him say it in his own words (I will include verse 17):

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keep and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."(italics mine)

Those are his words. Now, we've got to determine what he was talking about. What did he mean when he said that he came to fulfill the law? What does the phrase "all is accomplished" mean?

The Old Testament Law had been broken by every person who ever lived up to the time of Christ. No one had ever fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. Until him. He fulfilled the law in the sense that he lived up to everything that the O.T. law demanded.

To say that there is not agreement among Bible scholars on what is meant by the phrase "all is accomplished" would be an understatement. There are varying views on this. However, in my humble opinion I believe that this has to be read in context with what Jesus just said. He came to fulfill the law. Not one bit of that law would disappear until that had been accomplished through his life, death, and resurrection.

That's why other places in the Bible we read phrases like:

"Christ is the end of the Law" (Romans 10:14);
"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead (Romans 7:14)"

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"(Galatians 2:21)

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Galatians 3:13)

"Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." (Galatians 3:25)

"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." (Ephesians 2:14-15)

There are other verses that point to the same truth. Christ fulfilled the Law, and as such he is the end of the Law for all who come to God through him.

Wait, does that mean I don't have to obey anything in the OT anymore? Sort of. But now we live by a higher law. That is to imitate God and live a life of love - which is really the fulfillment of the law. There are principles all through Scripture that tell us what God is like. For instance, he gives us the command, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" because God is a creator and giver of life. Thus to kill would be to act against God's nature. And that's why that law exists - it is compatible with who God is. We are to find the principles, and live by them - whether they are in the OT or the NT.

However, laws of how to approach God and Laws that were peculiar to the Jewish people are no longer applicable in New Covenant times.

Now, with that in mind, I want to look at a few of the other verses you mentioned in your post. I am not an OT scholar, so some of them I will not be able to comment on.

Here's one you mentioned:

In this verse God IS NOT condoning human sacrifice. This passage was written just before the Israelites were to take the land of Canaan. If you look at verse 28 you will see that the context are things that are "devoted to destruction". What was "devoted to destruction", everything that belonged to the enemies of Israel who lived in Canaan and worshipped idols, and everyone who worshipped idols themselves. You can see an example of this in Joshua 6.

As for the example you mentioned from Judges 11, the truth is that Jephthah's daughter was not killed. If you read the passage you quoted you will find that his daughter went to the mountains to wail for two months "because of her virginity" before she was offered to the Lord? Why? Not because she was going to be killed. Most scholars believe she did this because she would never marry. God deplored human sacrifice - it was one of the practices of the Canaanites which he hated. So what was going on here? Jephthah's daughter was going to be given to God to serve him at the temple. She would never marry or have a family, and she wanted a grieving time for this.

Here is another verse you mentioned that I would like to talk about:
It is true that anyone who did not have the sign of the covenant, circumcision, was cut off from the blessing of being part of Israel. If parents neglected to do this for their son, this could happen. However, what you failed to mention was this - if the Son wanted to remain in covenant with God and his people Israel, all he had to do was to submit to circumcision. Then there would be no problem. (by the way, I'm glad this is not required under the New Covenant)

You also mentioned
Again, let's look at what this means. The text says, "the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me." Were these sons to be killed. NO. Exodus 13:13 says that these firstborn sons were to be redeemed. The children were to be redeemed by a money payment, an offering, or as in Numbers 3:46-48, by the substituted service of one Levite for each firstborn. They were not to be offered as a human sacrifice.

You also mentioned this verse:
In the Scripture you mentioned, God is commanding his people not to worship any image made by their own hands, even if it is an image of God himself. No images are to be made with the intention of worshipping them.

However, this command is not meant to condemn art, photography, etc. The same God that gave these commands will, on the same mountain, give Moses the commands for the temple which included very ornate carving and furniture (including the angels on the lid of the ark of the covenant). However, none of these were to be worshipped. It was God was worshipped at the temple.

Is this a contradiction? No. You have to look at the principle behind the command. Were people coming to the temple and worshipping the pomegranates which were carved on the pillars? No. They came to worship God who made the pomegranates.

Here's another topic you mentioned:
This command was permanent FOR ISRAEL UNDER THE LAW. However, this was set aside in Christ. That's why the disciples in the NT could so easily change their day to honor Christ and God to Sunday (the first day of the week) instead of Saturday. Why did they do that? My guess is because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead and they wanted to honor that every week.

By the way, even Jesus, God in the flesh, got in trouble for doing work on the Sabbath. The religous leaders hated him for it. His response was "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath". Another time he called himself the Lord of the Sabbath.

Also, even during OT time, essential services could go on during the Sabbath unpunished. For example, priests had to perform their duty and this was even blessed by God.

Another Scripture you mentioned had to do with cities of refuge. You said:
If you look at the verses where this law is explained, Numbers 35:10-34, Deuteronomy 19:1-13, and Joshua 20:1-9, you will see the intention of this law. The cities of refuge were set up to protect people who killed someone accidentally or in self defense. But even when they arrived in these cities, the elders of the city would have to conduct a trial. If they were found guilty, they would be put to death. But if they were innocent, they had to stay in that city for life, or until the death of the high priest. (Which by the way is a picture of the freedom Christ gave us at his death).

I would like to talk about other verses, and may do so later. But Christmas is a family time, and I need to spend time with them.

Have a good day,

Kevin

spurly

Just a quick answer before I go off line for the time being. No. We do not live in a Theocracy. We live in a democracry, thus the government cannot set up laws that are completely in accord with the Bible.

However, I think that Christians, as part of that democracy, should lobby their Senators and Congressmen/women.

Kevin

spurly

Hawkingfan,

I will try to address a few more of the verses you brought up in this post. Like I said, I will not be able to address all of them because I am not an OT scholar. I am just a Christian striving to honor God. Anyway, here's what I think on some of the scriptures you brought up.

I would like to group these together as one:
God did not invent, nor does he condone the evils of fallen man. And that includes slavery. However, what God did do was to work within a system to encourage masters not to abuse their slaves. This was a revolutionary concept.

Please note that Paul, in Philemon, while addressing a slave owner encouraged him to treat his slave with the highest regard. A totally foreign concept.

There could be a couple of reasons that this passage is included in Leviticus.

1) Garments made from two different cloths (wool and cotton, for example) would shrink at different rates. The material would tear apart from each other making the garment useless.

2) God was preparing a people who would be unique, unlike any other nation under the sun, so that he could save the world through them. This was just an example of how they were to stay pure. They were not to mix with the world, and having pure garments would remind them of that.

One, or both, of the above could be the reasons for this command.

Again, God required his people to be different and separate from the world - and they were to appear different. By the way, this was abolished through Christ's work on the cross (see my previous post).

Why was this law (and other dietary laws) included in the Pentateuch? There are many good answers.

1) God knew the dangers of unprepared or underprepared food and wanted to keep his people from the dangers and diseases that came with that. (During the black plague in the middle ages, communities of Jews that followed God's plan for food, getting rid of human waste, etc. were spared the horrible wraths of that plagued the rest of Europe. I can't remember where I read that, I'll try to dig it up for you).

2) Scavenger animals could not be eaten, because God is a God of life, not a God of death. These animals reveled in death, thus they were unclean.

3) Again, God was wanting a peculiar people who would follow him and prepare the world for his Son. Part of the way they would show this was through their Kosher attitudes toward what they put inside of themselves. They wanted to stay clean, and could only eat clean food.

What in the world are "the statutes that were not good adn the ordinances by which they could not live"? That's a good question. Does it mean that some laws were bad? Or does it mean something else?

I think the answer can be found by looking back at Deuteronomy 30 (and other places in Deuteronomy as well). Here's what it says in Deuteronomy 30:17-18:

"If your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You shall not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jorda to enter and possess it."

There are many other passages like this throughout the book of Deuteronomy. The crux of the message of verses like this are, "if you do not obey, these laws will be bad laws for you because of the consequences they bring about".

If the Jewish people had followed the laws, for them they would have been good. But since they did not, they received the punishments that came with breaking the laws - thus the laws that were good seemed to be bad.

Thanks for letting me ramble.

Kevin

Ab_Normal

Um, why couldn't he just say, "Don't have slaves, it's bad?"

Hawkingfan

I disagree. From the Secular Web Modern Library (written by Donald Morgan)--Jesus seemed fond of repeating the Old Testament commandment: "Honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20:12; Matthew 15:4, 19:19; Mark 7:10, 10:19;Luke 18:20). It is apparent, however, that Jesus did not always treat his own earthly father and mother with the respect that he should have, and his eccentric behavior sometimes brought dishonor to them!
There are no biblical references whatever to indicate that Jesus ever spoke to his father, Joseph. There are only a few instances given where Jesus spoke to his mother, Mary, and in each case Jesus was curt, if not actually rude. He once reprimanded his mother for even seeking him at all (after he had, at the age of twelve, been missing for several days), and twice addressed her only as "woman!"
"How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I had to be in my Father's house?" was his retort when his parents came looking for him (Luke 2:49). At the wedding in Cana, when his mother mentioned to him that the wine was running low, Jesus replied: "Woman, what have you to do with me?" (John 2:4). Similarly, at his crucifixion Jesus said to his mother: "Woman, behold your Son" as he entrusted her to his disciple (John 19:26). If there was ever a time that Jesus spoke respectfully to his mother or father, we have not been told about it.

His disgraceful death on a Roman cross could only have brought dishonor to his mother and father "...for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree'" (Galatians 3:13). (See the "Living Bible" version of Galatians 3:13 and Deuteronomy 21:22-23 for the full significance of death upon the cross.)

Also, you claim Jesus was the only one to fulfill the law. But yet:
GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.
JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.
LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.

And 2PE 2:7 Lot was "just" and "righteous." However, GE 19:30-38 While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring.

And don't forget: MT 5:17-19, LK 16:17 Jesus underscores the permanence of the law.

You are wrong. First, you are contradicting yourself by telling me we "sort of" (whatever that means) follow the OT law. We either do or we don't. This mindset reminds me of the "double-thought" concept in George Orwell's book "1984". You basically pick and choose what to follow in the bible by what your own personal beliefs tell you.

Imitate God and live a life of love, eh? Well, please consider--(Secular Web, D.Morgan): Less well remembered is his teaching: "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you" (Luke 6:27, 6:35 ). See also Matthew 5:44).
In his own behavior, however, Jesus seems to have had considerable difficulty putting these precepts into action. He showed little regard for his gentile neighbors, for example, and equated them with "dogs" Mark 7:27, once instructed his disciples to "Go nowhere among the gentiles" (Matthew 10:5), and even at first refused to heal a gentile child, finally doing so only after the child's mother came up with a clever saying (Matthew 15:21-28).
Jesus often accused the Pharisees (and others who did not share his opinions) of being "vipers" or "hypocrites" ( Matthew 12:34, 15:7, 22:18, 23:27, 23:33; Mark 7:6 as well as previously listed references). He even went so far as to call some of them "fools" after having specifically admonished others not to use this term, warning that to do so would make them liable to the "fire of hell!" (Matthew 5:22, 23:17). MT 25:2, 3, 8 Jesus likens the maidens who took no oil to fools. (Note: Again, this is the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and MT 23:17-19.)

As you can see, Jesus did not obey his own laws (NT laws)--

MT 5:39, MT 5:44 Jesus says: "Do not resist evil. Love your enemies."
MT 6:15, 12:34, 16:3, 22:18, 23:13-15, 17, 19, 27, 29, 33, MK 7:6, LK 11:40, 44, 12:56 Jesus repeatedly hurls epithets at his opponents.

MT 5:39, MT 5:44 Do not resist evil. Love your enemies.
LK 19:27 God is likened to one who destroys his enemies.

MT 11:29 Jesus says that he is gentle (meek) and humble (lowly).
JN 2:15 Jesus makes a whip of cords, drives the money changers from the Temple, overturns their tables, and pours out their coins. (Note: The presence of the money changers in the outer court of the Temple had been authorized by the Temple authorities and was, in fact, a necessity since the Jews would not accept Roman coin for the purchase of sacrifices.)

MT 5:37, 15:19, MK 7:22, JN 8:14, 44, 14:6, 18:37 Jesus says that you should answer a plain "yes" or "no," that his purpose is to bear witness to the truth, and that his testimony is true. He equates lying with evil.
JN 7:2-10 Jesus tells his brothers that he is not going to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Tabernacles, then later goes secretly by himself.

EX 20:14 God prohibits adultery.
HO 1:2 God instructs Hosea to "take a wife of harlotry."

EX 34:6, DT 7:9-10, TS 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie.
NU 14:30 God breaks his promise.

EX 34:6, DT 7:9-10, TS 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie.
1KI 22:21-23 God condones a spirit of deception.

EX 34:6, DT 7:9-10, TS 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie.
2TH 2:11-12 God deludes people, making them believe what is false, so as to be able to condemn them. (Note: some versions use the word persuade here. The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.)

LE 19:18, MT 22:39 Love your neighbor [as much as] yourself.
1CO 10:24 Put your neighbor ahead of yourself.

MT 5:32 Divorce, except on the grounds of unchastity, is wrong.
MK 10:11-12 Divorce on any grounds is wrong.

MT 10:34, LK 12:49-53 Jesus has come to bring a sword, fire, and division--not peace.
JN 16:33 Jesus says: "In me you have peace."

MT 10:28, LK 12:4 Jesus says not to fear men. (Fear God only.)
MT 12:15-16, JN 7:1-10, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54 Jesus hid, escaped, went secretly, etc.

Jackalope

This is manifestly untrue, since linsey-wooley (linen and wool, one of the sets of fibres mentioned) was one of the most common textiles in medieval europe. The fibres are spun together, not woven with one fibre as the warp and one as the woof. Wool-cotton and wool-linen were common fibres in ancient times. The only real problem might be to dyers, as you're combining a protein and a cellulosic fibre.

I've heard this argument before in apologetics, so I suppose someone started by quoting from a biblical scholar. Whoever he/she was, they never did any textile work, or they'd know the argument was ridiculous from the start.

--Lee
[still does historical reinactments, though spinning, weaving and lately dyeing are too physically difficult for me these days.]

Edited because I can't spell "protein" today.

spurly

Jesus' addressing his mother by the term "woman" is not necessarily a sign of disrespect. Please consider the following from www.tektonics.org:

1. The term here is "Jesus' normal, public way of addressing women" (John 4:21, 8:10, 19:26, 20:31; Mt. 15:28; Lk. 13:12). It is also a common address in Greek literature, and never has the intent of disrespect or hostility. [Brow.GJ, 99].
2. The same term is used in Josephus Antiquities 17.17 by Pheroras to summon his beloved wife. [Beas.J, 34]
3. As for the second part of the response, it reads literally: "What to me and to you?" This is a Semitic phrase that indicates that the speaker is being unjustly bothered or is being asked to get involved in a matter that is not their business. It can be impolite, but not always. (cf. 2 Kings 3:13, Hos. 14:8) [Brow.GJ, 117] The intent must be determined by the context, and the first part of Jesus' saying does point to the latter intent.

Malina and Rohrbaugh [Social-Science commentary, 299] add that such implication of distance was in fact quite proper in a society where men were expected to break the maternal bonds by a certain age. Jesus' reaction is entirely respectful and appropriate in this context.

No, this was not a disrespectful way to address you mother in those days.

Yes, his death on the cross might have dishored a regular mother - but Mary knew something more of Jesus. Remember - she knew the whole story, she had seen the angel. Many of her neighbors didn't understand from the beginning of her pregnancy and heaped abuse on her thinking she was carrying an illigitimate child. She had been rejected because of Christ before.

However, when he overcame death, she was not disgraced. On the contrary, she was honored over and over again.

Did Jesus disobey his parents at the temple? I don't know, and neither do you. It could have been that Jesus was such a great child, that his parents had just grown used to the fact that Jesus was going to be where they thought he was going to be. They just assumed he would show up with the caravan, but maybe, they never told him explicitly what they wanted.

He went to the temple - where he expected them to find him! Was he running? No. He was right where he expected his parents to look for him.

I'm not so sure you can take this verse and say that he dishonored or disobeyed his parents.

You also said:
You seem to think this is absolute proof that Jesus hated his enemies, or at least did not love them like you think he should have loved them.

But my question is this. These men were misguided. They thought they knew what was right, and they were wrong. What is the most loving thing Jesus could do:

A) Let them stay in their wrong thinking by never confronting them and then let them spend eternity separated from God or

B) Confront them in their folly, and through this confrontation hope that some of them come to the light.

I think it is obvious that B is the correct "loving" response. And that's the response Jesus had.

You also list this "supposed" biblical problem, which is really not a problem at all:

Yes. God not only prohibits adultery, he hates adultery. However, the whole point of Hosea is that though god hates adultery, he does not hate adulterers. On the contrary, he goes out of his way to bring adulterers back to him and out of their adultery. Sorry, no discrepency here. God hates adultery, but he is also a God of forgiveness.

You also stated:
Yes. Jesus was gentle, meek, and mild. However, if you look up the Greek word for meekness, you will find that it is to be described as strength under control. Please not that is exactly what th righteous indignation of Jesus was in this passage.

He overturned tables, let loose some animals, poured out coins, but there is NO MENTION of him using the whip to hurt any individual. He had to restore the temple back to what his Father intended - not a marketplace, but a place to meet God.

The temple authorities did okay this business in the outer courts, but Jesus' Father did not.

You also stated:
I admit, this one puzzled me for a little while. It seemed to be as you say. However, on further reflection, I see that is not the case.

Here's what Jesus brothers wanted. They wanted him to go up to Jerusalem and declare his Messiahship with an impressive performance. They were taunting him. And Jesus would not go up to the feast with them.

He said, "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune... go up to the Feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come"

What was Jesus saying? I can not go up like you want me to go up. The time has not yet come for me to do what you want to do. I will do it sometime, but now is not that time.

When Jesus went up later, he did not go up like they wanted him to (i.e. with a big public display), instead he went up in stealth.

Thus he did not go up like his brothers wanted him to.

You also stated:
Whooaaa. God did not break his promise! The people broke off their relationship and walk with God. So that generation did not enter. However - God would keep his promise with two men from that generation who were faithful, and with the entire next generation after them.

You also stated:
EX 34:6, DT 7:9-10, TS 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie.
2TH 2:11-12 God deludes people, making them believe what is false, so as to be able to condemn them. (Note: some versions use the word persuade here. The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.)
[/quote]

You need to look at the verses before the ones you mentioned. Here they are:
Please not the progression. First the people refused to believe the truth they had been given. Because of their flat out refusal, then God will send on them a deluding influence so that they will believe the lie. Yes, God allows them to be deluded - probably by evil spirits, etc - but only after they refuse to believe the truth.

Sort of like Pharaoh in the Old Testament. We are told that God hardened his heart, but that was only after Pharaoh had hardened his own heart against God and against his people.

You said:
There are two different types of peace in ancient Israel, just as there are today. We can have peace with ourselves, knowing we made the right decisions. And then there is peace that means the lack of fighting.

No, Jesus didn't come to bring the second, but he came to give the first type of peace. Especially peace with God through Jesus Christ.

You said:
Jesus was not fearful in the situations you mentioned. It was just that the time had not yet come for him to be offered up as a sacrifice for all mankind.

Jesus knew what was going to happen in Jerusalem the last week of his life, and he walked into it calmly because he knew the time had come, and God was with him.

Thanks for your input.

Kevin

Mageth

Sort of like Pharaoh in the Old Testament. We are told that God hardened his heart, but that was only after Pharaoh had hardened his own heart against God and against his people.

It seems like to me that God could have saved a lot of misery if he'd softened Pharaoh's heart rather than hardening it.