luvluv

Okay these are mostly answerable. I would argue that his specific covenant with the Jews was to establish a conduit through which his presence could be communicated through the whole world. God said as much several times in the Old Testament that He was using the Jews as a conduit through which He would speak to the whole world. As such, I think He took special care to make sure that the Jews survived. I'll get you some Biblical documentation of this later.

I don't know where the prohibitions on shellfish came from, this is part of what I would call "silly" prohibitions that I would wager the Isrealites got from other nearby tribes. Jesus and Paul pretty much did away with the prohibitions. God never really got very upset with people breaking the sillier taboos that I am aware of, but the prophets are full of His dismay with the Isrealites breaking the more important commandments.

I don't think slavery is okey dokey but I believe that God specifically avoided dealing with certain issues as it would have potentially spelled the end of church. To have openly opposed slavery in ancient Rome probably would have invited and even greater repression and persecution than the religion involved. I think moral truth is progressive, and that certain aspects of agape love (nonviolence springs to mind) are so demanding that to require it would basically invite rebellion. At various times in humanity's journey the attachment to slavery was so severe that any religion that opposed it would have failed. When it was time to oppose slavery, Christians were at the forefront of the movement. Again, evolving revelation.

When discussing the behavior of angels, I think it's important to remember that Christians really have a very vague and analogical understanding of what happened to Lucifer and the other rebellious angels. I would argue that we don't have enough evidence to make a solid conclusion on. What we do believe, is that angels are not the same as humans. Angels may be able to comprehend God and not lose their free will; that does not mean that humans can. Why didn't God make us angels you ask? I would imagine that the extra power involved in being angelic would also make us more dangerous to each other and to ourselves. It is also possible that God did not make us like the angles to specifically avoid the rebellion of the kind that Lucifer initiated. It has been argued that the weeding out process of finding those who would obey God even without direct knowledge would yield a more stable and dependable breed of worshipers than that bred by beings with direct access to God. All of this is just conjecture however. The correct answer to this question, from my perspective, is I don't know. But I can think of dozens of logical reasons why this might be the case. (Mormons, for example, believe that we ARE the fallen angels). This is one of those doctrines that, to my mind, are not fit to prove or disprove deity. They are attendant beliefs that can be dropped and are not at all central to the logical possibility of Yahweh's existence.

Talking animals? On two occasions I believe. One was in the Genesis story I take to be a myth, and the other in one of the prophets. I think you can say that these, again, are not necessary for a belief in Yahweh.

It should be remembered that, unlike many holy books, the Bible was written by many different people over time so there were bound to be attendant kooky beliefs that would attach themselves to the central narratives. The fact that the concept of Yahweh has some kooky beliefs attached to it is not relevant to whether or not the concept of Yahweh Himself is logical.

Secondly, it should be remembered that God's plan have a specific context in human history, and that everything we would have liked God to do would have not been acceptable in terms of His unfolding plan. I say this as a progressive African-American who greatly regrets the history of this country: the history of the world would have been much different if there had never been slavery in the colonies. We might all be in other countries speaking other languages. I don't say that God supported slavery for his own purposes, but I do believe it is possible that God never promoted a radically anti-slavery method for reasons beyond those we can comprehend.

As a Christian, I often find it necessary, when dealing with new converts, not to burden them to immediately adhere to every responsibility I know God commands of men. Too much at once would just make a person quit. I think God may deal with all of humanity like that.

The Other Michael

Hi luvluv,

<strong>I think in some cases the Biblical writers were just wrong and in other cases they made rough translations of a reality beyond their ability to grasp. Their own limitations and prejudices formed a filter through which not all of God could get through. Even prophets are like "dirty lenses" through which many of the attributes of God can shine but through which just as many are blocked. I attribute most of the discrepancies in the Old Testament to this process. </strong>

These are the divinely inspired prophets who are making all of these errors? That doesn't say much for their God getting the message across.

<strong> I think the God in the Bible represents our best ideas of God up to that point, but God is still revealing Himself and we are still learning. </strong>

I'm not aware of any recent additions to the Bible in the last millenium or so. God seems to be doing a poor job of "revealing Himself", especially since we've got a pretty good mass communication system (cue lyrics from "Jesus Christ Superstar")

cheers,
Michael

luvluv

I would argue a) that divine inspiration is tempered by free will and b) it hasn't always been God's will for us to know everything about Him. Too much knowledge at the wrong time could provide the opposite of the results he desired.

I think God is doing a great job revealing Himself. I would consider the work of folks like Gandhi, MLK, Buber, and many of the doctrinal works of the great theologians and prophets to be extremely progressive. (I would agree though, that fundamentalism retards the process.) Again, though, free will is involved in this. I think the next big thing that humanity needs to confront is materialsm (as in consumerist capitalism, not naturalism) and I think that the people of the west especially are not willing to confront it yet. Beyond that, God is making great use of the new media. There is at least one Christian station that is available all over the world in many languages, and in English (and Spanish I believe) over the internet and on short wave radio. The radio station is not the most cerebral one in the world (It's TBN) but I would again argue that is probably for the best since everyone in the world is not ready for deep doctrine from an educational standpoint.

Also, there probably won't be any additions to the Bible but that doesn't mean there aren't additions to Christianity or to our concept of God. (For example: ask a modern Christian what God thinks of slavery)

sandlewood

Sorry I may be veering away from the subject of this thread a bit, but I’m curious.
What method do you use to differentiate between the parts of the Bible that are correct and the parts that are not?
This argument sounds like your using your get-out-of-jail-free card. Whenever religion does something wrong, you can explain it away by saying that it was necessary, otherwise the religion would have been erased. So God was succumbing to the whims of humans? He allowed slavery—which he dictates is morally wrong—to persist just because a lot of humans liked it? In a later paragraph, you say that there is a weeding out process to find those who would obey God. Shouldn’t this be one of those times? Shouldn’t he hold his ground on slavery and weed out anyone who persists in owning slaves.
I fail to see how we could be more dangerous than we are. With the atomic bomb, one person can devastate entire cities, if not the whole world. And we aren’t done yet.
Why is there a weeding out process at all? If the end result is a subset of people who choose to obey God, why not just create those people only? Whether you create them directly or use a filter process to get them, it’s no difference.

ishalon

Wouldn't it just have been better for God to appear as a big shining dude with a flaming white sword and long hair and white eyes, say "slavery is bad, read this" and throw a bible at everyone? i don't think they'd get persecuted after that

Synaesthesia

ishalon,
The ways of the lord are mysteriously ineffectual for his stated purposes.

luvluv

I balance it againts personal revelation, corporate revelation, and church history. It's a general practice to balance any revelation from one source against revelation from the other sources.

First, religion didn't do anything wrong, it didn't directly confront the wrong that was being done. (there are actually prohibitions in the Bible against taking your brother into slavery, but the Isrealites considered this to simply mean don't take other Isrealites into slavery. One Jesus expanded the notion of brotherhood the prohibition could have been considered to cover all humanity. I know I owe you folks some Bible verses and I'll get back with them tommorow).

Again, I think that God's actions come in the context of human history. All morality happens in context of what is pressing at the moment. The right thing done at the wrong time can have bad results. God has the advantage of knowing what the adverse consequences of even supporting good are in the long run, and knows that there are optimal times of supporting causes. Morality is like any other ability, it is built precept upon precept and often requires pre-requisites. It is not possible to unload all moral obligations upon a person and expect them to live up to all of them at the same time at once. This is as true historically with masses of humanity as it is with a single human being.

Whether or not oppostion to slavery would have been better if it had been preached as a central virtue during Christianity's nascent days has to be balanced against the consequences of such a stance.

Well, the only thing we know about angels is that they are many, many times more intelligent and more powerful than we are. Therefore, I don't see any way they could fail to be many, many times more dangerous than we are. And leave us not forget they are immortal.

The weeding out process was just a guess to a question I admitted I didn't fully know the answer to. However, I think it is through the weeding out process that the people who will choose to serve God become who they are by use of their free will. It would be impossible for them to do so freely any other way.

From now on, you folks will forgive me, but I will ignore any questions not central to the point of this thread until the central idea has run it's course.

Jobar

Look, luvluv. Here you are, approaching five hundred posts on this board, so you have read thousands. Yet you are asking questions we've answered time, after time, after time.... Try this. Name one single problem you are trying to address in this thread. Then scan back through the thread titles in this forum for this year, and look in the archives for the posts made to EoG in 2001. I can practically guarantee that you will find one or two (and likely many more) which directly address your question.

If you were new here, and asking such questions politely (which you do; I cast no aspersions on your manners), I would be much more inclined to take the time to give you detailed answers.

As it is, I begin to ask myself, why bother? In another month or two, won't you be asking the very same questions again, in slightly different form?

I urge you to make use of our huge library of posts. If you find questions which we haven't answered to your satisfaction after at least a cursory search- meaning you just look at thread titles and read the ones which directly concern your questions- *then* start a new thread.

Look, I'll give you a hand here. Name your question. Make it as concise as you can. Why, I'll even go so far as to find you a thread with a title similar to this one, and come back and add it <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002243" target="_blank">here.</a>

After that though, *please* try to make your questions a bit more original!

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

NAaronJ

All quotes are by luvluv

Yahweh has been described by every Christian I know of as being omnipotent and omniscient, and never wrong. Freewill exists, they say. I think this concept of Yahweh is logically impossible.

There is the age old question:

Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot move it?

Either way, he is not omnipotent.

If God knows everything, including what happens in the future, can he act contrary to his predictions? If he cannot, he is not omnipotent. If he can, his prediction was actually wrong, and he really did not know what was going to happen; he is not omniscient.

If God knows what is going to happen in advance, men are bound by fate. Free will does not exist if you have an omniscient being running around.

Michael Martin has pointed out another problem with omniscience, but I forgot what it was.

I do not have one single conception of the Christian God Yahweh; there is a Yahweh for every Christian sect.

Gods that have not been described as having the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience.

They have not been described as having logically impossible qualities, so I am agnostic in regards to them.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Old Scratch ]</p>

Wyrdsmyth

I've often heard this as the main reason why the God of the Old Testament seems so different from the God of the New Testament. The thesis is that God reveals himself in progressively more complex and subtle ways, to account for the "development" of man.

I might buy into this if the early version of God was simpler and what we saw later added to (but didn't contradict) what was already there. But that just doesn't seem to be the case. What is it, exactly, about the New Testament God that the people of the time of Abraham, Moses or Jonah couldn't have understood? They couldn't have understood the teachings of Jesus? Why not? Were those teachings conceptually impossible for them to grasp? What is it about the later conceptions of God versus the earlier that makes this analogous to the difference between a kindergarten primer and The Brothers Karamazov? Is there any way you can support your use of such an analogy?