Women and children hit harder for me but the list of objectionable morality in the OT is very long…
It can still be read with care and understanding
Yeah, I just need to find a meaning that doesn’t involve God and mass murder —which is very much the straightforward and plain meaning of the text.
You read the chapter Longman wrote on sexuality in COTC. I thought his work on divine violence was his strongest position. You may find it interesting. This video is a great introduction, if you are interested in seeing him speak.
Greg Boyd’s “Crucifixion of the warrior God” presents such a hermeneutic. But of course, it makes those committed to simplistic “straighforward readings of the text” uncomfortable…
Sounds to me like you want proof. Then you need to be referred to the threads where we discussed why there is no proof. Here is a link to my post in that thread.
I am sorry but I think those who want proof are those who seek to use religion as a tool of power. I think we need to make a stand against this for the sake of liberty, faith, and rationality.
Longman calls him out by name in the video, “irenically and respectfully.”
This quote was a major takeaway from the video for me:
“What we have in the Old Testament, particularly the Conquest, is an intrusion of end time ethics where the wicked are punished and the righteous are redeemed… So I consider what we read in the Old Testament as a preview and warning as what will happen at the consummation.”
To turn it around again, how can anyone accept those miracles in the text as actual events if the text cannot even get the small things right?
I’m stuck on this thought. If the story in Genesis is just as unscientific and miraculous as any other creation story, WHY should the Bible be given leniency, or even a chance at all, when none of you would do the same for any other creation story? The Bible MUST contain something to separate it from other religious texts, otherwise I cannot see any reason it should be treated differently. As much as I want it to be the truth. As much as I want to believe it. You don’t get to just decide what you want to be true. It HAS to line up with reality if it’s making claims about reality.
Don’t we all want proof? I understand that is not going to happen unless God wills it to. Or I live to see some prophecy unfold.
I do not have any desire to use religion as a tool of power. I find the fact that it is, disgusting.
My sole reason for being here on this forum is that I am having a faith crisis. An existential crisis.
I brought two, beautiful children into this despicable world under the belief that there was a meaning to life and that God was that meaning. That the Bible held that meaning within it’s pages. That whatever they went through in life, it would be worth ending up with God than never having been born at all.
I NEVER would have brought children into this hell without that belief. I do not believe anyone has the right or reason to without that belief. For me to have done so and for there not to be a God, well, I have then condemned my children, two beings I love more than anything else, to the burden of a pointless existence, the anguish of meaninglessness and done so in a world that I wonder if it could get any sicker. A world where I cannot offer them any hope. I would be guilty of doing them the greatest of wrongs. Imagine creating new life, when you have no answers and no hope to offer it? That is evil.
My parents offered me nothing. I doubt they considered the seriousness of what they were doing when they had me. People just have kids because it is expected, for some reason. Or because they cannot control themselves. In fact, without faith in God, I would have committed suicide in my early Twenties and just been done with it all.
Life is a burden to me. Not a joy. The suffering, the confusion… These things are not worth whatever fleeting pleasures I have experienced here. I’m high-functioning. But I am desperately sad and lost.
Is that pathetic? Yes. But well, there it is.
I am satisfied with faith. But I need good reasons to hold onto it, other than because I need to. I need it to make sense. I need it to be a solid rock for me to stand on. But it’s becoming more clear that I don’t know up from down regarding the Bible. Least of all whether it is actually true. Or rather, the more I learn about the Bible, the more I don’t believe.
If I just wanted false comfort, I’d be a drug addict.
Honestly, without the character of Jesus, I would have thrown out the entire thing. The Old Testament God is indeed an awful monster. The stories in the OT are nonsensical. And the Israelites are the worst of creatures. Not to mention the modern Christian Church itself, what a disgraceful MESS!
Nope.
You could have equally asked… Don’t we all want power?
Again the answer is no. And they are frankly much the same. Perhaps you should ask what God wants. What he wants is love not power, faith not proof. Love requires faith. Proof is for power.
Then perhaps you can learn something from the very different direction I am coming from. I was not raised Christian or theist, but only with criticisms of Christianity. And yet I found value in Christianity… not because the criticisms were wrong… but in spite of them.
But this world is not hell. Much of it is a paradise, even though some people have managed to make a hell of parts of it. And many of those people have used religion to do it.
I have three children. Teaching them that the world is hell is a big mistake for they are only too likely to find the falsehood in this. The message of Christianity is not for the child but for the sinner lost to the brink of despair. I am not and cannot be the messiah for my children. Salvation is the work of God. This is a big part of the truth I found in Christianity.
My parents offered me a great deal… lessons in both what to do and what not to do. They were only human just as I am.
People have children for a great many reasons and most of the time I suppose those reasons are far from good ones. For my parents it was mostly accidental, and for me it was because I felt I had love to give. I have often thought having children is one of the most arrogant things we do. But if we let children be our teachers, to allow them to teach us to become what they need… then perhaps we can do better.
Yes… I observed that God played such a role for believers and it became my working definition of God… that faith in God was a faith that life is worth living. This was the start of the journey which led me to Christianity.
Life requires subjective participation where what we want is important. Science which is based on objective observation (and written procedures which give the same result no matter what we want or believe) cannot help us with this. So a pretense to objectivity in religion is not only delusional but pointless. It is all about deciding who we want to be.
Faith doesn’t make love false… quite the contrary, faith is what makes it real. And just because we want and even need love doesn’t make it a drug.
Yes many atheists like Mao Tse Tung like to say that religion is a drug and a disease. But there is nothing more delusional than a belief that we can live according to the objective observation of science. Religion is just the way we choose to live and that choice is something none of us can avoid.
The good parent has to be what their children need. The good parent for the two year old is not a good parent for the teenager.
1 Like
Without any desire to personally offend you. Just about everything you typed there is unhelpful to me.
If the criticisms were not wrong, why then believe? How then believe?
I like this though.
No one requires you to accept many miracles in the text. There are some related to Jesus (resurrection) that seem necessary to being a Christian in my mind but it doesn’t matter if you think an ass really spoke or not, or if an axe head floated or not. Did this really happen? Who can actually say? The better question to ask is what is the story trying to teach us about God?
When you speak of the small things the text can’t get right I don’t think the text really tries to do what you expect it to. I’ve always looked at the big picture of scripture.
Genesis 1 is a masterpiece in my mind and it has a purpose and it achieves it. It tosses aside rival conceptions of God. I actually believe everything in Genesis 1 when understood against the backdrop of competitive ANE conceptions of the gods and understand it speaks through its own worldview and cosmology.
The Bible does get things right. The things it intends to, not the things we fact-literal, post-enlightenment, Cartesian-westerners want it to. The purpose of scripture is to make us wise for salvation and to equip us to do good works, not to teach us facts about the past.
I think the central issue is this. You’ve, like so many of us, drank the Kool Aid of historical apologetics and are plagued by top down models of inspiration. You seem to think we certify and prove the Bible then have faith in it. To me that is not at all how it works. Faith is not based on our ability to get facts right about the past. For me, faith is based on current experience with the transforming and risen Jesus, not on historical reconstructions of the past or apologetics. We open up and accept God. The Bible shows many people just naturally drawn to Jesus based on just hearing about him. They didn’t sit there and assess all the facts. Faith is deeper than pure intellect. The intellect rationalizes our experience with God. Many of us have had life-altering changes and felt what we think is the undeniable forgiveness and love of God. The Bible mediates the sacred. It doesn’t need to be inerrant to be useful or reliable for its intended purpose.
Beyond Church authority, Biblical self claim (which rests on church authority since the very term Biblical requires canonization as all these texts were discrete works) and our experiences with God, there is no proof of the Bible. It’s normative for Christian faith. Most of the books have been for 1850 years or so. We have to take on faith that the Church picked the right picks do we not?
And at the end of the day you seem to want to be a Bible-ian. I am not a Bible-ian. I am a Christ-ian. The sole purpose of the Bible to me is to lead us back to a proper relationship with God through his Son and equip us to do good works. There is little interest in teaching us facts of history or science. The Bible gives us what science can never provide: purpose, morality and a proper understanding of God. It always uses stories about the past to inform the present. It teaches me the important things in life and to not be worldly. It’s morality is difficult to follow and it even corrects itself in places. Many of us firmly believe scripture is not meant to be easy. We are all like Jacob… intended to wrestle with it. But for me the focus is always on Jesus. I am a Christ-ian, not a Bible-ian. There were Christians before any of the NT books were written and many Christians with only access to one or two books for hundreds of years. Salvation comes from God. We just have to let him in. Then all the doctrine, theology and rationalizing all our thoughts and worldview with scripture happens.
I think a lot of Christians have unknowingly made the Bible the 4th member of the Trinity. It is no such thing.
Though I think the story of the Bible spot on. The world is good in many places but I think at some deep level it’s broken (no I don’t accept A&E as historical or original sin nor really a fall of two primitive people that could impact 100 billion people after them), but clearly the idea of sin and worldliness the Bible speaks against is very real. It also offers quite the solution. God lowers himself and dies for us on a Roman cross. That is the essential part of a Christianity. Everything else is just a condiment.
3 Likes
If even ONE part of the Bible never happened, or was exaggerated, it throws the ENTIRE text into doubt, considering it’s content and what it requires one to accept. It WILL be held to a higher standard if it wants people to believe in miracles.
If the text is wrong, then the rational conclusion is to view any miracles, especially a resurrection as nonsense too. And so we have to find the truth elsewhere. People want to take Jesus out of the Bible, They cannot let Him go, but they disbelieve most of the book He’s from. The ONLY way any of us even know of Jesus is because we read the Bible.
I find your assertion naive and contradicted by external reality and the the Biblical witness. I don’t think along such cartesian lines anymore. You also don’t dialogue with the material presented with you but only reassert the same thing. Neither the Bible or any other text or source needs to be inerrant to be useful for its intended purpose. Someone making a geography snafu doesn’t undermine the entirety of their work. Its not “PERFECT” or “USELESS.” That thinking is grotesque and not how we operate in life (see the link above). The authors of the Biblical text had no issues putting materials that are ultimately inconsistent with one another side by side. The Biblical authors and Jesus, correct one another at times.
To me the “Biblical books” were largely a living document until they became fully Canonized by the church in its final form. I see this at work in Matthew and Luke rewriting Mark for sure. I’m okay with the Bible being treated as a centering document. I do believe it was mostly inspired by God but not in a top-down sense. I also think Sparks has good thinking on including the Bible in part of the sinful process of humanity.
That is one I need to read at some point.
But did it happen? Did God order the slaughter of women and children and tell the Israelite warriors they could keep all the virgin girls for themselves? A yes or no would suffice. I’ll skim his chapter but killing women and children and keeping the virgin girls for yourselves doesn’t work for me “as a preview of the end times.” I expect justice at the end, not slavery and rape. One thing I see throughout the Bible is that Israel constantly disobeys God. I never saw Israel as the righteous ones and its neighbors the wicked. They all seem wicked with some righteous people sprinkled in. We know during war there are righteous and wicked on both sides–despite whatever wartime propaganda might say to the contrary.
Also, Jesus told us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, and this was during a time of Roman occupation where most people expected God to come and overthrow the Roman empire. The OT doesn’t seem to do a good job in parts of “loving your neighbors.” In fact, I think Jesus had some OT sentiments in mind when he said…you heard it said…but I say… in that context.
3 Likes
I don’t think the problem is people disbelieving the Bible but holding onto Jesus. Instead, what if we allow Jesus to shape our expectations of the Bible?
Jesus did not come close to meeting your demands for how God must speak to us. Jesus centred parables in his teaching – stories that never happened! – and he loved exaggerations, whether about camels that are either swallowed or crawl through knitting needles or people not seeing clearly because they had a board stuck in their eye. Imagine saying, “If even ONE statement of Jesus never happened or was exaggerated, it throws his ENTIRE identity into doubt, considering his claims and what he requires one to accept.” With an if/then statement like that, obviously one ends up in disbelieving doubt.
There’s an alternative. Maybe Jesus really shows us God. Maybe when Jesus talks like that, we hear the word of God. Jesus wasn’t bound to a just-the-facts way of communicating. As I’ve said here before, maybe the God who inspired Genesis is the same.
6 Likes
I remember Longman writing about this, but I’d have to go back and see how he nuanced his answer 
I see turning the other cheek as a not so subtle form of rebellion against unjust powers. Civil disobedience would be like stripping naked before a wicked judge.
1 Like
Its “rebellion” in the sense of “you don’t matter to me.” You want my cloak? Take two. Only God matters. Material possessions are worldly. Our hope is in spiritual treasure…in God. I suppose it does ultimately undermine Roman authority in trivializing it but compared to the authority of God and the importance of the Kingdom everything is trivial is it not.
So why do you see this as a rebellion? I mean if a rival nation occupied your land and forced you to pay taxers and you decided to pay extra…that doesn’t really seem like much of an actual rebellion. Currently, I am just seeing it as Jesus saying only God matter and our standing with him. We need to look to His will in all things and trust in the end it will be done.
Can you confirm that the way Jesus said if you get hit on a particular cheek, that by turning the other cheek, you are saying that you will be hit as an equal?
And being nice to an enemy can confuse them more than righteous indignation