Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is such an interesting paragraph. So the "god" you elect to believe in is a tool to counter lack of personal will power or self control? For without your "god" you would do things you know to be detrimental to you.
Wouldn't it just be easier to exercise self control?
Self control and a values system are two different thinks.
Here is a simple example and you may think it is a weak one.
I have strong political beliefs, which is not uncommon.
Jesus said to "love your enemies", a very counterintuitive concept and one that I don't think too many people who have never learned that from the bible just get up one morning and start to practice. It is counterintuitive.
So my silly example is that, when I would see a politician on TV who I "hated", I might react to the point of actually yelling at my TV, and frequently would change channels to get the person off my TV so I was not furious just looking at them and listening to them.
After becoming a devout Christian and learning I am supposed to "love my enemies", I don't react in the same way. I can watch this politician I despise and listen to them, because I now hate their politics, but I just pity them as people, rather than hate them. I can now give them Christian love in spite of their politics and the destruction to America I think they cause.
Who does this help? It helps me. Sin hurts the sinner. The politician on TV can't ever possibly know I hate them and flip the channel. The politician is completely unaffected whether I hate them or love them. It is the sinner who is hurt by the sin. So now, instead of getting angry, raising my blood pressure, and being temporarily unhappy -- instead I can maintain a calm, happy outlook. By following the tenets of Christianity, I benefit from it but also have the chance to make the world a slightly better place.
That has nothing to do with "self control". That is a life philosophy and a lifestyle practice that enhances my quality of life, makes me happier, makes me less upset, and enhances my health over time to some extent by avoiding stress.
Sounds like someone has never read the OT. The idea that women are property is full ingrained there. You do realize that the only admonition about rape is that you must buy her afterwards? That a man had the right to haul his pregnant wife to the priest where she would be forced to drink an abortifacient, with the promise that only an unfaithful wife would then miscarry? (And if she did miscarry after being forced to drink an abortifacient, guess what? He can now legally stone her to death.) That a woman could not own property? All of this comes from God. If God had done a better job being moral, there would have been nothing for Jesus to fix.
That's not the moral law. I had a feeling someone would bring those kinds of laws up, but I really did not want to get into a detailed discussion since many people seem to automatically inject disrespect and negativity into their discussions (Such as your first statement: "Sounds like someone has never read the OT". My friend, that comes across as condescending to me. Have I said anything to you that was disrespectful? If we have future discussions, I ask you to exchange words politely as I am endeavoring to do here. I would appreciate your kindness, as that is what I endeavor to extend to you as a friend).
The laws regarding civil actions was the law for Israel, to restrain people from acting even worse than that. Jesus explains how this is when the religious authorities ask him about divorce. In the Old Testament, God allowed divorce in order that the woman would be protected legally. Jesus explains that Moses allowed this "for the hardness of your hearts". The same goes for an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (the lex talionis). Those laws were put in place by God so that the punishment for a transgression was comparable to the crime. Jesus rather teaches us that if someone should strike us on one check, we should turn the other and offer it (not to strike back). If someone compels us to walk a mile with him, we should go with him 2 miles. The moral law is encompassed in the ten commandments and when Jesus walked the earth he explained how we should live according to God's (moral) law. He fulfilled the Israelite law and revealed to us the moral attributes of our Heavenly Father among them showing others mercy and compassion.
A lot of people, so it seems, tend to get the Israelite laws in the Old Testament confused with God's moral law, as though God put those in place as a moral code when it was a civil code for Israel as a nation to adhere to (there are some things in it reflective of the moral code, but it basically so the nation of Israel does not act worse than it naturally would without the law). It rather is a creation ordnance of God (before the law of Moses existed) where God explains that he created us in his image, male and female so that it is to be understood that God has male and female attributes and that both are of equal value in his sight, as the image of God.
Last edited by Basiliximab; 09-21-2020 at 12:53 PM..
Yes. Nevertheless, it's an effective apologetic and we (Bible skeptics) need to come up with an answer.
I won't follow that endless gold brick road but it ends up with 'Jesus changed everything o the OT apart from what he specifically said was unchanged". Like he revised a lot of OT stuff at the Sermon in Matthew, and he undermined Sabbath observance on many occasions.
But that's probably going off - topic.
Two potential answers come immediately to mind.
1. Why should we believe anything in The Bible? It has not been validated as an accurate representation of all the events depicted. I know you feel obligated to meet Christians on this matter and like to debate the merits of an argument using the Bible, I just don’t think it necessary.
2. The OT and NT are distinctly different, to the point that I’d seems as if they write about two different gods. Yet the Christian god is eternal and perfect, which implies unchanging. The change in tone and content are problematic.
For me, too. Of course, the Believer can simply say that was all OT and Jesus changed everything.
Well, he kind of did. It is a simple answer. The Israelite law was for the Israelite nation. Jesus did fulfill that law (he never broke a single law of the civil or moral code) as he was anointed to do in order to become the perfect sacrifice for sinners. The law for Israel was a better law than no law at all (as Jesus explains in the law that was in Israel's civil code on divorce); yet he provides a better way of living by expounding on God's moral law and that, as the new Israel which is God's church made up of both Jews and Gentiles, is the law we are to follow; it is better than the law of Moses as it better reflects the moral attributes of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
1. Why should we believe anything in The Bible? It has not been validated as an accurate representation of all the events depicted. I know you feel obligated to meet Christians on this matter and like to debate the merits of an argument using the Bible, I just don’t think it necessary.
I would not expect a non-believer to believe the Bible as truthful, but that is all that I will use to discuss God because I believe it is the absolute truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
2. The OT and NT are distinctly different, to the point that I’d seems as if they write about two different gods. Yet the Christian god is eternal and perfect, which implies unchanging. The change in tone and content are problematic.
They do appear to be different, yet the same God of the Old Testament is revealed to us in a clear light in the person and work of Jesus. The things in the Old Testament pointed to Jesus but it was very shadowy and vague. God was not revealed in a very clear way, yet a messiah was promised to deliver Israel from their sins and that was all the Old Testament believers really had to go on. They had to put their faith in this one promised by God.
When Jesus came on the scene, it was as though a light was turned on in the room and we are now able to "see" God very clearly as Jesus is the most clear reflection of God that we can have on this side of eternity. The Old Testament laws were shadowy; the civil code was also a means to separate Israel from other nations as well as to prevent execution of horrible civil transgressions, and the moral law was in place but not as defined as when Jesus expounded it.
Last edited by Basiliximab; 09-21-2020 at 01:01 PM..
That's not the moral law. I had a feeling someone would bring those kinds of laws up, but I really did not want to get into a detailed discussion since many people seem to automatically inject disrespect and negativity into their discussions (Such as your first statement: "Sounds like someone has never read the OT". My friend, that comes across as condescending to me. Have I said anything to you that was disrespectful? If we have future discussions, I ask you to exchange words politely as I am endeavoring to do here. I would appreciate your kindness, as that is what I endeavor to extend to you as a friend).
The laws regarding civil actions was the law for Israel, to restrain people from acting even worse than that. Jesus explains how this is when the religious authorities ask him about divorce. In the Old Testament, God allowed divorce in order that the woman would be protected legally. Jesus explains that Moses allowed this "for the hardness of your hearts". The same goes for an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (the lex talionis). Those laws were put in place by God so that the punishment for a transgression was comparable to the crime. Jesus rather teaches us that if someone should strike us on one check, we should turn the other and offer it (not to strike back). If someone compels us to walk a mile with him, we should go with him 2 miles. The moral law is encompassed in the ten commandments and when Jesus walked the earth he explained how we should live according to God's (moral) law. He fulfilled the Israelite law and revealed to us the moral attributes of our Heavenly Father among them showing others mercy and compassion.
A lot of people, so it seems, tend to get the Israelite laws in the Old Testament confused with God's moral law, as though God put those in place as a moral code when it was a civil code for Israel as a nation to adhere to (there are some things in it reflective of the moral code, but it basically so the nation of Israel does not act worse than it naturally would without the law). It rather is a creation ordnance of God (before the law of Moses existed) where God explains that he created us in his image, male and female so that it is to be understood that God has male and female attributes and that both are of equal value in his sight, as the image of God.
So then your belief is that God issues laws which He knows are immoral, but He issues them anyway?
I would not expect a non-believer to believe the Bible as truthful, but that is all that I will use to discuss God because I believe it is the absolute truth.
I can respect that. It does make conversations between us almost pointless, as we have such different viewpoints. I am willing to discuss my reasons, although you seem unwilling to do similarly. Absolutely your prerogative of course.
Quote:
They do appear to be different, yet the same God of the Old Testament is revealed to us in a clear light in the person and work of Jesus. The things in the Old Testament pointed to Jesus but it was very shadowy and vague. God was not revealed in a very clear way, yet a messiah was promised to deliver Israel from their sins and that was all the Old Testament believers really had to go on. They had to put their faith in this one promised by God.
When Jesus came on the scene, it was as though a light was turned on in the room and we are now able to "see" God very clearly as Jesus is the most clear reflection of God that we can have on this side of eternity. The Old Testament laws were shadowy; the civil code was also a means to separate Israel from other nations as well as to prevent execution of horrible civil transgressions, and the moral law was in place but not as defined as when Jesus expounded it.
I have heard the apologetic before. It doesn’t address my point though, and brings up the additional question about how perfect and complete the Bible is. If the Bible is unclear, why? What does that say about the Bible as a source of knowledge.
So then your belief is that God issues laws which He knows are immoral, but He issues them anyway?
Hmmm. That's a good question. It seems that they were more moral than what may have happened if there were no laws in place. They were in place to restrict people from doing something worse than if there were no law. Of course, the law didn't require some of these more "immoral" practices, like it didn't make someone force a captive woman to be his wife; but if he was set on doing that anyway, laws were in place to prevent something more barbaric from happening.
Also, not every Israelite was a true member of the church; just because they were born an Israelite did not mean they looked to the messiah (who we now know as Jesus and was the same salvation for the Old Testament believer though they did not know him by that name) for salvation. The Israelite law may have been more of the minimum standards for civil conduct; also as I mentioned previously it also served to separate the Israel nation from all the the rest, to keep them from being able to mix very easily with the non-Jewish nations.
Once again, I'll use the example that Jesus used about the divorce laws in the Old Testament. Once he explained that it is more conforming to God's moral law to not divorce your wife for anything other than unfaithfulness, then we can see from that that he is saying the other law was not as good as this one that he is explaining.
I'm not sure why God didn't bypass all the Israelite law stuff and go straight to the moral law. It definitely appears more moral. Yet once again, I'm won't put myself in the place of God and say that I think he could have done better. God has his own reasons for doing things and I put my trust in him and lean not on my own understanding. I guess it's similar to how I don't understand why God doesn't sanctify all his children to the fullest in this life; some he seems not to sanctify very much at all. I think it would be much more moral for him to just take all the sin out of our lives right when we come to belief in him! But, he doesn't. His ways are not our ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
I can respect that. It does make conversations between us almost pointless, as we have such different viewpoints. I am willing to discuss my reasons, although you seem unwilling to do similarly. Absolutely your prerogative of course.
I'm sorry. I was trying to be as open as I can and willing to try to answer as much as I can (to those who ask respectfully, as you are doing. Petunia's question above was respectful too. I'm probably a little too sensitive and I apologize for that. My husband, recently passed as I mentioned, was a huge arguer on the internet. He didn't frequent this site but another. It bothered me to see that, though of course it is always easier to see the speck in your neighbor's eye than the plank in your own. Nevertheless, he didn't seem to me always to discuss things with people in a loving, respectful manner. I just now want to stay away from all kinds of arguing like that. Politics was a huge source of arguing with him. I got into a real big fight with my mom a few weeks after he passed for bringing up some political topic. But I digress).
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
I have heard the apologetic before. It doesn’t address my point though, and brings up the additional question about how perfect and complete the Bible is. If the Bible is unclear, why? What does that say about the Bible as a source of knowledge.
Well, the Bible is a source of knowledge about God and the salvation he offers to us in Jesus. It is just what he has chosen to reveal, namely the knowledge that is sufficient for our salvation. Though the Old Testament believers did not have as clear a revelation as we do with Jesus, they still had sufficient knowledge in order to be saved. I don't know the reasons for why God chose to do it that way, as I implied above (and I definitely do not practice apologetics, at least very thoroughly, and do not mean to answer in such a way. I am just giving the answers I know of in God's word. There is still much for me to learn and much that I won't have answers for. I've only been reading the Bible for about 7 years so I've a lot of literacy to catch up on).
Yet I speculate that it may have something to do with this: in the Old Testament God spoke more directly to his people through prophets. In these latter days, he speaks to us through Jesus. My own speculation of this change is that as we move further and further down the linear chain of time, we are unable to distinguish clearly a spiritual revelation from something else like a hallucination or meaningless dream. In the days right after the expulsion from the garden, God directly spoke to Cain (he asked him where his brother was). Why did God not appear directly to non-prophetic people like that in the times of the prophets. You don't hear of God just appearing to random people like he did with Cain. I think as time went on, our genetic makeup becomes more and more deteriorated physically by sin; in earlier times, we somehow knew in a sensory way what was from God and what wasn't--thus God was able to appear to people very early, and then as time progressed he appeared in dreams and visions to the prophets who somehow know this is from God and I'm not having delusions. Ever since Jesus' time (and some centuries prior) we have completely lost that ability. God has ceased speaking to us in visions because we are physically incapable of that, and he only speaks to us in his word through Jesus.
Of course like I said this is entirely my own speculation and I definitely may have a different idea as I read and re-read the Bible.
Last edited by Basiliximab; 09-21-2020 at 05:51 PM..
Hmmm. That's a good question. It seems that they were more moral than what may have happened if there were no laws in place. They were in place to restrict people from doing something worse than if there were no law. Of course, the law didn't require some of these more "immoral" practices, like it didn't make someone force a captive woman to be his wife; but if he was set on doing that anyway, laws were in place to prevent something more barbaric from happening.
Also, not every Israelite was a true member of the church; just because they were born an Israelite did not mean they looked to the messiah (who we now know as Jesus and was the same salvation for the Old Testament believer though they did not know him by that name) for salvation. The Israelite law may have been more of the minimum standards for civil conduct; also as I mentioned previously it also served to separate the Israel nation from all the the rest, to keep them from being able to mix very easily with the non-Jewish nations.
Once again, I'll use the example that Jesus used about the divorce laws in the Old Testament. Once he explained that it is more conforming to God's moral law to not divorce your wife for anything other than unfaithfulness, then we can see from that that he is saying the other law was not as good as this one that he is explaining.
I'm not sure why God didn't bypass all the Israelite law stuff and go straight to the moral law. It definitely appears more moral. Yet once again, I'm won't put myself in the place of God and say that I think he could have done better. God has his own reasons for doing things and I put my trust in him and lean not on my own understanding. I guess it's similar to how I don't understand why God doesn't sanctify all his children to the fullest in this life; some he seems not to sanctify very much at all. I think it would be much more moral for him to just take all the sin out of our lives right when we come to belief in him! But, he doesn't. His ways are not our ways.
There are those who would say that that is an immoral point of view.
Self control and a values system are two different thinks.
Here is a simple example and you may think it is a weak one.
I have strong political beliefs, which is not uncommon.
Jesus said to "love your enemies", a very counterintuitive concept and one that I don't think too many people who have never learned that from the bible just get up one morning and start to practice. It is counterintuitive.
So my silly example is that, when I would see a politician on TV who I "hated", I might react to the point of actually yelling at my TV, and frequently would change channels to get the person off my TV so I was not furious just looking at them and listening to them.
After becoming a devout Christian and learning I am supposed to "love my enemies", I don't react in the same way. I can watch this politician I despise and listen to them, because I now hate their politics, but I just pity them as people, rather than hate them. I can now give them Christian love in spite of their politics and the destruction to America I think they cause.
Who does this help? It helps me. Sin hurts the sinner. The politician on TV can't ever possibly know I hate them and flip the channel. The politician is completely unaffected whether I hate them or love them. It is the sinner who is hurt by the sin. So now, instead of getting angry, raising my blood pressure, and being temporarily unhappy -- instead I can maintain a calm, happy outlook. By following the tenets of Christianity, I benefit from it but also have the chance to make the world a slightly better place.
That has nothing to do with "self control". That is a life philosophy and a lifestyle practice that enhances my quality of life, makes me happier, makes me less upset, and enhances my health over time to some extent by avoiding stress.
Interesting, I would argue it is self control and just plain old common sense. And the examples you used in your post I responded to were the same.
Hmmm. That's a good question. It seems that they were more moral than what may have happened if there were no laws in place. They were in place to restrict people from doing something worse than if there were no law. Of course, the law didn't require some of these more "immoral" practices, like it didn't make someone force a captive woman to be his wife; but if he was set on doing that anyway, laws were in place to prevent something more barbaric from happening.
But, if God's standard of morality is absolute (I think this is what you believe, my apologies if I am inferring incorrectly), he is then telling the ancient Israelites to do something that is still immoral, dooming them to damnation. Wouldn't it have been better to simply tell them that rape is wrong? That rapists should face X consequence, and women who have been raped should be assisted and cared for? That the woman is owed a share of the rapists wealth, and not have to become his sex slave?
Sorry, I just don't see how you get lesser of two evils out of this, when all I see is barbarism.
Quote:
I'm not sure why God didn't bypass all the Israelite law stuff and go straight to the moral law. It definitely appears more moral. Yet once again, I'm won't put myself in the place of God and say that I think he could have done better. God has his own reasons for doing things and I put my trust in him and lean not on my own understanding. I guess it's similar to how I don't understand why God doesn't sanctify all his children to the fullest in this life; some he seems not to sanctify very much at all. I think it would be much more moral for him to just take all the sin out of our lives right when we come to belief in him! But, he doesn't. His ways are not our ways.
I agree with your doubts, although the conclusion I draw is that the Bible is a book written by ancient men that includes some dubious advice.
Quote:
I'm sorry. I was trying to be as open as I can and willing to try to answer as much as I can (to those who ask respectfully, as you are doing. Petunia's question above was respectful too. I'm probably a little too sensitive and I apologize for that. My husband, recently passed as I mentioned, was a huge arguer on the internet. He didn't frequent this site but another. It bothered me to see that, though of course it is always easier to see the speck in your neighbor's eye than the plank in your own. Nevertheless, he didn't seem to me always to discuss things with people in a loving, respectful manner. I just now want to stay away from all kinds of arguing like that. Politics was a huge source of arguing with him. I got into a real big fight with my mom a few weeks after he passed for bringing up some political topic. But I digress).
It's all good. It is obvious that you have been recently traumatized, and I see no reason to attack you. I honestly am curious about your reasoning. I will ask again, as I think you may have missed an earlier post of mine. Do you accept the Bible absolutely literally, and assume that everything in it, no matter what, is morally correct on the part of God? Do you have evidence for your beliefs, or is it more of a personal revelation? I am not challenging you or saying that whatever you respond with is wrong, I am just curious about the source of your belief.
Quote:
Well, the Bible is a source of knowledge about God and the salvation he offers to us in Jesus. It is just what he has chosen to reveal, namely the knowledge that is sufficient for our salvation.
But is it? I put myself forward as an example. The knowledge in the bible is not sufficient for my salvation, because I find it contradictory.
Quote:
Of course like I said this is entirely my own speculation and I definitely may have a different idea as I read and re-read the Bible.
Disclaimer understood. It does sound to me as if you are trying to make sense of the Bible, and reconcile some awkward bits. That is a credit to you, even if I do not agree with your conclusions. From my atheistic perspective it seems a bit too contrived and complex, and fails the test of Ockham's Razor, where the simplest description is likely to be correct. Of course Ockham is not a law, merely a principle, so that is not definitive.
Obviously we have very different views. For my part, I am ok with people having different views, I do not see that as confrontational, but others are not as comfortable with such discussions. If you aren't comfortable, fine by me and we can go our separate ways.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
