Bible as PR

I gotta tell you, hearing what both we and our beliefs look like to people who are outside the fence, so to speak, can be a sobering experience. That’s why I appreciate the readers/commenters I have here and their brutal honesty. Sometimes it takes me days to digest what they say and often there’s really nothing I can do or say in response other than to say “let’s agree to disagree” which can come across as a cop out.

Occasionally I get a response like the one from Nobilis:

if Christ exists, I’m pretty sure he’s damned disappointed with the mess people have made in his name.

that makes me nod my head in agreement.

Then I get ones like this from Mer:

I sat down and read through the canonical gospels recently, just to make sure, and I really have to tell you, those 4 books aren’t the best PR in the world for your team. Jesus came off sometimes like a fully enlightened being, but more often sounds like a raving madman.

The Muslims are right, you are all of you The People Of The Book. I can’t accept it as divine or divinely inspired.

The books don’t work, any history you can show me is profane, so all that’s left is direct revelation. I wouldn’t believe in Jesus, I would have Gnostic knowlege of him and his divinity. That’s not christianity, that’s something else.

where I just have to scratch my head and put it out there for further thought/discussion. I definitely agree that if one were to set out to write a series of books as PR for Christianity the Gospels wouldn’t be it.

The apostles weren’t exactly models of good behavior, often missing the point of Jesus’ teachings or getting them completely backwards. Thomas gets a bad rap considering the doubt that the other men showed. They were not only human and fallible, they could be utter morons, driving children away from Christ and questioning their rabbi’s meeting with a woman alone because it wasn’t socially acceptable.

Christ stepped outside the bonds of the religion he was a part of and did things that might (and I believe did in some cases) get another man stoned. As someone pointed out in a cartoon posted at Matthew Wayne Selznick’s blog recently, he didn’t do things that you might consider doing if you were in fact God incarnate (tell people about hygiene/medicine, make large tracts of land arable, come out clearly against slavery). Instead of giving the people the political leader they were looking for, he roamed the country telling stories, healing a few, performing very localized miracles, and generally pissing off the wrong people.

It’s no wonder that the folks outside of religion in general or inside of Judaism in general, just don’t get it, upon reading the Book. Folks inside the religion point out that that makes a case for the Bible being inspired because hey, if no one in their right mind would make up something like this then it must be true. They go further and say that it’s not just true, it must all be literally true. Others say, well it’s just a book of stories, some true and some not, that are meant to help us on our spiritual journey. Take what you need and leave the rest.

For me the Bible, specifically the New Testament, is filled with wisdom from God that he has given to us through the imperfect vessels of the apostles. It has opinion. There are made up stories. Letters that were intended to answer specific questions asked by specific churches/leaders make up a good bulk of it and we don’t have the original questions. Parts of it are very clearly history. There’s a lot of stuff in there and none of it is simple. None of it is intended to be PR, in other words I don’t think you should look at it and go “This is what convinces me of God’s truth.” For me it kind of worked the other way. I am convinced of God’s truth and the Bible contains that.

This question is more for the “Home Team” (that would be the Christians), though of course the non-believers out there can weigh in on any of this and are welcome to, what is the Bible to you? And do you have answers for our friends?

  • One problem that you seem to have Matthew is that you don't appear to understand Christianity.
    I'm just looking at what the bible -- the book all Christians turn to when it comes to what Jesus, his disciples and early church architects like Paul say -- and going from there.
    I will grant, readily, that Christianity is difficult to understand when its followers can pick and choose what Christianity is (and different followers claim different things.)
    It isn't leave your father and mother or sell all you have, though Jesus certainly says those things and they have a great deal of weight as a result.
    I'd say it has a great deal of weight! In Mark 10, he tells the rich man that it's not enough to follow the commandments to have eternal life -- he must also sell everything he has and give it to the poor. Jesus says this in answer to the very specific question: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" It's reasonable to conclude that if you don't do what Jesus (who is god, who is the ultimate judge of who does and doesn't inherit eternal life, and so must be considered the final authority on the subject) says, you will not inherit eternal life and enter the kingdom of heaven.
    But you can pick and choose what you believe, because there's no way to know which things are deal breakers and which things aren't. It's really a very easy religion, when you think about it.
    Also you can't really just go about quoting scripture passages and saying "Here, see here? This proves what I'm saying." without examining those passages. It almost seems like you just did a word search for the word perfect and assume that everything you find fits the bill.
    I cited one scripture, the Psalm -- there are many, many more -- to make the point. I have read the bible (several time: before, while, and after I was a Christian) and I've studied its origins, as well. I fully understand that it is a mish-mash of conflicting material, mythology, material borrowed from other belief systems that were older and contemporary with the authors when they wrote it, and edits and redactions made to serve the purposes of those authors and their masters.
    But Christians look to it as the primary source of their faith. So I quote scripture -- and invite you to find more examples -- because the bible is the primary source for the subject at hand.
    Yes and these rules are covenants with specific people. They served a purpose for a time and the Bible says that pretty explicitly.
    It's the old "those things were for a specific time and cultural context" argument! Can you cite where the bible says this explicitly?
    If we choose not to follow them then we aren't doomed. The Bible says that the law does not have the power of life, Jesus does. He is our perfect sacrifice that we need because we can't follow the law perfectly.
    First: God created laws that are impossible for man to follow... then he comes to earth in order to suffer by proxy for all the sins he himself set his creation up to commit! That cartoon said it best: "The human I'm going to sacrifice to appease myself is... myself!"
    Looking at that logic, it's no wonder people pick and choose what to believe in the bible.
    Second: You're quoting the bible to explain god / Jesus! You've already said the bible isn't without flaw and that you don't have to agree with or follow everything it says. You can't know if the parts your quoting are flawed or not!
    You've made my point: Since the bible is flawed and Christians can't say for sure which parts are right and which parts should be disregarded, Christians are free to believe whatever they want.
    I went back up the comment thread and saw in your comment here that you essentially agree with this. You have a personal faith that is based on the parts of Christianity that work best for you.
    I suspect, strongly, that's how most people of faith work it out for themselves.
    When Christians use the bible (ie, things god / Jesus said) to justify things that harm society, denigrate science, stand in the way of eliminating human suffering and persecute other people and beliefs, I sure wish the more common-sense, personal-interpretation variety of Christian would speak up.
    Serious question: How many of the (what I'm calling) common-sense Christians challenge their leaders when these issues come up?
  • Scott
    Fwiw, I don't believe that the Bible is without error or contradiction. I believe that Jesus is the word of God and that the Bible points to him.
  • Scott
    But God's not the one making a claim here.
    Right, Matthew is. He says that there is no god and can't really prove that. I believe that there is God, but it's not something I'm willing to argue since I can't objectively prove it. In that sense I suppose it's subjective. I have no problem with people saying God doesn't exist, so long as they're willing to admit that it's something they can't prove either. That's all I said.
  • Scott
    That's a neat bit of circular logic, no?
    If you say so. I happen to believe that it's true.
    One problem that you seem to have Matthew is that you don't appear to understand Christianity. The message of Christianity isn't "follow all of these rules and you'll be okay". It isn't leave your father and mother or sell all you have, though Jesus certainly says those things and they have a great deal of weight as a result. The message is that we can't do all of these things. We can't please God by following the rules. That's not the purpose of the rules.
    Also you can't really just go about quoting scripture passages and saying "Here, see here? This proves what I'm saying." without examining those paassages. It almost seems like you just did a word search for the word perfect and assume that everything you find fits the bill.
    Paslm 19:7 says that the law of God is perfect. That's true. Now is that just talking about the Levitical Laws, is it talking about the books of the Law, does it mean that Gentile believers are required to follow those laws? What was the intent of the law? We could talk at length about those things, but merely quoting that scripture doesn't prove your point.
    god / jesus has rules presented as perfect and unchanging in the book that is supposed to be god's perfect and unchanging word. If you and pretty much all Christians and Jews choose to not follow them, then according to the perfect word of god, you're doomed
    Yes and these rules are covenants with specific people. They served a purpose for a time and the Bible says that pretty explicitly. If we choose not to follow them then we aren't doomed. The Bible says that the law does not have the power of life, Jesus does. He is our perfect sacrifice that we need because we can't follow the law perfectly.
  • "sounds like you agree with me: you can believe the word of god is perfect and the bible is not perfect."
    Yeah, here we agree. My point was that it's not justified to say that Christians have to believe that, if God is perfect, the Bible must necessarily be perfect as well. One can (and I believe, typically does) say they are in each case perfect (or imperfect) while meaning it in different senses. Such an understanding of the word "perfection" is terribly vague, and so not itself very useful for actually figuring anything out on the Christian side. But "perfect" is so vague in general, that you can't really iron out any claims based on it, one way or the other. Then there's also the problem of the nature of the Word. So I disagree with the form of argumentation, but I agree that the Bible is imperfect (that fact seems pretty obvious to me). I'm just here to keep the logic clean, if you will.
  • DKT
    @ MWS:
    I don't think Christians are uniform in their beliefs on how one attains salvation. Except maybe that it involves Christ. Some will tell you it's faith alone. Some will say it's faith and works. Some will say it's predestination.
    I do agree - it's a shame many Christians have gone the dogmatic/fundamentalist route. Personally, I think Christianity is supposed to be more self-reflective than that.
  • Snurp: sounds like you agree with me: you can believe the word of god is perfect and the bible is not perfect.
    Christianity depends on what's written by various authors of various books in the bible. Theologists point to biblical scripture to prove the very validity of Jesus. The bible is, essentially, the primary source for Christianity.
    That primary source says that what god says is inviolate, that his laws will stand forever, unchanging, and that god is perfect (without flaw.) That primary source also quotes god regarding what humans should do to worship him properly, up to and including how to live forever. That primary source also quotes god regarding what to do to people who don't worship him properly, up to and including eternal torment.
    My point is: if you pick and choose from the content of the bible when you decide what you're going to believe about god and how you're going to worship him, you might as well make up anything you like. After all, if the bible isn't actually god's word, then who can tell which parts are right and which parts are wrong? What does it matter?
    Believe whatever you like, in other words. It's all equally valid -- or none of it is. Either way, again, everybody's happy until one group pushes their version on another.
    DKT: If the bible is just a book inspired by god but not literally true, how do Christians decide which parts determine their salvation?
    Since the mountain Satan and Jesus ascended to view all the kingdoms of the world (impossible on a spherical earth) must be a parable / myth / poetry, maybe the resurrection is? Maybe the virgin birth is? Maybe the miracles are? Maybe all the prophesies in the Old Testament that predicted Christ are? Maybe Paul was writing poetically and in a mythic context when he wrote about his own conversion and meeting the resurrected Jesus?
    Again, you get to believe whatever you want, which is how faith should be. A private matter.
    If only most Christians believed this throughout history... especially the ones in power.
  • DKT

    Hi everyone. I've enjoyed reading the debate going on in this thread.


    Where does the argument for the Bible = the word of God come from? The Bible says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Then later, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." The "word of God" is used in other ways, too, but I'm unconvinced they're ever self-referential.


    The Bible is a book. Some Christians think it was inspired by God and therefore is perfect and literally true, while other Christians think it was inspired by God and true, but not *literally* true (i.e., parables, histories, poetry, etc.)

  • The above was me, obviously enough. I forgot to put in my name.
    While I'm at it, I'll add a conclusion. Basically, this:
    "You can safely say the word of god is perfect and the bible is not perfect -- you just have to accept that the bible is not the word of god."
    Is one massive equivocation fallacy.
  • Anonymous
    "Saying you believe in god / Jesus and not believing everything in the bible does make you wrong, since the bible is the perfect word of god and no part of it, by definition, is any less perfect than any other part."
    No, it doesn't. First of all, perfection isn't a predicate. Something isn't "perfect" in the way that something is "blue." Things don't acquire "perfection" like the acquire "roundness." You constantly refer to perfection, saying that there is this characteristic, perfection, which the word of God, the Bible, etc. have, and yet it's not even clear how something is supposed to "be" perfect. Perfect, as in, every word means exactly what it should? What "should" every word mean? What, for starters, about "perfect?" Or is something else meant by "perfect?"
    Second,
    "If you believe the bible is the word of god, but you decide it's not perfect, that means the word of god is not perfect -- ie, god is not perfect."
    You treat the Bible like it's a part of God, because it's called the "Word of God." I have words; you're reading them right now. But they don't share my essence. How does a sentence share the characteristics of the being that expresses it? Do words have essences at all? What relation do they bear to the speaker? I ask because you're implying this when you say that "since we know the bible is imperfect, god is not perfect..." Is the Word literally equivalent to God? The only way I can rationalize that is the description Jesus as Word in the book of John, but I'll assume you're not, because that's silly (and would be due to improper use of the Greek word logos, ironically enough) and would require conflating two obviously different senses of the word "word."
    So let's summarize. You attribute this trait, perfection, to God. You attribute it to his Word, which is apparently some thing which has this trait, perfection, in virtue of being from God, which would require the Word to share somehow in God's nature, seeing as it's God that's perfect to begin with (I assume you'll agree that things don't "become" perfect, for then it wouldn't be from God, but that would hamper on God's perfection, and dash this whole thing). The Bible "is the word of God." So this thing, the Word, which has this trait, perfection, is also at the same time this book, the Bible, which is a physical thing. For your perfection argument to carry over to the Bible, for the argument to hold, you have to equate God, his Word, and the Bible, not just in terms of being important, but in sharing the same essence. They have to be three things that are capable of transferring qualities between themselves. Given that we're talking about perfection, and not just anything is perfect, it appears that the Bible and the Word must literally be equal to God, according to your understanding. Not even the Muslims, who venerate the Qu'ran, go that far. The Bible is not God, according to damn near any Christian, and the only sense in which the Word is God is as Jesus, which is basically a rather poor use of "logos." To make that transition would be putting Jesus between God and the Bible, which is stupid and the most laughable form of equivocation. But if not that, then what? Further, it's absolutely not clear in the first place that perfection can be "had," or that the word is something that "has," or that the word is "something" at all. The only thing perfect here is the perfect vagueness of this argument and the language involved. And so we come full circle: It's not God's problem, it's our language.
  • Or you can be a Christian that believes that the Bible is the word of God, but not perfect. That it was written down by human hands, and transferred by others, and translated by others, and that those people more than once screwed up/misunderstood/straight-up lied. Not agreeing with the Bible word for word does not instantly make you "wrong" as a Christian.
    Two points about this:
    1) The bible says the word of god is perfect. If you believe the bible is the word of god, but you decide it's not perfect, that means the word of god is not perfect -- ie, god is not perfect. If the word of god is perfect, it wouldn't matter how often it was translated -- perfect cannot be altered and still be perfect. Therefore, since we know the bible is imperfect, god is not perfect... or doesn't exist at all.
    2) If the bible is the word of god and the word of god is perfect, you must accept everything in the bible as perfect -- some parts of the perfect word of god cannot be "perfecter" than other parts. If you don't, then according to god (who is perfect) you are doomed to death or eternal damnation. Since we know the word of god is not perfect (apparently god thinks the sun revolves around a flat earth, for example) then at the very least, the bible is not the word of god... or god doesn't exist at all. Saying you believe in god / Jesus and not believing everything in the bible does make you wrong, since the bible is the perfect word of god and no part of it, by definition, is any less perfect than any other part.
    Again, this is fine -- everyone's faith should be a personal thing, since it's all completely subjective. The problem is that many believers insist the rest of the world should follow the imperfect word of what very well may have been a personified volcano worshiped by a group of Bronze Age nomads, and this has resulted in a great deal of unnecessary strife and suffering across the last two thousand years and more.
    There's one more possibility:
    You can safely say the word of god is perfect and the bible is not perfect -- you just have to accept that the bible is not the word of god. If that's the case, you can believe whatever you like about god and be right with your personal interpretation of god.
    Everybody wins... until enough people decide that their personal interpretation of god is the best one. Then we're back where we started.
    Better to accept the evidence that the universe appears exactly as it should if there were no god.
    If you must impose a supernatural solution on the questions humans have yet to answer, that god does not exhibit any of the qualities of the god of the Abrahamic religions.
  • "What I'm saying is: god / jesus has rules presented as perfect and unchanging in the book that is supposed to be god's perfect and unchanging word. If you and pretty much all Christians and Jews choose to not follow them, then according to the perfect word of god, you're doomed.
    You can pick and choose from the word of god and have a very satisfying life in faith. It's what probably 99.9999% of all people who call themselves Jews, Christians and Muslims do. To do otherwise is to face a long list of contradictions and fallacies that would force one to abandon one's faith entirely."
    Or you can be a Christian that believes that the Bible is the word of God, but not perfect. That it was written down by human hands, and transferred by others, and translated by others, and that those people more than once screwed up/misunderstood/straight-up lied. Not agreeing with the Bible word for word does not instantly make you "wrong" as a Christian. That's only so if you listen to what is literally said in some parts of the Bible and accept that as "the word of God," with no possibility of alteration.
    So Christians can legitimately think things other than exactly what their (old, translated) bible says word for word. To say that they are suddenly facing contradictions is to assume a certain form of Christianity as the standard, one that must follow what the Bible (which version?) literally. Simply put, for many, if not most Christians, that's not Christianity. Certainly for Abraham, Isaac, and those who were Christian before the NT was composed, it wasn't. If anything, I think Jesus as described in the NT was acutely aware that religion is about more than a book.
    And to Scott:
    "The burden of proof isn't actually on me, it's on God. If he fails to reveal himself to you then that's on him. If he reveals himself to you and you refuse to see it, well that's on you."
    But God's not the one making a claim here. If you want to believe that God exists in any way but a completely subjective one, there should be something to show for it. Further, how should one judge when he has "revealed himself?" Again, if there is to be anything but a completely subjective standard, in which case the pious man and the madman have the same justification ("God spoke with me"), there needs to be something more. You're making a claim in debate, so you should be able to support it. Certainly, no one in an actual debate would accept it if I said, "Hold on, let me get my friend, and he'll show you!" Either that, or you should have no problem whatsoever with people saying God does not exist. After all, as you say, it's God's problem, not yours.

  • The burden of proof isn't actually on me, it's on God. If he fails to reveal himself to you then that's on him. If he reveals himself to you and you refuse to see it, well that's on you.


    That's a neat bit of circular logic, no?


    Santa Claus revealed himself to me when I was a child. I believed in him 100% because of what I was told, what I read, and the proof of him in my life -- exactly the reasons most Christians believe in God.


    Now that I'm older and I've learned more, I no longer believe in Santa Claus. Does that mean he still exists and it's just my own fault for not believing? Is that why I don't get presents from him any more, darn it?


    I don't think I'm selective in what I obey, I'm just sensitive as to what the Bible commands me as a Gentile believer to do, which is love God and love my neighbor. Most of the other laws/covenants apply to Jewish believers (dietary, legal, etc). I am not unaware of the various crimes calling for capital punishment I simply believe that I am not called to act on them.


    You also need to get rid of everything you own. You also need to hate your mother, father, brothers and sisters. That's part of Jesus' instructions to join him in Heaven, too. In for a penny, in for a pound!


    If god / jesus exist, and the word of god / jesus is perfect (Psalm 19:7, among others), and the bible represents the perfect word of god, you *must* accept everything in the bible as the word of god. You can't pick and choose and still be true to the word of god.


    Finally, Jesus as presented in the bible (the perfect word of god) was a Jew and represented the culmination of Jewish prophesy. If you're going to throw out the parts of the perfect word of god that you don't like, you have to throw out the parts you do like, too -- otherwise god's word is not perfect. That means no prophesies about Jesus.


    Just because Jews don't accept Jesus for what he (and the perfect word of god, the bible) said he was doesn't mean they get to disregard him any more than they get to disregard the ten commandments or any of the other laws of god -- if the word of god is perfect, that is.


    What I'm saying is: god / jesus has rules presented as perfect and unchanging in the book that is supposed to be god's perfect and unchanging word. If you and pretty much all Christians and Jews choose to not follow them, then according to the perfect word of god, you're doomed.


    You can pick and choose from the word of god and have a very satisfying life in faith. It's what probably 99.9999% of all people who call themselves Jews, Christians and Muslims do. To do otherwise is to face a long list of contradictions and fallacies that would force one to abandon one's faith entirely.


    Besides, if I stoned you how would I get the "sequel" to BMR? You are writing it write? If not I think I can find a pebble to chunk at you.


    Since you asked about my fiction, stay tuned. Big announcement of new Sovereign Era fiction is coming on May 1st.

  • Scott

    @ MWS - I've no problem with you stating that you don't believe in God. It's certainly a theological position I can respect and understand. Saying that there are no gods/is no God flat out, well that I have a problem with. The burden of proof isn't actually on me, it's on God. If he fails to reveal himself to you then that's on him. If he reveals himself to you and you refuse to see it, well that's on you.


    God in the old testament and new certainly does things I have a hard time with. I don't relish the idea of hell or anyone going to it. The idea of wars and wholesale destruction of cities full of people is certainly a tough nut. My argument has always been that God loves his people and that not everyone is his. The Bible's pretty clear on that point.


    In spite of what you may have heard Christianity doesn't teach that we are all God's children. Those that aren't get what God ordains they deserve. I don't have to like it and there are certainly those in my circles who would argue that even those who aren't God's children will have an out. That's a nice thought and may well be true. I certainly hope so.


    I don't think I'm selective in what I obey, I'm just sensitive as to what the Bible commands me as a Gentile believer to do, which is love God and love my neighbor. Most of the other laws/covenants apply to Jewish believers (dietary, legal, etc). I am not unaware of the various crimes calling for capital punishment I simply believe that I am not called to act on them.


    Apparently most Jews don't believe so either and I'm sure that they have their reasons for believing so.


    Besides, if I stoned you how would I get the "sequel" to BMR? You are writing it write? If not I think I can find a pebble to chunk at you.

  • That is of course a theological statement that you can't prove.


    I can't prove the existence or non-existence of a flying spaghetti monster (Henderson), invisible pink unicorns (Eley), or a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars (Russell), but that doesn't mean I should treat such things as if they exist.


    The burden of proof for the existence of god falls on the believer.


    Or you're wrong about how God has shown his love and what a perfect love looks like.


    I addressed the issue of love. I notice you didn't address the issues of the Christian god's jealousy and murderous tendencies. There are plenty of examples in the Bible -- here are a few:

    Exodus 31:15


    Exodus 35:2


    Deut 13


    Deut 17:2-7


    Deut 21:18-21


    Lev 20:10


    Lev 20:13


    Lev 24:13-16, 23


    Your point? I mean if you're talking about Job then you missed something. If you're talking about someone else then let's be clear.


    This is where I addressed the issue of god's love.


    I used examples of what the Christian god does (or instructs his followers to do in his name) to people who do not follow his laws. The numerous scriptures I listed above are some specific examples. God loves you... BUT the penalty for going against him or denying him is vicious and sadistic. The New Testament offers plenty more examples of the horrific punishment awaiting anyone who does not follow god / Jesus.


    Nope, which is why I'm in a relationship with God through Christ.


    This has to be your own interpretation of god / Christ, which is fine -- and a relief, honestly. Most people who believe in god / Christ are selective about the parts of the Bible they obey, which is a perfectly rational thing to do. Otherwise you'd be killing homosexuals, rebellious teenagers, non-believers, blasphemers and anyone who works on the Sabbath.


    Frankly, I'm glad you're reasonable in your worship, or you'd be advocating my death instead of engaging in this discussion. :-)

  • Personally, i think a lot of the "less glamourous moments" reinforce the authenticity of the Bible - these peole that follow Jesus are real, they doubt, the walk away, the don't get it.
    And Jesus is out for his own glory and the true followers not to amass crowds - the crowds came - but that wasn't his primary goal.
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts!!
  • Scott
    That's not it at all. The question of what kind of god is worth worship is moot because there are no gods.
    That is of course a theological statement that you can't prove.
    I'm just looking at what Christians believe -- that God loves his creation. Since God is perfect, that love must be perfect. Since God's actions show a love that is conditional and a jealousy that is murderous to the point of genocide, the Christian God is not perfect. So either the Christian God doesn't exist, or Christians are wrong about the God they worship.
    Or you're wrong about how God has shown his love and what a perfect love looks like.
    For scripture, Psalm 36: 5-12 is often pointed to as evidence of God's omnibenevolence, btw. I'm sure there are others.
    That passage only says that God loves and that his love his immense. It doesn't say that he is required by that love to solve all of our problems for us.
    Let's say I tell you I love you. Then, when you do something I don't like, I beat you within an inch of your life, drown your children, destroy your house and give you a painful skin disease. Despite this, I still love you, and I promise that one day, I'll give you the best gift you've ever received. Someday. I promise. Just wait.. and just do exactly as I say. Or else.
    Your point? I mean if you're talking about Job then you missed something. If you're talking about someone else then let's be clear.
    Would you stay in any relationship with a person who doesn't love you the way you need to be loved? I hope not.
    Nope, which is why I'm in a relationship with God through Christ.
  • Scott

    @ Sidfaiwu -


    Upset? No, no. We get doubtful that there is a god as described by Christianity. We can see ways to improve suffering despite having imperfect wisdom. Unless you believe that when it comes to questions of evil and suffering our wisdom is always wrong, then the POE remains.


    I think you mean a god as described by some Christians. God isn't omnibenevolent (at least in the way you and Matt are describing) You can see ways to improve suffering because that's one thing God uses to alleviate it. You have been given the wisdom you have by God.


    Perhaps you meant "shouldn't". Simply because it's suboptimal - and perfection is never suboptimal.


    I meant should. God is perfect and has his own timing for things he wants to see done.


    Given only limited wisdom, I'd say "yes, an omnipotent, etc. being not only should have, but would have is such a being existed."


    He would have? Why?


    If not, then that being is not omnipotent.


    So we agree he could have but we can't find the why should he have.


  • You may not think that a god that's not omnibenevolent isn't worth worshiping. I can understand that.
    That's not it at all. The question of what kind of god is worth worship is moot because there are no gods.
    I'm just looking at what Christians believe -- that God loves his creation. Since God is perfect, that love must be perfect. Since God's actions show a love that is conditional and a jealousy that is murderous to the point of genocide, the Christian God is not perfect. So either the Christian God doesn't exist, or Christians are wrong about the God they worship.
    For scripture, Psalm 36: 5-12 is often pointed to as evidence of God's omnibenevolence, btw. I'm sure there are others.
    Does he love everyone equally in the way we think they should be loved? No.
    Let's say I tell you I love you. Then, when you do something I don't like, I beat you within an inch of your life, drown your children, destroy your house and give you a painful skin disease. Despite this, I still love you, and I promise that one day, I'll give you the best gift you've ever received. Someday. I promise. Just wait.. and just do exactly as I say. Or else.
    That, my friend, is an abusive relationship with a psychopath. Any rational person would advise you to find someone who loves you in a way that's healthy and beneficial to you and dump me before someone finds you chopped up in a bag on the side of the freeway.
    Would you stay in any relationship with a person who doesn't love you the way you need to be loved? I hope not.
  • That whole problem of evil/suffering is one big thorn in the side of monotheists, isn't it? That's likely because there is truth in it. Removing omnibenevolence is one way to resolve the conundrum. But as you point out, anything short of all-loving may not be worthy of worship for some people.
    "Human beings are much like children, they want everything to be a certain way and in our limited wisdom we get upset when its not."
    Upset? No, no. We get doubtful that there is a god as described by Christianity. We can see ways to improve suffering despite having imperfect wisdom. Unless you believe that when it comes to questions of evil and suffering our wisdom is always wrong, then the POE remains.
    "Why should God have waited to do those things through Christ?"
    Perhaps you meant "shouldn't". Simply because it's suboptimal - and perfection is never suboptimal.
    "Shouldn't he have created a world where none of that is necessary?"
    Given only limited wisdom, I'd say "yes, an omnipotent, etc. being not only should have, but would have is such a being existed."
    "Couldn't he have?"
    If not, then that being is not omnipotent.
  • Scott

    I rectified that oversight, thanks for pointing that out.


    I take issue with people painting God as omni-benevolent and then saying that the Bible contradicts that notion. I don't know that God is ever called omnibenevolent. Does he love? Sure. Does he love everyone equally in the way we think they should be loved? No.


    You may not think that a god that's not omnibenevolent isn't worth worshiping. I can understand that.


    The Bible does depict God as all powerful and all knowing and he is. I think that the cartoon is a cute take on an old argument. It's not the first time I've heard any of these charges against God and it won't be the last.


    Human beings are much like children, they want everything to be a certain way and in our limited wisdom we get upset when its not.


    Why should God have waited to do those things through Christ? Shouldn't he have created a world where none of that is necessary? Couldn't he have?

  • As someone pointed out in a cartoon I saw recently, he didn't do things that you might consider doing if you were in fact God incarnate (tell people about hygiene/medicine, make large tracts of land arable, come out clearly against slavery).


    This is the cartoon Scott refers to -- he saw it in this post on my blog. (Sorry, Scott -- good blogging etiquette is to link back to your sources, so I'm rectifying that here.)


    The point of the cartoon was that an all-loving God would do everything in his power (since he was also all-powerful, everything in his power would be "everything") to be loving to his creation -- humanity. By not revealing basic medical knowledge, basic science, etc. when he walked among humans, God extended unnecessary suffering among the people he loved. If an infinitely caring god does not act in a way that is infinitely caring, he is not infinitely caring.


    I challenge folks to go ahead and watch the cartoon (which cites specific scripture) and objectively think about it. If the Christian god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient, but the Bible itself depicts him as behaving in ways that are none of these... then the Bible contraindicates the existence of the Christian god.

  • Scott

    "Siddhārtha Gautama (the Buddha) has been talked about for 2400 years. Does that make him more powerful?"


    I accept your Buddha and raise you a Vishnu!


    Now boys, she said not that Jesus was powerful but that something was. And that something may very well just be the message. Buddha had some good messages too and worth listening to. Vishnu, I don't know enough about. She also went on to say it's all about how far you take it.

  • Scott

    I think that the Gospels tend to be a bit fragmented to many eyes because we don't have the background of the people who were writing it - many of the things they say about the man were to make sure that everybody knew that he fulfilled the prophecy, that he actually was the Messiah. The teachings recorded were bonus.


    I'm beginning to think in that direction too.


    Some things strike me as wrong - the idea that Mary never had children with Joseph, and Jesus was a virgin and never married. In the bible this is supported only by omission, and in the culture...


    Mary did have other children. Jesus may have never married simply because he didn't live long enough. Provided he did in fact die at the age of 32/33 as tradition has it, that still can be somewhat young for a man to get married in that culture as I understand it.


    to teach - to be a Rabbi - Jesus would have had to be married himself.


    Really? Where do you see this?


    At the end of the day, the only thing that convinces me of the power of the Jesus is the fact that we're still talking about him 2000 years later. By any religious standard, that means there is something powerful there. At the end of the day, it's a matter of how far and from where you'll take it.


    Some true words there.

  • Scott

    We've discussed this before, but I think there might be a little more to talk about here. If the Bible is not a basis for the specifics of your faith, what is?


    The Bible or at least the relevant parts of it are the basis for specific practices of my faith.


    I'm not referring to a general, instinctive feeling you may have about some great force out there in the world around you.


    I know.


    I'm asking about the concrete specifics, the "rules" if you will... how can you be certain of these things, certain enough to devote a your time, money, interest and inner-being towards cultivating?


    The Bible is what contains the "rules", though my faith isn't just about following rules. There are two rules as far a I'm concerned. Love God and love your neighbor. All the other rules in the Bible should reflect that in some way.


    If not from the Bible, which is to a degree fairly clear on most of these matters, what else in your life do you feel makes things clear?


    I get clarity through writing, praying, reading wise people, listening to wise people, that sort of thing.


    And is the Bible (either by accidental translation error or deliberate tampering) capable of being wrong?


    Is it capable of being wrong? Sure. There are contradictions in the Bible. I was listening to NPR on the way home last night and this guy was talking about his book "Jesus, Interrupted". He addresses that. You should give it a listen. I have yet to have anyone give me proof of deliberate tampering. Do you have some?


    Is it "just a book" in a matter of speaking?


    In a manner of speaking? Yes. Like a tree is just a tree or you are just a human being. It's a very important book (or group of books) though and makes some claims that are worth struggling through.


    And what is your take on the branches of Christianity more devoted to direct, Bible-only based faith?


    I love them as brothers and sisters. I don't take parts of the Bible literally. I don't believe that the Bible we have today is free from errors. They are welcome to disagree with me. I may be wrong. I don't (and I don't think to a large degree they do either) worship the Bible.

  • "Siddhārtha Gautama (the Buddha) has been talked about for 2400 years. Does that make him more powerful?"
    I accept your Buddha and raise you a Vishnu!
  • "At the end of the day, the only thing that convinces me of the power of the Jesus is the fact that we're still talking about him 2000 years later."
    Siddhārtha Gautama (the Buddha) has been talked about for 2400 years. Does that make him more powerful?

  • quoting ComicBookGoddess

    Some things strike me as wrong - the idea that Mary never had children with Joseph, and Jesus was a virgin and never married. In the bible this is supported only by omission, and in the culture...


    Forgive me for how this may sound, but it seems pretty clear from the text that Jesus has brothers and sistes:


    Matthew 13:55, Matthew 27:56, Mark 3:31, Mark 6:3, John 2:12, John 7:3-5


    And that Mary and Joesph were married:

    Matthew 1:24-25


    Gotta run, sorry. More later.

  • I usually go back to the Pentateuch. To me it demonstrates both what was right and what was wrong with the society that produced the religion. You have bizarre prohibitions and draconian punishment, but at the same time, not eating pork means you probably won't get trichinosis, eating a calf in the milk of it's mother does sound kind of sick, and it's a good idea not to defecate too close to your house.


    Not to mention that it was a BRILLIANT idea to wander the generation of slaves about until their children who weren't conditioned into slavery were in control and ready to set up a society.


    But, the injustice allowed... not good.


    I think that the Gospels tend to be a bit fragmented to many eyes because we don't have the background of the people who were writing it - many of the things they say about the man were to make sure that everybody knew that he fulfilled the prophecy, that he actually was the Messiah. The teachings recorded were bonus.


    Some things strike me as wrong - the idea that Mary never had children with Joseph, and Jesus was a virgin and never married. In the bible this is supported only by omission, and in the culture...


    To marry her to a man who could not or would not provide her with children would have been a grave insult to Mary. And to teach - to be a Rabbi - Jesus would have had to be married himself.


    At the end of the day, the only thing that convinces me of the power of the Jesus is the fact that we're still talking about him 2000 years later. By any religious standard, that means there is something powerful there. At the end of the day, it's a matter of how far and from where you'll take it.

  • Alejandro Vega
    But Bob, if other parts of the Bible might be wrong or at least needing filterting, what makes the red-letter portions any more accurate? Aren't they open to the same need for filtering?
  • Kansas Bob
    I think that I am becoming one of Tony Campolo's Red Letter Christians.. I think that all of the bible should be filtered through the words of Jesus.
  • Alejandro Vega
    "For me it kind of worked the other way. I am convinced of God's truth and the Bible contains that."
    We've discussed this before, but I think there might be a little more to talk about here. If the Bible is not a basis for the specifics of your faith, what is?
    I'm not referring to a general, instinctive feeling you may have about some great force out there in the world around you.
    I'm asking about the concrete specifics, the "rules" if you will... how can you be certain of these things, certain enough to devote a your time, money, interest and inner-being towards cultivating?
    If not from the Bible, which is to a degree fairly clear on most of these matters, what else in your life do you feel makes things clear?
    And is the Bible (either by accidental translation error or deliberate tampering) capable of being wrong? Is it "just a book" in a matter of speaking?
    And what is your take on the branches of Christianity more devoted to direct, Bible-only based faith?

  • You may not think that a god that's not omnibenevolent isn't worth worshiping. I can understand that.


    That's not it at all. The question of what kind of god is worth worship is moot because there are no gods.


    I'm just looking at what Christians believe -- that God loves his creation. Since God is perfect, that love must be perfect. Since God's actions show a love that is conditional and a jealousy that is murderous to the point of genocide, the Christian God is not perfect. So either the Christian God doesn't exist, or Christians are wrong about the God they worship.


    For scripture, Psalm 36: 5-12 is often pointed to as evidence of God's omnibenevolence, btw. I'm sure there are others.


    Does he love everyone equally in the way we think they should be loved? No.


    Let's say I tell you I love you. Then, when you do something I don't like, I beat you within an inch of your life, drown your children, destroy your house and give you a painful skin disease. Despite this, I still love you, and I promise that one day, I'll give you the best gift you've ever received. Someday. I promise. Just wait.. and just do exactly as I say. Or else.


    That, my friend, is an abusive relationship with a psychopath. Any rational person would advise you to find someone who loves you in a way that's healthy and beneficial to you and dump me before someone finds you chopped up in a bag on the side of the freeway.


    Would you stay in any relationship with a person who doesn't love you the way you need to be loved? I hope not.

blog comments powered by Disqus
«
»