Experiment.

[NewCreation435]

This thread is intended as an experiment to see if we can create a discussion in CH that is less composed to quotes from authority sources and more composed of what each contributor thinks themselves even if their thought has been formed by an authority such as a bible (66 book or 73 book or other) People are encouraged to use their own words, avoid lengthy quotes, eschew one liners, be polite, be patient, be scrupulous about reading the post that they are responding to and just make an effort not to treat the other people in the discussion badly.

What topic shall we start with?

I suggest something about which we likely have views but not necessarily the same views.

So, let's start with this.

How do you deal with bible contradictions and bible atrocities; do you try to reconcile them by carefully constructed explanations of what they mean and do not mean and how that removes the apparent contradiction or the apparent atrocity or do you accept that it is a contradiction and then find a way to preserve your view of the holiness and goodness of God despite the biblical contradictions and atrocities or do you do something else?

I am choosing this topic because it is interesting, relevant, and likely to generate some heat but hopefully without smoke and without degeneration into mutual anathemas and insult throwing. I think it may be a good experiment because it will tell us as well as others how we will handle controversial matters in other threads and if we can keep civility alive in a heated discussion or if we can't.

If no one want to participate in the experiment then that tells us something too. I am not sure exactly what it tells me, but I will work it out as things move along or don't.

Good thread. Somehow I missed this until now.
If by contradictions you mean that sometimes numbers don't seem to match I do think there are some scribal errors along the way, but they don't take away from the meaning of the text. As far as atrocities, I am thinking of the book of Judges for example and all the bloodletting that happened in that book. I would say that it is just more proof that men are evil and how amazing it is that any of us are saved at all. I think it is just more proof of how evil people can be to each other

 

[MoreCoffee]

Good thread. Somehow I missed this until now.
If by contradictions you mean that sometimes numbers don't seem to match I do think there are some scribal errors along the way, but they don't take away from the meaning of the text. As far as atrocities, I am thinking of the book of Judges for example and all the bloodletting that happened in that book. I would say that it is just more proof that men are evil and how amazing it is that any of us are saved at all. I think it is just more proof of how evil people can be to each other

I was thinking of substantial contradictions such as "God is Love" and the description of love's qualities in 1Corinthians 13 as opposed to God flooding the earth to kill everybody except Noah and this three sons and their wives himself and his wife. There's also the commandments about taking slaves from conquered nations and slaves among Israel's poor. Also the annihilation of the Amalekites. These do not fit well with God is Love. The concept of eternal punishment too is hard to fit into "God is Love". But I am sure that people find their own ways to cope with these matters.

 

[Lamb]

I was thinking of substantial contradictions such as "God is Love" and the description of love's qualities in 1Corinthians 13 as opposed to God flooding the earth to kill everybody except Noah and this three sons and their wives himself and his wife. There's also the commandments about taking slaves from conquered nations and slaves among Israel's poor. Also the annihilation of the Amalekites. These do not fit well with God is Love. The concept of eternal punishment too is hard to fit into "God is Love". But I am sure that people find their own ways to cope with these matters.

Maybe your definition of "Love" is not the same as God's definition of Love when you also take into consideration that God is "just".

 

[psalms 91]

Yeah people tend to overlook the God of judgement and justice

 

[MoreCoffee]

Maybe your definition of "Love" is not the same as God's definition of Love when you also take into consideration that God is "just".

Is saint Paul's definition okay?

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends .. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8​

It isn't a faulty definition of love is it; but genocide, vengeance, slavery, rape are not in the definition.

 

[Lamb]

Is saint Paul's definition okay?

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends .. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8​

It isn't a faulty definition of love is it; but genocide, vengeance, slavery, rape are not in the definition.

Either you think God isn't loving or you think that those He ordered to die did not deserve it, meaning you don't think God is just.

 

[atpollard]

Is saint Paul's definition okay?

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends .. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8​

It isn't a faulty definition of love is it; but genocide, vengeance, slavery, rape are not in the definition.

Do you have a definition of HOLY and JUST that can reconcile with your definition of absolute LOVE for all evil?

 

[atpollard]

How do you deal with bible contradictions and bible atrocities; do you try to reconcile them by carefully constructed explanations of what they mean and do not mean and how that removes the apparent contradiction or the apparent atrocity or do you accept that it is a contradiction and then find a way to preserve your view of the holiness and goodness of God despite the biblical contradictions and atrocities or do you do something else?

I start out by avoiding anthropomorphizing God. God is not “just like us”. Part of HOLY is being set apart, or “OTHER”.

[Isa 55:8 NASB] 8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
[Eze 18:25, 29 NASB] 25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? ... 29 "But the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?

GOD is God and we are not. So it is beneficial to us to attempt to adopt a “God’s POV of the situation and avoid attempting to cram our little ‘gods’ onto a human POV of the situation. Let’s start with the Great Flood that bothers so many. First, does the Creator have a right to destroy his creation? God passed judgement and found all men evil except Noah and his family, so God executed all of the evil men and spared all those he found reason to call righteous. Do you have evidence that God lied? Proof that ‘righteous’ were killed? Last, what terrible thing has God actually done to any man that dies? Everyone dies. Consider [Mat 10:28 NASB] "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

So what great crime did God commit in the Flood? He saved those He found righteous and all of the rest were called home to judgement. They were heading there anyway. This world really is not our home, we are all bound for a more permanent dwelling. Stop thinking like this life is all there is.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Either you think God isn't loving or you think that those He ordered to die did not deserve it, meaning you don't think God is just.

Or I think that maybe what is written in the bible need not be taken as literally as some folk want to take it. There are many other possible views so the two that you offered are just two in a crowd and - in my opinion - not the best.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you have a definition of HOLY and JUST that can reconcile with your definition of absolute LOVE for all evil?

I was trying to let saint Paul give the operative definition that is why I quoted his praise of love from 1 Corinthians 13.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I start out by avoiding anthropomorphizing God. God is not “just like us”. Part of HOLY is being set apart, or “OTHER”.

I like to think that God is better than "us". That his love is more constant, more forgiving, more generous, more passionate, more comforting, more loving. Don't you? Being "holy" and "other" isn't code for mean and nasty under the guise of justice and holiness.

[Isa 55:8 NASB] 8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.

God's ways being above Israel's implies that his ways are better more just more moral and more motivated by love that is true and lasting. Not less. Not peppered with hate, genocide, extermination of the disobedient and so on.

[Eze 18:25, 29 NASB] 25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? ... 29 "But the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?

When God critiques Israel's ways isn't it because Israel's ways were obviously unjust, wicked, perverted, and harmful to the weak and the poor? God isn't saying that Israel was too kind, too generous, too loving, too just. If that is how you're reading the passage then I am perplexed how you can see it as good for God to be like that.

GOD is God and we are not. So it is beneficial to us to attempt to adopt a “God’s POV of the situation and avoid attempting to cram our little ‘gods’ onto a human POV of the situation.

We're not God and we can't emulate God's "point of view" because we are not God and do not know all things, nor do we have power to accomplish all the things we purpose and we can't be everywhere and everywhen "at the same time". Yet God can and is. So let's not stroke our own egos by pretending that we can take God's point of view. We know that we can't and because of that we also know that we are constrained to argue from our point of view because it is the only one we actually have and know much about.

We can try to take a perspective that helps to understand God's eternal omniscient omnipotent "perspective" but we know we're only pretending and the perspective we adopt is only a simulation based on completely inadequate information for the purposes of understanding God's motives if he has not explained them himself. We pretend to argue on behalf of God by alleging that seen from God's perspective such and such is true or may be true but in fact we do not know and our alleged God-perspective is likely more insulting and less helpful than sticking to our human perspectives and arguing from what little we know. Job did that, Solomon too in Ecclesiastes so let's not get carried away with own superior ability to empathise with God. We don't know and that is the truth.

Let’s start with the Great Flood that bothers so many. First, does the Creator have a right to destroy his creation? God passed judgement and found all men evil except Noah and his family, so God executed all of the evil men and spared all those he found reason to call righteous. Do you have evidence that God lied? Proof that ‘righteous’ were killed? Last, what terrible thing has God actually done to any man that dies? Everyone dies. Consider [Mat 10:28 NASB] "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

So what great crime did God commit in the Flood? He saved those He found righteous and all of the rest were called home to judgement. They were heading there anyway. This world really is not our home, we are all bound for a more permanent dwelling. Stop thinking like this life is all there is.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... Let’s start with the Great Flood that bothers so many. First, does the Creator have a right to destroy his creation? God passed judgement and found all men evil except Noah and his family, so God executed all of the evil men

It wasn't men that were killed it was all human beings, babies, adults, male, and female, old and young, disabled and able, sick and healthy every last one except for eight and those eight were all Noah's family by blood or marriage. It sounds so clean and just and orderly to kill only evil men but it becomes a little harder to think well of when it is babies and nursing mothers and the elderly and infirm and the children young and teens and every age between.

and spared all those he found reason to call righteous.

The story says it was Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives - no children apparently, no infants, none from China, or Italy, none from Australia or North America just Noah's immediate family by blood and their wives. That's a long way from searching the whole world and finding all the "just". But evidently collecting animals from Australia, the Americas, Italy, China, and every other place was not too hard. Just the people had to die, all of them but for Noah's family. It's not such a lovely tale when given deeper consideration.

Do you have evidence that God lied? Proof that ‘righteous’ were killed?

I'd be inclined to think infants might be relatively righteous compared to Noah who was, evidently, inclined to drunkenness. Anyway, if one considers infants are "evil men" then the story as you've related it is all okay, right?

Last, what terrible thing has God actually done to any man that dies? Everyone dies.

Not everyone dies by drowning, not every mother has to see her baby die by drowning and any children die the same way. No it is not so good when given some thought.

Consider [Mat 10:28 NASB] "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

So what great crime did God commit in the Flood? He saved those He found righteous and all of the rest were called home to judgement. They were heading there anyway. This world really is not our home, we are all bound for a more permanent dwelling. Stop thinking like this life is all there is.

I am not so sure that resurrection is the stated plan for the antediluvians, Peter's letter suggests otherwise.

 

[Lamb]

I start out by avoiding anthropomorphizing God. God is not “just like us”. Part of HOLY is being set apart, or “OTHER”.

[Isa 55:8 NASB] 8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.
[Eze 18:25, 29 NASB] 25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? ... 29 "But the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?

GOD is God and we are not. So it is beneficial to us to attempt to adopt a “God’s POV of the situation and avoid attempting to cram our little ‘gods’ onto a human POV of the situation. Let’s start with the Great Flood that bothers so many. First, does the Creator have a right to destroy his creation? God passed judgement and found all men evil except Noah and his family, so God executed all of the evil men and spared all those he found reason to call righteous. Do you have evidence that God lied? Proof that ‘righteous’ were killed? Last, what terrible thing has God actually done to any man that dies? Everyone dies. Consider [Mat 10:28 NASB] "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

So what great crime did God commit in the Flood? He saved those He found righteous and all of the rest were called home to judgement. They were heading there anyway. This world really is not our home, we are all bound for a more permanent dwelling. Stop thinking like this life is all there is.

These are great points. We have to look at who God is and also who WE are to understand the scriptures of the Old Testament. Otherwise we end up saying that maybe the things in the bible didn't really happen if they can't be understood in the proper context.

 

[MennoSota]

Or I think that maybe what is written in the bible need not be taken as literally as some folk want to take it. There are many other possible views so the two that you offered are just two in a crowd and - in my opinion - not the best.

This thinking leads to the idea that there are multiple paths to God. The other "possible" views may come from any other spiritual thought. Whatever seems right in your eyes is what you do (read the book of the Judges to see this human thinking on display).
God's authority gets toppled and left over is a battle of opinion. Welcome to post-modernism.
The question you may ask is: Whose opinion is authoritative? For you, MC, that is the Roman church. For Arsenios it is the EOC. For others it is the Lutheran Church (pick your flavor) or the Anglican/Episcopal Church. For others the emphasis is placed upon questioning church dogma and doctrine by placing scripture up against the teachings to discern accuracy. The Bible gets elevated over church dogmas and traditions (shocking ) as the ultimate authority over the opinions of men.
Is it messy? Yes. Is it a means of checks and balances over the flawed corruption of man? Yes.
Opinion without a standard of measurement becomes a standoff between who has the biggest stick. Opinion with a standard of measurement (God's holy word in the Bible) becomes a means of discerning truth from fiction, right from wrong, justice from injustice.

 

[Josiah]

These are great points. We have to look at who God is and also who WE are to understand the scriptures of the Old Testament. Otherwise we end up saying that maybe the things in the bible didn't really happen if they can't be understood in the proper context.

EXACTLY!

Part of MennoSota's point above is his unintentional condemnation of radical individualism (whether of a denomination or a person).... self designating self to be The Authority (ultimately even over God), again whether that "self" is a person or a church/cult/denomination.

This individualism and this associated obsession with POWER and CONTROL (often labeled "authority") is a very Roman thing.... made far worse in modern times since the "Enlightenment" (which was simply the elevation of self). I think it is important that Christianity is fundamentally about COMMUNITY, it's not "Jesus and ME" but "Jesus and WE." God did not give the Bible to ME but to US. We are NOT to be about lording it over others as the Gentiles do but embracing each other, working and serving and ministering TOGETHER. Foreign concepts to our very modern Western beings..... What once was dealt with by consensus and by ECUMENICAL councils, now each self simply holds the opinions and feelings of SELF to be authoritative and definitive. This was an important factor in the Reformation where Luther and Calvin rejected the very, very Roman ecclesiology and epistemology of the ROMAN (oh so VERY Roman) Catholic Church. And of course, it's often worse in much of modern Protestantism than it ever was in Catholicism. It's largely the same issue that caused the earlier, bigger split - the RCC and EOC. Problem is: There's a balance needed here, between individual conscience and collective conscience.... between authority and accountability... and we struggle with that in all aspects of life. But remember this: Authority ALWAYS is joined with accountability (to Something OUTSIDE self). Dictatorship may be simple but it's rarely good (unless GOD is that dictator!) AND our sinful nature is always to make self the Dictator (If only of self).



- Josiah





.

 

[MennoSota]

EXACTLY!

Part of MennoSota's point above is his unintentional condemnation of radical individualism (whether of a denomination or a person).... self designating self to be The Authority (ultimately even over God), again whether that "self" is a person or a church/cult/denomination.

This individualism and this associated obsession with POWER and CONTROL (often labeled "authority") is a very Roman thing.... made far worse in modern times since the "Enlightenment" (which was simply the elevation of self). I think it is important that Christianity is fundamentally about COMMUNITY, it's not "Jesus and ME" but "Jesus and WE." God did not give the Bible to ME but to US. We are NOT to be about lording it over others as the Gentiles do but embracing each other, working and serving and ministering TOGETHER. Foreign concepts to our very modern Western beings..... What once was dealt with by consensus and by ECUMENICAL councils, now each self simply holds the opinions and feelings of SELF to be authoritative and definitive. This was an important factor in the Reformation where Luther and Calvin rejected the very, very Roman ecclesiology and epistemology of the ROMAN (oh so VERY Roman) Catholic Church. And of course, it's often worse in much of modern Protestantism than it ever was in Catholicism. It's largely the same issue that caused the earlier, bigger split - the RCC and EOC. Problem is: There's a balance needed here, between individual conscience and collective conscience.... between authority and accountability... and we struggle with that in all aspects of life. But remember this: Authority ALWAYS is joined with accountability (to Something OUTSIDE self). Dictatorship may be simple but it's rarely good (unless GOD is that dictator!) AND our sinful nature is always to make self the Dictator (If only of self).



- Josiah





.

It wasn't unintentional...

 

[atpollard]

It wasn't men that were killed it was all human beings, babies, adults, male, and female, old and young, disabled and able, sick and healthy every last one except for eight and those eight were all Noah's family by blood or marriage. It sounds so clean and just and orderly to kill only evil men but it becomes a little harder to think well of when it is babies and nursing mothers and the elderly and infirm and the children young and teens and every age between.


The story says it was Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives - no children apparently, no infants, none from China, or Italy, none from Australia or North America just Noah's immediate family by blood and their wives. That's a long way from searching the whole world and finding all the "just". But evidently collecting animals from Australia, the Americas, Italy, China, and every other place was not too hard. Just the people had to die, all of them but for Noah's family. It's not such a lovely tale when given deeper consideration.


I'd be inclined to think infants might be relatively righteous compared to Noah who was, evidently, inclined to drunkenness. Anyway, if one considers infants are "evil men" then the story as you've related it is all okay, right?


Not everyone dies by drowning, not every mother has to see her baby die by drowning and any children die the same way. No it is not so good when given some thought.



I am not so sure that resurrection is the stated plan for the antediluvians, Peter's letter suggests otherwise.

[Genesis 6:5-8 NKJV] 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every intent of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Do you believe Scriptre tells the truth, or not?
(P.S. “man” means “mankind” and applies to men, women and infants ... anyone that has claim to being ‘human’.)

 

[atpollard]

I was trying to let saint Paul give the operative definition that is why I quoted his praise of love from 1 Corinthians 13.

Then accept the rest of what Paul has to say ...

[Romans 9:14-24 NLT] 14 Are we saying, then, that God was unfair? Of course not! 15 For God said to Moses, "I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose."
16 So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.
17 For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, "I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth." 18 So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.
19 Well then, you might say, "Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven't they simply done what he makes them do?"
20 No, don't say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn't he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into? 22 In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction. 23 He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory. 24 And we are among those whom he selected, both from the Jews and from the Gentiles.

God is more than your unconditional love of evil.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Then accept the rest of what Paul has to say ...

[Romans 9:14-24 NLT] 14 Are we saying, then, that God was unfair? Of course not! 15 For God said to Moses, "I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose."
16 So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.
17 For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, "I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth." 18 So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.
19 Well then, you might say, "Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven't they simply done what he makes them do?"
20 No, don't say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn't he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into? 22 In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction. 23 He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory. 24 And we are among those whom he selected, both from the Jews and from the Gentiles.

God is more than your unconditional love of evil.

Why?

Paul wrote pastoral letters. Are you sure that they teach exact scientific, moral, and theological truths?

Some are. Many are not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you believe Scriptre tells the truth, or not?
(P.S. “man” means “mankind” and applies to men, women and infants ... anyone that has claim to being ‘human’.)

Are you asking if I believe that holy scripture teaches that genocide, rape, infanticide, and global destruction is acceptable, even from an angry God?

Is "God is Love" still a coherent statement when God is alleged to command genocide, rape, infanticide?

Holy scripture does tell the truth whenever it is teaching what is intended to be truth. And holy scripture reports lies, deceptions, and possibly folk stories or tribal origin legends as well as works of philosophy, poetry, and possibly comedic as well as serious fiction.