"the God of the Bible" (or "unbogging the IotD blog")

[Torrere]

Originally posted by joydriven
Absolutely nothing, friend. If you are looking for answers that come from flawless arguments within the realm of logic, I cannot go further than to use logic to prove to you that you rely on faith for other things and can therefore accept the Bible through faith as well.

I didn't say that circular reasoning was prerequisite to faith in the Bible. I recognize that it seems so to an extent, particularly to those in your position who doubt the Bible's qualifications and credibility. In the realm of logic/debate, using the Bible's self-claims about the Bible's authenticity and authority is not a valid method; it would be called circular reasoning. However, I am trying to point out that there may be other realms, beyond that of logic/debate. In the realm of faith (in which realm we all dabble every day on points far less consequential than the Bible's claims), circular reasoning is a non-entity.

I posit that circular reasoning is prerequisite. If you can provide me with 'absolutely nothing', then it would seem that Christianity has no more claim on truth than any other world religion, from Islam to Hinduism to Shinto. Hence, people who believe that they are properly following their own religious faith slaughtering other people who believe that they are properly following their own religious faith is ludicrous. When two groups of people who both believe that Jesus Christ is their savior slaughter each other because they disagree slightly in how they feel Christianity should be, it is barbaric.

That this seems justified to you is scary.

As for Christians killing Christians en masse over Christianity, I cite the warfare between the Trinitarian Christians and the Arian Christians, and between the Protestant Christians and the Catholic Christians. I define anyone who looks to Jesus Christ and the Bible (as they understand it) as Christian.

[joydriven]

When two groups of people who both believe that Jesus Christ is their savior slaughter each other because they disagree slightly in how they feel Christianity should be, it is barbaric. That this seems justified to you is scary.

Hi, Torrere. Either I miscommunicated or you misread me. I was actually criticizing the so-called "Holy Wars" and made my views on murder pretty clear. As I said, we do not live in a theocracy as the Israelites did in the Old Testament. The theocracy form of government ended long before Rome conquered the Jews. With the incarnation of Jesus and the instatement of a New Covenant, things changed bigtime. The God of the Bible does not call his people to fight crusades for religion during this time period following the New Testament, and, according to the Bible, he won't do so again until the end of the world when he comes (again, incarnate) to lead it himself.

True--it's your prerogative to call me what you want, but for myself I would deny a religious association with the groups you mentioned. I would not identify myself as an Arian (again, "Arian" + "Christian" = a contradiction in terms since an Arian refuses the doctrine of Christ's deity, a doctrine which is imperative to his salvific power), nor would I identify myself with Catholics (because of other major doctrinal deviations from the Bible). These are doctrinal points of contention, not slight disagreements. As I stated before, there may have been good-but-falsely-taught people on either sides of those wars, but I would not place much stock in either side being made up of truly Christian warriors.

Just as you do not seem to fault ALL Muslims for extremist acts of Islamic terrorism (that would be absurd), nor should you assume that the "Christians" who called themselves "Christians" in the crusades you mentioned are truly representative of all who would call themselves Christians throughout history.

As has been stated, we're talking about the God of the Bible here. The one who revealed himself in the pages of a book that has lasted down through the ages as the best-selling and the most influential book of all. We're not talking about the Arian idea of God. We're not talking merely about my own personal "take" on God, about the Catholic's "take" on God or the Muslim's "take" on God.

The God of the Bible. Not the contrived, passed-down, watered-down god of traditionalism-steeped, Bible-neglecting churches. Not the alternative man-made gods (whether wooden or merely inventions of the mind) that have no ears to hear or eyes to see or hands to help people with.

Humanly, we want a god who is our own creation--something we can wrap our minds around and comprehend and find the beginning and the end of. But what true and lasting security can the offspring of mortal minds offer? Show me a book besides the Bible that wasn't written by merely wise mortals. Show me a book besides the Bible that doesn't offer another man-made alternative.

I don't want wood, hay and stubble. I don't want a god that my own village silversmith made out of silver that got into the mines as the result of a big bang or some other fantastic non-God origin. I want something bigger than me to worship. I want something bigger than any man (even nice respectible prophet-type miracle-making men) to worship. No other religion on Earth offers me anything that matches up to the God of the Bible.

Frankly, I don't even want a religion. I want a relationship. That is what the God of the Bible offers me. I haven't found a better, more substantial, more well-documented, more proven object for my faith than I find in Jesus Christ the Righteous.

[Whit]

     Hi there Joy, sorry I didn't get involved in this discussion sooner, but life has kept me busy of late.

Approached with a normal-literal literary approach, the ten commandments do not budge. Never is it right to kill in the sense of murder. Never is it right to take another man's wife.

     Never? Okay, let's test that with an example situation shall we? What if a member of that marriage has asked for a divorce and been refused? Even if they've been separated for a year or more? "Never" means that for this person to have a relationship would be wrong by both biblical and legal standpoints. Is this your stance? Oh, and any child would conceived in such a relationship would definitely be a child born of sin, correct? As the child of an adulterous relationship?
     By the by, I just choose adultery because it was more fun. I could go with murder too if you like. I can think of a couple of people that really deserve murder and yes, I would think less of a person that wouldn't pull the trigger given the opportunity. I'm sure you can guess the kind of examples I'd give. Like I said, adultery is more fun.

If you are looking for answers that come from flawless arguments within the realm of logic, I cannot go further than to use logic to prove to you that you rely on faith for other things and can therefore accept the Bible through faith as well.

     Ok, I'll bite. Please use logic to prove that I rely faith. Note, Saying that I have faith the sun will rise or my brakes will work on my car is crap. I expect these things to happen because I understand them a bit. Expectation and faith are two different things, please don't confuse the two.

[Undertoad]

I cannot go further than to use logic to prove to you that you rely on faith for other things and can therefore accept the Bible through faith as well.

(Missed this earlier.) It's equally trivial to show you how you absolutely stake your life on things that are provable, and how you choose to avoid faith every single day, specifically as a means to staying alive and healthy.

[Whit]

It's equally trivial to show...

     Oh, I don't know UT. I think I'd like to hear this logical explanation of how I rely on faith. I really would. It sounds like a huge assumption about a large group of people she's never met and she says that she can make the argument logicaly. It sounds like a faith based assumption to me. Aren't you even curious? I am. I still want to hear it.
     So relax UT. I understand that the vast majority of "Christians" us non-religious, or at least non-christian types meet belittle, insult and threaten us. Torture for all eternity is an impressive threat too. Still, you don't actually have to take offense and I'd really like to understand the point of view of somebody on the other side. No, the arguement won't win anyone over, but I want to understand the idea behind it, why they think it should. Joy seems willing to talk, let's let her.
     I also want to address the absolutism of the ten commandments. Sounds interesting.

[juju]

Well, I've avoided this thread because Joydriven's posts are way, way too long. Joydriven, I really think you'd do a better job of convincing people if made your points with fewer words.

And also, you only answered one of my questions. Could you respond to all the others as well? It's your choice, of course, but I'm curious as to your reponse. Especially my last question.

[joydriven]

You guys are funny.

joy: This is hard to explain simply. Let me use an analogy. ANALOGY

others: Joy, your analogy rotted here and here and here. Explain your position.

joy: Um, an analogy is never going to be perfect in every point, but can't you see the benefit of finding some familiar point of reference that we can all identify with quickly? Like in ANALOGY ANALOGY ANALOGY?

others: Joy, all your analogies just do not cut it. Face it, you are not good at this. Can't you just talk in plain English?

joy: Ok. It's just really hard to size up succinctly AND clearly, but here goes another attempt... (insert on and on and on discussion).

others: Too long. Please explain the theology of entire world civilizations past present and future flawlessly. In plain English. And be brief now, mind you.



I really will work on it. Thinking now. Believe it or not, I prefer concision myself. But concise AND clear is a real tough combination of goals when a gracious-but-skeptical audience brings such a vast spectrum of experience to the table. ( insert the 'one of me and lots of you' pity party spiel here. )

[Whit]

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Um, joy? How 'bout a simpler question then? Why is it that you always make it sound like we're being really rude, even attacking you when it's either simple discussion or constructive critisism?
&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Nobody said "you're not good at this" or "you're ananlogy rotted" nor even asked you to "explain the theology of entire world civilizations past present and future flawlessly" Why attack yourself when we aren't?

[joydriven]

joy: Ah. Foiled again.



I said you are a gracious but skeptical audience, and it seems like a fair evaluation at least on this subject. I was asked (about 20 pages back or so) to lay off the analogies, but I'm not offended. I'm actually kind of impressed that you guys are reading me in spite of me. I find that incredibly gracious. And if you weren't skeptical I would worry.

[99 44/100% pure]

I was actually enjoying this thread, because of the quality of the exchanges, and because the tenor was so notably pleasant. I think joydriven has done a better job than most True Believers I have been forced to endure to try to make a case for chosing to believe, well, something.

As I have grown older, I have (finally!) realized that the differences among the various theists are but tiny gaps, compared to the giant chasm separating theists from agnostics and atheists. But why lump the latter two together? Because it seems that it is not what one believes, but the fact that one is capable of believing that separates the two groups of people.

This may seem obvious, but once I noted my own absence of "faith" I found that this was a condition which permeates my being, not just my religious beliefs (or lack therof). With interest, I noted that those of my friends who are truly faithful to their religious convictions (not just "following the rules" and who don't try to "prove" that theirs is the right or only way) seem to have remarkable amounts of "faith" or "belief" in other areas of their life, as well.

I have come to accept that no arguement, no amount of discussion, no proported "facts" will ever sway me, as I lack the essential ability (desire?) to believe -- to go on pure faith. There have been times of enormous strife in my life when I have wished that I could believe, so that some sense or reason or comfort could be gleaned, but it seems I just don't have it in me. I no longer scorn or privately sneer at those who do, however, if it gives them some of that sense or comfort. Sometimes I wonder if it is better to believe a whole lot of bunk and get something out of it, than to believe absolutely nothing.

Note: This takes no account of how organized religion has historically been used to subdue the masses and accomplish nefarious agenda; I'm talking merely of current, individual experiences of the comfortable, well-educated classes in one of the wealthiest countries in the most enlightened age in human history.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by 99 44/100% pure
This may seem obvious, but once I noted my own absence of "faith" I found that this was a condition which permeates my being, not just my religious beliefs (or lack therof). With interest, I noted that those of my friends who are truly faithful to their religious convictions (not just "following the rules" and who don't try to "prove" that theirs is the right or only way) seem to have remarkable amounts of "faith" or "belief" in other areas of their life, as well.

I am an example of another variety... I have great faith in many things, just not in a Creator, at least not in the sense that the Creator is a sentient, all-knowing, all-seeing being which intentionally created All That There Is. Such a being would understand me, and would therefore know that I cannot accept His/Her/Its existence without solid evidence.

I have faith in my friends. I have faith that doing good things will bring one good fortune, whether you want to call it Karma or just a side-effect of society. I have faith that the laws of physics which I depend on for my very life will never change. These faiths, like many others, may be misplaced... but I have these faiths based on my own observations. I have good, solid reasons to have these faiths other than the fact that I want to, and/or that it makes me feel happy and whole.

I am aware of no religion which claims that the Creator will greet us in the afterlife, regardless of how wrong we were about everything, put to us the question "What did we learn from our time on Earth?" and accept us as we are. Such a religion might appeal to me, because it allows me to just go through life as a good, decent person without fearing the irrational wrath of a God who felt ignored... nevermind that He/She/It supposedly sent me here, removed my memory of Him/Her/It, and commanded that I worship Him/Her/It based on zero substantial evidence. If there is a God, I cannot accept that He/She/It would be foolhardy enough to create such an obviously dead-ended scenario. Thus my conclusions.

I don't know about other religions, but in Mormonism, it is considered a great sin to ask God for evidence that He exists. Hah! The needle on my bullshit-o-meter is getting bent from spending so much time against the peg. Bah.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a loving, forgiving Creator. I just don't like the idea of suspending logic and reason in favor of said Creator.

[joydriven]

Juju: On what evidence do you believe that God even wrote the bible? Or do you frown upon asking for evidence?

I don't frown upon asking for evidence, no. On the other hand, I can't guarantee that the 'evidence' that satisfies me as convincing will satisfy your curiosity. The Bible itself says 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' (Hebrews 11:1). In this scenario, my trust in invisible/intangible 'evidence' supercedes my trust in visible/tangible 'evidence.' Some would say they seek something more substantial than faith. My premise is that faith is the most substantial evidence, and seeking other = settling for less.

In spite of some apparent inconsistencies (which I've said before could be explained if approached in context of the whole book and with an understanding of basic scribal errors), the Bible shows an incredible unity in its parts and as a whole. For a book that was written over a period of 4000 years by hundreds of human hands, the Bible is unprecedented and unmatched by any other work throughout history. It has stood as a unified whole and yet can be divided into sections of history, poetry, prophecy, letters, etc., all of which have gathered note as excellent representations of the literary genre and style in which they were written. Considering the huge span of cultures/ages that were crossed and the diversity of the authors' styles and backgrounds, I see no other way to explain the fact that this one book manages to carry one main theme to generations of readers, and has been doing so for centuries now. Its historical and linguistic references are verified in countless extra-biblical, secular historical and linguistic accounts, and I could not begin to expound (briefly) the mountain of textual evidence that supports both the validity of the Old and New Testaments.

It really is too bad that the content of the Bible is so controversial, because otherwise I think we would count it far more reliable a resource than most other books selling like wildfire on shelves today.

The Bible's own testimony is that it was inspired by God, that 'holy men of old were moved by the Holy Ghost' to write it. And once I am willing to take that step of accepting such a preposterous suggestion, things start falling in place. That's why, for instance, there is such a harmony to the four gospel accounts,
even though Matthew had formerly been a tax collector working for the enemy and keifing his own share of his fellow countrymen's income, even though Luke was a Greek doctor who used the more scholarly sentence structures and wrote with Gentiles in mind after having traveled with Paul, etc. The Bible also says 'all Scripture was given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness,' and also quotes from the Old Testament in multiple locations. To me, these New Testament claims and quotes, made over 400 years after the last OT book was written--along with the numerous examples in the NT of specific OT prophecies that were fulfilled--combined with the physical and circumstantial phenomena that surround the Bible's existence, are too uncanny to be written off as mere coincidence or contrivances of men. I have to conclude that the Bible must be a supernatural book.

MAN. I WAS GOING TO BE BRIEF.

[joydriven]

One more question. I'm going to be a father in November. Let's say, hypothetically, that I become a Christian before then, and I decide that I now respect God and his decisions and choices. At some point, I'm going to have to learn how to discipline my child. I decide that I'll model my behavior after the most Good person I know, God. So I say to my child, "Clean your room. If you do this, I'll buy you ice cream. If you don't, I'll bake you in the oven. I'm preheating it to 525 degrees fahrenheit right now. The choice is yours. " Is my diciplinary style good or evil?

Sorry, this is over my head. If you'd like, feel free to say you've stumped me. I cannot express the fathoms that separate these scenarios from the real thing. There is no way to up the stakes.

God didn't say 'clean your room.' God said, 'acknowledge me for what I am and what I've done.' By nature, we aren't scrambling around trying to do good or glorify God.

God doesn't work with ultimatums as we humans view them. If we were talking about a person drowning, it is not a matter of a precocious God withholding a lifeboat or popping the only available one, when some poor guy just fell into the water. It is a matter of God in his grace and mercy reaching down to miraculously save a drowning person who jumped in the first place, bent on committing suicide.

The Bible actually compares God to the father who is awaiting his runaway son's return, upon which he rejoices and throws a huge party in spite of all the things that son has done to grieve him. The Bible compares God to a shepherd who leaves his 99 safe sheep in the fold and goes searching because he notices 1 is missing. The Bible isn't even comparing when it describes God coming down off his judge's bench and saying, here I'll take his penalty so that justice is met. It just flat out describes the scene--a cross where a sinless God-Man died to wipe out the sins of any runaway sons and lost sheep who cared to look to that divine penalty-taker.

God made your son. God made the components for ice cream and ovens and your mind and he is indeed a good model for discipline. There just is no comparison.

[OnyxCougar]

OK, I normally stay out of the whole religious thing, being an ex-Mormon, but I felt compelled to discuss one of my issues with God.

It stems from the story in 2 Samuel, chapter 6. The following is the text from the King James Version:

1 Again, David gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand.
2 And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.
3 And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart.
........
6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.
7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.




OK, so to paraphrase, There were a BUNCH of folks taking the Ark to Jerusalem, and the oxen stumbled. The Ark of the Covenant was in danger of falling into the muck, mud and mire. This sacred, holy relic was about fall into uncleanness. So this guy, a son of Abinadab, one of the priests, reaches out, falls face first into the shit, and saves the Ark with one hand. Puts it back on the cart, then BAM!!!! God strikes him dead. Why?

He touched the ark.

This really pissed me off. Uzzah saved this precious thing, this devine relic, and how does he get paid back? He gets smited (smote?) right there by the Ark.

I've talked to priests, preachers, bishops and other assorted religious "leaders" about this, and they all say the same thing: Uzzah was told not to touch the ark. Ever. He disobeyed, so God killed him as divine punishment for breaking the law.

That's not good enough for me. God is supposed to be benevolent, forgiving. Just. Uzzah was only trying to save the Ark. God was, in essence, being an asshole to prove a point. I can't get behind that.

Do I believe there is a Creator? Yes. A god/dess? Yes. The bible says there are many Gods. I also belive in Karma, and the threefold rule. I believe in the afterlife. If I had to classify myself as anything, it would be Wiccan/Druidic. I believe the Yahweh of the bible is a spiteful, jealous God.

And that's my (already too long) rant.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No problem, Onyx. When the Jews broke the covenant with God that ended the old testament. Done/Fini/Closed. Has no bearing on us today, just ancient history.