There are simple reasons to reject Biblical authority. Very simple. One above all others–the Bible assigns people to roles from which, by virtue of divine mandate, they cannot abandon. It accords thinking beings no grant to be other than what the Bible says they should be.
Now, a lot of people treat this in one of two ways. The benign way is to simply ignore these restrictions until such a point where the deviations cannot be ignored. For instance, in the case of gay marriage. There has been a sliding metric of tolerance leading up to the point past which those professing a christian character simply cannot go. They sort of make these restrictions cases of, well, in an ideal, christian world these laws would hold, but we don’t live in that world, and since we all have to get along, well, we’ll just pretend they aren’t there for the most point. Because, you see, if they took them seriously, there would be a lot of public executions.
Which leads to me to the malign way of dealing with them–extremist posturing. These rules are god’s rules and we ignore them at out peril. Such people condemn people who are different, rail against the establishment, and actually work toward putting these rules into practice, either through mainstream legal institutions or by joining cults who leave mainstream society and set up little compounds here and there. The leaders of such groups become right vicious little tyrants and a peak inside their precincts shows what would be in store for all of us were they to get their way nationally. Some go so far as to commit murders (god spoke to me and said kill the woman!), blow up private property, and generally harass anyone who disagrees with them.
Both kinds of folks feed into the periodic resurgence of religiosity that muddies our political waters and gets us all in a froth over individual rights, civil rights, and various other community issues which we ought really to have figured out and solved by now.
The question is asked how I can have the chutzpa to claim the Bible should be ignored. Good question. And I don’t say it should be ignored. There’s history there–some of it bad, some of it apocryphal, some of it outright fable–but history nevertheless. There are examples of law making, of civic institution building, of all manner of human endeavor we would do well to study, if only as counterexample. But as a moral guidebook?
Some of what Jesus said is pretty good. But it is when he is speaking about the nature of community and the worth of individuals that he’s at his best. Some of his life lessons are fascinating. As I’ve noted before, whoever Yeshua bar Joseph was, he was a pretty fair philosopher, and a lot of what he had to say was radical.
Iterestingly enough, when he made his claim about bringing a sword and pitting son against father and so on, he was right. Look around. Families often dissolve over differing interpretations of his words. His philosophy has been divisive. He wasn’t doing individuals of conscience any favors by giving them a program that would set them at odds with the society in which they lived. But to me, these were not the words of a deity telling us what he wanted, but of a savvy political thinker who knew the consequences of his philosophy. It was a warning–follow my teaching at your peril.
So most people claiming to be his followers don’t actually follow his words. They substitute belief (faith) for change. They get to go on living peaceably within their communities while feeling they have a good bead on how to get to heaven. That’s how many of them can support Bush and still claim to be good christians–because they believe, not because they’re doing anything Jesus told them to do.
My problem with the rest of the Bible, though, is twofold. One, it is based largely on the national epic of a nation that, in spite of the fact there is today a country by that name, no longer exists. Israel is not run the way it was under Saul and David, Solomon or the Macabees. The essence of that nation is long dead. At best, modern Israel is an homage. So the question I have is, what does the national epic of a country two millennia gone have to do with me? The answer is, about as much as Rome under Caesar does, or Babylon, or Thebes under the Seven, or the Mogul Empire. What we are today is part of the long, twisted road of history, but I am not a Roman, a Mogul, a Hittite, a Celt…or an eighth century B.C.E. Hebrew.
The other reason is that the human program advocated throughout most of the Bible is, to my mind, unethical and immoral. Slavery is a given throughout. Even Paul supports it, going so far as to tell slaves to be good and make no trouble. Women are chattel. People are stoned for personal insult (a son or daughter who disrespects their parents can and ought to be put to death; my question is, what if mom and dad deserve the disrespect?). Rampant, bloody nationalism is the rule–the modern day butchers in Darfour are the natural political descendents of Joshua and his band of invaders.
In short, the worth of an individual is sublimated by ideology, and that, we have seen from Columbus to Chechnya, is a horrid, ghastly state of affairs.
Jesus, by the way, said several things that suggest he felt otherwise, but they get mixed with a latent kind of demagoguery which may or may not have been grafted onto his words later. (I have always believed that the lesson of the woman at the well is not that her adultery and fornication were so bad, but that Jesus couldn’t abide her lying about it. Novel interpretation, I know, but he also spared the prostitute from stoning, and he treated Mary and Martha with as much respect as the men. According to Bart Ehrman, Mary’s status among the disciples has been consistently weakened by later chronographers.)
But very simply, to make someone a slave and therefore less than yourself–to treat a woman as something less than a human being (the standard for human being, being a man)–to be willing to slaughter your own child because of the commands of a voice in your head, unquestioning as to how your child might regard this usurpation of his or her right to live–to sort people, even their children, by virtue of a difference in their ideas and then condemn them to death for it–this is patently immoral.
Might we not recast the Bible, then? Not as a series of examples to embrace thoughtlessly, but as a compendium of stuff that doesn’t work? That maybe, along with the supposed lessons of proper behavior, these are also examples we must reject?
Implicitly, we do. I’ve said elsewhere that we live in a Post-Levitical World, and that not even most of the most extreme fundamentalists would assent to living according to those rules. Without actually saying out loud “That’s absurd!” we have moved on from the Pentateuch.
But maybe it would be a good, healthy thing to say “You know, there’s a lot worth paying attention to in the Bible, but there’s also a lot of real garbage. I wouldn’t treat a dog that way.”
I have a standard. I see people as people first, and accord them ALL the rights and privileges I expect for myself. Everything else about them comes second, third, or not at all–whether they be women, gay, different races, nationalities, or philosophies. I don’t judge based on any of these things.
Didn’t Jesus say something about a beam in the eye…?
Erik wrote:—"As to Lot’s daughters, I have explained that one as well but I will do it again. Those girls were affected by the immorality that surrounded them on a daily basis (they lived in Sodom, a highly immoral city plagued with homosexuality)."
Ah, my bad. Mea Culpa. Didn't see this the first time through. I apologize.
But that's beside my point. My point was, WHY DIDN'T YAHWEH SEND THE SAME TWO ANGELS TO TELL THEM THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT? They were acting out of what they assumed to be necessary conditions. Read the story! They had convinced themselves they had to do that! They did not say to themselves "Hey, wouldn't it be nice to bang the old man? Let's come up with an excuse so we can do it." They did it for reasons stated in the story having to do with believing all mankind had been wiped out again. THAT'S NOT THEIR IMMORALITY TALKING! God dropped the ball there, which is what I was getting at. He warned Lot, he couldn't warn his daughters?
• Mark Tiedemann
They already knew that immorality was wrong (they had a righteous father who taught them about God). Also, they had seen what immorality had done to the city of Sodom so they knew the dangers of it. They did not need anymore warning. Now, history if full of people knowing the right thing and not doing it so they did not learn from the mistakes of others. Again, you are trying to blame God for man’s rebellion (not His fault). God had told them to flee, of course He would take care of them if they would follow what He said. They jumped the gun, thinking that they knew better than God (sounds vagely familiar to what atheists do).
Erik wrote:–"Again, you are trying to blame God for man’s rebellion (not His fault). God had told them to flee, of course He would take care of them if they would follow what He said. They jumped the gun, thinking that they knew better than God (sounds vagely familiar to what atheists do)."
Actually, I'm not blaming god. How can I? I don't believe there is one. What I'm trying to show is that the bible is filled with narratives that make great stories but make no rational sense. But it is filled with culture-laden stories of the period. People put those stories together and other people (like you) try to make them apply today.
If, however, you want to stick to your guns, then the guy I'd blame in this rather sordid little soap opera is Lot. Obviously, he had a low opinion of the value of his daughters, since he was about to hand them over to the mob to protect a couple of strangers. The "righteous man" was acting little better than a pimp there. He didn't ask his daughters if it would be all right with them, just assumed it was his right to "give them over"—because that was the culture of the time. An attitude we'd slap the guy in jail for acting on today.
Anyway, I really need to stop doing this. As entertaining as it is, I don't think it's worth the effort anymore.
Mark Tiedemann
Of course it is not worth the effort because when you argue against God you loose every time.
Lot had some big problems. His problem began when he was ungrateful for what Abraham had done for him. He chose to live in Sodom because it looked like such a good place. He found out that it was not when he lived among them. He was pressured daily by the immorality around him. If affected him because of what he tried to do with his daughters (that was wrong and God condemns that kind of behavior).
You evaded what I wrote about God not sending the angels to the cave. I gave you the Biblical, correct answer and instead of admitting that you were wrong you attempt to change the subject (shift the focus) to another point. I explained that point and I am sure that you will attempt to shift the focus again (classic liberal move).
Erik wrote:—"You evaded what I wrote about God not sending the angels to the cave. I gave you the Biblical, correct answer and instead of admitting that you were wrong you attempt to change the subject (shift the focus) to another point. I explained that point and I am sure that you will attempt to shift the focus again (classic liberal move)."
Not liberal—rational, in the face of irrational. Because I was never talking about god in the first place but the apparent double standard evident in a man-written text and the inane attachment people have to said text.
I did not evade it—I ignored it, because it addressed something you made up in your own head about what that story means (which, btw, just so I don't come across as totally unappreciative, was an interesting twist on the tale). I think you are wrong.
Look: it clearly states that the girls made a decision to do what they did not based on an immoral desire to have sex with their dad but in what seems to me a rather mature assessment of their potential responsibilities toward continuing the human race. According to the information they had, they evidently had no way of knowing that the whole world hadn't been toasted clean of people.
Now it seems reasonable that a god who supposedly knows all would see this about to happen and intervene—I mean, it's one thing to do something for fun and games, another if there is serious purpose based on false information. You say they should have trusted god, but god wasn't talking to them in the first place, but to Lot, and from what they saw back in Sodom, the information wasn't all that reliable. After all, dad was going to hand them over to a mob to be gangbanged. I wouldn't trust that kind of decision-making either.
But more than that, the story falls apart from internal logic. Where'd they get that much booze? They had to pick up what they could carry and get out of Dodge right quick, but they had time to pack enough wine to party down? Gimme a break. And if anyone wasn't listening to god, it was Lot who allowed himself to lose control of his family.
And it does seem suspect to me how often in the bible it's the females who end up getting the blame for shit the men screw up.
Point being, this is not a text verbatim from god, but a human document. It's an attempt by various people holding to a particular worldview to explain the world around them in terms that put them (a) in the center of it all and (b) that allows them to justify all manner of shit we today wouldn't tolerate for a second.
As to your past challenges about name-calling, while you do not yourself use expletives, you pull the "Liberal" charge like a gun and shoot it at us like it's something evil. Not very christian, not very tolerant. You ought to realize that Jesus would be a Liberal today. The other one ou use is "free thinker"—as if that, too, is something we should cringe being accused of. Just because the labels aren't in themselves defamatory doesn't mean they can't be used as insults, at least in the way you use them.
The error in your way of thinking is that you use the Bible as the final say. You fail to understand that what has been asked of you all through your presence here is some sort of outside validation of that text, which you have not given. You've made claims about prophecy, but shown us not one that ever came true that can be verified independently of the bible. You assume that if it is stated on one part and then confirmed in another part, that's sufficient—but it isn't and if you understood the least thing about objective assessment and evaluation you would know.
You dismiss most of modern science without giving anything resembling a reason why it should be dismissed. You accuse us of being incapable of understanding you merely because we disagree with you. You ain't seeing the beam in your own eye, malachai—you are exhibit a most unchristian arrogance by basically presuming to speak for god.
BTW, you never said anything about the contradictory genealogy I posted. I guess you're still trying to figure out a novel way to spin it so it looks consistent. (Wait, let me scroll back up to see if I may have missed it…no, I didn't. You haven't said spit about it.)
Your adherence to the bible is purely adherence to authority. It comforts you. Fine. But it's no different from an orthodox Jew's adherence to the Torah, no different than a Muslim's adherence to the Quran, no different than a Mormon's adherence to the Book of Mormon, no different than a Hindu's reverence for the Vedas, no different than any religious acolyte's committment to the strictures and mythologies of his or her own particular religion, and there is no more validity to any their texts than there is to yours. You cannot tell me why the bible is truth and the Vedas are lies that does not involve a simple trust that you have it right and they have it wrong.
You have consistently missed the point of several arguments by several people here (one good one was the rape victim who supposedly doesn;t scream—Vicki's point was What if she screamed and no one heard her? Cities even then are crowded, noisy places. She screams, but because no one hears she gets stone anyway? You ignored that) and address mainly those aspects you had ready answers for. You never gave clear etymological evidence why Erich was wrong about the word for "fear" only told him you'd studied ancient Hebrew and "knew better." That's not evidence.
You never addressed my question about the mysteriously absent heat that ought to present from a creation event only 6000 years ago and anyone who claims to understand physics ought to know what I mean. (The fact that the universe is, in fact, closer to 20 billion years old explains why the left-over heat of "creation" is so low—but if the event happened so short a time ago, resulting in a universe like the one we're in know, that heat would still be new and present and, in fact, we probably wouldn't be here to argue this point.)
This has nothing to do with Liberal vs Conservative mindset, which are only political labels after all. It does have to do with rational vs. irrational concepts.
Let me be as clear as I can—we have whole mountain ranges of evidence that the world is not the way adherents of a Creationist view claim it is while all Creationists have is a very old set of books that are, first and foremost, the national epic of an ancient and vanished country. I will admit right here that all the evidence which gives us a picture of a universe billions of years old and vast and operates by various aspects of evolutionary process has nothing to offer to prove that the idea of a god is wrong—it only proves that that collection of old books is wrong. So this is and has never been an argument over the existence or nonexistence of god. Every culture that has ever existed believes in god (or gods)—it seems hardwired in. But there are thousands if not millions of variations on that concept and to claim that only one is The Truth is arrogant and absurd. You have chosen to see our rejection of the bible as the same as a rejection of god. In some instances, we may well have rejected both, but not in all, and the connection between the bible and a god is tenuous at best.
But I'm finished now. It's wearisome to keep being accused of something I'm supposed to be ashamed of by someone who has less idea who I am than who he is.
Mark: Amen.
• Mobius 1
Denial is the clue, admittance is the first step to recovery (one is obvious with you, we all know which one it is)
You cannot show me where you have disprove the Bible or anything that I have written (to quote from you, you have only your “meaningless words”)
I am not afraid of the Truth, I am sharing It with you and you do not want to accept It. As far as insecure, glad to know that you seem to know me so well (even though we have never met). No, I am not insecure. I share the same message with all (because it is God’s message and it is timeless, for everyone).
Yeah, and the God that you are fighting so hard to disprove is the One who created this huge universe (if you could fathom the fact that you are fighting against a God whom you claim does not exist, that is ironic I think).
God deals directly with His creation (like it or not). His creation has the free will to accept Him or reject Him. There are benefits of accepting and consequences for rejecting. He shares them with you in advance and then allows you to choose.
You still have not proven what I have written is wrong (only empty words, great argument).
As to the unicorn, let me shed some light on your ignorance.
KJV Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
NAU Numbers 23:22 "God brings them out of Egypt, He is for them like the horns of the wild ox.
The Hebrew word that is translated “unicorn” in the King James and “wild ox” in the NASB is “re'em”
Meaning: the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct.
The aurochs or urus (Bos taurus primigenius) was a very large type of cattle that was prevalent in Europe until its extinction in 1627. (wikipedia). The KJV was written in 1611 before the extinction.
Learn how to do a little research before you make yourself look ignorant again. (same applies to Erich).
Erik, I'd like to confirm this point and elaborate on it. I'm going to try to phrase this as constructively as possible so I hope you can take it in the right spirit.
In all the thousands of words that you have written here, I detect very little interest in any of us as individuals with unique viewpoints. You give the impression that to you we are either hand-puppets of the "liberal free-thinker" mindset, or else raw human materials to be fed into the hopper of "salvation" and processed into "true Christians." What's even more astonishing is how little sense I get of you as a unique individual, given the volume of what you have written here. Your writing consists mostly of stock narratives, shop-worn phrases, and fundamentalist jargon. To those of us who have spent time in the fundamentalist/evangelical milieu, these verbal templates are all wearisomely familiar.
the previous post should have been posted under Why I am not an atheist …, sorry for the mistake, also, exclude the "same applies to Erich", also in the wrong place.
• Mark Tiedemann
So in your view “rational” means shifting the focus when your argument is defeated? That is what you are asserting.
There is no double standard. You are trying to insert something that is not there instead of seeing what is written in black and white (just like Vicki and the passage from Deut 22:22-28, same tactic). You guys have the same methods (uniformity in your “free thinking”).
Show me where I said something wrong. The Bible says that Lot was pressured (oppressed) daily by the sin in Sodom (he was surrounded by it on a daily basis). I am sharing with you what the Bible says and you are ignoring what you do not want to hear (cherry picking).
Do not forget that they made this decision after living in Sodom for years (oppressed just like their father, by the immorality around them, they were influenced by what they saw on a daily basis, your precious modern psychology even teaches that). So again, learn how to think, how to put 2 and 2 together from what the text says. Also, do not forget that they had been told by God (through the angels) that this place (Sodom) was going to be destroyed (no mention of the entire world). It is written in plain English. I had a teacher (secular existentialist) who made a great statement once, “you can learn a lot if you just pay attention”. I leave that with you.
Again, they had fair warning about what was about to happen and they knew that immorality was sin and wrong and should be avoided (they had just seen how sexual immorality had brought about the destruction of Sodom). God gave them all that they needed to know and they were without excuse. I know that you want to blame it on God but please see the facts, give people the credit for being disobedient and making bad choices and stop trying to blame it on the God whom you say does not exist.
As to Lot, I have already explained how he was affected by the immorality all around him so I will not explain it again. The results of immorality are the fact that the family falls apart, the foundation of society. When the foundation crumbles society follows (ie Sodom).
Lot was the one who messed up when he chose to live in Sodom (from impure motives). His family had to suffer the consequences so again you are trying to pin the blame on the females (the Bible blames Lot).
God allowed everything to be written the way that He wanted it. If man would have written the text he would have glorified the situation but all throughout the OT you see man’s shortcomings. God wants us to see them so we do not repeat the same mistakes. We ignore what God says and end up repeating history over and over again.
You see for yourself what homosexuality did to a city. Yet today, homosexuality is almost preached as a virtue. Yeah, we tolerate stuff today because we are repeating history. Homosexuality is not something new for the 21st cent. People have been practicing this evil since sin entered into the world. Today it is glorified even though it brings destruction. We will suffer the consequences for our actions though. In fact we already are, look at how we are destroying ourselves with AIDS day by day (rampant in the homosexual community).
I use liberal because I see the liberals (self proclaimed liberals) use the same tactics that you guys use on this site. Calling something what it is, is not wrong. We call that telling the truth (a concept I wish others would learn). Are we to be tolerant to things that destroy us? I cannot be tolerant of someone who support murdering innocent babies. Should we tolerate drug dealers by letting them hang around our public schools? By the way, usually the ones who scream tolerance at every corner are the most intolerant people when you do not agree with them (wasn’t Hitler like that too?).
As far as being Christian, God does not tolerate sin and He does not allow Christians to tolerate it either. So in the area of sin, there is no tolerance. Prove that Jesus would be liberal today. Would He want babies to be murdered in their mothers’ wombs? Would He be for gay marriage? Read Jesus’ own words and you will see that He is against sin (murdering babies) and against gay marriage. He tells what marriage should be like as well as pronounces judgment on Sodom (because of homosexuality). So, please tell me how Jesus would be a “liberal” today. Please do not use “this is what I think”. Use His words (in context, I know how liberals like to divorce words from their context). As far as “free thinker” that is a phrase I saw repeated on the blog. I have stated that your “free thinking” is not so free (again calling the kettle black is not an insult it is the truth).
You want prophecy, I gave you prophecy. Everything that happened to Jesus Christ (death on the cross, when He was born, where, to whom, etc) was all spoken about in the OT. It happened in the life of Jesus point by point (as the Gospels proclaim, as well as history confirms). Avoiding the Truth does not make it go away.
Again, you guys want to use the Bible to disprove the Bible but do not want me to use the Bible to prove the Bible (double standard on your part). Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statements and arguments? If you can use It then so can I. Make up your mind on what you want.
I do not speak for God, I am sharing what He has already said. The arrogance comes from you saying that you think there is no God (ie denying all of the evidence, that is being ridiculous if you ask me). Here is what God has to say about you
Psalm 10:4 4 The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, "There is no God."
Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
God has spoken on this subject and I am just relaying the message.
I am working out the genealogy so that you can see with your own eyes where you are wrong, give me a bit, I do have a life.
The Torah is the Bible (it all fits together). The Koran is a man made book, sorry, there is a big difference. The Koran falls under the basic category of a man made religion, man trying to get to God on man’s terms. The Bible is about God coming to man and showing man His way to Himself. If you do not know the difference between the 2 then I suggest that you study the Bible more instead of what others tell you the Bible says. (same for Hindus, Mormons, etc).
The Bible is Truth because everything that It has proclaimed has happened (there are just a few things that will happen). Also, the Bible teaches of changing a person from the inside out, where as, religion (Hinduism) teaches change from the outside in. Also religion teaches to find your own path to God whereas, the Bible teaches God’s path to Himself (how He comes to show us the way). Want more? I can go all day.
I did comment on the girl who had consensual sex with the man in the city (maybe you did not like what you read so you ignored it). She was in the city and had a chance to call out but she did not (does not say that she could not, please read what is written in black and white). With what you wrote I can tell that you did not read what I wrote. Please go back and read it because I have already disproved your argument. I gave the answer to “fear”. Everything is written in a context with a specific meaning by the words that are chosen. If you do not understand that concept then go back and study Lit 101 in college. Also see the answer to the unicorn in the Bible and that will give you more insight to understanding the context and word choice. (this is a sign of lack of scholarship on your part).
You wrote “, the national epic of an ancient and vanished country”. The Hebrews are still here today just like God said. Here is a classic example of you denying the facts. There is evidence of the Hebrews, they prove that God is still keeping His Word as He said He would. If they cease to exist then God will too, but they have not and will not. As to the Bible, of ancient documents, It is the most numerous (I wonder why?). People have wanted to get rid of It all throughout history yet it still remains in tact as It was written. To deny that fact is not smart on your part.
Of course every culture believes in God, because He created us to believe in Him. After falling into sin man has been trying to get back to God ever since. He has shown the way but man in his pride/ignorance thinks that he knows better than God. That is seen in every culture, proof in itself that God is real.
There can be only One Truth. Truth is exclusive. There can be many different types of false but they will never be true. Easy concept to grasp if you can think a little bit. God has chosen things to be the way that they are (One Truth). It is arrogant on your part to say that you know better than God. If you reject the Bible then you reject God, they are one and the same (God’s character is based upon His Word, neither will change and neither are wrong).
• Vicki Baker
I take everything in the right spirit. I do not battle against people (flesh and blood) but against principalities (ideas that lead to actions). If the ideas are wrong then the actions will be wrong. I have nothing against you; I do however have something against your ideas. When the Word of God is attacked I am under obligation to stand up for it. As a believer I am called to be light. Light casts itself in the darkness to expose what is in the darkness. Once exposed then those things of the darkness can be changed into the things of the light (by God of course). I am also called to be salt. Salt stops decay. Immorality spreads decay like a disease so I will always fight against immorality. Light and darkness will always be at odds. Salt and decay will always be at odds. Salt and light win in the end (win the battle that is). That is the way God designed it. I am just following Him being led by His Word. I value people and that is why I do what I do. Immorality destroys people. The lie that there is no God destroys people. My wife grew up under communism where she was taught that there is no God. I lived in her country for 4 years and see the consequences of 70 years of living with the idea that there is no God. So as long as you promote the fact that there is no God and immorality then our ideas will be at odds. I am in the business of helping people where atheism and immorality are in the business of destroying.
As to view points; everyone is entitled to his own view point (that does not make his view point right). I know that you want to think that there are individual ideas but basically all ideas, when boiled down, say the same thing (either man is god or God is God). I write from what the Word of God says (I do not claim to have come up with anything new). My point about the free thinkers is that they are free and tolerant as long as you agree with them. They are free yet they all sound eerily familiar (the same argument with a little twist).
Here is the problem, you are dead set against the Word of God (so is Satan, even though he will use it, note, I am not calling you Satan, just telling what his point of view is). He wants the Word of God to fail because he knows that God bases everything on His Word so if His Word fails then He fails (since He will never fail neither will His Word). I am with the Word of God. The lines were drawn long ago (almost 6,000 years ago in the Garden) and we have chosen our sides. I chose God’s side because I have put His Word to the test and It has yet to fail. I am a logical, rational thinker. I have analyzed and continue to analyze the Word of God “under a microscope”. I will not take someone’s interpretation of what the Word says. I want to find out for myself the way that God intended.
Erik, are you glad that you discovered the God of Christianity? Or do you believe that God found you?
In other words, if you had been born in another part of the world and raised in a different religious tradition do you think it was inevitable that you would have become a Christian somehow?
• Mark Tiedemann
First of all, do not overlook the fact that servant and slave are the same word. We still have servants today.
Here is what Paul has to say
1 Corinthians 7:21-24 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.
He does not promote slavery. He encourages people to remain as they were called by God (ie their state when they became Christians). If they are free then remain free, do not become slaves. If they are slaves do not worry about it (if you can get free then do it) because will reconcile the situation at the right time (maybe by remaining a slave you will have a chance to share the Gospel with your master, he will become a Christian and then you will be freed). Think logically about what you are reading and do not be so quick to sit in the judgment seat.
Slaves have been around as long as sin. In fact, in ancient times, Christianity was radical because It places all people as equal. I would advise you to read Paul a little more closely
Galatians 3:28 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
That pretty much shoots down your theory.
With virginity, the reason that a price is to be paid is because something was stolen (the virginity that was to be given to the future spouse). Logic says pay back what has been stolen (virginity cannot be paid back). Men are also to remain virgins until marriage. Read carefully
Hebrews 13:4 4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Everything requires a context. Shakespeare, Plato, Socrates, etc. Please do not be ridiculous. Any form of education would teach you that everything is defined by context. Mention McDonalds 200 years ago and people have no clue what you are talking about or they understand it totally different from a burger place. Use your mind!!! The Bible is timeless but in order to apply It you must understand It. It was written in a specific period of history (like all documents which require understanding of culture and context).
Show me where you see my interpretation anywhere. I have explained the passages according to the original language and culture along with the context. That is just being logical, but you throw logic out the window when the Truth disproves your little worldview. There is only One valid interpretation of the Scriptures (the whole One Truth idea here, but if you follow relativism then you would not see what is written in black and white).
Matthew’s goal in writing was to demonstrate Jesus Christ as the King that was promised in the OT through the lineage of David (starting with the promise to Abraham). The word “kingdom” is used 56 times in Matthew. That is why Matthew is careful to trace the genealogy of Jesus through David to Joseph (thus giving Jesus the legal descent to the throne, through the line of David). Therefore Jesus has the right to rule through birth (Joseph was not the physical father so Luke must show the physical tie to David). Luke gives Jesus genealogy through His mother, Mary, who is also in the lineage of Abraham and David. So your theory has just been disproved. No mistakes. In fact Luke did just what you wanted someone to do (show Mary’s genealogy). He begins with Adam and traces it to Mary, the wife of Joseph who is the father (not physical) of Jesus.
• Mike Pulcinella
I was not born a Christian (no one is). Being raised in the West does not automatically mean that you were raised in the Christian tradition. If I would have been born in another country I still could have heard the Gospel (Word of God) and become a Christian. God took the initiative (He does so in every situation). I chose to respond to the call. Others choose to ignore the call. Read Matthew 22.
Erik wrote:—"Therefore Jesus has the right to rule through birth (Joseph was not the physical father so Luke must show the physical tie to David). Luke gives Jesus genealogy through His mother, Mary, who is also in the lineage of Abraham and David. So your theory has just been disproved. No mistakes. In fact Luke did just what you wanted someone to do (show Mary’s genealogy). He begins with Adam and traces it to Mary, the wife of Joseph who is the father (not physical) of Jesus."
Then why does Luke's genealogy end with Joseph? I put it to you as you've put it to me—READ!
As to the rest, I do read.
Ephesians 6: 5 "Slaves, be obedient to the men who are called your masters in this world…"
1 Timothy 6: 1 "All slaves 'under the yoke' must have unqualified respect for their masters, so that the name of God and our teaching are not brought into disrepute." (I love one! Be good slaves, now, so you don't dishonor the rest of us.)
Titus 2: 9 "Tell the slaves they are to be obedient to their masters and always do what they want without any question…"
And while we're at it, btw, you make much of homosexuality—in fact, I became aware of your posts early on as diartribes against it. You've made a couple of comments about the "sin of Sodom" being homosexuality, but that in fact is not what Genesis says. The interpretation that it was homosexuality was made by post-biblical scholars, both Jewish and early Christian, but the mob demands the strangers in order to "abuse them". In that time and place, this could have meant anything, including the crime of Inhospitality, which was a serious offense in some regions. It makes no sense that the entire city would be swamped with a single attribute like this, but it wouldn't matter anyway. You've bought into the Western tradition that it must have been homosexuality even while it doesn't say that.
Sorry, I've broken my own promise to myself to be done with you, but I am amazed you can misread something that is, as you put it, in plain black & white. The Luke genealogy does not go through Mary—READ IT!—to ends with Joseph, just like the one in Matthew. Where you get Mary's name I don't know—it isn't there. This is not interpretation. They are both patrilineal genealogies. As I said, it would have been remarkable if it had been traced through Mary because that wasn't done.
But it is clear that you share with others the habit of seeing what you want.
I see Erik, you chose to respond to the call of the Christian God and not the other way around. You exercised your free will. That makes sense. May I ask, what criteria did you use make that choice over other religions competing for your attention? Why not become a Hindu? Or a Muslim? Did you experiment with other religions before settling on this one?
• Mark Tiedemann Says:
Did you not read what I wrote, Joseph is the husband of Mary (learn a little about Eastern culture). Also, you can trace the lineage if you want to spend the time (highly recommended).
Put all the quotes on slavery in context with ALL of what the Scriptures say (you went cherry picking again). Why are they to be obedient? Who wrote Ephesians, I Timothy, Titus? The same Paul who wrote I Corinthians. In Corinthians he explains why slaves should be obedient (God is in control, He will free you at the right time, if you can be freed then accept it, also use that time to be an example for the master and share the Gospel with him). Also Paul clearly states that in Christ (Christianity there is no distinction between slave and free men). The world of the time promoted slavery and if a slave was born again his master may not have been so he was not going to let the slave go just because he was a Christian (again, you are trying to blame God for man’s sin, it just does not work).
You want to talk about homosexuality, fine. I was waiting for the whole “homosexuality” was not even a word back then. Thanks for jumping in your own trap.
God knows how people like to play with the meaning of words (liberals are the best at it) so He decided to “describe” the actions of the people of Sodom. Let us look at what IS written in Genesis.
KJV Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
NAU Genesis 19:5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
Look at the language and then I will give you the original Hebrew so that you can see that you have bought into the homosexual lie. KJV says “know them” this same expression is used in Genesis 4 in regard to Adam and his wife Eve
KJV Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
NAU Genesis 4:1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."
The homosexuals of Sodom wanted to have sex with the men who were in Lot’s house. You are trying to justify homosexuality but you have made a grave error, departing from the text and listening to someone’s interpretation of the Bible instead of looking at the Bible itself.
The Hebrew word is “yada`” which means to know a person carnally and when put in context (of the passage and the entire Bible) we see that there is no other meaning but sexual relations here.
So I have disproven all of your argument by showing what the Scripture says. I know that you do not like it but that is the way that it is. You are giving your interpretations and I am giving you the Biblical interpretation (letting the Bible interpret Itself). As I have said before, you will loose every time you do battle with God and His Word, so get used to it.
Erik,
You haven't disproven shit. The FACT is that you are INTERPRETING the meaning of the divergent genealogies, I don't care how you spin it. The FACT is, in neither one is there mention of Mary, the line is traced to Joseph's father—NOT MARY'S FATHER—and if you look at the two of them, they are different people. Period.
As for what Paul said, I would hope you would agree that slavery—however you contextualize it—is immoral. So why would Paul even give it lip service? (It was, in fact, illegal in Temple Judaism, btw, so Paul wasn't even being a good Jew, much less a christian.)
When you use only what is in the Bible to justify the Bible, you employ tautology. When you do that, you lose credibility. You have lost it. My translation is the New Jerusalem and it translates the term as "abuse them"—now, we have three different takes. Which is right? All of them or none of them? You have a choice. Just as you pretty much lost your debate with Erich over fear, the same applies here.
But it doesn't matter, because it is implausible to paint a whole city full of people with the same brush, as is done in this story.
There is, btw, a historical context having to do with waves of invaders and the Five Cities of the Plain, but you'd have to look at other sources for it, which I don't think you do.
I'm not doing battle with either god or his word—I'm doing battle with you, and you are neither. You lose over the genealogy—your "take" on that is an interpretation, and if you admit that one may do that, then the entire book is open to interpretation, which means it is not something that is unambiguous or clear. So you stepped in your own trap (why are you so big on traps?). If you can take a particular viewpoint of one part, then the rest of us may take differing viewpoints on the other parts, and none of us will be wrong.
But that may be just a bit too much for your filters.
Now that you've actually gone and made a fool of yourself, I am done with you. Have a nice life.
Erik:
Much against my better judgement, I'm going to try to engage on the verses in Deutoronomy about consensual sex and rape.
This time, pretend you are a judge in ancient Israel, charged with enforcing these laws. Let's say a 14 year old girl, a city dweller, and engaged to be married to a man in another city turns up pregnant. Her fiancee cannot be the father, he wasn't anywhere around in the time period in question. The girl says "My stepfather did it. I didn't scream or resist, because he said that if I did, he would say I seduced him, and also he would just do it to my little sister instead. I didn't want that to happen, so I let him." Stepfather says "I never touched the little slut. It must have been the boy next door, I caught him talking to her several times." Boy next door says he did talk to the girl, but didn't have sex with her. Mom backs up stepfather. Younger sister is too frightened to say anything coherent.This is not at all a far-fetched scenario, ask any social worker.
My question to you: do you feel that the law as given in the OT gives you enough to go on to make a decision in this case? Remember that immorality must not go unpunished, the law demands that at least one person in this scenario must die a slow, painful death. Do you feel you have enough to work with in OT law to make the right decision here? Does this scenario cause you to wonder why such a draconian sentence was demanded in cases that, absent technology for forensic investigation, must depend on personal testimony and hearsay?
In our society, of course, claiming that the girl consented to sex would not be an out for stepdad – if DNA testing shows he's the father, he's guilty of statutory rape. Do you consider modern statutory rape laws an advance for morality, or immorality?
• Mark Tiedemann
Here we go again with the vulgar language. I would advise you to attempt to expand your vocabulary (show some education). By the way, I once cussed like a sailor and could not stop for the life of me. After I repented and became a follower of Jesus Christ I received the ability to control my tongue (James chapter 3 teaches all about that).
I was hoping that you would try that argument about Mary. Do you know anything about Eastern culture, especially during the time of Jesus Christ?
KJV Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
NAU Luke 3:23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
Read carefully, Mary’s father was Heli, as written in the books of the day.
You could have looked it up yourself it you would have been living during the times that the Gospels were written. When a woman marries in the East (especially in Muslim countries) her name is registered in her husband’s passport (today Muslims claim that a wife is property of the man, not the case in the Bible), the family registers in the husbands name, at first glance of a genealogy it seems as a man has 2 fathers but one quickly realizes that one of the fathers is the father of the husband and the other father is the father of the wife, who was given to the husband in marriage.
Also the word son can mean father or grandfather or great-grandfather. While reading Daniel it seems as if the kings come one after the other because it says “king” son of “king” but you soon realize that the second mentioned king is actually the grandson of the first mentioned king. Study up on the subject before you just regurgitate what someone else has already written incorrectly. The point is, Jesus is the grandson (son) of Heli (the father of Mary, who was married to Joseph, the SON-in-law of Heli). By the way, I call my father-in-law father and he calls me son although we both know very well that he is not my father.
Listen to your argument. Paul was not writing to Jews he was writing to Gentile Christians who had been converted during the rule of the Roman Empire (where slavery was practiced and encouraged). I do not agree with slavery and neither does God or Paul. Paul knew the culture of the day and the fact that the Romans were not going to free their slaves because they became Christians so he was explaining to the slaves how to deal with the situation that would honor God (allow Him to be in control, be a good witness/example to your masters). Do not overlook the fact that Paul says if you have a chance to become free then take it and if you are free then do not become a slave (you so easily overlook that part).
I have not used only the Bible to explain the Bible first of all. I have used real historical points of reference outside of the Bible to explain what the Bible says so do not even go there. I am glad that you are using the New Jerusalem translation (notice, translation of the original, I used the original). By the way, the word “abuse” in many languages is a direct indication to rape/sex but I have already made my point with the original language. If you have ever done any translating then you would know that when there is a debate over translation then you must go back to the original language (sorry, your argument fails again). By the way, the older men in the city taught the younger men how to be homosexual (same tactic that homosexuals use today when they try to get into public elementary schools). More than one city was destroyed by the way (because all of them were infected with the plague of immorality).
I am sharing what God’s Word says and you are trying to argue against His Word. If I were sharing my own ideas then you would be battling against me. Every book is open to interpretation (the wrong one or the right one). You have chosen the wrong one. Be honest, have you researched the genealogy yourself or have you just run to someone’s idea about the genealogy and grabbed his idea? I have done the work myself and it is clear that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary (see what I wrote earlier in this piece). Again, you tried to set a trap for me and then stepped in it yourself and are fighting tooth and nail to get out.
• Vicki Baker
Couple of things I would like to point out. If the people are following God then there will not be many step-fathers in the picture (on occasion because of the death of a husband). Secondly, the family was all together in protecting the daughter’s virginity (read the text). You seem to have left these two key elements out of your scenario. I know that you do not consider them major but they are crucial.
Secondly, these scenarios happen all to often today because of the fact that divorce is rampant (leading to numerous step-father’s) and people are not taught to value God’s opinion on virginity (but I will not get off topic).
I appreciate the fact that you are at least willing to think through what the Bible actually says (more than most I am dealing with here).
Thirdly, in God’s eyes rape equals murder and the only thing that can repay for murder is death. Rape should be a capitol offense but since it is not the innocent victims are punished twice (once by being raped, twice because the rapist does not loose his life). What makes it worse is the fact that many (if not most) rapists repeat their crimes even after serving time in prison, so more innocent victims are put at risk.
Back to our scenario, if the step-father knew that rape was a capitol offense then he would probably be less likely to carry out the crime. Preventative measures are always the best. Also, in the scenario, if the girl is in the city and cannot cry out or no one helps her then she is not guilty but the rapist is to be punished.
On a side note, during the time of Leviticus no one had DNA testing so that really could not be applied here. Of course you have to prove things. In OT law people had to have at least 2 witnesses to put someone to death. Some rapes do go unpunished because the rapist is not caught. So, there would have to be a trial and investigation of the events to see who was guilty.
Erik wrote:—"I was hoping that you would try that argument about Mary. Do you know anything about Eastern culture, especially during the time of Jesus Christ?"
You know what—that's a fatuous argument. Very elitist. Most of the people you would like to convince know nothing about Eastern Culture, therefore those two genealogies would continue to puzzle them. It ought to be CLEAR, even to those not gifted with an education like yours. If one must be an expert in something they would have no normal reason (and, I would have to wonder, not much opportunity in most times and places) to be, then what good is the "divine revelation"? That is, in fact, the time-honored justification for priests and priesthoods.
Forgive my language. I am old and have little patience for thickness of wit or witlessness. You deploy your justifications well, but in the end I am not persuaded because I do not believe the way you do. I have been persuaded that Truth is not something set in stone, a single thing, locked in time, and mandated from heaven.
What I am finding interesting Erik, is that you will endlessly debate what I consider to be the extreme minutia of biblical references with everyone, yet you are evading or ignoring my very simple, albeit personal, questions. I can't help but wonder why. I will repeat the last question in case you missed it…
"What criteria did you use make the choice of Christianity over other religions competing for your attention? Did you experiment with other religions before settling on this one?"
Is this not an interesting question to you? It is to me. You see, I don't care to argue the existence or non-existence of God. That's a non-issue to me. I'm not enough of a scholar to argue about science or the bible in depth either. What I am is a documentary filmmaker and as such I'm interested in people. Right now I'm interested in you. As I do when creating my documentaries, I'd like to know a little bit about how you got to where you are today.
If you think I have an ulterior motive, you are right. I want you to crack a little and let down the facade. Up till know we've only seen the "prepared" Erik. The Erik who is obviously well versed and has met all these challenges before. I'd like to go off into uncharted territory and explore the inner Erik. Are you up for that? If so, let's try to keep it simple and brief and not rely on bible quotations. Just two guys "shootin' the shit", as they say.
Of course I'll answer any return questions you wish to ask to the best of my ability, no matter how personal.
This is entertainment. The faithful attempting to argue with bible quotes. And getting trounced.
My only gripe right now is that you equate swearing with a lack of education. Swearing is a usage of the language, despite its vulgarity.
So, I say fuck your worldview. It's skewed beyond the boundaries of normality, to the point of obnoxiousness.
By the way, Mike's question about geographical difference is a very valid one, that you shouldn't pass off as a loaded question. I've asked that to many, and have gotten many answers of admission that if they had been born in, say, Iraq, or India, or Japan, they'd be worshiping allah, vishnu, or be practicing shinto-ism.
Don't give me that bullshit about finding the god of the desert. You've obviously never thought about it for longer than a second, given your readiness to consign yourself to mental slavery.
Don't ever question anyone's educational level, simply because they swear. I'm qualified to run an IT department for any corporation in my area, and frequently do. I swear alot? Who gives a shit, aside from you?
Erik, back to our rape case:
I think early death was a bit more common in the OT than now, so stepparents were not uncommon – more often a stepmother though because of high maternal mortality. Anyway the actual relationship is not important. For stepfather, substitute uncle, cousin, family friend, even priest – an adult male in a position of trust. You also have a higher opinion of the sexual mores of OT times than seems warranted by all the bonking of concubines, handmaidens, etc that you read about – I know you say it wasn't authorized by God, but it's not clearly condemned either.
As you say, forensic methods were not very advanced in OT times, so even if you had a trial what evidence would there be? So let's day you have a trial, and the girl testifies that she had sex with this adult male several times, and he didn't physically restrain or gag her, but simply repeated his threat about the younger sister. She has no eyewitnesses, the assaults happened weeks ago so there is no evidence of bruising, etc. The adult male produces many character witnesses who testify how responsible and upstanding he is. What do you do?
And what about your reference to needing 2 eyewitnesses in a capital case? If that applies to this case, then there is no case. This is similar to shariah law, which requires the woman to produce 4 witnesses in a a rape case. Basically, there are no successful prosecutions for rape under shariah law.