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

[gobbledygook]

I'm knew at blog rings and what not, so forgive me if i've posted this improperly in some shape, way, or fashion.

Anyway, hello. I have a question, joydriven.

I know a guy from Gambia, Africa (tiny little place on the east coast) and he follows Islam. I, however, am atheist. We joke from time to time and exchange tidbits just to playfully bother eachother. He is probably one of the greatest people I know.

But you see, spending time with him raised an interesting question:
Where will god place followers of other religions in the Kingdom of Heaven, supposing they are even allowed there in the first place?

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by gobbledygook
Where will god place followers of other religions in the Kingdom of Heaven, supposing they are even allowed there in the first place?

*raises hand and bounces frantically up and down in his seat*

Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know!

[SteveDallas]

Why was Abraham asked to sacrifice his 12-year-old son?







Because if he'd been 13, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice.

Ba-DUM-bum!

[Torrere]

As I understand it, the pre-Christian (maybe pre-Jewish?) roots of the faith in YHWH did require sacrifice. I suspect that the faithful were required to make sacrifices to be absolved of sins.

I talked about this with my landlord nearly a month ago, as he happens to have a Master's in Theology. He started studying as a devout Roman Catholic, and finished up as a fierce atheist.

The death of Christ was 'the greatest sacrifice that could ever be made'. Because Christ was sacrificed, the people of the faith no longer had to make sacrifices.

Bob thought that it was kinda wierd that, because God wanted to forgive us of our sins, he sacrificed his son so that he could forgive us of our sins.

(I also introduced him to the idea, found in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, that the religion amongst the tribes in the hills of Ethiopia. Not only is this were the language family (of Hebrew and Arabic) comes from, but supposedly they still have a tradition of vowelless G-Ds and a Y-H-W-H [and some other stuff that I can't remember].)

[bmgb]

But that's not what FnF tried to imply with his quote. He tried to imply that the bible says God wanted human sacrifice. That is not the case.

Yes, but God did ask for a human sacrifice, initially. I think FNF left out the end of the story because everyone knows how it ends anyway. It was part of what his whole posting was trying to point out: the God of the Old Testament was cruel and bizarre.

[bmgb]

Then the system broke down. The morals and "uptightness" of the 50's (which I would venture to say were more religious in nature in the U.S.) gave way to the "make love not war" of the 60's and "free thinking" and the feeling that "I can do what I want." Men were beating their women, not taking care of them, some were alcoholics, taking drugs, whatever. In essence, men (generally) stopped taking care of THEIR responsibilities and women had to support themselves and their children. Divorce rates started rising, and once that happened, you saw a rise in the feminist movement.

It wasn't until the '70s or the '80s when women were even empowered to stand up against abusive husbands. Even today, it is hard for some to break free. I think it's ridiculous to say there was any rise in domestic abuse in the '60 or '70s. I don't think I can prove it though, because NOBODY TALKED ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE BEFORE the 1960s. For centuries, men have used the bible as a justification for abusing their wives. Men and women alike have used the bible as justification for beating their children. It is only in this modern (or what preacherswife2u would call "sinister") era that this has idea has been debunked. And thank God (gods? goddess?) for that.

The 1950s was not all roses. Biblical times were even worse.

So marriage (and by biblical standards, the wife being subserviant to her husband) was a solemn, sacred thing. If a man was a drunk and didn't work, what father is going to give his daughter to him? Men were supposed to care for, and cherish all his possessions, yes, even his wife.

What kind of father would give his daughter to an abusive drunk? Maybe the same kind who would force his daughter to marry her rapist:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

[OnyxCougar]

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

28: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 KJV

28Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught,
29 they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 CEV

28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged to be married and coerces her into lying with him, and people find out about it,
29 the man must pay the girls father about one and one-fourth pounds of silver. He must also marry the girl, because he has dishonoured her, and he may never divorce her for as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NCV

I understand what you're saying, but due to the vastly different versions of this passage, it is unclear to me whether it's rape or seduction. If you look in the preceding verses, it talks about if a man rapes an engaged woman, but the orginal word is a different word than the word used in the verses above. Since I can't read aramaic, hebrew or greek, I can only go by 4 or 5 different sites on the internet on this, but it is possible to see the words used in the original language, and it IS different from one verse to the other, suggesting to me, different meaning.


BTW: The laws of this chapter were Mosaic law, which, as you probably know, were overturned in many instances due to Jesus' role in salvation and redemption. Just to note: this will be my argument in probably any OT subject. Since Christians are by definition redeemed by Jesus, please limit debate to NT scripture.

[bmgb]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

BTW: The laws of this chapter were Mosaic law, which, as you probably know, were overturned in many instances due to Jesus' role in salvation and redemption. Just to note: this will be my argument in probably any OT subject. Since Christians are by definition redeemed by Jesus, please limit debate to NT scripture.

Why? I'm certainly glad that the laws don't apply today, but that doesn't make any difference to my arguments. The laws did apply at one time, and this defines the character of God. It has nothing to do with whether the laws apply or not.

PreachersWife2U says God is good and unchanging.

FNF says no, God of the bible (OT and NT, most people believe they are the same god) is cruel and unjust, and He changes all the time.

I'm with FNF on this one.

[OnyxCougar]

Two rebuttals here:
(1)
The LAWS changed, God didn't. There's a big difference. Another example (although this is probably not the best one) is the US Constitution. (Put aside for a moment the amendments, which changed the document, this example is more figurative than literal).

The Constitution is the governing document, the highest form of law in the United States. No law can contradict the Constitution.

However, laws have been passed on the local, state and in some cases, federal level that have later found to have been Unconstitutional. So they changed the laws to better fit the need of the people, while still being in line with the Constitution. The laws changed, the Consitution didn't.

(2)
Society is an ever-changing structure. The bible teaches, as preacherswife2u has stated, that we are to follow the law of the land unless it conflicts with bible teachings. Many of the Mosaic rules in Deuteronomy and the OT were questionable to the people of Jesus' time (however much later that was after Moses). Jesus came along and answered questions (see the quote I posted about divorce) and clarified things, knowing he was going to be the sacrificial lamb of God. Therefore some of the LAWS changed, like animal sacrifices. That does NOT mean by default the God changed.

Now. As far as "Good" and "Unjust" and the other words you used, those terms are pretty broad. For example, God said, "No one may touch the Ark of the Covenant, upon penalty of death." and then someone touched it to save it from the mud and horse shit in the road as it fell off the wagon. That man was struck by lightning. God smote him. Was God "unjust"? Was the man who tried to save this most holy of relics from horse shit and filth "bad"? I feel that the answer is no. God said, "Don't do it or I'll kill you." Mr. Guy, even with the best of intentions, did it anyway. And paid the penalty. That is justice.

Now, I'm hearing arguments about "Well why would God ask such a thing?", specifically regarding Abraham. Well, not being able to speak for God, only having the story to go by, I think about it like this:

You're God, and your plan is to make a great nation of people that (hopefully) worship you. You want to pick the kind of people that are going to be loyal and follow your word to the letter. Do do whatever you tell them to do, because they believe in you. They believe that you will do what is right, and help them out in the face of many trials and tribulations. You have this one guy and his family in mind to give all this power and glory, knowing that your divine son will be born of this line of people. You really wanna give this gift to this guy, but you aren't real sure he's worthy. He seems to be, but when the chips are down, would he give up everything for you? Even his son?

Abraham was told, "go do it". So without question, without hesitation, Abraham said, "Yes Lord." And he took his only son to kill him for God. And he raised his hand, and although he didn't want to, he was ready to kill his only son. But God stopped him in time. He didn't really want Isaac as a sacrifice, but wow, Abraham was really a loyal, God-loving man. And so this great gift was bestowed upon him and his descendants. Of course it was a test.

It's also an allegory for God's love through his son, but that gets preachy. So I'll leave it there.

In addition, you didn't comment on the whole rape/seduction rebuttal....

[bmgb]

If God hasn't changed since the Old Testament, then I certainly don't want to worship Him.

As for the whole rape/seduction thing, rape is everywhere in the bible, especially the OT. I'm just too lazy to drag out all the quotes today. My opinion (because I don't Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin or Greek either): The line between rape and seduction is quite blurry anywhere in the Bible. Since women weren't supposed to have a will of their own in Biblical times, I don't think there was a huge distinction between rape and seduction.

If you don't mind me asking, why are you defending the Bible and its followers? Didn't you say you were Wiccan or Pagan somewhere else? (BTW, I'm glad you're back in Cellar.)

[OnyxCougar]

Yes, I'm Wiccan, but in the course of choosing that lifepath, I've made extensive study of many different religions, and the bible in particular. Wicca is a very tolerant path, and many seek it after having bad experiences in the other major traditions. Not to mention my husband is very Christian, and we have many of these debates in reverse.

I defend the bible because I like to debate, as long as it doesn't get personal, and I need to hone my style and the syntax with which I post my thoughts. This seemed as good a place to start as any. I should be more active, now that Dave is gone, and I have made judicious use of the ignore feature and dont have to worry so much about personal attacks.

[OnyxCougar]

I also want to point out that I'm not the only one that gets to defend the bible ova heya! Others feel free to post, too!!

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by gobbledygook

Where will god place followers of other religions in the Kingdom of Heaven, supposing they are even allowed there in the first place?

as noone has picked up this question I'll take a shot at it from my POV.


The way I understand the RCC teachings (Roman Catholic Church) It helps a great deal to 1) Be Catholic, 2) if not a Catholic at least to be a Christian (as in being a true believer of Jesus).

HOWEVER, neither of these two are mandatory requirements to getting through the pearly gates. (And of course, falling into one of those categories is not a free ticket either.) Getting into heaven involves being in a state of grace, and not being weighed down by any mortal sins and such.

I couldn't be sure, but I would think someone like Gandhi is a good candidate for Catholic heaven... And according to South Park, Saddam is up there too.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Slartibartfast


as noone has picked up this question I'll take a shot at it from my POV.


The way I understand the RCC teachings (Roman Catholic Church) It helps a great deal to 1) Be Catholic, 2) if not a Catholic at least to be a Christian (as in being a true believer of Jesus).

HOWEVER, neither of these two are mandatory requirements to getting through the pearly gates. (And of course, falling into one of those categories is not a free ticket either.) Getting into heaven involves being in a state of grace, and not being weighed down by any mortal sins and such.

I couldn't be sure, but I would think someone like Gandhi is a good candidate for Catholic heaven... And according to South Park, Saddam is up there too.

Well, you have my vote for Pope, but you should check out what the Vatican has to say on the subject at

DECLARATION "DOMINUS IESUS" ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

The high points are:

1. The Lord Jesus, before ascending into heaven, commanded his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world and to baptize all nations: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:15-16); “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the world” (Mt 28:18-20; cf. Lk 24:46-48; Jn 17:18,20,21; Acts 1:8).

It appears that according to this statment, Ghandi does not get a 'get out of Hell' card.

The rest of the document discusses Catholocism in relation to other religions. Here the church declares itself the one true religion while not completely denouncing other faiths. The justification for this is:

Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'”.27 Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.

This states that anything good found in other religions was inspired by Jesus. I guess this includes paganism, although Christ affecting a religion which predates his birth would have to be considered another miracle. Then again, I don't know enough about paganism to say how far back the 'writings' go.

The Vatican has a problem in that, if they come down too hard on other religions, people go around committing hate crimes and atrocities. If they are too accomodating and inclusive, they become less unique and run the risk of losing their identity and message in a sea of multiculturalism. This document was written in 2000 and basically says "we're going to play nice, but let's not forget who's top dog around here".

Im not an expert in theology or advertising. However, if you've ever read anything about 'brand identity', you can see the issues they have to deal with.

From an interactive website to a business card, a brand must be recognizable, differentiated and help build customer loyalty.

This is from a book description on Amazon.

Religion is an idea. It is one idea in a marketplace of ideas. Anything in a marketplace usually differentiates iteself from the otghers by branding. Almost anyone in the US has at least some mental picture about most of the religions in the US. A lot of these ideas might be slightly or completely wrong, but they still exist. We sort of know the difference between a Baptist, Buddhist, Catholic, and Jew. These labels have meanings to us. We probably do not know every type of Christian or Jew, or the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, but the rough outlines are there.

Heaven (or enlightenment) is the prize in many of the world's religions. It's the equivalent to the toy suprise inside a cereal box or the frequent flyer miles attached to a credit card. Noone can prove it exists, and everyone understands that those who are rewarded don't usually come back to show those still working towards those rewards (expect in certain instances always witnessed by someone else). In some cases, the desire for confirmation leads to sightings in the frost on a window, a knot in a tree stump, etc.

The interesting area in all of this is the effort to treat religion as a science. Religious science is an oxymoron. Religion is based on faith, which is the existence of belief without proof. If anything, the fact that Jesus is a historical as well as religious figure, probably complicates things. Moses and Mohammed were prophets. While they occupy a special place in their religions histories, their followers never claimed divinity for them. Moses especially is even written in the Bible as a flawed character.

So, they're them, we're us, and we all have to get along and try to concentrate on our similarities and desire for a stable society. This does not, however, mean that Christianity, at least in the eyes of the Vatican, has to share it's heaven with non-Christians. In some way, this mirrors the 'restricted' country clubs and resorts in the first half of the 20th century in the U.S. The response to this by the Jewish men and women who were excluded was to build bigger and better clubs and resorts. It might be that in the same way I will not end up in the same heaven as the popes. Taking a look back at early papal history, I don't really mind this.

[OnyxCougar]

The interesting area in all of this is the effort to treat religion as a science. Religious science is an oxymoron. Religion is based on faith, which is the existence of belief without proof.

I was going to jump back on my "evolution is a religion" wagon again, but had flashbacks, so I'll just take the zero. And by the way...the whole New Monkey thread? Yeah. directly relates to this. Anyway.


*mumbles incoherantly about dave and retards and shuffles off.*