God's Not Dead

[Nutari]

I've struggled with this question as well, and while I wouldn't go so far as to say that I am "responsible" for the radicals/extremists who have different interpretations of my same basic beliefs, I do think we need to take better account of them. Because the people holding those 'extreme' views are still participating in the same larger structures of beliefs as you or I. To take your example, Christians who preach that God is loving and those who preach that God is vengeful are using the same Bible; how then do they reach such incompatible readings? Does the religion/philosophy in fact allow for both interpretations, in which case how did we arrive at our own?

More thought needs to be given to the multiple interpretations that are possible within a given belief system. It isn't enough to say "Not all _________ are like that;" where does the difference come from?

Well, to briefly sum up your question on interpretations: I believe that there is a lot of room to misinterpret, as some pastors preach objectively- or with an agenda (which isn't always bad). Often times though, they are making the scriptures work for their purposes, rather than letting the scriptures speak for themselves, and then formulating their sermons/teachings around those sections of scriptures. This is my brief answer, and I hope to be able to answer in a more fleshed out manner. Alas, I do not have the time at the moment.

 

[Hidden]

Well, to briefly sum up your question on interpretations: I believe that there is a lot of room to misinterpret, as some pastors preach objectively- or with an agenda (which isn't always bad). Often times though, they are making the scriptures work for their purposes, rather than letting the scriptures speak for themselves, and then formulating their sermons/teachings around those sections of scriptures. This is my brief answer, and I hope to be able to answer in a more fleshed out manner. Alas, I do not have the time at the moment.

Here's my problem though, and perhaps you will resolve it in your more fleshed out post--how do I know who is pursuing what agenda, and which agendas are "bad"? Because unfortunately I do not have any self-reading scriptures, and even when I read them personally I must interpret them through my own fallible biases, and to determine the "rightness" of my reading I must compare it to others' equally fallible interpretations. Wherein lies what radio hosts like to call the "Truth in Scripture?"

Good points. I've heard a story recently about a pastor that got beaten up by some girl's 'militant' atheist (militant in the regard as that is what he labels himself). They were in church and the pastor asked the girl if she was getting abused by her boyfriend right in front of him. He got really badly hurt and I think the guy went to jail for nearly killing the pastor.

I can say at least the pastor intervened unlike one other story I heard from a podcast about a woman and her daughter that were stuck in the bathroom for three days without food due the wife getting the husband angry or whatever. They survived by getting by with water from the bathroom faucet. They told their story to their pastor and he agreed with the husband. So, there are two or more ways of looking at religion.

I'm not sure these are two more ways of looking at religion so much as two ways of looking at distinct individuals. If you can show how the individuals' interactions with religion shaped their actions, then maybe we can draw something from that, but both of these cases sound much more convoluted to me than just 'different interpretations of scripture'.

 

[Dreaded_Desire62]

Here's my problem though, and perhaps you will resolve it in your more fleshed out post--how do I know who is pursuing what agenda, and which agendas are "bad"? Because unfortunately I do not have any self-reading scriptures, and even when I read them personally I must interpret them through my own fallible biases, and to determine the "rightness" of my reading I must compare it to others' equally fallible interpretations. Wherein lies what radio hosts like to call the "Truth in Scripture?"


I'm not sure these are two more ways of looking at religion so much as two ways of looking at distinct individuals. If you can show how the individuals' interactions with religion shaped their actions, then maybe we can draw something from that, but both of these cases sound much more convoluted to me than just 'different interpretations of scripture'.

That's a possible interpretation. It's still unsettling that there are people that would use their religious beliefs to harm another person just due to their sex.

 

[State]

That sort of conduct from a nonbeliever isn't extreme, seeing as how there's a college professor in my university that said this:

"God doesn't exist, if he does, then he will turn the lights of this classroom off"

A peer, offended, got up from her chair, turned the lights off and left. Later, the professor said she passed the course. '_'

 

[Deleted member 36435]

that students name?

abraham einstein

 

[Nutari]

That sort of conduct from a nonbeliever isn't extreme, seeing as how there's a college professor in my university that said this:

"God doesn't exist, if he does, then he will turn the lights of this classroom off"

A peer, offended, got up from her chair, turned the lights off and left. Later, the professor said she passed the course. '_'

I'm impressed. Honestly, I try not to get offended when people say God doesn't exist. I'd much rather talk with them why that is. Everybody has a reason to believe/not believe. Plus, the scriptures tell us that nonbelievers will think the faith foolish. With that said, patience with nonbelievers is key.

 

[Dreaded_Desire62]

I'm impressed. Honestly, I try not to get offended when people say God doesn't exist. I'd much rather talk with them why that is. Everybody has a reason to believe/not believe. Plus, the scriptures tell us that nonbelievers will think the faith foolish. With that said, patience with nonbelievers is key.

According to the first amendment, we have freedom of and from religion. I don't believe in Jesus Christ anymore, but that's just me. But, I have been on Youtube with people that have said to atheists that they are going to burn forever in Hell just for not believing in their version of god in the Abrahamic traditions.

Call me stupid if you, but people will believe whatever they want. I just don't see the point of Christians saying that I am going to Hell just for breaking the ten commandments. Heck, when I watched a commercial on TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) I saw this commercial about a man and a creepy puppet.

The puppet was asking the man, "Who was the most evil man in the Bible?"

The man responds, "Who?"

The puppet says, "Moses, duh, because he broke all of the ten commandments."

Well, I don't remember how the commercial went, but that was pretty close. I really didn't see the joke as that funny, but maybe that's just me. Plus, I've seen Bibleman on the same network. TBN sure has a way of demonizing people that don't agree with their religion or practice another religion that isn't theirs or not the exact version of their Christianity.

That's kind of what God's Not Dead is doing. I might see the movie just to see how awful it is. Call me crazy if you will, I'm used to it.

 

[Hidden]

That's a possible interpretation. It's still unsettling that there are people that would use their religious beliefs to harm another person just due to their sex.

It is absolutely true that some religious beliefs are harmful to people of a certain sex (usually female), sexuality, etc. HOWEVER, my point was that, in the two examples you gave above, it wasn't clear whether those people were acting in accordance with their religious views or some other worldview. People find lots of reasons to hurt each other, not just religion.

That sort of conduct from a nonbeliever isn't extreme, seeing as how there's a college professor in my university that said this:

"God doesn't exist, if he does, then he will turn the lights of this classroom off"

A peer, offended, got up from her chair, turned the lights off and left. Later, the professor said she passed the course. '_'

That's actually really clever. It opens the door to a whole range of discussion, not just about God's existence, but the question of agency--how does God (or the concept of God) act in the world?

 

[Nutari]

According to the first amendment, we have freedom of and from religion. I don't believe in Jesus Christ anymore, but that's just me. But, I have been on Youtube with people that have said to atheists that they are going to burn forever in Hell just for not believing in their version of god in the Abrahamic traditions.

Call me stupid if you, but people will believe whatever they want. I just don't see the point of Christians saying that I am going to Hell just for breaking the ten commandments. Heck, when I watched a commercial on TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) I saw this commercial about a man and a creepy puppet.

The puppet was asking the man, "Who was the most evil man in the Bible?"

The man responds, "Who?"

The puppet says, "Moses, duh, because he broke all of the ten commandments."

Well, I don't remember how the commercial went, but that was pretty close. I really didn't see the joke as that funny, but maybe that's just me. Plus, I've seen Bibleman on the same network. TBN sure has a way of demonizing people that don't agree with their religion or practice another religion that isn't theirs or not the exact version of their Christianity.

That's kind of what God's Not Dead is doing. I might see the movie just to see how awful it is. Call me crazy if you will, I'm used to it.

TBN... is it's own little entity. I personally don't agree with everything they have on there, but you must realize, that advertisement was for a kids show- and most people don't force their children to watch TBN anyway. In my personal opinion I find it counter intuitive to shield your children by forcing them to watch TBN's programming. Although, I did watch Bibleman, mainly because I thought the show was pretty darn cool.

I would never call you stupid. You do realize though, that breaking the ten commandments isn't what will send you to hell. It's sinning. The ten commandments were the distinguishing guidelines for Israel. The times of the OT were pretty gnarly. Every nation had their own gods and rituals (most of which involved sacrificing people, or involved drunken orgies) and God wanted to make sure Israel didn't succumb to these false gods, and he also wanted the other nations to take notice. It worked. Everybody was out to kill the Israelites at certain points in history- only because they worshiped one God. Anyway, I digress. My point is, sin is pervasive. It was a product of deception in the Garden of Eden. We are all responsible for our sin.

God didn't leave us hanging, though. There is this thing called common grace- or common morality. This allows people to more or less discern what is right and wrong. Even if they are a nonbeliever. The tricky thing is that many people chose to ignore the implications of common grace, which is that something had to give us knowledge of morality(namely God). This is ultimately what God uses to call people to him (I mean common grace). Those who find themselves running from God or not believing are failing to acknowledge the full implications of common grace- which then leads to their sin not being taken from them by Jesus' death on the cross.

May I ask why you have abandoned your faith? I won't make assumptions as to your situation, but many that I have met, who have renounced their faith, never truly understood Jesus' sacrifice and/or the theology of God, which led them to reach theologically and philosophically unsound conclusions about God which are not supported by scripture.

 

[Hidden]

I would never call you stupid. You do realize though, that breaking the ten commandments isn't what will send you to hell. It's sinning.

Many Christians consider these the same thing. How do you define sinning?

The ten commandments were the distinguishing guidelines for Israel. The times of the OT were pretty gnarly. Every nation had their own gods and rituals (most of which involved sacrificing people, or involved drunken orgies) and God wanted to make sure Israel didn't succumb to these false gods, and he also wanted the other nations to take notice. It worked. Everybody was out to kill the Israelites at certain points in history- only because they worshiped one God.

This brings us back to the question of interpretation--nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state WHY God set the 10 Commandments, or what their role was then and now. Your interpretation, that the 10 Commandments were a response to the historical conditions of ancient Israel (and therefore arguably limited to that time and place), is compelling but not authoritative. It conflicts with many other interpretations of those same commandments and what they mean to Jews, Christians, and Muslims today.

My point is, sin is pervasive. It was a product of deception in the Garden of Eden. We are all responsible for our sin.

God didn't leave us hanging, though. There is this thing called common grace- or common morality. This allows people to more or less discern what is right and wrong. Even if they are a nonbeliever. The tricky thing is that many people chose to ignore the implications of common grace, which is that something had to give us knowledge of morality(namely God). This is ultimately what God uses to call people to him (I mean common grace). Those who find themselves running from God or not believing are failing to acknowledge the full implications of common grace- which then leads to their sin not being taken from them by Jesus' death on the cross.

Interesting. I've never heard this interpretation of common grace--that God gave humans a knowledge of good and evil so that they might come to Him. In fact, the only passages I can think of in the Bible concerning knowledge of good and evil seem to tell a very different story.

[4]And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
[5]For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
...
[22]And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
[23]Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

*emphasis in bold is mine

You say that God expelled humanity from the Garden of Eden because of sin, yet redeemed us (or allowed us to redeem ourselves) by giving us knowledge of good and evil. My reading of the passages above suggest that God expelled humanity from the Garden of Eden for knowing good and evil (like God) and in order to prevent us from taking also of the tree of life and living forever. Why are our interpretations so different?

 

[Dreaded_Desire62]

Many Christians consider these the same thing. How do you define sinning?


This brings us back to the question of interpretation--nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state WHY God set the 10 Commandments, or what their role was then and now. Your interpretation, that the 10 Commandments were a response to the historical conditions of ancient Israel (and therefore arguably limited to that time and place), is compelling but not authoritative. It conflicts with many other interpretations of those same commandments and what they mean to Jews, Christians, and Muslims today.


Interesting. I've never heard this interpretation of common grace--that God gave humans a knowledge of good and evil so that they might come to Him. In fact, the only passages I can think of in the Bible concerning knowledge of good and evil seem to tell a very different story.
*emphasis in bold is mine

You say that God expelled humanity from the Garden of Eden because of sin, yet redeemed us (or allowed us to redeem ourselves) by giving us knowledge of good and evil. My reading of the passages above suggest that God expelled humanity from the Garden of Eden for knowing good and evil (like God) and in order to prevent us from taking also of the tree of life and living forever. Why are our interpretations so different?

Well, that's one thing about any religion. Each branch has their own sect of how to interpret their holy books. What about the story of Enoch? He was a righteous man and he walked with God. And, God took him up to Heaven. And, mind you this is before Noah's flood.

 

[Nutari]

Many Christians consider these the same thing. How do you define sinning?

You misunderstand what I mean. Or more likely, mispoke. Sin is well... sin. Sinning surely breaks the ten commandments, but the T.C. was also the law. It was part of the covenant made with Moses. Sinning is anything that tares you away from God. (Viewing pornography, lying, stealing, etc etc.)

This brings us back to the question of interpretation--nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state WHY God set the 10 Commandments, or what their role was then and now. Your interpretation, that the 10 Commandments were a response to the historical conditions of ancient Israel (and therefore arguably limited to that time and place), is compelling but not authoritative. It conflicts with many other interpretations of those same commandments and what they mean to Jews, Christians, and Muslims today.

I would explicitly disagree-- if we were to read Exodus 19, we would see that God was having the Israelites prepare themselves to make a covenant with him. It's quite a lot to type, but the gist is that God wants to make Israel his people, and so he makes them prepare for the covenant. They must wash themselves and their garments, abstain from sex till after the covenant, they may not go near the mountain, etc. Then in Chapter 20, Moses travels up the mountain (on the third day, which was what God told him to do) and then original ten commandments were then created as a covenant with the people. They were to keep these laws to please God, and be His people. So, there is your reason for the T.C. Then after the people got sick of waiting for Moses, and made the Golden Calf, Moses had to plead for their lives because the broke that covenant, even before they had received it. So, Moses had to reforge the T.C. and then God added to them. So, the T.C.(+the other commandments, post Calf) were for the Jews. Also, I can think of several places in the New Testament where Jesus says that he fulfilled the law, and is also the New Covenant, through the Last Supper. He fulfilled the law and created the new one, so we effectively don't have to adhere to the T.C. explicitly. We are still held accountable for sin, but we are not limited by the T.C.(+the other commandments post Calf)

Also, I feel like I'm throwing myself to the wolves here, but Jews and Muslims don't really adhere to this anymore. They never truly did. They both reject Christ, and so my personal opinion is that they will never fully understand what truth they have pulled from the Old Testament, because so much of it revolves around Jesus. Yes, some can be understood, as much of it is history. The law was meant to supplement faith, but the Jews turned it into something that was Legalistic. It wasn't salvation by faith, but Salvation by following the law.

Interesting. I've never heard this interpretation of common grace--that God gave humans a knowledge of good and evil so that they might come to Him. In fact, the only passages I can think of in the Bible concerning knowledge of good and evil seem to tell a very different story. You say that God expelled humanity from the Garden of Eden because of sin, yet redeemed us (or allowed us to redeem ourselves) by giving us knowledge of good and evil. My reading of the passages above suggest that God expelled humanity from the Garden of Eden for knowing good and evil (like God) and in order to prevent us from taking also of the tree of life and living forever. Why are our interpretations so different?

Not what I meant. God expelled us of sin. We do not redeem ourselves though. What I am saying is, post-Jesus common grace (this is only a facet mind you) is the continuation of the effects from Eden, but God is then using it to call people to himself. Or at least sometimes, not all the time. Our senses of morality run deeper than what he have learned from our parents, as I stated. Some people will come to question this, effectively allowing Christ to work in their hearts. Does this clarify my meaning? Also, the expulsion from Eden was not because God was keeping us from just living forever, it was to spare us from living forever in our sin. It would mean that we would suffer eternally, but mortally.

Hopefully all his makes more sense?

I'm trying my best to retain and retell the information I have learned from Graduate courses here at Trinity. It's a lot to remember, so there could be a thing or two that needs tweaking. As to our interpretations, it's all about context with the other passages. A lot of times interpretations go wrong because people refuse to quote who sections of scripture where previous or latter verses inform each other.

Well, that's one thing about any religion. Each branch has their own sect of how to interpret their holy books. What about the story of Enoch? He was a righteous man and he walked with God. And, God took him up to Heaven. And, mind you this is before Noah's flood.

I fail to see the point you're making with Enoch. He walked in the Lord, and loved the Lord. So, the Lord took him. That is a glimpse of God's Salvation. Unless you are also arguing Hidden's quoting from the bible.

Anyway, you never answered my question to you- why did you stop believing?

 

[Dreaded_Desire62]

You misunderstand what I mean. Or more likely, mispoke. Sin is well... sin. Sinning surely breaks the ten commandments, but the T.C. was also the law. It was part of the covenant made with Moses. Sinning is anything that tares you away from God. (Viewing pornography, lying, stealing, etc etc.)




I would explicitly disagree-- if we were to read Exodus 19, we would see that God was having the Israelites prepare themselves to make a covenant with him. It's quite a lot to type, but the gist is that God wants to make Israel his people, and so he makes them prepare for the covenant. They must wash themselves and their garments, abstain from sex till after the covenant, they may not go near the mountain, etc. Then in Chapter 20, Moses travels up the mountain (on the third day, which was what God told him to do) and then original ten commandments were then created as a covenant with the people. They were to keep these laws to please God, and be His people. So, there is your reason for the T.C. Then after the people got sick of waiting for Moses, and made the Golden Calf, Moses had to plead for their lives because the broke that covenant, even before they had received it. So, Moses had to reforge the T.C. and then God added to them. So, the T.C.(+the other commandments, post Calf) were for the Jews. Also, I can think of several places in the New Testament where Jesus says that he fulfilled the law, and is also the New Covenant, through the Last Supper. He fulfilled the law and created the new one, so we effectively don't have to adhere to the T.C. explicitly. We are still held accountable for sin, but we are not limited by the T.C.(+the other commandments post Calf)

Also, I feel like I'm throwing myself to the wolves here, but Jews and Muslims don't really adhere to this anymore. They never truly did. They both reject Christ, and so my personal opinion is that they will never fully understand what truth they have pulled from the Old Testament, because so much of it revolves around Jesus. Yes, some can be understood, as much of it is history. The law was meant to supplement faith, but the Jews turned it into something that was Legalistic. It wasn't salvation by faith, but Salvation by following the law.




Not what I meant. God expelled us of sin. We do not redeem ourselves though. What I am saying is, post-Jesus common grace (this is only a facet mind you) is the continuation of the effects from Eden, but God is then using it to call people to himself. Or at least sometimes, not all the time. Our senses of morality run deeper than what he have learned from our parents, as I stated. Some people will come to question this, effectively allowing Christ to work in their hearts. Does this clarify my meaning? Also, the expulsion from Eden was not because God was keeping us from just living forever, it was to spare us from living forever in our sin. It would mean that we would suffer eternally, but mortally.

Hopefully all his makes more sense?

I'm trying my best to retain and retell the information I have learned from Graduate courses here at Trinity. It's a lot to remember, so there could be a thing or two that needs tweaking. As to our interpretations, it's all about context with the other passages. A lot of times interpretations go wrong because people refuse to quote who sections of scripture where previous or latter verses inform each other.



I fail to see the point you're making with Enoch. He walked in the Lord, and loved the Lord. So, the Lord took him. That is a glimpse of God's Salvation. Unless you are also arguing Hidden's quoting from the bible.

Anyway, you never answered my question to you- why did you stop believing?

It wasn't purely for emotional reasons. It was also the passages from the Old and New Testament. For example, in the book of 2 Kings 2:23-25, it speaks about how forty-two boys were calling Elisha bald and he got angry due to it. So, he cursed the children and two female bears came and tore the children to shreds.

Also, where does it mention that God is against people for looking at pornography? There were also commands not to eat pork and shellfish. And, there are also verses on slavery, rape, and etc.

 

[Nutari]

It wasn't purely for emotional reasons. It was also the passages from the Old and New Testament. For example, in the book of 2 Kings 2:23-25, it speaks about how forty-two boys were calling Elisha bald and he got angry due to it. So, he cursed the children and two female bears came and tore the children to shreds.

Also, where does it mention that God is against people for looking at pornography? There were also commands not to eat pork and shellfish. And, there are also verses on slavery, rape, and etc.

Alright. I've done this often. So, I'll keep it brief, but hopefully informative. As a precursor, let me just tell you that you have let yourself be deceived by uninformed public opinion. Those commands about pork and shellfish? Yes, those were removed in the New Testament. After the New Covenant, Christians and Jewish converts were not held to those standards that devout Jews were. Also, guess what? God did not command that of his people. That was an arbitrary law created by the leaders. God doesn't dictate every decision the Israelites made when they were an Empire. There were 600 some odd laws that kings and priests came up with over those thousand years. By the time Jesus came about the Ten Commandments were simply an after thought. People were so focused on these 600 arbitrary laws that God didn't give them.

Those verses of slavery? Slavery was a cultural norm. Israel's form of slavery was sanctioned by God due to the nature of it. Their word for slavery is actually our definition of Indentured Servant. Their "slaves" were only allowed to be kept for 6 years, and after that they were to be released. Unfortunately, at some point Israel didn't hold to that, and that ultimately led to their exile at one point. The Israelites were repenting of their sin before Babylon overtook them- by releasing their slaves and creating a minor covenant with God. After the Babylonians went away (because God moved in the Pharaoh of Egypts heart to save Israel from utter destruction) the Israelites retracted their covenant and took back their slaves (which they had for more than 6 years), and God punished them. Egypt lost their battle with Babylon, and then Babylon came back and destroyed Jerusalem for trying to cheat God's grace.

Rape? Well, my friend- those verses that are most prevalent have to do with David. David committed adultery, by having an affair with Bathsheba. Then, David had her husband killed. Then God confronted David, and David repented, but God wasn't going to let him off the hook. So God allowed Bathsheba's baby to die. God also told David that David's family would find much internal strife.

One of David's sons, Amnon rapes his half sister Tamar. Amnon is killed a few years later by his half brother- Absalom.

Absalom then flees Jerusalem, comes back a time later, and stages a coup and tries to kill David. David flees, and then Absalom raped a bunch of David's concubines. Absalom is then killed by Joab (one of David's officials).

Later Adonijah, another of David's sons, tries to commandeer the throne, when it was supposed to be Solomon's.

Any other verses people quote are just one single verse amid a larger section which tells a bigger story, and normally that results in the rapist being punished, by God's hand, somehow.

As for 2 Kings 2:23-25...

Most translations use the equivalent of "lad". Now why the ESV (my translation) uses the english meaning of "lad" (small boy) beats me. The direct Hebrew translation for "lad" means young men. So, guess what? Those "kids" were a bunch of 17-20 year olds who were harassing Elisha. Does that put it in perspective a little bit? Also, it never says anywhere that God condoned his actions there. But, I'm pretty sure if you were surrounded by a group of 42+ young men yelling names at you, you would break down and panic. I would guarantee you that they would have proceeded to mug him.

If I seem a little angry throughout this response, it's most definitely because your jab at pornography. That is enough to set me off completely. Listen up: pornography exists to create LUST. LUST is a sin. Therefore, pornography is a sin. You know what else? I've struggled with a porn addiction for as long as I can remember, and it's been a really long healing process. I don't understand how people cannot see the evil in porn. I just can't. Also, a lot of porn addicts get to a point where they aren't satisfied. So, they rape women. They abuse kids. They molest teen girls. Who know what these sick people have in common? Porn. I 100% guarantee that is how they got into taking those bodies for themselves.

Rant over. My apologies, but I don't take kindly to assumptions that porn is okay. There are also portions of scripture where the word "pornea" is used. Which is the root word for pornography, and the word is always used to suggest a lustful connotation.

 

[Dreaded_Desire62]

Alright. I've done this often. So, I'll keep it brief, but hopefully informative. As a precursor, let me just tell you that you have let yourself be deceived by uninformed public opinion. Those commands about pork and shellfish? Yes, those were removed in the New Testament. After the New Covenant, Christians and Jewish converts were not held to those standards that devout Jews were. Also, guess what? God did not command that of his people. That was an arbitrary law created by the leaders. God doesn't dictate every decision the Israelites made when they were an Empire. There were 600 some odd laws that kings and priests came up with over those thousand years. By the time Jesus came about the Ten Commandments were simply an after thought. People were so focused on these 600 arbitrary laws that God didn't give them.

Those verses of slavery? Slavery was a cultural norm. Israel's form of slavery was sanctioned by God due to the nature of it. Their word for slavery is actually our definition of Indentured Servant. Their "slaves" were only allowed to be kept for 6 years, and after that they were to be released. Unfortunately, at some point Israel didn't hold to that, and that ultimately led to their exile at one point. The Israelites were repenting of their sin before Babylon overtook them- by releasing their slaves and creating a minor covenant with God. After the Babylonians went away (because God moved in the Pharaoh of Egypts heart to save Israel from utter destruction) the Israelites retracted their covenant and took back their slaves (which they had for more than 6 years), and God punished them. Egypt lost their battle with Babylon, and then Babylon came back and destroyed Jerusalem for trying to cheat God's grace.

Rape? Well, my friend- those verses that are most prevalent have to do with David. David committed adultery, by having an affair with Bathsheba. Then, David had her husband killed. Then God confronted David, and David repented, but God wasn't going to let him off the hook. So God allowed Bathsheba's baby to die. God also told David that David's family would find much internal strife.

One of David's sons, Amnon rapes his half sister Tamar. Amnon is killed a few years later by his half brother- Absalom.

Absalom then flees Jerusalem, comes back a time later, and stages a coup and tries to kill David. David flees, and then Absalom raped a bunch of David's concubines. Absalom is then killed by Joab (one of David's officials).

Later Adonijah, another of David's sons, tries to commandeer the throne, when it was supposed to be Solomon's.

Any other verses people quote are just one single verse amid a larger section which tells a bigger story, and normally that results in the rapist being punished, by God's hand, somehow.

As for 2 Kings 2:23-25...

Most translations use the equivalent of "lad". Now why the ESV (my translation) uses the english meaning of "lad" (small boy) beats me. The direct Hebrew translation for "lad" means young men. So, guess what? Those "kids" were a bunch of 17-20 year olds who were harassing Elisha. Does that put it in perspective a little bit? Also, it never says anywhere that God condoned his actions there. But, I'm pretty sure if you were surrounded by a group of 42+ young men yelling names at you, you would break down and panic. I would guarantee you that they would have proceeded to mug him.

If I seem a little angry throughout this response, it's most definitely because your jab at pornography. That is enough to set me off completely. Listen up: pornography exists to create LUST. LUST is a sin. Therefore, pornography is a sin. You know what else? I've struggled with a porn addiction for as long as I can remember, and it's been a really long healing process. I don't understand how people cannot see the evil in porn. I just can't. Also, a lot of porn addicts get to a point where they aren't satisfied. So, they rape women. They abuse kids. They molest teen girls. Who know what these sick people have in common? Porn. I 100% guarantee that is how they got into taking those bodies for themselves.

Rant over. My apologies, but I don't take kindly to assumptions that porn is okay. There are also portions of scripture where the word "pornea" is used. Which is the root word for pornography, and the word is always used to suggest a lustful connotation.

Everything comes in moderation. I am against child pornography, because they aren't at the age of consent. But, if a woman or a man is interested in it and they are at the age of consent then it's okay.

I am struggling with suicidal thoughts and according to a lot of religious people. It's a sin, because only God can give and take away life.

 

[Nutari]

Everything comes in moderation. I am against child pornography, because they aren't at the age of consent. But, if a woman or a man is interested in it and they are at the age of consent then it's okay.

I am struggling with suicidal thoughts and according to a lot of religious people. It's a sin, because only God can give and take away life.

Well, porn is a defined sin. So sorry, you can't really argue that it isn't. Pre-marital sex damages your spirit. Sex is physical and spiritual. Not just physical, but it's made that way only because people take those rights they shouldn't be.

Suicide is a touchy subject, it isn't the unforgivable sin, that's Blasphemy. Taking your own life into your own hands is playing God. Not to mean just making a decision to do something. Taking your life and deciding whether you want to live or not- That is a sin. Although, there is something more at work there. I couldn't begin to tell you what that is, as I haven't been there before. Look, suicide is something scary. The pain is intolerable, I know that... but you know what DD? It's okay to cry. Sometimes, you just gotta let it out. There is no shame in shedding tears. Bottling up isn't the way to get through it.

I hope what I said previously also makes sense. I know it's a lot to think about, take in, and process, but it should help you make heads and tails of some of the "contradictions" of the Bible. You gotta read the entirety of the section, not just that one verse. Plus, in the original scrolls, there weren't divided verses like we have. All of those things were meant to be read together, and as a whole. So in a way, all this translating has done a slight disservice to Christianity, although, translation is indeed necessary.

 

[Hidden]

You misunderstand what I mean. Or more likely, mispoke. Sin is well... sin. Sinning surely breaks the ten commandments, but the T.C. was also the law. It was part of the covenant made with Moses. Sinning is anything that tares you away from God. (Viewing pornography, lying, stealing, etc etc.)

I would explicitly disagree-- if we were to read Exodus 19, we would see that God was having the Israelites prepare themselves to make a covenant with him. It's quite a lot to type, but the gist is that God wants to make Israel his people, and so he makes them prepare for the covenant. They must wash themselves and their garments, abstain from sex till after the covenant, they may not go near the mountain, etc. Then in Chapter 20, Moses travels up the mountain (on the third day, which was what God told him to do) and then original ten commandments were then created as a covenant with the people. They were to keep these laws to please God, and be His people. So, there is your reason for the T.C. Then after the people got sick of waiting for Moses, and made the Golden Calf, Moses had to plead for their lives because the broke that covenant, even before they had received it. So, Moses had to reforge the T.C. and then God added to them. So, the T.C.(+the other commandments, post Calf) were for the Jews.

You're right, that God forged a covenant with His people at Sinai is explicitly stated. "Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation" (NRSV, Exodus 19:5-6). However, that still leaves us to question: what is the nature of these commandments and this covenant? Are they simply legal, or are they (as many people hold them to be) moral? And if they are moral, are they morals specific to that time and place of ancient pre-Israel, or do they apply equally to all times and all places? These are questions that people have to answer through interpretation, either the interpretation of different Biblical passages or the interpretations of different Biblical authorities. Another point of interpretation: how do the 10 Commandments, and the Old Testament in general, relate to Christians today:

Also, I can think of several places in the New Testament where Jesus says that he fulfilled the law, and is also the New Covenant, through the Last Supper. He fulfilled the law and created the new one, so we effectively don't have to adhere to the T.C. explicitly. We are still held accountable for sin, but we are not limited by the T.C.(+the other commandments post Calf)

There are a few passages in the New Testament that are used to support this view, but I'm guessing you're referencing Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (NRSV). But what this word "fulfill" means is not at all clear, and it has led to some very different views on the relationship between Jesus and Mosaic law. How do we interpret that Jesus has come to "fulfill" the law? That the law is now finished, and we have no more use for it; or that the law is reaffirmed, and as Jesus fulfills the law so should we? These are not clear-cut answers. Consider the following passages: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (NRSV, Matthew 5:18-20).

Not what I meant. God expelled us of sin. We do not redeem ourselves though. What I am saying is, post-Jesus common grace (this is only a facet mind you) is the continuation of the effects from Eden, but God is then using it to call people to himself. Or at least sometimes, not all the time. Our senses of morality run deeper than what he have learned from our parents, as I stated. Some people will come to question this, effectively allowing Christ to work in their hearts. Does this clarify my meaning?

I see your meaning. I'm unfamiliar with those ideas, so I misunderstood originally.

Also, the expulsion from Eden was not because God was keeping us from just living forever, it was to spare us from living forever in our sin. It would mean that we would suffer eternally, but mortally.

This is another interpretation I haven't heard before.

Also, I feel like I'm throwing myself to the wolves here, but Jews and Muslims don't really adhere to this anymore. They never truly did. They both reject Christ, and so my personal opinion is that they will never fully understand what truth they have pulled from the Old Testament, because so much of it revolves around Jesus. Yes, some can be understood, as much of it is history. The law was meant to supplement faith, but the Jews turned it into something that was Legalistic. It wasn't salvation by faith, but Salvation by following the law.

This is really the culmination of what we've been talking about above. Not only are you advocating one specific interpretation of the Bible (the Bible as testament to Jesus Christ), you are saying that people cannot truly understand the Bible except through this interpretation.

Understand, I'm not saying your interpretations of the Bible are wrong--I'm saying they are not self-evident. But with the weight attached to these interpretations (whether or not you can understand the Bible, whether or not you can be saved, etc), finding the "correct" interpretation becomes paramount. And if the 'correct' interpretation is not self-evident, how do we arrive at it, and how do we know once we have arrived?

As a precursor, let me just tell you that you have let yourself be deceived by uninformed public opinion.

This was directed to Dreaded Desire, and I'll leave most of that conversation alone. However, I want to point out, starting with this line above and onwards, we're dealing again with different interpretations of the Bible, specifically yours versus the "uninformed public's." In addressing slavery, rape, Elisha, and pornography, you are using Biblical stories or passages, but giving them context and constructing meaning from them that is interpretative--as are all readings. The Elisha one strikes me most strongly, simply because I have never heard an interpretation that makes that story any less bizarre. Some stories just seem to resist any sort of interpretation.

 

[Nutari]

You're right, that God forged a covenant with His people at Sinai is explicitly stated. "Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation" (NRSV, Exodus 19:5-6). However, that still leaves us to question: what is the nature of these commandments and this covenant? Are they simply legal, or are they (as many people hold them to be) moral? And if they are moral, are they morals specific to that time and place of ancient pre-Israel, or do they apply equally to all times and all places? These are questions that people have to answer through interpretation, either the interpretation of different Biblical passages or the interpretations of different Biblical authorities. Another point of interpretation: how do the 10 Commandments, and the Old Testament in general, relate to Christians today? You give one interpretation in the following comment:


There are a few passages in the New Testament that are used to support this view, but I'm guessing you're referencing Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (NRSV). But what this word "fulfill" means is not at all clear, and it has led to some very different views on the relationship between Jesus and Mosaic law. How do we interpret that Jesus has come to "fulfill" the law? That the law is now finished, and we have no more use for it; or that the law is reaffirmed, and as Jesus fulfills the law so should we? These are not clear-cut answers. Consider the passages immediately following Matthew 5:17: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (NRSV, Matthew 5:18-20).


I see your meaning. I'm unfamiliar with those ideas, so I misunderstood originally.


This is another interpretation I haven't heard before.


This is really the culmination of what we've been talking about above. Not only are you advocating one specific interpretation of the Bible (the Bible as testament to Jesus Christ), you are saying that people cannot truly understand the Bible except through this interpretation.

Understand, I'm not saying your interpretations of the Bible are wrong--I'm saying they are not self-evident. But with the weight attached to these interpretations (whether or not you can understand the Bible, whether or not you can be saved, etc), finding the "correct" interpretation becomes paramount. And if the 'correct' interpretation is not self-evident, how do we arrive at it, and how do we know once we have arrived?


This was directed to Dreaded Desire, and I'll leave most of that conversation alone. However, I want to point out, starting with this line above and onwards, we're dealing again with different interpretations of the Bible, specifically yours versus the "uninformed public's." In addressing slavery, rape, Elisha, and pornography, you are using Biblical stories or passages, but giving them context and constructing meaning from them that is interpretative--as are all readings. The Elisha one strikes me most strongly, simply because I have never heard an interpretation that makes that story any less bizarre. Some stories just seem to resist any sort of interpretation.

I wish I had time to argue more points with you, but I hold many concrete and informed interpretations that are held by Evangelicals. I am not simply drawing these conclusions on my own. You must understand that these are a lot of the interpretations that are being taught to seminary students... I should know, I've sat through hours of seminary courses (filming them with the IT department of my school). So this information is supported by EXTENSIVE research by multiple PhD holders, and much of my OT knowledge is affirmed or compounded by a man named Barry Wvitsel (I don't remember how to spell his name, unfortunately) who is an OT scholar, who wrote an extensive atlas complete with maps of the middle east that he researched and charted for years. So at least to me, my information is credible. I'm not one who holds to the idea that there are multiple interpretations of scripture. There could be slight varieties in interpretations, but the Bible is very clear that certain things are not meant to be interpreted certain ways. Stories, such as Elisha and the two bears could very well be a recounting of a very brief tale, and could ultimately be nonessential to Bible message as a whole. But in the way I heard it explained by several people, it makes more sense, not complete sense, but more sense nonetheless.

 

[Hidden]

I wish I had time to argue more points with you, but I hold many concrete and informed interpretations that are held by Evangelicals. I am not simply drawing these conclusions on my own. You must understand that these are a lot of the interpretations that are being taught to seminary students... I should know, I've sat through hours of seminary courses (filming them with the IT department of my school). So this information is supported by EXTENSIVE research by multiple PhD holders, and much of my OT knowledge is affirmed or compounded by a man named Barry Wvitsel (I don't remember how to spell his name, unfortunately) who is an OT scholar, who wrote an extensive atlas complete with maps of the middle east that he researched and charted for years. So at least to me, my information is credible.

I don't doubt it. Again, I'm not saying your interpretations (or the interpretations of your teachers) are not credible, I'm saying they are not self-evident. If they were, everyone who read the Bible would understand it the same way, and there would be no need to go to seminary or get a PhD. So to return to my earlier question then--how do I arrive at an interpretation that I can trust? Must I rely on academic authorities, those who have PhDs? But if I do, what happens when two PhDs disagree with each other (a thing not unheard of in academia)? Whose authority do I turn to then?

I'm not one who holds to the idea that there are multiple interpretations of scripture. There could be slight varieties in interpretations, but the Bible is very clear that certain things are not meant to be interpreted certain ways.

Here I must disagree. Because if this were the case, that the Bible admits of only slight variations in interpretation, then throughout the history of the Abrahamic religions we should see essential agreement on all points of Scriptural interpretation. But this is not the case. The history of Christianity alone is rife with conflict over the interpretation of both testaments of the Bible, along with many texts that we now consider apocryphal or don't consider at all. And while you can argue that many of these conflicts stem from more than just the "pure" interpretation of scripture (e.g. politics, power, different concepts of morality), it is very difficult to find an interpretation of which you can say, "Ah, this is the pure, unbiased interpretation of scripture with no external considerations or prejudices." In fact, it is impossible, so long as it is humans who are making the interpretations.

The history of scripture presents itself not as one "revealed truth" to which a select few remain true and the vast majority stray away (who are the select few? who the errant majority?), but as a constant process of interpretation by different readers in different times and places (indeed, at some level, by every single person who has ever read or heard the Biblical stories). And though I have spent the last two pages of posts complaining about this, I think this is as it should be.

 

[Nutari]

I don't doubt it. Again, I'm not saying your interpretations (or the interpretations of your teachers) are not credible, I'm saying they are not self-evident. If they were, everyone who read the Bible would understand it the same way, and there would be no need to go to seminary or get a PhD. So to return to my earlier question then--how do I arrive at an interpretation that I can trust? Must I rely on academic authorities, those who have PhDs? But if I do, what happens when two PhDs disagree with each other (a thing not unheard of in academia)? Whose authority do I turn to then?

Well, in order to interpret scriptures accurately, it is imperative to weigh your pastors interpretations with your own understandings, you also want to make sure your theology checks out. Whether that means discussions with others who share similar beliefs and what not. It's hard to explain, but as long as core theologies check out, minor interpretations don't matter too much. I enjoy debating interpretations on a smaller scale. As long as important theologies aren't being disagreed upon everything is good.

Here I must disagree. Because if this were the case, that the Bible admits of only slight variations in interpretation, then throughout the history of the Abrahamic religions we should see essential agreement on all points of Scriptural interpretation. But this is not the case. The history of Christianity alone is rife with conflict over the interpretation of both testaments of the Bible, along with many texts that we now consider apocryphal or don't consider at all. And while you can argue that many of these conflicts stem from more than just the "pure" interpretation of scripture (e.g. politics, power, different concepts of morality), it is very difficult to find an interpretation of which you can say, "Ah, this is the pure, unbiased interpretation of scripture with no external considerations or prejudices." In fact, it is impossible, so long as it is humans who are making the interpretations.

Well, there is a way to have an extremely solid, and fairly accurate interpretation of theology. Your theology between verses must line up across the entirety of the Bible.

The history of scripture presents itself not as one "revealed truth" to which a select few remain true and the vast majority stray away (who are the select few? who the errant majority?), but as a constant process of interpretation by different readers in different times and places (indeed, at some level, by every single person who has ever read or heard the Biblical stories). And though I have spent the last two pages of posts complaining about this, I think this is as it should be.

Well I don't completely disagree with you, I suppose it's important to not go wrong on big theology issues, as I've said earlier in this post. I think we have reached a more or less reasonable agreement to agree and disagree.