This is an interesting question that relates to the question preached on last Sunday ‘how could a good God allow suffering?’
I reckon one of the strange stories in the Bible is a story about rape, circumcision and murder. You can read about it in Genesis 34.
In brief Dinah one of Jacob’s daughters is raped by a guy from a different nation. Dinah’s brothers are furious and the guy who raped Dinah wants to marry her. So the brothers trick the guy and all of his clan. They say that only if the guy and his clan get circumcised they will let the guy marry their sister. So the guy and his clan go ahead with the very painful exercise – especially considering they didn’t have any real pain relief.
Read what the brothers do. Genesis 34:25 Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male.
What does God think about all this? Well in the story you don’t really get God’s thoughts. You just find out that Jacob is very angry with what his sons have done.
Actually when I think about it I don’t know anywhere in the Bible were God is happy about rape and murder. I guess at this point we need to make an important distinction – in the Bible there are descriptive parts (where we are just told what happened) and prescriptive parts (where we are told what God wants us to do).
I guess the point of saying that is although there might stories about rape and murder in the Bible, that doesn’t mean God thinks they’re cool. In actual fact we know from the Bible that God really hates it when the vulnerable are taken advantage of and there will be some nasty stuff coming the way of the those who do such things. And as someone who knows a few people who have been assaulted I will be putting up my hand if God needs any help when it comes to dishing it out on the last day (not that he will… need my help that is).
But what makes me think I’m such a good guy? If anyone was to see the extent of my sin I reckon they would be crying out for justice too.
I guess we also need to talk about the wars that God is for in the Old Testament. Wars that in some cases clear the way for his people and wars in other cases that punish his people. There are probably two things to say. God made us so he can judge us however he wants (which we will hear more about on Sunday) and that a lot of the time we underestimate our own sin (rejection of God).
While the Old Testament can sound violent, if you actually think about it, Jesus has far more harsh things to say. Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Because we are so materialistic we think death is the worst thing that can happen to us… But in reality there is a far greater punishment in store for all of us.
But there is good news God poured out his anger on his Son – Jesus on the cross. And we can have the hope of a sure future with Jesus if we acknowledge our own sin to God and trust in the risen Lord Jesus.
This is great news for sinners like me. Jesus isn’t meek and mild he’s a fearless warrior. What’s gunna happen when you meet him?
Simon wants to know if he gets a prize for initiating the second longest-running discussion in the history of the SCPC website (and in reality we all know the Safari blog from last year was the result of shameless bribery and 49 contributions from Rachael T!).
But anyways… a few comments that I hope are helpful (hard to know where to start!)…
Elaine, the main problem I see with your cultural-evolutionary approach to reading/understanding the Bible is that there’s no indication within scripture itself that this approach is valid. The authors of the Bible (both human and divine) seem to think that the story they are telling, though set within culture and history, is not the product of culture but rather the interpreted (“revealed”) events of God’s dealings with his beloved creation, centred around the breathtaking divine-human life, death & resurrection of the eternal son of God.
None of us is at liberty to overlay our cultural preferences on this divine-human word. I think there are two reasons your approach to biblical interpretation has become so popular. The first is that it’s the result of our historical smugness – we believe that unlike the ignorant and superstitious peoples of the past we children of the enlightenment are the first to work out that culture influences our worldview. The second is that such a “fluid” interpretation allows us far greater scope to claim that the Bible has no real authority over us in our current circumstances. At best it is a “guide”, but even then one that must be subjected to our post-modern 21st century framework. Once again, we have come up with a way to justify our refusal to accept the word of God for what it is. How very, very convenient!
Jodee, as for your interpretation of the biblical narrative (comment 34), I’ve gotta say it’s very imaginative! Did you make that up yourself? That’s a very ignorant & pathetic god you’ve described. Is it a story you believe or pure satire?
And Angela (and please don’t take this as patronising in any way), I just want to say thank you again for your comments. Your genuine engagement is refreshing, your humour is warm, your logic is consistent (though perhaps at times a little “unreasonable”?). Thanks for sustaining this discussion!
I think that the missing (or perhaps just understated) element in a lot of the discussion and in your summary above (which Katja has addressed in detail and so I won’t) is the RELATIONAL nature of the Christian faith. Although Christians believe certain things that can be summarised “propositionally”, it is inevitable that reducing Christianity to a set of propositions will rob the Christian story of its drama and pathos and power. I have to admit that even I, upon reading your combined summary (i.e. yourself & Katja), am less than drawn to believing that set of facts and basing my life on them! BUT I DO. And the reason is that behind those propositions lies the whole story of the uncompromising love of the faithful God who died for me. Even for me.
I know you’ve read plenty of the Bible before Angela. But I wonder if you’ve ever read it with a true desire to know the God who has loved you to death? Even you. One of the gospels is the best place to start.
Pete, I have already given you examples of where the culture of the people has been a conduit for their understanding of God. But a conduit doesn’t change the nature of the thing it carries – only the way it carries it. I’m not saying God changed, but that people’s undertsanding of God changed. If you have read the Bible and not seen that, then you have disturbing blinkers on.
Oh dear Katja, you have thrown me into the slough of despond.
I fear that I am back with the Martians just when I thought I had it.
Although the silver lining is that hell is no more than being separated from God. It’s fantastic to know that even if I am wrong in my atheism, eternity will be just like my life, and I am thoroughly enjoying that. I am glad the hellfire thing has been discredited by modern Christians.
I particularly enjoyed your joke about quality over quality in heaven – but on a more serious note – you must know that the rate of unbelievers is increasing in each successive generation. In our region it has hit over 30% (40% in Byron, but enough said about that!) according to the last census. I imagine that well within the next twenty years it will reach over 50%. There is a real risk that one of your children will grow up to reject their Christian upbringing, especially of they turn out to be gay. You may be with God – but separated for all eternity from your child/ren – does your faith sustain you in the face of that real possibility?
Re the scapegoat word, I have been using it deliberately as it has a very ancient lineage in the many “dying and rising god” mythologies, including in the Christian theology.
“In Christian theology, the story of the scapegoat in Leviticus is interpreted as a symbolic pre-figuration of the self-sacrifice of Jesus, who takes the sins of humanity on his own head, having been driven into the ‘wilderness’ outside the city by order of the high priests. Also see John 1:29 and Hebrews Chps. 9-10” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat
OK, here I go, but I fear failure:
1. The Bible tells us Jesus existed as a god-man circa 30s CE, was executed, and rose from the dead. The Bible can be verified by its text and by contemporaneous extra-biblical events.
2, Jesus’ resurrection was so obviously godlike that it validates Christianity as the only true religion.
3. Despite the obviousness of this divine proof, the evidence of people’s past and ongoing behaviour shows that humans continue to reject God.
4. God is constantly disappointed in human behaviour (despite the fact that he created them with this capacity) and must mete out cosmic justice as sin cannot go unpunished.
5. Divine punishment is an eternity of separation from God for those who have rejected God.
(at this point I’m feeling a little hysterical at the absurdity of this argument; “god made sinning man, god must punish sinning man for rejecting him, damning sinning man to an eternity of sinning without the presence of god” aghhggh, but I shall press on)
6. Examples of such rejections of God that warrant eternal separation include:
atheism, religious belief other than Christianity, adultery, not keeping the Sabbath, theft, coveting, false witness, and dishonouring your parents. There is no rape, paedophilia or homosexuality mentioned in the 10 commandments but they are co-equally punishable with the other Biblical laws against shellfish consumption, divorce and having sex during your period.
7. Jesus’ crucifixion was a willing substitute punishment for all the humans past, present and future who have sinned and will continue to sin.
8.. Jesus death and resurrection meant that for the first time, human beings can live an eternal life (except for the small selection of patriarchs and prophets in heaven prior to 33CE, but I can let this go. There are some very interesting theological debates about whether heaven in the OT was anything other than God’s dwelling place – there is certainly no evidence that ordinary folks were able to go to heaven as a reward for obeying God – the rewards were of a material nature; pasture, orchards, animals and babies- and the word hell doesn’t appear at all in the OT- it seems to be a very NT concept.)
9. Jesus’ voluntary substitutionary death only avoids your punishment if we truly believe Jesus is the only way to God (But Jesus IS God- what about the trinity? How do you be the way to the way?).
AM IN REAL TROUBLE NOW,
10. There is nothing we can do to be right with God. Jesus has done everything necessary for our eternal life by dying on the on the cross. Belief is everything, good acts are nothing in themselves and do not lead to salvation.
11. Christians try to live God’s way in gratitude for what Jesus has done (WHAT DOES THIS ACHIEVE?)
12. Because God gave us both a sinful nature and free will, there will be lots of people in hell (which exists as a place of eternal separation from God)
Sorry, it had to happen:
Christian: Jesus died for our sins, accept Jesus into your life and you will be saved.
Martian: Good on Jesus, so I can keep on partying.
Christian: No, accepting Jesus into your life means you need to show gratitude to God by trying to stop partying.
Martian: OK, but we both know that it’s impossible to stop partying, you were just doing it then!
Christian: Yes, but it makes me miserable when I fail God.
Martian: You looked pretty happy a minute ago with your neighbour’s wife.
Christian: Yes but I am so grateful for God’s grace that even when I fail, Jesus’ sacrifice will ensure my eternal grace.
Martian: OK, now I get it- does your neighbour’s wife have a sister? I need to be miserable for a few minutes and then I’m sure I will be sorry and want to show my gratitude to God.
Christian: No, you still don’t understand, I really try hard to show my gratitude to God by wanting to live a good life. I dont actually HAVE to live a good life.
Martian: OK, now I get it- I just try hard until I slip up, I apologise to God, remind myself of Jesus sacrifice then try again, only to fail, be sorry, start again, fail and so it goes. Doesn’t that drive you crazy if you know you will always fail, and God knows it and Jesus knows it?
Christian: Did you check out those legs?
Pete: It is inevitable that reducing Christianity to a set of propositions will rob the Christian story of its drama and pathos and power.
Angela: I absoloutely agree that humans are also passionate beings with a need to feed their emotional life, but if you don’t have an internally consistent and ethical arguement to guide humanity you are in danger of being left with the drama and power of an infallible pope who burns people for believing the earth rotates around the sun or a Hitler who sweeps his people away with gorgeous pageantry and cries for aryan leibensraum.
Pete: I have to admit that even I, upon reading your combined summary (i.e. yourself & Katja), am less than drawn to believing that set of facts and basing my life on them!
Angela: Thank you for acknowledging my problem.
Pete: BUT I DO. And the reason is that behind those propositions lies the whole story of the uncompromising love of the faithful God who died for me. Even for me. I know you’ve read plenty of the Bible before Angela. But I wonder if you’ve ever read it with a true desire to know the God who has loved you to death? Even you. One of the gospels is the best place to start.
Angela: I get the idea that God loved me so much that he died for me too. I assure you I have no feelings of being unworthy of god’s love ( if it existed), I was raised with rock solid self-esteem. I am just not moved by it BECAUSE of the lack of an internal consistency in the theology. I was raised to be very careful of appeals to my emotions- be it patriotism, greed, fear etc. I believe Christianity panders to people’s fear of death, the need to belong and for someone else to tell them the rules rather than figuring them out for themselves. As for reading the gospels – I could conduct numerous posts about the contradictions contained in them as well. And I think if people made the effort to read the contemporary history of biblical times, they would struggle to retain a belief in the scriptures.
I have been watching this blog and would recommend ending and leave it with these Questions.
When face with the shift from a biblical view of life toward a more libertarian understanding,do you tend to conform to the cultural mores and adopt the views of culture?
Or do you go to the bible as the final authority on any issue? Do you consider the bible sufficient to deal with this issue?
Magna, I am happy to have my invitation to post to this blog removed at any time. As previously cited, the purpose of this blog was to create a dialogue between Christians and non-believers. By wanting to end the post with your two questions, you seem to be saying we have reached the “agree to disagree” point. But why do you want to shut down the conversation ? Secular society is evolving ever-further from a literal belief in Bible authority. Church attendance is plummeting in the West and many mainstream Christian denominations will disappear within a generation, particularly in western Europe. The questions I pose here are a big part of why this is happening. If you present us with a “take it or leave it” approach to biblical authority without a convincing argument – we will (are) leaving it. You may find it repugnant , but Elaine’s cultural evolutionary approach to the Bible is the only thing that will save Christianity from disappearing in the west. Holy roller threats of eternal damnation just don’t work anymore when you can see the flaws in the arguments and the hypocrisies of many of it’s powerful practitioners ( I’m thinking the Catholic Church and the American Right-wing fundamentalists).
Angela I don’t attend this church so its not up to me to make that decision but I see that you are trying to change the views of this church and the truth of the bible. Its become more of a push for what you believe in and a game which I know you like to debate and you good at it.
As for the way Christianity is heading well its actually on the increase you only have to look at this church I think they started with 10 people and over the last 10yrs it has 350 at least this is happening in other parts of Australia,Europe,Asia were millions are
becoming Christians . Where ever you look in this world you see Christianity growing.
Hypocrisy is in all forms of belief systems whether its socialism,communism,capitalism,atheism and the list goes on but when you let human beings in control you get this conflicting situation as its mere humans turning the things God has created upside down to meet their desires .
As for Elaine her Ideas for an evolutionary Christianity is nothing new it started with Adam and Eve deciding not to obey Gods request not to eat the fruit so its a really old idea, its a continues flow of the same thing through the ages people living the way they want to but not the way God desires them to.
So is this a solution to evolve going to save the church no not at all. If anything christians need to become more active in there community live there lives share the unchanging message of God and this is something I have seen this church doing and I pray more do this wish i lived closer but the talks on the site have helped me answer a lot of questions I have had about christianity .
Thanks for showing me your true attentions on this blog but again Its not up to me if they stop this particular blog.
Thanks MAGNA for your input and it’s encouraging to hear that the talks have been useful for you – it is interesting to hear a different perspective from someone outside our church. Regarding management of the blog, I understand where you are coming from but we really do welcome the debate and so are not so keen to ‘shut down’ any discussion – but I do agree we may reach a point where the discussion might be more fruitfully pursued in other ways. For now, however…
ANGELA, thanks for plugging on in the discussion, but I have to say there have been a few things concerning me in your recent comments that do cause me to wonder how genuine your quest for the truth is, and how steadfast your commitment to logic… or at the very least whether you’re drawing on the whole truth at our disposal to base your conclusions.
Your comment about “an infallible pope who burns people for believing the earth rotates around the sun” is a bit of a whoopsy historically! I’m no defender of the Pope past or present, but this specific allegation is simply not true. It is based on what you might call ‘the atheist fable of Gallileo’ as regurgitated by Richard Dawkins et al, but defies the facts as we know them from the source documents. The version of events you are carelessly believing is based on a 19th century fabrication (John William Draper’s ‘History of the Conflict between Religion and Science’) and a related 20th century play/movie (Life of Galileo – Bertollt Brecht/Joseph Losey). Good theatre, poor history. And I suspect it may be the same second-hand/popular historical method that enables you make the staggering but unsubstantiated claim, “I think if people made the effort to read the contemporary history of biblical times, they would struggle to retain a belief in the scriptures”. You need to appreciate that there are world experts on the contemporary history of biblical times who are also Christian believers. There are others who are not. But your claim as it stands is unsustainable. As for inconsistencies in the gospel, there are many people who have set out to prove exactly your contention only to find that the four gospels are exactly what you would expect to find from authentic eye-witnesses reports of genuine events – variations in emphasis and minor detail but overwhelming agreement on the essence of the matter. Not cooked up. Yet not contradictory.
Angela, your claim of the demise of Christian belief is also stunningly selective (as Magna mentioned). In the same breath as you rightly decry Hitler you have wrongly blotted from the record what is happening elsewhere in the world than Byron Bay and Western Europe. Christianity’s growth especially in the developing world has been explosive. There are 6 times more Anglicans now in Nigeria than all the U.S. Growth in Christian belief in Africa and Latin America is massive. Korea has gone from 1% Christian to 40% in a hundred years. A similar pattern is underway in China with an expected 50 billion Chinese Christians within a generation. This will change the course of world history. Prepare yourself for chats with Chinese missionaries in the cafes of Byron.
Further your claims regarding the dangers of appeal to biblical authority are also highly selective. William Wilberforce led the Abolition of the Slave Trade not with a call to “put away your Bibles” but to truer deeper belief in it. Martin Luther King Jnr similarly made his appeal for justice not by an embarrassed call to silence the Bible but by vehemently quoting the prophets’ call for justice, and calling the church from their hypocrisy back to biblical truth. And Desmond Tutu with Sth Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission… Yes, there are many indefensible moments in church history but what they have in common is not that they were treating biblical authority too seriously, but not seriously enough. And the correction came when commitment to the Bible was revived not silenced.
But what happens when the Bible is silenced completely? And why the particular “keeping a record of wrongs” against Christianity? It is atheistic philosophies and worldviews that have delivered us the horrific regimes of Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceausescu, Fidel Castro & Kin Jong-il. It is where Christianity has been ejected in favour of atheist and Darwinian social philosophies that we have witnessed the greatest atrocities in world history … Stalin (at least 20 million deaths) Mao Zedong (as many as 70 million deaths). The Age of Reason? Hitler (10 million deaths) despite his clever and deceptive use of public religious propaganda, in his inner circle (see ‘Hitler’s Table Talk’ ) called Christianity one of the greatest ‘scourges’ in history. He said “let us be the only people immunized against this disease” and promised that “through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity”. His extermination of Jews was based on a social Darwinism of ‘survival of the fittest’.
I cannot believe that a sincere quest for the truth would allow you to be as historically biased and selective in argumentation as you are being. But atheism is not a threat to your morality/lifestyle. Christianity is. Here is the heart of my contention: you have an a priori commitment to the non-truth of Christianity with the main stumbling block being not primarily a logical one but rather a moral one. Christianity deserves special attention for you because if it were true your life would have to change. You are not on your own in arguing, whether wittingly or not, from morality to truth rather than the other way around. Some of the leading figures in modern thought and culture have rationalised their own view of morality and projected it onto a universal canvas. Truth is conformed to desire rather that desire to truth. e.g. Freud, Kinsey, Keynes, Margaret Mead, Picasso, Rousseau, Marx, Tolstoy, Ernest Hemingway, Bertold Brecht, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre.
Angela, the examination of Christian propositions seems to have returned us to the ridicule of your partying Martian friend. As a different way forward, would you be willing to share the propositions/story which sustains your worldview and where they/it come from?
Steve, I ask you to read my comments again as I think you have missed the point of some of my arguments. Firstly, I was referring to Giordano Bruno not Galileo who I believe lived to a ripe old age. And just like gerbils, I had no idea that there is a differing world view on Bruno’s burning at the stake for his heliocentric views. I cite the Encyclopaedia Britannica in my defence:
Giordano Bruno: Italian philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, and occultist whose theories anticipated modern science. The most notable of these were his theories of the infinite universe and the multiplicity of worlds, in which he rejected the traditional geocentric (or Earth-centred) astronomy and intuitively went beyond the Copernican heliocentric (Sun-centred) theory, which still maintained a finite universe with a sphere of fixed stars. Bruno is, perhaps, chiefly remembered for the tragic death he suffered at the stake because of the tenacity with which he maintained his unorthodox ideas at a time when both the Roman Catholic and the Reformed churches were reaffirming rigid Aristotelian and Scholastic principles in their struggle for the evangelization of Europe.http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/82258/Giordano-Brunoope
As for the reading of contemporary biblical history and the struggle to retain belief, I cite one example that has pretty comprehensive footnotes ” The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. I have tracked many of its assertions as much as possible and find little to argue with. Of course I am sure that there are Christian scholars that do – but my point was more populist – I think your average Christian would be shocked at the similarities between Christianity and other religions / mythologies at the time of early Christianity. I am happy to be proved wrong, maybe you would like to read it and let me know?
As for the inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts, I agree it is ARGUABLE; that was the point of my post – there is a lot of scholarly debate out there – enough to make me dubious of relying on its accuracy to form my world view.
As for my “stunningly selective” reference to western decline of Christianity, well yes I confess to identifying that specific selection for reason.. I singled out the west because of the reference to the cultural milieu argument that was relevant to the discussion. The questioning of literal biblical belief and the growing strength of secular values is a western phenomenon that is challenging Christianity on its home base. The African and Asian cultural milieu is vastly different and I agree that Christianity is on the rise there (and I have my opinions about that) – my point was that you will lose WESTERN Christians if you ignore the rise of secular beliefs that reject literalism.
As for your assertion that I was pointing out the dangers of appeal to biblical authority, that’s not what I said. I said the “danger lies with an appeal to drama and power” without an “an internally consistent and ethical argument to guide humanity.” So we both agree with your condemnation of Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceausescu, Fidel Castro & Kin Jong-il.” No argument there. You will see that I was even-handed in my examples; the pope and Hitler; one religious, one secular. So how was I biased there?
And finally: “But atheism is not a threat to your morality/lifestyle. Christianity is” You are absolutely correct when it relates to the influence Christianity has on the laws of the land, otherwise it is no threat to me at all. For example the current ban on my ability to marry my partner, the difficulties in obtaining same sex equal entitlements is a direct result of both this country’s imposition of Christian values and the influence of the religious rights on Parliament.
“Christianity deserves special attention for you because if it were true your life would have to change.” Or Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, Bahai and Buddhism (I was shocked to hear the Dalai Lama condemn lesbianism – does Hollywood know?). Not sure about Scientology, but given that Tom Cruise is firmly in the closet, my guess is yes. Stop feeling so special.
But to return to one of my earlier themes – I was raised to argue and change my view if someone can convince me otherwise- so I can assure you if Christianity was convincing I’d give up my girlfriend just like I gave up bacon sandwiches when I became a vegetarian (sorry for the comparison Darlene), and the acquisition of wealth when I became a socialist. All painful.
To reiterate numerous posts – I am here because I was invited – your Church wanted to know what we non-believers saw as obstacles to belief. I have used my best efforts to explain it to you. At times I know I have pressed your buttons, the Martian script is an example – but step into my shoes for a moment and see how it looks from here. I was reporting my interpretation of what I see as non sequiturs. Cross my heart and hope to die, that’s how it looks from here. I would still like someone to finish the Katja / Angela dialog for me as I really thought I was close.
As for the invitation to expound my world view – have we now changed the purpose of this blog?
Angela, you continue to make sweeping statements that are unsubstantiated – high on rhetoric and low on detail – the very approach you say your upbringing has taught you to be suspicious of. I found your last comment the most interesting and surprisingly defensive.
The purpose of the blog remains to answer people’s questions about Christianity. True Christianity is relational (and blogs can be limited in that regard) so at some point the discussion can only be taken further when we REALLY know who we’re answering. Don’t be afraid of being exposed to the same scrutiny you have appreciated from us. My question is still there to be answered by you or we’re not really talking are we?
Hi Angela, just pursuant to our recent exchange, it has been good to hear via Katja that you are open to the three of us meeting for lunch to take our discussion further. I hope we can fill in the remaining gaps in the Angela/Katja exchange regarding defining Christian belief. I do hope also that we can hear more from you about your worldview and understand it better, as I think the latter discussion will perhaps help identify what’s not working for you (what’s Martianese) in the former discussion.
For anyone else following the blog (and I guess who lives locally enough) do contact us via office@scpc.org.au if you would like to meet with someone to discuss Christianity, or just join us for one of our Sunday services at Lismore High School 9:30am & 6pm.