(Really trying to understand you POV, here)... So you don't think God, as our Heavenly father, is capable (by His nature) of punishing or allowing negative consequences? If I'm understanding that correctly, then you pretty much toss out most of the Old Testament and some of the New, right? I mean, I know you already said you don't think there was a literal Adam and Eve, so the Garden story is already out. But the Exodus story is riddled with dozens of instances of God punishing one group or another, including the Jews. And the prophets (major and minor), well... wow. Or even Jonah's fig tree shriveling up... Noah's flood. Lot's wife. Ishmael's banishment. As far as you're concerned, none of that actually happened? And then, if so much of the Bible is simple fable (parable, perhaps?), then how do you believe ANYTHING found within its pages? Not the least of which is, how do you know that Jesus really did die and rise again? If you can't use the Bible as evidence of anything, how does Christianity have any merit at all?
I don't think it's ever wrong to question or wonder or even challenge what we've been taught. I believe God gave us intelligent minds for a reason, and it wasn't so that we could practice blind, unquestioning faith. I'm suspicious of any church and/or religion that discourages questioning and seeking. I'm particularly wary of any that insist they've got all the answers and seek to turn your questions into nothing more than exercises in memorization. A couple years ago my mother taught a World Religions class to a predominantly Muslim group of university students, in Pakistan. Feeling that they would naturally know far more about Islam than she would, she concentrated on other religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism and Christianity, etc... Part way through the course several of her students came to her and asked, "When are we going to learn about Islam?" My mother said, "But you already know all about Islam!" "Not the way you're teaching it! All we know is how to recite pages of the Koran." My mother was shocked to realize that for many of them their religious education had consisted of nothing more than catechism. They'd never had the opportunity to question or debate or have the kind of discussion we're having here. So with much trepidation, she dusted off an introductory lecture on Islam that she used to give in North American universities. Her students were thrilled!
Now THIS I agree with 100%!!! Well said! If you do take the Bible literally, Scripture tells us to STUDY to show thyself approved as a workman. It also tells us to test God. The pages are filled with encouragement to question and push and seek truth.
Boy, is this difficult (but really fun, too! It's so nice we're on the same page about questioning)... There's nothing simple about stories. I do think these things happened, though I'm not sure they were recorded perfectly. I think the Bible is a primary historical document of incalculable worth. I also think it's a Sacred text, and a source of revelation. It is a book that demands our utmost respect. But it is not the be-all and end-all of Christianity. God continues to speak to us, so my faith does not depend on the Bible. God is too big to define in text, and His presence extends far beyond the pages of the Bible. I worship God, not the Bible. Do you believe Lot's wife literally turned to a pillar of salt? I don't. But I do think that something unfortunate happened to her, and it was the result of her own foolish actions. Do you believe that giving your virgin daughters over to be raped by strangers is a right and moral thing to do? I don't. I don't think that would ever be the right thing to do. So I suspect that tale comes from an older tradition, in a time and culture when children were mere possessions and male guests in your home were to be protected at all costs. There's value in the tale and lessons to be learned, but I don't believe that God ever literally says, "Kill for me. Commit immoral acts for me." And I don't believe God ever did, not even in the distant past. Remember, you're talking to a woman who is still Quaker at heart and likely always will be, even though she left Meeting and joined the Army Reserve. Quakers are pacifists, and believe in continuing revelation.
As to the destruction of entire cultures(including infants) in the OT, I believe these stories, as well. As disturbing as they are, God clearly states that He is a fair but just God. He is all powerful and all loving, but He says He is a jealous God. He gave them fair warning! I also think it broke His heart when He did it. Now, how can I believe that He sent His own Son to die for me, if I can't believe He would order the destruction of entire cities?
Here's a question then, and I mean it with the utmost respect... could you kill for God? Not to protect yourself or your loved ones, but simply because God said you should? What if God spoke to you today, just like in the Old Testament, and told you that you (and anyone you can convince to follow you) that you must kill all the non-Christian men, women, children and babies in your town, in order to found a Christian nation. Would you do it? Me, I wouldn't. I have faith my God would never ask such a thing of His people.
The only prophecy I believe has NOT yet been fulfilled is the return of Christ on the final day of judgement. Everything else has been done.
I didn't realilze my Spiritual journey would take everyone with it. LOL!! I've decided that although I do take it literally, I don't do it literally. How's that for clarity. An example- If I tell my husband, my heart is breaking because I miss him. I would hope he wouldn't call the cardiologist. I would hope he would understand that I loved him deeply. In the same way, I think God speaks to us through his Word. I take everything literally unless there is a reason not to. And I pray that the Spirit shows me clearly which is which. I take the OT literally, but I recognize there is plenty of double meaning. (foreshadowing, metaphor, etc.) I believe the Bible is the Word of God and can't just be changed because we don't like the picture it presents. Gid is loving and just. One without the other and God becomes nonperfect. I have no need to worship the words of the Bible because I have the Word. BUT, to better know Him, I need to read what He has allowed me to see of Him. So, anyway, I love all this respectful dialog!!!
One point that sums it all up for me is this. As an Anglician growing up we said the Nicene Creed which is a statement/profession of faith. Well in there is one line which as a child made me cringe. It was 'I am not worthy to gather the crumbs under His table' As an adult I realized the plain truth is God is omniscent and omnipotent and I am NOT worthy. But I will do everything I can to follow His lead in this life.
Here is the conundrum I face: I read about God being love and I do understand that love does mean tough love at times. Then I hear about the wiping out of an entire city from the command of God and it just doesn't sit well with my limited human mind. The Bible also says that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Does this mean that God could ask the same from someone (or group) today. Wouldn't we all rise up and question someone's sanity if they said God told them to kill all _________ (fill in with whatever rebellious group you want)? Wouldn't we protest and say that it COULDN'T be from God, because God loves people? I am sincerely searching, not trying to be antagonistic. Even responding and sharing my true feelings feels like a betrayal of my beliefs.
I'd just like to send you a virtual hug. :love: For me, I have faith in the God I know and trust and I am confident that "commit murder in My Name" is not even remotely in the realm of possible things He'd ask of me (or anyone else).
My response to that is that God is the same, but that doesn't mean He does everything exactly the same to everyone. Just like even though I am the same mom to my 1yo and my 9 yo, it doesn't mean I discipline them the same way. I meet them where they are. I believe God does the same.
I think we need to remember that under the Old Covenant, pretty much the ONLY people who believed in/followed God (at least they did sometimes) were the Hebrews/Jews/descendants of Abraham. He told them to go in and conquer the land. They well knew that leaving any survivors of a conquered people could well result in their own tribes being wiped out in the future. God is just, so His disposition of the souls of those He ordered killed was/will be just -- I believe that infants and children go to heaven, for example, and whatever He does with the adults is fair and just, in keeping with His character. (All those people who died as the result of Noah's Flood were well warned, because Noah had preached about the impending doom, but they didn't listen.) The people Israel was ordered to conquer would have well done the same thing - to the last man, woman, and child - to the Israelites. God didn't tell them to do it this way ALL the time - sometimes they just killed the people, but were allowed to keep the animals and goods as the spoils of war. I think sometimes they were ordered to completely demolish the entire city to the last building, and sometimes they were allowed to occupy the now-deserted location, but I could be wrong about that. And yes, I believe the story of Lot and his wife and Sodom and Gomorrah happened just as it says. The custom WAS to protect guests in your house at any cost, even the cost of your daughters, but I think Lot offered them because he knew the mob wasn't interested in the women; they wanted their way with the angels whom they thought were foreign men. I believe that God already knew what Abraham was going to do when He told him to sacrifice Isaac; He wanted Abraham to prove it to himself. I don't think God ever intended for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham already had the promise of God that He would make him a great nation, and that Ishmael was not part of this plan but the miracle son of Sarah was. Abraham didn't know exactly what God was going to do, but he knew that God keeps His promises. Under the New Covenant established by the teachings and the blood of Jesus, things have been set in motion toward the Last Days, when there will be greater death and destruction than anyone has ever imagined. He taught us mercy and grace and to love one another. We "have conquered the world" with mercy/grace/love by spreading His teachings rather than the way Joshua (whose name is the same, btw - Yeshua) was told to do it. The world is a far different place today than it was several thousand years ago. God is not different, and individual people are not different, but the world itself is.
:love::love: Don't hesitate sharing what you feel. I know it is hard to question things, but it is so much better after settling nagging issues. If going by the Bible we can know that God will not command us to kill someone now. In the Bible God deals with humanity in different ways - through different covenants. The old covenant made with the Israelites is not like the covenant we have now. In the new covenant the Bible describes how humanity has been reconciled to God through the blood of Jesus. The wrath of God was poured out on Jesus. Peace on earth good will toward men. That is God's desire. In other words, read the old testament through the eyes of the revelation of Jesus and not as something that you should apply directly to your everyday life. You have a different covenant - a very different covenant.
RE: Lot's wife Josephus, a 1st century historian, reported in the Antiquities of the Jews (Chapter 11) the story of Lot's wife and said that the pillar of salt had existed to his day and that he had seen it. Maybe it was a tourist attraction of the day:?::?:
I think a lot of these kinds of discussions will be stuck in neutral if not taking something literally is interpreted to mean "made up" or "don't believe". I don't accept those stories detail exact historical events. I DO believe they're likely legendary and have their roots in some real event we probably won't ever get the full facts on. But I think they're sacred and even divine because they tell a deep truth about the relationship the ancient Hebrews, and modern Jews, have with God. Yes, I believe in the stories. No, I don't believe they're completely factual and in fact find the question of whether they're factual or not to be rather beside the point.
Faith? That has a bit of a role to play in religion, no? For me the reciprocal question is, if you reduce the Bible to simple facts and evidence, how can you find any deeper meaning and truth in it all? I've managed to begin to address that by talking to more conservative Christians and reading up on more conservative theology. Any conservative Christian can find answers to your questions (while still being free not to adopt them for themselves) by reading and research. Heck, Augustine is a great place to start for a more metaphorical view rather then the modern literal view.
I didn't say anyone thought it was made up. Unless you split hairs, the truth is, you don't believe it. You believe something inspired the story and there is useful underlying truth, but you don't believe it as it stands. It's kind of like me saying I don't believe fairy tales. I believe they teach timeless lessons. I believe something probably led to each story's creation. But I don't believe Cinderella rode to the ball in a carriage sprung from a pumpkin. As to the faith issue.... That still doesn't answer my question.
Um... that's not hard at all. And no one said the facts and evidence were simple :wink: God is anything but simple. And one would expect His word (from a literalist POV) to be just as complex and layered as He is.
It's nice to see an honest discussion on this topic. So many times, if someone dares to question a literal interpretation, they're written off as a heretic. (Mind you, I hold the record for that: After one discussion, which I honestly thought was over a trivial matter, someone called me a heretic, papist, and liberal all in one sentence. Can anyone beat that? ) Personally, I take the Bible very seriously and don't question its veracity. Now, there are errors in the Bibles we read, but that does not mean errors in the original documents. For me, the books are inspired. Why such severe penalties in the OT law? For example, why put a child to death for being rebellious to parents? I tried to think this one through (see here). As for mass slaughter in battle, I'm sure that some verses are "turns of phrase." In one case, the passage claims that a tribe was completely wiped - but they show up again in a later passage. Even today, a phrase such as "we wiped them out" means a decisive victory without meaning total extermination. Still, there are some harsh passages where women and children are slaughtered. We tend to forget how cruel was the world back then. Was Job a real person or a very ancient story told within Israel? There's nothing in the book to indicate either way. Personally, the book reads to me like a story - set out cleverly as a court case. What about the flood? The occupants of the ark believed that all life was destroyed for their world - but they had no idea of the extent of the world. The key here is the purpose of the flood. There's considerable evidence of a massive flood in the Black Sea area. I've posted my thoughts about this one here. The biggest issue for today is whether or not the creation account is meant to be taken literally. Personally, I don't think so. It's a remarkably powerful story capable of being understood by readers across many centuries and cultures. It would have made no sense to talk about DNA and mutations and so on. The essential elements are all there - but the passage is not meant to be a scientific treatise. Some people write off the OT, claiming that only the NT should be taken seriously. For me, this is a big mistake. Despite the obvious cruelty in some passages, the OT is inspired, so we should take it seriously. Jesus was the physical manifestation of the same God we read about in Genesis, etc.
