How do I respond to this commonly heard attacks on the old testament?

[Aloysium]

They do not exclude other scientific studies however if one contradicts another what then. How is it that 50 theologians can look at a passage and come away with different answers. In the same instance 50 scientists will eventually reach the same testable conclusion.

Because science deals with what is concrete and fixed, at least according to our faith.
Religion deals with the relationship that persons and peoples have with their Creator.
I am sure that you can find fifty people who do not share your opinion of and feelings for your wife.

 

[KP3243]

They do not exclude other scientific studies however if one contradicts another what then. How is it that 50 theologians can look at a passage and come away with different answers. In the same instance 50 scientists will eventually reach the same testable conclusion.

To be fair though science has its limits and it changes.

 

[sealoch]

There shouldn’t be 50 theologians who disagree but unfortunately there are, we have 50,000 Protestant denominations in US alone, it was not intended to be this way from the beginning.

And so there is what is this to mean?

 

[sealoch]

Because science deals with what is concrete and fixed, at least according to our faith.
Religion deals with the relationship that persons and peoples have with their Creator.
I am sure that you can find fifty people who do not share your opinion of and feelings for your wife.

That is true but my wife’s beauty to me is not god inspired.

 

[KP3243]

And so there is what is this to mean?

Christ created one Church not hundreds thousands who all disagree with one another. I can see how atheists would get confused by all the differing opinions of Christianity.

 

[sealoch]

To be fair though science has its limits and it changes.

Change is good in science the more information that is uncovered and vetted is for the better of understanding. When new data is added the total value is increased bringing us closer to explaining what is occurring around us and how.

 

[sealoch]

Christ created one Church not hundreds thousands who all disagree with one another. I can see how atheists would get confused by all the differing opinions of Christianity.

Confused? No i understand why they are so vastly different.

 

[KP3243]

Change is good in science the more information that is uncovered and vetted is for the better of understanding. When new data is added the total value is increased bringing us closer to explaining what is occurring around us and how.

We aren’t exactly comparing apples to apples here…

 

[KP3243]

Confused? No i understand why they are so vastly different.

You understand it is wrong then, that there are so many different types of Christians?

 

[Aloysium]

Nonsensical? it was understandable. Commonly seen response, if it is so common perhapse it has merit.
What damage is there from stating as he did? Also we are only responding to the original poster that maybe it is correct what they heard maybe regardless of what light you use to spin the passages they are evil.

Was it evil to kill Nazis; to drive Hitler to suicide?

 

[sealoch]

You understand it is wrong then, that there are so many different types of Christians?

What is wrong exactly?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

They do not exclude other scientific studies however if one contradicts another what then. How is it that 50 theologians can look at a passage and come away with different answers. In the same instance 50 scientists will eventually reach the same testable conclusion.

You seemed to be implying that a person should read the Bible in exclusion to exterior understanding. This would be akin to a person studying a field while ignoring everything that has been discovered about the field prior to their study. Simply put, it’s a stupid idea, and would, in almost all instances, result in a flawed understanding of the field. The same is true of Protestant denominations or Atheists who attempt to read the Bible in a vacuum, while ignore then multiple Millenniums (Millennia…? What the plural of millennium?) of study that has been done on the subject; simply put, it is almost impossible for them to arrive at the proper conclusion. This is, coincidentally, why we would have those 50 different conclusions, simply because a man alone is not equipped to fully understand scripture.

Also, as others have pointed out, Science deals with the concrete, the laws that govern our limited physical reality. Religion deals with non-quantifiable truths, and therefore is not capable of being measured in any quantifiable way. This is why reason, logic and philosophy are so important to the study of religion.

 

[sealoch]

You seemed to be implying that a person should read the Bible in exclusion to exterior understanding. This would be akin to a person studying a field while ignoring everything that has been discovered about the field prior to their study. Simply put, it’s a stupid idea, and would, in almost all instances, result in a flawed understanding of the field. The same is true of Protestant denominations or Atheists who attempt to read the Bible in a vacuum, while ignore then multiple Millenniums (Millennia…? What the plural of millennium?) of study that has been done on the subject; simply put, it is almost impossible for them to arrive at the proper conclusion. This is, coincidentally, why we would have those 50 different conclusions, simply because a man alone is not equipped to fully understand scripture.

Also, as others have pointed out, Science deals with the concrete, the laws that govern our limited physical reality. Religion deals with non-quantifiable truths, and therefore is not capable of being measured in any quantifiable way. This is why reason, logic and philosophy are so important to the study of religion.

Studying the bible in a vacuum. If god were truly everywhere on Earth you would never be in a vacuum. It would not be so simple to interpret the OT passages so incorrectly. Killing innocent children would be understandable with or without some one explaining context in fact the truth of it should be self evident.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Studying the bible in a vacuum. If god were truly everywhere on Earth you would never be in a vacuum. It would not be so simple to interpret the OT passages so incorrectly. Killing innocent children would be understandable with or without some one explaining context in fact the truth of it should be self evident.

Why do you think that? By which I mean, what logical basis do you have for believing that? At what point, anywhere, in Jewish Theology, Catholic theology, or Christian theology, is it ever suggested that God makes things easy for us, or that he doesn’t require us to look to each other and to intense study to come to a greater understanding?

Why should it be self-evident? If Satan, who saw the fullness of God, could reject him; or Adam and Eve, who lived with a near-perfect understanding of God, could reject Him; why do you think that it being self-evident would improve the likelihood that people would adhere to it? Quite the opposite, it seems to me just through my own life experience that it is the struggle to know the truth that gives it its value. We work and study diligently to understand our faith, and it is through this hard work that we come to understand the importance of what we are learning.

Something easy isn’t worth doing, and nothing worth anything was every truly easy to understand. Throughout your life, it is always the things you truly worked for that give you the most pride, and seem to be more important. The same is true of the Faith, and the deep understanding that can only come from a lifetime of study.

Also, I’d like to point out that, when it was written, it was obvious on the face of it. That is because it was originally written for the culture in which it was written, a culture that is, with very few exceptions, completely foreign to us. Claiming that it should be obvious to us is like saying that every human being should have an innate and obvious understanding of latin, it’s a ridiculous claim because society has changed, and because latin is no longer the primary language, similar to how tribalism is no longer the predominate cultural construct.

 

[sealoch]

Why do you think that? By which I mean, what logical basis do you have for believing that? At what point, anywhere, in Jewish Theology, Catholic theology, or Christian theology, is it ever suggested that God makes things easy for us, or that he doesn’t require us to look to each other and to intense study to come to a greater understanding?

Why should it be self-evident? If Satan, who saw the fullness of God, could reject him; or Adam and Eve, who lived with a near-perfect understanding of God, could reject Him; why do you think that it being self-evident would improve the likelihood that people would adhere to it? Quite the opposite, it seems to me just through my own life experience that it is the struggle to know the truth that gives it its value. We work and study diligently to understand our faith, and it is through this hard work that we come to understand the importance of what we are learning.

Something easy isn’t worth doing, and nothing worth anything was every truly easy to understand. Throughout your life, it is always the things you truly worked for that give you the most pride, and seem to be more important. The same is true of the Faith, and the deep understanding that can only come from a lifetime of study.

Also, I’d like to point out that, when it was written, it was obvious on the face of it. That is because it was originally written for the culture in which it was written, a culture that is, with very few exceptions, completely foreign to us. Claiming that it should be obvious to us is like saying that every human being should have an innate and obvious understanding of latin, it’s a ridiculous claim because society has changed, and because latin is no longer the primary language, similar to how tribalism is no longer the predominate cultural construct.

At least we agree on one point that society has changed. I would only take it a step further to not view this material as any more than stories some with good values to be gleaned while the rest can be discarded as no longer useful to society.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

But it’s not, and never has been, primarily a history book. Why would pointing out that fact be problematic to discussion? Also, the term unforgivable is only important when some wrong has been done. Can you illustrate to me a single instance in which God does anything wrong?

I have no problem with the Bible not being a history book. It’s when that term “not a history book” is used to wipe away all criticism. If an event in the Bible isn’t historic, then it must be symbolic. And if the symbolism shows the God character to be a monstrous, then what?

A single instance? I’ve always been a fan of Exodus 21:21, explaining how it’s ok to beat a slave to death so long as he or she lives for a day or two. I’ll get to your response to context in a minute, but it’s important I bring it up here. Whenever the slavery question comes up on any christian forum (including CAF) without fail someone will bring up context. They’ll talk about how this was a new culture, and it was standard for other cultures to hold slaves. I call shenanigans. Owning another person is absolutely and completely wrong, yet God not only allows it but insists upon it.

Another excuse given is that God slowly had to bring people to the kind of love that Jesus will later show. It sees the character of God the father has his priorities completely mixed up. He’s seconds away from killing Moses because his son wasn’t circumcised, yet he looks down and sees the subjagation of many people and thinks, “Meh”. But heaven forbid you don’t have the right fringes on your clothes or don’t leave your field untended every seventh year (just two chapters after the slave murdering verse). Then you’re in trouble.

Sure, context is unimportant, unless you’re talking about the culture, developmental state of the people, general societal structure of the time, the societies that Judaism interacted with, the traditional religious practices of those societies, actions surrounding decisions, logic and reasoning behind certain rules, and the general style of the passages being read (indicative of their either being literal or allegorical)… then context kinda sorta becomes really, really important…

Oh, there are plenty of times where context is important. Yet there are somethings that are absolute. Take for example a thread I was in a few months back. It was about Lot and how he offered up his daughters to be raped by an angry mob. There’s is no context ever where that is good or acceptable. It is truly a dispicable act. Yet God saw fit to whisk Lot away as fire rained down on the city. For comparison Lot’s panicked wife happened to look back while fleeing and God felt that was far was then asking a mob to rape your daughters.

Funny, I don’t seem to recall anyone around here doing that. Perhaps with your obviously omniscient knowledge of the Bible you could point out such an instance to me. (sorry, I’m in a snarky mood. Don’t want to go committing a fallacy…)

I have no problem with snarkiness, as I’m that way too. Just be prepared to look for a “man, was I wrong” emoticon.

I find the standard apologetic response to the verse regarding Elisha and the bears is that the little children were actually young men. Also they were a mob. Also that he was in physical danger. I’m surprised some apologists don’t give these men guns too.

You consider that statement nonsense because you reject God. However, as in any discussion, it is important to consider the alternative viewpoint (otherwise any discussion is useless). If God truly did create everything in existence through a sheer act of will, and sustains it through the same act of will, then why, exactly, is it faulty to believe that as the author of all creation He can do with his creation as He pleases?

I have looked at the other viewpoints, so don’t just claim that I haven’t. I’m not a parent but I have three siblings who are parents to my nine nieces and nephews. And while they have created their offspring they know that they can’t do what they please with them. They will mould them and teach them. They will show them the love that the character of Jesus teaches but what the character of God the father utterly lacks.

 

[sealoch]

Christ created one Church not hundreds thousands who all disagree with one another. I can see how atheists would get confused by all the differing opinions of Christianity.

If christ had created church he surly waited quite some time to do it.

 

[sealoch]

Was it evil to kill Nazis; to drive Hitler to suicide?

Was it evil to defend the innocent people the Nazis were attacking, enslaving and mutilating. I would propose not. In fact it would not be a stretch to say we had a moral obligation to stop. Hitler would have been afforded a war crimes trial if he did not commit suicide. The moral question would have come if he were found guilty and punished by death.

 

[sealoch]

Was it evil to kill Nazis; to drive Hitler to suicide?

I also do not recall our orders being to purge every man women and child of the third Reich and to keep all the virgins for our soldiers to keep as slaves. I must assume your are referencing one of the genocides in the OT. This clearly is not on the same level.

 

[KP3243]

If christ had created church he surly waited quite some time to do it.

What exactly would be the timeline you deemed correct? And not for anything it took a few thousand years for the fulfillment of God’s covenant with man to be completed in the Church, He established, the Catholic Church has Apostolic succession which means we have been replacing the office of the Apostles for the past 2,000 years. We have 266 successors from Saint Peter who have been shepherds the people of God in the New Covenant. We even have Peter! His remains are directly under the altar of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. We have seen Daniel 7:17-28 play itself out, guess which church is headquartered in Rome?