Thank God for Evolution!

[drpmjhess]

It’s so very obvious the stories are not to be received literally and I suspect very much they NEVER were thought of that way.

SpiritMeadow, my wife was discussing the other day the only malicious miracle of Jesus: cursing the fig tree, and whether it should be read literally. Since the poor fig tree had done nothing to deserve this treatment, some exegetes regard it as merely a parable (even though it is situated in a narrative pericope) to illustrate the consequences of faithless discipleship. Not a few exegetes regard it as a garbled miracle story that the evangelists transmitted rather unsuccessfully. What do you think?

Petrus

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes, of course I believe in miracles. But I consider the source as well. The God of the Old Testament is a ferocious – even sometimes a sadistic – God, not in keeping with the God encountered by Jesus. A Hebrew story-telling scribe who delights in the destruction of whole innocent cities – whose only “crime” is desperately protecting their women and children and homes against a hostile invading force – and in the dashing of the heads of little ones against stones (Ps. 137:9), does not have much credibility, moral or scientific.

I don’t think many are adequately able to defend the stories of Joshua, although I do believe them to be true accounts.

I myself have cringed at the thought of these pagan nations being wiped out. It seems that there must have been some other way of routng them. Nonetheless, they do appear to have been involved in some fairly abominable practices, such as child-sacrifice for example. Consequently, I don’t really think the Scriptural record is “demonizing” the pagans. Many of them in this area really were bad-- and very much a threat to the Israelites.

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Regarding the passage in Psalm 137:9, I don’t think the author himself actually delighted in these babies having their heads dashed against the rocks-- yet another chilling thought.

Look to Isaiah 13:16…

Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.

In this case here it is a warning of what doing evil will bring upon this nation.

We could look to Hosea 10:13-15 as well…

But you have planted wickedness,
you have reaped evil,
you have eaten the fruit of deception.
Because you have depended on your own strength
and on your many warriors,
the roar of battle will rise against your people,
so that all your fortresses will be devastated—
as Shalman devastated Beth Arbel on the day of battle,
when mothers were dashed to the ground with their children.

These tragic events are actually happening to the Israelites themselves-- not the pagans. In other words, going against God’s will unfortunately brings violent destruction on themselves-- regardless of whether one is a Jew or a Gentile. And many of them often gloat and mock their defeated when they win over them.

One could also look to Nahum 3:9-11 too, but I think this illustrates point-- it’s not that we (or the author) should be happy when our “enemies” are defeated in such way.

The Scriptures, when giving God’s insight, actually says the opposite of this…
Proverbs 25:21-23:

If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the LORD will reward you.

And again…
Proverbs 24:17-18:

Do not gloat when your enemy falls;
when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice,
or the LORD will see and disapprove
and turn his wrath away from him.

Obviously, there really are times, however, when we must defend ourselves against unjust practices-- the enemies so to speak.

More specifically, the pagan nations that do this this kind of thing are apparently “happy” to do it and gloat as a form of violent retribution-- a concept/practive which really has been verified archeologically in ancient history.

I personally think this lends credence to the believability of the Scriptures-- not the other way around. The author of the Psalm is essentially prophesying of the violent destruction that these pagan nations will bring upon themseves as far as I can tell. And theii enemies will mock them them and laugh at them when they do it too.

 

[drpmjhess]

I don’t think many are adequately able to defend the stories of Joshua, although I do believe them to be true accounts.

I myself have cringed at the thought of these pagan nations being wiped out. It seems that there must have been some other way of routng them. Nonetheless, they do appear to have been involved in some fairly abominable practices, such as child-sacrifice for example. Consequently, I don’t really think the Scriptural record is “demonizing” the pagans. Many of them in this area really were bad-- and very much a threat to the Israelites.(

I’ve always been glad I didn’t have to live in biblical times. It would have been rough being either a perpetrator or a victim of the atrocious cruelties people in that neck of the woods levied on each other. The Assyrians, for example, used to impale fathers on stakes, forcing the wives and children to watch.

 

[drpmjhess]

Obviously, there really are times, however, when we must defend ourselves against unjust practices-- the enemies so to speak.(

Also, we must remember that it was the Israelites who had invaded an already-occupied land, and justified it in retrospect in their mytho-historical accounts. Not unlike the way Anglos have justified their takeover of North America and elsewhere through mytho-historical accounts of “manifest destiny,” “the white man’s burden,” etc. The Indians deserved to die for standing in the way of English settlers; the Canaanites deserved to die for standing in the way of Hebrew settlers.

 

[Ahimsa]

Coming from Adam’s rib has been understood to mean from his side.

Well, that’s even more remarkable! Now, what could “side” (Hebrew: tsela) actually mean? Could it mean that God created Eve by taking one-half of Adam and creating a new person? (I wonder if Eve was the *better *half? Or if Eve is the right side, as opposed to the wrong side?) If Eve is actually one-half of Adam, then Adam is one-half of Eve – thus, complete equality exists between the two, no subservience whatsoever. Eve exists as a help-meet to Adam, and Adam exists as a help-meet to Eve, because each half needs the other. Thus, Jesus taking form of the male, implies that Mary is the other half of Jesus. (Before I get flamed here, let me emphasize that at least I’m not claiming that Satan and Jesus are brothers, as Mormons are wont to do.) And this might actually undermine the idea that the priesthood need be all-male – which is an argument I’m not arguing, so take a chill-pill. What all this implies is that God created Adam-version 1.0 as, basically, androgynous, or even asexual, certainly celibate; whereas Adam-version 2.0 is specifically male, sexual, and non-celibate. (And not even *touching *on the issue of the celibate priesthood in the Latin, as opposed to the Greek, Church, so calm down.)

And why did God split Adam-1.0 only in half? Why not in thirds? Or fourths? Because in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth – which are two separate entities. Thus, it makes sense for God to transform Adam into Adam-2.0 and Eve-1.0. Notice that Adam-1.0 was defective, and had to be improved, whereas Eve was perfect from the beginning – No recalls needed! No defective parts due to imperfect Chinese manufacturing! Which is why you should always tell your wife, “You look perfect in that dress!”

Ok, back to the generation and procession of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Adam-1.0 represents the Father, and the production of Adam-2.0 and Eve-1.0 represents the generation of the Son (represented by Adam-2.0, who, like the Son, is thought of as masculine) and the procession of the Spirit (represented by Eve-1.0, who, like the Spirit, is often thought of as feminine).

After Adam-2.0 and Eve-1.0 are made, Adam-1.0 (or “the Father”) is no longer visible, which is why the Father is – to the best of my knowledge – never (or very rarely) depicted in visual form in the Orthodox Churches, and which is why – according to the Orthodox Tradition of the East – whenever God does appear in the Old Testament, it is actually God the Son appearing.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’ve always been glad I didn’t have to live in biblical times. It would have been rough being either a perpetrator or a victim of the atrocious cruelties people in that neck of the woods levied on each other. The Assyrians, for example, used to impale fathers on stakes, forcing the wives and children to watch.

Me personally, I think the spead of Christianity is largely to thank for the general dissapearance of these practices. I’m not saying that the church hasn’t contributed to things at times. But these practices have definitely lessened as time has gone on, with essentially the West being civilized through Judaeo-Christian thought.

 

[Steve40]

Ahimsa:
Evolution has done wonders for enhancing faith in the western world. Maybe that’s why the Church is growing in the US and Europe… or is it?

 

[drpmjhess]

Me personally, I think the spead of Christianity is largely to thank for the general dissapearance of these practices. I’m not saying that the church hasn’t contributed to things at times. But these practices have definitely lessened as time has gone on, with essentially the West being civilized through Judaeo-Christian thought.

In general, yes, except for inquisitorial autos da fe and a million or so defenceless old ladies tortured or burned with the blessing of Dominicans. (I’m speaking only historically, of course – my kids attend a Dominican school, and I teach at a Dominican institution!) On the whole I think the world is more civilized than it used to be, although that is always debatable.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Also, we must remember that it was the Israelites who had invaded an already-occupied land, and justified it in retrospect in their mytho-historical accounts. Not unlike the way Anglos have justified their takeover of North America and elsewhere through mytho-historical accounts of “manifest destiny,” “the white man’s burden,” etc. The Indians deserved to die for standing in the way of English settlers; the Canaanites deserved to die for standing in the way of Hebrew settlers.

Don’t forget that the Hebrews had escaped slavery and were barely surviving in the desert… they needed a place to live and it’s unlikely they could have just peacefully moved in and co-existed with the Canaanites.

 

[edwest2]

Like buffalo asked though, I too am curious-- do you actually believe in miracles?

Yes, of course I believe in miracles. But I consider the source as well. The God of the Old Testament is a ferocious – even sometimes a sadistic – God, not in keeping with the God encountered by Jesus. A Hebrew story-telling scribe who delights in the destruction of whole innocent cities – whose only “crime” is desperately protecting their women and children and homes against a hostile invading force – and in the dashing of the heads of little ones against stones (Ps. 136:9), does not have much credibility, moral or scientific. And Buffalo still has not answered whether he believes that it was the sun that stood still – implying a geocentric cosmos – or the earth that stooped rotating. The difference is not irrelevant.

Your battlefield spatio-temporal suspension is an interesting theory, but an exegetically more economical one would be to regard this interesting episode as legend. Time may have seemed to stand sill to the victorious Israelites, and in the course of retelling through the generations, the time dilation got longer and longer, until eventually in oral tradition the device was introduced that the sun had stood still. The principles of oral tradition don’t change that much, from the Hebrew Scriptures to the Iliad and Odyssey, to Native America myths.

Petrus

And so God is merely symbolically symbolical. Legends, stories. Did God actually do anything? Or are you buying into the cruel, evil God stories only? You will note that God sent His prophets, people were asked to repent, they were then warned of actual physical punishment. And for those who repented God turned His wrath aside, and for those who did not?

In the world of the Old Testament, before Christ was sent, actual physical punishments for sins were meted out by God. When Jesus came, and by His sacrifice, God restored to man a way to live with Him again, a new Covenant was established.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Also, we must remember that it was the Israelites who had invaded an already-occupied land, and justified it in retrospect in their mytho-historical accounts. Not unlike the way Anglos have justified their takeover of North America and elsewhere through mytho-historical accounts of “manifest destiny,” “the white man’s burden,” etc. The Indians deserved to die for standing in the way of English settlers; the Canaanites deserved to die for standing in the way of Hebrew settlers.

But how can one be sure that it was justified in retrospect?

Let’s assume the plagues of Egypt for example were real, even if they were only normal catastrophic events asigned to God’s providence in protecting the Israelites.

Certainly word would have spread that the Israelites were coming-- and that their God was a mighty God apparently above all the egyptian gods which the Israelite God devastated.

Me personlly, I think what was done to Native Americans was terrible. They really were a very noble people, in all the various tribes across North America. And, in this regard, I find what was done to them in the name of progress was simply inexcusable.

The Canaanites, however, really were horrible people.

 

[drpmjhess]

Me personlly, I think what was done to Native Americans was terrible. They really were a very noble people, in all the various tribes across North America. And, in this regard, I find what was done to them in the name of progress was simply inexcusable. The Canaanites, however, really were horrible people.

That’s a rather bold claim to make about an entire people. The fact is the Canaanites were living in the land befure the Hebrew tribes moved in to kick them out. Their being a “horrible people” – a generalization yet to be substantiated in this conversation – in no way justifies the diabolical incinerating of whole cities, including women and children, even if what they fantasized was “God” did command it.

The “noble savage” is a myth. The indigenous peoples of this continent may not have had the technical means and moral justifications for massacring people employed by the Catholics and Protestants during the European Wars of Religion, but they were hardly saints.

That being said, the point is that despite the horrible crimes of history, all of us should strive to live as saintly lives as we can, whether we be Jews, Christians or Muslims.

Petrus

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

That’s a rather bold claim to make about an entire people.

And yet it is a true claim according to the Scriptural record, something which you seem to have no problem dismissing.

I’m curious to know why you accept the the Scripture’s claim of God’s commanding the destruction of whole cities, including women and children-- but do not accept the Scripture’s claim that the Canaanites were a horrible people?

We already know that you do not believe the miracles (at least in this particular part of the Hebrew Scriptures) did not happen as recorded. But why do you accept the worst aspects of the Scriptural account and summarilly dismiss the horribleness of the Canaanites as fiction? Or, are you saying that both points are fabricated?

The fact is the Canaanites were living in the land befure the Hebrew tribes moved in to kick them out.

Yes, and we do see some hints of a degradation of the Canaanite life-style too. For example, their word for God was “El”, a name from which the Israelites’s earliest words about God also use if I recall correctly. In addition to this, there are strong correlations to the Canaanite fertility observances and some of the Hebrew holy days-- so it doesn’t seem a stretch to me that the Hebrew Culture arose from the Canaanite one.

Their being a “horrible people” – a generalization yet to be substantiated in this conversation – in no way justifies the diabolical incinerating of whole cities, including women and children, even if what they fantasized was “God” did command it.

What would substantiate it for you?

Me personally, I think a religious work at least conveys some sense of reliability when it portrays certain historical events, people or perhaps even places that are not immediately corroborated by archeological evidence-- but are later found to be fairly accurate after much criticism is leveled against the work for talking about “imaginary things” that many skeptics assumed did not actually exist.

For example, over the past hundred years, skeptics of the Scriptures have posed all kinds of challenges to the Scriptural narrative only to have a discovery show that the Scriptures were correct.

Prior to 1947 it was easy to build a case for a charlatan origin for manuscripts like the messianic prophecies of Isaiah for example. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, with the messianic prophecies in tact scholars now had documents much older than the claims of the skeptics.

Simiarly, the Hittite nation described in the Old Testament was claimed by some scholars to have never existed, and was used to ridicule those who claimed that the Scriptural manuscripts were accurate and true. Today archeological evidence has totally vindicated the Scriptures on this issue.

Recently, according to some, evidence has been found verifying the Scriptural records of King David’s rule. Closer to David’s purported time, excavations directed by the late Prof. Yigal Shiloh, uncovered a monumental 20 metre stepped structure, and dated it to the 12th-10th Century BC. This could have been the foundation of the Jebusite stronghold, captured and subsequently expanded by David.

I guess what I’m saying is that many people simply believe that enough archeological evidence has been found to support the Scriptures so much so that any missing details will also likewise be found with further reasearch. I think this is how faith and reason can be blended together in harmony as one waits for further information. It’s how I operate anyway.

 

[drpmjhess]

the Scripture’s claim that the Canaanites were a horrible people?

Yes, and we do see some hints of a degradation of the Canaanite life-style too. For example, their word for God was “El”, a name from which the Israelites’s earliest words about God also use if I recall correctly. In addition to this, there are strong correlations to the Canaanite fertility observances and some of the Hebrew holy days-- so it doesn’t seem a stretch to me that the Hebrew Culture arose from the Canaanite one.
What would substantiate it for you?

Mr. Ex Nihilo, I never questioned the existence of the Hittites; I reject the claims of some archaeologists that there never was a Moses, or a small Exodus from Egypt, or a period of some years of wandering in the desert, later interpreted theolgoically in epic style.

What I haven’t seen substantiated are your claims that

(1) that the Canaanites were any more a “horrible people” (neither using the term “El” nor participating in fertility rites are capital offenses), than the Hebrews who sacrificed their own children as did Jephthah and Abraham;

(2) the claim that some people using the term “El” and participating in fertility cults morally justifies slaughtering all the inhabitants of their cities – including their women and children – but leaving their real estate intact for the usufruct of the Hebrew invaders (this was the rationale of the developers of the neutron bomb in the 1980s).

God has a history; the “god” concept has evolved. As the Hebrew people grew and matured in their moral understanding, their concept of God grew in sophistication. The conception of God held by Jesus Christ in the first century is quite different in important moral respects (e.g., turning the other cheek, rather than the lex talionis) than that of his religiously primitive forbears of 1500 years before.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[TMC]

God has a history; the “god” concept has evolved. As the Hebrew people grew and matured in their moral understanding, their concept of God grew in sophistication. The conception of God held by Jesus Christ in the first century is quite different in important moral respects (e.g., turning the other cheek, rather than the lex talionis) than that of his religiously primitive forbears of 1500 years before.

I think this is a very important point (although I would amend to say that our understanding of God has a history).

All Chrisitians would agree, I hope, that Jesus was superior to the prophets in his understanding and teaching of God, and that Jesus’ revelation was superior and more perfect than that of the prophets. Most would say, I think, that his revelation was perfect, although it may not have been perfectly understood (or even perfectly recorded, although I know that thought will set off alarms in some).

So if we believe that part of Jesus’ mission was to improve our understanding of God, our previous understanding must not have been complete. If he is the perfect revelation, the earlier ones were necessarily imperfect. The concept of God held by the early forebears of our Faith was remarkable given the times, but cannot hold up against the later more perfect revelation. God did not change, but our understanding of Him improved.

The Old Testament Scriptures are inspired and of great value to God’s people today. But to properly understand them you have to take into account the improved understanding of God that Jesus gave to us, which means we have to acknowledge and understand that the recorders of Scripture were working with a less fulsome understanding.

 

[edwest2]

Gentlemen,

Jesus Christ is God. It seems that previous Encyclicals have addressed these issues and it appears obvious that the Word of God and divine revelation are not enough for some. They need to be constantly reinterpreted so that they are rendered useless. Actual events become symbolic, as if the Holy Spirit has no power or ability to provide spiritual insight. This is a way toward confusion, not clarity.

To paraphrase the Encyclicals, out of a desire for novelty, or reconciliation with other faiths, or an unhealthy and undisciplined fascination with science and the human mind/progress, the few desire that whatever new ideas that might spring up from day to day simply get added to the established deposit of faith. This is not a playground. The deposit of faith is not a plaything.

God bless,
Ed

 

[drpmjhess]

I think this is a very important point (although I would amend to say that our understanding of God has a history)

TMC, thank you for your rewording – I quite agree with you that it is not God who has a history, but our limited human understanding of God. My problem with a woodenly literal interpretation of every passage of the Old Testament is that it leads us in the direction of conundrums such as the moral justification of genocide. However much we sugarcoat or in hindsight justify theologically the conquest of Canaan by Israel, it was nothing short of genocide. The Hebrews invaded, and they needed land and cities; they retroactively justified the takeover by styling themselves god’s “chosen people” who had been led to and given the the “promised land.”

Incinerating whole cities – including the women and children --, is genocide, whether it was carried out in the twelfth century Levant or whether it occurs in 20th century Armenia or Rwanda. I am reluctant to use the scriptures to justify genocide.

A symbolic reading of the Old Testament in its mythical and legendary pericopes strikes me as a theologically responsible reading. Jesus’ fuller understanding of God’s revelation to the Hebrews is exemplified by his declaration in Matthew 5 that “I have come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.”

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Uh… Jesus Christ fulfilled and is the fulfillment. He is God, not just some guy. He is the the way, the truth and the life.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow, my wife was discussing the other day the only malicious miracle of Jesus: cursing the fig tree, and whether it should be read literally. Since the poor fig tree had done nothing to deserve this treatment, some exegetes regard it as merely a parable (even though it is situated in a narrative pericope) to illustrate the consequences of faithless discipleship. Not a few exegetes regard it as a garbled miracle story that the evangelists transmitted rather unsuccessfully. What do you think?

Petrus

An interesting question Petrus. That parable has always bothered me some, I’ll have to give it a ponder. A cursory look suggests I have to examine all three gospels because of how they changed the event. In Mark the actually withering seems a later addition. LOL…I can’t look for any help in Marcus’s book on Mark since it only goes to Chap 8…have to wait for the 2nd volume. haha…

Evolution has done wonders for enhancing faith in the western world. Maybe that’s why the Church is growing in the US and Europe… or is it?

Yes, far better to teach untruths and fill the pews at any cost.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think this is a very important point (although I would amend to say that our understanding of God has a history).

All Chrisitians would agree, I hope, that Jesus was superior to the prophets in his understanding and teaching of God, and that Jesus’ revelation was superior and more perfect than that of the prophets. Most would say, I think, that his revelation was perfect, although it may not have been perfectly understood (or even perfectly recorded, although I know that thought will set off alarms in some).

So if we believe that part of Jesus’ mission was to improve our understanding of God, our previous understanding must not have been complete. If he is the perfect revelation, the earlier ones were necessarily imperfect. The concept of God held by the early forebears of our Faith was remarkable given the times, but cannot hold up against the later more perfect revelation. God did not change, but our understanding of Him improved.

The Old Testament Scriptures are inspired and of great value to God’s people today. But to properly understand them you have to take into account the improved understanding of God that Jesus gave to us, which means we have to acknowledge and understand that the recorders of Scripture were working with a less fulsome understanding.

I couldnt agree more. I thank God often for sending me back to school where i could learn some of this firsthand from some of the most extraordinary teachers I’ve encountered in my life. When I got past the simple limited literal reading of the bible by learning how to actually understand what they were attempting to convey, It was like the difference between night and day. It all makes so much sense, God is not seen, as I was wont to, as slightly schitzophrenic (I know I spelled that wrong) being horribly angry, indifferent, dangerous, bloodthirsty often in the OT and loving, forgiving etc in the new.

Reading the scriptures, understanding the world of our ancestors, has been the most thoroughly enlightening thing for me. My beliefs have been enriched 100 fold.

LOL…I’m reading Elizabeth Fiorenza Schussler’s "The Power of the World: Scripture and the Rhetoric of Empire. I’m told we aren’t to use OT and NT hehe…but CT…Christian Testament. which is inclusive. OT is not old to our Jewish friends…I shall attempt to remember in the future.**