Why Should I Come Back to the Church?

[ericc]

Why should your favorite text be of special concern?

Not true. I do not say that miracles cannot happen, nor did I argue any such thing.

I am not imposing “my moral standards” (such as the immorality of killing little children and grieving their parents for no good reason) on the creator of the universe. Rather, I am questioning whether this text that you claim is inspired by the creator of the universe and inerrant, actually lives up to such a lofty claim. To me parts of it seem to be the product of deluded humans who have always used arguments like yours to justify violent acts that defy any decent moral code. You also, as is typical, ignore the human component of this. It was not God that would have to run through villages with a sword, murdering screaming women, children and infants. That task fell upon “the chosen people of God”. It would take an immoral psycopath lacking in human empathy, to actually carry out such a task, even if he or she heard a voice in the head stating that it is God, commanding it. Defending such horrendous acts simply because you think God commanded it shows that you lack any moral standard, and will simply do whatever you think your god says, whatever that may be. Might makes right. Injustice is justice when God does it or commands it.

You (the person, not the church) do not have a moral standard. It is utterly relativistic. If the mental idol you falsely call God says slavery is ok, then it is ok. If he condemns it, you condemn it. If he commands the killing of innocent infants and animals as revenge for what their ancestors did hundreds of years earlier (see 1 Samuel 15), you defend such immorality without blinking. Then you will do a 180 and (rightfully) criticize abortion. But you cannot believe acts like abortion to be inherently immoral like I do. If you believed your mental idol told women to abort every firstconceived child, you’d defend that as well.

On ancient text, I was replying to Bearcat that he shouldn’t (a) pre-judge ancient texts with language such as “fantastical, ridiculous things, and we don’t take those books seriously”. Perhaps the statement on miracles should be directed to Bearcat and not you. I assumed you share his POV. My mistake. (2) Lumping Bible and other ancient text as if they are all the same. I haven’t commented on the Bible yet or put it on any pedestal yet.

Since I have chosen to follow my God and acknowledged his moral standards as superior to mine, you do have the freewill to reject his moral standard as per Bible as being “unfollowable” by you. That’s your choice and you are free to set any standard you see fit. Just out of curiosity, by what basis do you set your moral standard? How do you know that it is better and superior? Where did that moral standard came from? You certainly didn’t pluck it out of thin air right? If you don’t use the Bible since it can’t be trusted , what other guide would you trust and use to establish that moral standard?

On the logic that God wouldn’t kill, then how would he punish a really really bad group of people? A group of people whom he knows will continue to be bad since he knows everything. Do we second guess God? Or he shouldn’t use the Chosen people to do his bidding? If God commanded me to go to war to kill a really bad group of people, I should tell him you do your own dirty work? Go destroy Nazi Germany and I should say No, let me wait for the government( fill in the blank) to say so? So the good guy with might will be unjust for destroying the bad? I am certainly having difficulty following your thought process. So if God appears to me (and it is not a voice in the head) to do a horrendous deed, I don’t have any morals? And if I don’t do it , I have morals? Where did my morals come from then?

Isn’t it the same issue when people go to war, the generals issue the order, someone presses the trigger to release the bombs. The person who presses the trigger automatically becomes immoral because some people/animal got killed? There is no greater good? Now if for example, those infants that got killed is guaranteed heaven but if they have lived on, would have been as nasty as the parents and be condemned to hell, would your view on God’s morality change?

 

[Aloysium]

ericc: If God commanded me to go to war to kill a really bad group of people, I should tell him you do your own dirty work? Go destroy Nazi Germany and I should say No

Thx; - allied troops were not “immoral psycopath(s) lacking in human empathy, . . . carry(ing) out such a task, even if he or she heard a voice in the head stating that it is God, commanding it.”
now-a-days it gets hard to tell the good guys from the bad and it seems like everything is based on power and greed
maybe that’s why those parts of scripture can be difficult to understand for some ppl
. . . . . . . . . .

 

[Aloysium]

I happen to agree with those words, but only in the sense that some of the Old Testament words themselves are a result of sin. It is sinful man who says God told him to murder innocent babies and animals. It is sinful man who thinks God favors him above other humans who happened to be born in a different culture, and so it is ok take women as war captives after having killed their parents and force them to be their wives (rape, sexual slavery). It is precisely because I see the very human and sinful side of the Bible in addition to the sublime moral teachings of Jesus, that I see it is not inerrant

Deut 21: 10 'When you go to war against your enemies and Yahweh your God delivers them into your power and you take prisoners,
11 and among the prisoners you see a beautiful woman, and you fall in love with her, and you take her to be your wife
12 and bring her home; she must shave her head and cut her nails,
13 and take off her prisoner’s garb; she must stay inside your house and mourn her father and mother for a full month. You may then go to her and be a husband to her, and she will be your wife.
14 Should she cease to please you, you will let her go where she wishes, not selling her for money: you must not make any profit out of her, since you have exploited her.

One should recognize that without these laws, the vanquished were less than just meat; they were to be abhorred and savaged, as dictated by the whims of the victor.
This isn’t the worst thing to happen to the prisoner given that she could have been very seriously brutalized and then killed (as still happens today).

 

[Veedar]

(…) Just out of curiosity, by what basis do you set your moral standard? How do you know that it is better and superior? Where did that moral standard came from? You certainly didn’t pluck it out of thin air right? If you don’t use the Bible since it can’t be trusted , what other guide would you trust and use to establish that moral standard?

First of all, I didn’t say I do not make use of the Bible or read the Bible. I think the golden rule is a very good moral principle (and not exclusive to the Bible), and I extend it to all sentient beings and not just humans. I think the human capacity for compassion is a very good thing, and I try to cultivate it in my mind. This is good for both me and other sentient beings I come into contact with.

Second, I do see where you are coming from. Why my morals? And on what basis could I condemn the morals of others if they think the golden rule sucks and want to be mean to everybody and cause suffering? Why should Hitler care what I think about his morals?

Then you point to God’s law (which you believe is in the Bible) as the solution. I see the problem, but I do not see that fundamentalism can solve it. First, we may ask: How does God know the difference between right and wrong without some super-God above him to tell him the difference? If God can know the difference through his own nature, why can’t humans? Second, why should Hitler listen to God’s morals? How do you go from the isness of God’s nature to the oughtness of Hitler? You cannot bridge that gap any more than I can. In the end all you have to say to Hitler is that if he does not obey, God will cast him into hell.

On the logic that God wouldn’t kill, then how would he punish a really really bad group of people? A group of people whom he knows will continue to be bad since he knows everything. Do we second guess God? Or he shouldn’t use the Chosen people to do his bidding? If God commanded me to go to war to kill a really bad group of people, I should tell him you do your own dirty work? Go destroy Nazi Germany and I should say No, let me wait for the government( fill in the blank) to say so? So the good guy with might will be unjust for destroying the bad? I am certainly having difficulty following your thought process. So if God appears to me (and it is not a voice in the head) to do a horrendous deed, I don’t have any morals? And if I don’t do it , I have morals? Where did my morals come from then?

Groups are not conscious. Groups are abstractions in your mind. Individuals may or may not be bad. The first problem with your question is that this group of yours includes children, infants and animals. Surely none of them are guilty of the sins of their parents/owners? Second, even these so-called bad people are born in to a society that taught them idol worship just like the israelites were born into a society that taught them Yahweh-worship. Third, an almighty God surely has more tools in his toolbox than asking his people to commit genocide or directly killing people himself?

The nazi analogy you use doesn’t work. In the text I mentioned, 1Samuel15, the reason for the genocide is what the ancestors of the amalekites did 300 years earlier when Israel left egypt… (see v2 “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt”). Not because they are nazis with jews in concentration camps. And the allies did not try to exterminate the german people with women, children, infants and animals. When they had won, they stopped fighting.

The reason why I said you lack a moral standard is that you will do whatever you think God says. So if God says kill innocent babies and their screaming mothers, you do it. When he says don’t kill innocent babies, you march in pro-life protests. So is killing innocent little babies wrong or isn’t it? It depends on what God happens to tell you today.

You also ignore the problem of knowing how it is God that is telling you to kill. That is why I called it voices in your head. Everything we experience takes place in the mind. You never go outside of your mind. Perhaps the God who tells you to kill is an hallucination? Perhaps it is the devil masking himself as an angel of light? How would you know? I would say that one of the first reasons for rejecting such a vision would be if the alleged divine entity told you to do something immoral, such as killing innocent infants. No God of love would ask you to do such a thing.

Isn’t it the same issue when people go to war, the generals issue the order, someone presses the trigger to release the bombs. The person who presses the trigger automatically becomes immoral because some people/animal got killed? There is no greater good? Now if for example, those infants that got killed is guaranteed heaven but if they have lived on, would have been as nasty as the parents and be condemned to hell, would your view on God’s morality change?

The issues are similar, but not identical. When you run into a village and plunge the sword into screaming women, children and infants, that takes a certain disconnect from your human nature to actually be able to directly witness and create such terrible evil and suffering. It means that the mind is lacking in empathy. As for dropping the bomb I certainly agree that dropping it on civillians for the purpose of exterminating them would be a grave evil and should be resisted even if the general claims to be God.

The rest of your rhetoric is interesting. We could use it to defend anything. Why object to abortion? 50 million aborted fetuses have gone straight to heaven! Perhaps their mothers would have given them a bad upbringing, and so they would have ended up in hell without the abortion! Let’s stop all pro-life work. Oh, wait, NOW God says killing babies is not ok, and so that argument doesn’t apply…

 

[Veedar]

<quote of Deut 21: 10> One should recognize that without these laws, the vanquished were less than just meat; they were to be abhorred and savaged, as dictated by the whims of the victor. This isn’t the worst thing to happen to the prisoner given that she could have been very seriously brutalized and then killed (as still happens today).

I have no problem of understand this things in the context of an ancient near east setting. The problem is when you think these very human laws came from the Mind that created the universe, a Mind of infinite love and compassion.

“They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. (…) The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. (…) They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest.(…) Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. (…) Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man”. (Numbers 31:7, 9, 11-12,14-15, 17-18)

You know, were this written in any other religious text than the Bible, I am sure you would condemn it without blinking. Women and boys have been captured. Moses is angry because of this (they should have been killed). So kill all the boys, kill all non-virgin women and keep the virgins for yourselves (talk about misogyny). This is the text I referred to when talking about keeping prisoners of war as sexual slaves. For surely that is what they are, unless you think these young girls would actually want to marry the people who killed their fathers, mothers and brothers.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The problem is when you think these very human laws came from the Mind that created the universe, a Mind of infinite love and compassion . . .

I believe that the human beings involved in the development and writing of the OT were divinely inspired, as were those human beings who included them in our Bible

To understand the OT one must do so from the perspective of Christ’s death and resurrction. You may be doing so given that you speak of “a Mind of infinite love and compassion”.

It appears that you are saying, we should disregard these parts of the OT because they seem to conflict with the NT.

I believe that this view can arise when they are taken out of their context within the totality of the Bible and the OT is set against the NT. Appreciating the OT provides the ground work to understanding the NT

As you state God is infinitely compassionate, and the people of the OT should be understood with compassion. Those readings provide an insight into human nature and thereby give us an idea of who we are; why the world is such a terrible mess, when it should be a Garden.

Look God is all around us; He is everywhere, in everything, and because of this we are, here and now, in paradise, except we are not, because of sin. What I am thinking is that, in the end, I am not superior morally to these people and that I should think about what it is that keeps me from Him. God made a convenant with savage sinful people, us. We attempt to glean what to do to become more loving. One may do well to consider that for all the brutality, Moses as the clearest example, was far closer to God than any of us could ever ever hope to be.

There are different ways that these passages provide meaning. They are clear in terms of how we are to treat sin, that which threatens our relationship with God. You cannot leave any element of left; it must be all destroyed because it will destroy you. It may seem insignificant, harmless, but it will come back with a vengence. Should some part seem worthwhile to keep, giving you some joy, some happiness, be absolutely sure that it is done with love, whatever sinful aspect remains will grow and cause you to fall from grace.

I am no Biblical scholar or theologian, this is a very long topic, and I can’t even scratch the surface.

 

[Veedar]

I believe that the human beings involved in the development and writing of the OT were divinely inspired, as were those human beings who included them in our Bible

It is certainly possible that portions of the Bible were written while their author’s minds were influenced by God. But sometimes the human minds were under the influence of sin/delusion and they wrote in accordance with a false perception of what God wanted. The Bible itself does not say it is perfect. It says the exact opposite. Ezekiel and Jeremiah both saw that the portions of the Torah that mandated the sacrifice one’s firstborn child to Yahweh, were evil. They explained this in two different ways:

"because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’ (Ezekiel 20:24-26)

According to Ezekiel the, God gave the Israelites bad commands, such as sacrificing children, because they had been ungodly. They were presented to them as real commands, because Yahweh wanted them to suffer. Jeremiah has a different explanation:

“‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8)

Jeremiah thinks the reason for the evil commands in the Torah was that it had been distorted by the scribes. That is, the original was without error, but now the lying scribes had corrupted it.

In either case, they are not inerrant. If Ezekiel is right, God himself misled his people to punish them. If Jeremiah is right, the scribes have distorted the word of God beyond recognition. I don’t think any of them are right, but that is unimportant. The bottom line is that the Bible is not inerrant.

To understand the OT one must do so from the perspective of Christ’s death and resurrction. You may be doing so given that you speak of “a Mind of infinite love and compassion”.

Yes, the God of Jesus is in my estimation quite different from how God is portrayed in many Old Testament texts. But then, there is no single view of God in the Old Testament. There are different perspectives by different authors. The whole book of Jonah is a satire, making fun of those who think God wants genocide.

It appears that you are saying, we should disregard these parts of the OT because they seem to conflict with the NT.

No, unlike Marcion, I do not want to remove these parts from the Bible. I want them to stay there as a reminder of the dark and dangerous side of religion, when it becomes egoic and fanatic. I do not think God spoke the genocidal words, but I surely think God can speak to us through them.

I believe that this view can arise when they are taken out of their context within the totality of the Bible and the OT is set against the NT. Appreciating the OT provides the ground work to understanding the NT.

The Old Testament shows us the faith tradition that Jesus was born into, and it is therefore quite useful. But Jesus radically reformed that faith tradition because it was not perfect.

As you state God is infinitely compassionate, and the people of the OT should be understood with compassion. Those readings provide an insight into human nature and thereby give us an idea of who we are; why the world is such a terrible mess, when it should be a Garden.

If God is infinite love and compassion, then that compassion extends to all living creatures, no matter what their race or creed is. But in the OT God is often portrayed as a tribal deity filled with anger and bloodlust. I think that is a reflection of the people who wrote it and not of the God of the universe.

Look God is all around us; He is everywhere, in everything, and because of this we are, here and now, in paradise, except we are not, because of sin.

Needless to say, I do not take the garden story literally (it is in conflict with evolution and genetics), and even if I did, it could not solve the problem of evil.

(…) One may do well to consider that for all the brutality, Moses as the clearest example, was far closer to God than any of us could ever ever hope to be.

If the text I quoted in my former post is historically accurate (and I thankfully doubt it is), then he was pretty far removed from God. Can you honestly imagine Jesus commanding something like that?

 

[Aloysium]

Veedar: Jonah is a satire

ok, that’s it, now you’ve done it
i am neglecting anything else you said

one of my favorite characters in the Bible is not a satire

i know there are other Jonah lovers out there

He and his story are just so real, and everyone treats it like a kid’s story

Who has more faith than Jonah?
Who has more hope in God?

what you have to do to understand Jonah is pump up your compassion, your empathy - the very thing he lacks

He’s sleeping at the bottom of the boat as the hurricane blasts around the boat, totally unperturbed. :tanning:
Imagine the sailors:
Jonah 1: 7 . . . So they cast lots, and the lot pointed to Jonah . . . 9 He replied, 'I am a Hebrew, and I worship Yahweh, God of Heaven, who made both sea and dry land.'10 The sailors were seized with terror at this and said, ‘Why ever did you do this?’ since they knew that he was trying to escape from Yahweh, because he had told them so.

Put yourself in each of the characters: they will become real, as real as any thing you have heard from anyone about their life.

I’m keeping it short, but the entire story is amazing for its humanity and what it says about God and man.

BTW - The fish could have been bred over the previous centuries; or could have been an angel taking on a non-human physical form (of course, you don’t probably believe in angels). At any rate, you can even empathize with its relentlessness, its sense of purpose.

I can’t understand why some people bother reading the Bible when they get nothing out of it.

Jonah is real. :yup:

He makes me smile.
He makes me cry: it is so cold inside that fish, in the dark, in the silence, as the fish moves on mile after mile; It is so dreadful at times that he pleads for death.

I love Jonah :extrahappy:

 

[LilyM]

It is certainly possible that portions of the Bible were written while their author’s minds were influenced by God. But sometimes the human minds were under the influence of sin/delusion and they wrote in accordance with a false perception of what God wanted. The Bible itself does not say it is perfect. It says the exact opposite. Ezekiel and Jeremiah both saw that the portions of the Torah that mandated the sacrifice one’s firstborn child to Yahweh, were evil. They explained this in two different ways:

"because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’ (Ezekiel 20:24-26)

According to Ezekiel the, God gave the Israelites bad commands, such as sacrificing children, because they had been ungodly. They were presented to them as real commands, because Yahweh wanted them to suffer. Jeremiah has a different explanation:

“‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8)

Jeremiah thinks the reason for the evil commands in the Torah was that it had been distorted by the scribes. That is, the original was without error, but now the lying scribes had corrupted it.

In either case, they are not inerrant. If Ezekiel is right, God himself misled his people to punish them. If Jeremiah is right, the scribes have distorted the word of God beyond recognition. I don’t think any of them are right, but that is unimportant. The bottom line is that the Bible is not inerrant.

Yes, the God of Jesus is in my estimation quite different from how God is portrayed in many Old Testament texts. But then, there is no single view of God in the Old Testament. There are different perspectives by different authors. The whole book of Jonah is a satire, making fun of those who think God wants genocide.

No, unlike Marcion, I do not want to remove these parts from the Bible. I want them to stay there as a reminder of the dark and dangerous side of religion, when it becomes egoic and fanatic. I do not think God spoke the genocidal words, but I surely think God can speak to us through them.

The Old Testament shows us the faith tradition that Jesus was born into, and it is therefore quite useful. But Jesus radically reformed that faith tradition because it was not perfect.

If God is infinite love and compassion, then that compassion extends to all living creatures, no matter what their race or creed is. But in the OT God is often portrayed as a tribal deity filled with anger and bloodlust. I think that is a reflection of the people who wrote it and not of the God of the universe.

Needless to say, I do not take the garden story literally (it is in conflict with evolution and genetics), and even if I did, it could not solve the problem of evil.

If the text I quoted in my former post is historically accurate (and I thankfully doubt it is), then he was pretty far removed from God. Can you honestly imagine Jesus commanding something like that?

Good heavens. If Adam and Eve were not real - nor Jonah - and the prophets who foretold Christ’s coming and laid down the law which he reaffirmed every SINGLE jot and tittle of while perfecting and fulfilling it - could either be fictitional or worse write lies interspersed with truth - then what is to say Jesus even existed? That He said or did any of the things attributed to Him? That the whole darn New Testament is not a tissue of fabrications from its first word to its last?

The Old Testament is the bedrock which forms the foundation of the New. If it is not solid the
New Testament stands upon absolutely nothing at all.

 

[a_priori]

What difference does it make? Literal? Metaphor? The lesson lives in either case. Love God. Feed the hungry.

 

[Veedar]

ok, that’s it, now you’ve done it
i am neglecting anything else you said one of my favorite characters in the Bible is not a satire:

The book of Jonah is a satire. And if you read it carefully, you see why. Why is it that Jonah fllees from God in the first place? Is it because he is afraid of preaching? No, Jonah himself says why:

"When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh: “By the decree of the king and his nobles:

Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”

When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

**But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. **Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.” (Jonah 3:7-10; 4:1-3)

So in this story, Jonah was angry BECAUSE he knew that by his preaching the people would repent, and he wanted God to wipe them out So he fled. There are many other interesting aspects of this story when you compare it to some of the conquest narratives in the Torah, but I think this discussion has been going on long enough and we are probably not going to agree.

 

[Veedar]

Good heavens. If Adam and Eve were not real - nor Jonah - and the prophets who foretold Christ’s coming and laid down the law which he reaffirmed every SINGLE jot and tittle of while perfecting and fulfilling it - could either be fictitional or worse write lies interspersed with truth - then what is to say Jesus even existed? That He said or did any of the things attributed to Him? That the whole darn New Testament is not a tissue of fabrications from its first word to its last?

The Old Testament is the bedrock which forms the foundation of the New. If it is not solid the
New Testament stands upon absolutely nothing at all.

I disagree. There are several possibilities, once you stark thinking about it. One possibility is that God saw all man made religions on planet earth, and decided that one of them, judaism, was one he could work with and perfect (despite all its errors), and so he sent his son into that culture I am not saying that is how it is, but it is possible…

 

[LilyM]

I disagree. There are several possibilities, once you stark thinking about it. One possibility is that God saw all man made religions on planet earth, and decided that one of them, judaism, was one he could work with and perfect (despite all its errors), and so he sent his son into that culture I am not saying that is how it is, but it is possible…

Your scenario is impossible without a trustworthy account of what the culture was and how it was perfected. Without an inerrant Bible - OT as well as NT - you have neither.

The New Testament was written by men just like the OT. Not personally by Christ. And so there is no more reason to believe the NT is inerrant - or accurate even - than the OT.

No reason at all to believe that Jesus was any more real or actually the Son of God or less a mythical fictional character than Adam or Jonah. And no reason to believe God’s message was any less distorted by scribal agenda and bias in the NT than the OT.

Moreover - a large part of the evidence to back the claim that Jesus was Son of God is that he fulfilled various OT prophecies about the messiah. Unless we know that all those prophecies were transmitted accurately, as well as details of Jesus’ sayings and doings, we do not know that He did fulfill them. in fact we do not know that any Messiah or Son of God was actually supposed to come at all, and you could be labouring under the most massive delusion for absolutely no reason that I can see.

 

[Veedar]

Your scenario is impossible without a trustworthy account of what the culture was and how it was perfected. Without an inerrant Bible - OT as well as NT - you have neither.

The New Testament was written by men just like the OT. Not personally by Christ. And so there is no more reason to believe the NT is inerrant - or accurate even - than the OT.

No reason at all to believe that Jesus was any more real or actually the Son of God or less a mythical fictional character than Adam or Jonah. And no reason to believe God’s message was any less distorted by scribal agenda and bias in the NT than the OT.

Moreover - a large part of the evidence to back the claim that Jesus was Son of God is that he fulfilled various OT prophecies about the messiah. Unless we know that all those prophecies were transmitted accurately, as well as details of Jesus’ sayings and doings, we do not know that He did fulfill them. in fact we do not know that any Messiah or Son of God was actually supposed to come at all, and you could be labouring under the most massive delusion for absolutely no reason that I can see.

You are touching upon a vitally important point. This argument demonstrates why I sometimes take the time to enter into discussions like this. Because the kind of apologetics you are now doing is, in my opinion, extremely destructive to Christianity. When people are exposed to actual modern biblical scholarship, for instance in college, the shallow critiscisms thereof that you can sometimes read in your typical american apologetics text fail miserably. And once they have been taught to think like you do, they lose their faith entirely. I know a Catholic priest who is very conservative, he loves the old latin mass (and celebrates it regularly), I am sure you would love his loyalty to the magisterium. He confessed to me that when he went to seminary in Rome, he almost became an atheist because his childlike ideas of the Bible were completely crushed under the weight of the evidence against them. “If all of it is just bull, then why be a christian?!” was his reaction. But his spiritual director just laughed and told him, “Now you are losing your childhood faith, it is time for it to become a mature, adult faith”.

Most people are not taught these things in that kind of a protected environment. Instead they are taught the origins of the biblical texts and the lack of historicity of huge parts therof, by college professors who want to destroy christianity and spin the facts is a uniformely negative way. And if the students go to a fundamentalist church they are told that if their college professors are right about the facts, then christianity is false. So both the fundamentalist and the and the militant atheists mirror each other, and both harm faith.

But there is another way of believing. And I am sorry that it does not give you the kind of certainty that you may wish to have. But if one thing is true about life, it is that it is uncertain.

 

[Patti_RCIA]

One possibility is that God saw all man made religions on planet earth, and decided that one of them, judaism, was one he could work with and perfect (despite all its errors), and so he sent his son into that culture

Except, as we are told in Genesis, that from the beginning there were priestly duties that God gave Adam. (Please note that I am not arguing that the Adam of the Bible is the first man; only as oral tradition was passed down.) And then that there was (and continues to be through Jesus and apostolic succession [the Pope(s)]) a line of shepherds who guarded God’s chosen people throughout history. Moses is credited with writing the first five books of the Bible, but certainly what he wrote was from the Jewish oral tradition.

I know a Catholic priest who is very conservative… He confessed to me that when he went to seminary in Rome, he almost became an atheist because his childlike ideas of the Bible were completely crushed under the weight of the evidence against them. “If all of it is just bull, then why be a christian?!” was his reaction. But his spiritual director just laughed and told him, “Now you are losing your childhood faith, it is time for it to become a mature, adult faith”.

This reminded me of this: 1 Cor 13:11 “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.” Hopefully we do learn to put away childish things, and are open to letting God’s grace penetrate us as we grow in age, that we may grow in faith, hope, wisdom, knowledge and love. But we will not know the full glory of God until the “darkened glass” has been removed and we see Him “face to face”.

I think this is where we should lead the OP, who had faith as a child and was lured away by other thoughts. Only you can make the decision of where you desire to be. Others will always disagree, even as seen here. You must find the glimmer of true faith within yourself and seek it out in others, there are many others. Just as the father of the prodigal son, we are glad to see you come home and in the interim, we are praying for you.

 

[LilyM]

You are touching upon a vitally important point. This argument demonstrates why I sometimes take the time to enter into discussions like this. Because the kind of apologetics you are now doing is, in my opinion, extremely destructive to Christianity. When people are exposed to actual modern biblical scholarship, for instance in college, the shallow critiscisms thereof that you can sometimes read in your typical american apologetics text fail miserably. And once they have been taught to think like you do, they lose their faith entirely. I know a Catholic priest who is very conservative, he loves the old latin mass (and celebrates it regularly), I am sure you would love his loyalty to the magisterium. He confessed to me that when he went to seminary in Rome, he almost became an atheist because his childlike ideas of the Bible were completely crushed under the weight of the evidence against them. “If all of it is just bull, then why be a christian?!” was his reaction. But his spiritual director just laughed and told him, “Now you are losing your childhood faith, it is time for it to become a mature, adult faith”.

Most people are not taught these things in that kind of a protected environment. Instead they are taught the origins of the biblical texts and the lack of historicity of huge parts therof, by college professors who want to destroy christianity and spin the facts is a uniformely negative way. And if the students go to a fundamentalist church they are told that if their college professors are right about the facts, then christianity is false. So both the fundamentalist and the and the militant atheists mirror each other, and both harm faith.

But there is another way of believing. And I am sorry that it does not give you the kind of certainty that you may wish to have. But if one thing is true about life, it is that it is uncertain.

Please do not in your eagerness to defend yourself mistake me for a literalist or a fundamentalist. I do not by any means believe in young-earth seven-day creationism, for example.

I am, however, a Christian. And a Catholic, which is being Christian as Christ intended Christianity to be. That means that I believe that Christ gave the Apostles, and their successors, our Pope and bishops, power to bind and loose and instruct us in a proper understanding of scripture.

And He, through them, has taught the truth of monogenism - that Adam and Eve were the real two first parents of humanity and not fantasy or myth or allegorical. And He has taught that, while possibly Jonah is not intended as a historical record as we understand history - that he at least was a real person and a real prophet whose prophecies are recorded accurately in the OT. Not a myth fabricated by some deluded scribe or by a sadistic God bent on deceit and leading people astray.

Likewise all the other Prophets.

And He teaches that scripture is inerrant - not infallibly accurate in every historical/scientific detail, but reliable as far as being a record of important figures in faith history and their interactions with God and vice versa.

You are suggesting that none of this is true - that the Bible is not inerrant.

Now it is true that scriptural inerrancy is not the sole ground of our faith, it is one of the three pillars of it - the others being the Magisterium and Apostolic Traditon. But …

if you deny inerrancy then not only is that scriptural pillar shaky at best, but Magisterial authority is also questionable (since it is the Magisterium which teaches the understanding of Adam and Eve et al that I have expounded). What sort of solid faith can be built on two shaky pillars out of three?

 

[Veedar]

Please do not in your eagerness to defend yourself mistake me for a literalist or a fundamentalist. I do not by any means believe in young-earth seven-day creationism, for example.

I am, however, a Christian. And a Catholic, which is being Christian as Christ intended Christianity to be. That means that I believe that Christ gave the Apostles, and their successors, our Pope and bishops, power to bind and loose and instruct us in a proper understanding of scripture.

And He, through them, has taught the truth of monogenism - that Adam and Eve were the real two first parents of humanity and not fantasy or myth or allegorical. And He has taught that, while possibly Jonah is not intended as a historical record as we understand history - that he at least was a real person and a real prophet whose prophecies are recorded accurately in the OT. Not a myth fabricated by some deluded scribe or by a sadistic God bent on deceit and leading people astray.

My point with commenting on Jonah was not whether or not such an historical figure existed. I haven’t a clue. My point is that the story is a (brilliant) satire, written to critizise the conquest narratives in the OT. As for Adam and Eve being the parents of all of humanity, genetics has demonstrated that humanity does not stem from a single couple. There are several other ways of understanding the story that does not conflict with science. Such as Adam and Eve being Israel who were created as a people by God (exodus) and placed in the promised land (garden). But Israel, ate the forbidden fruit (idolatry), and were cast out of the garden (Babylonian captivity). Jesus then would be the second Adam (the new Israel), who accomplishes what the first could not.

And He teaches that scripture is inerrant - not infallibly accurate in every historical/scientific detail, but reliable as far as being a record of important figures in faith history and their interactions with God and vice versa.

The Bible as a whole is not inerrant. There is a mountain of evidence against such a claim. And the most serious errors are not discrepancies, but the grave moral errors such as the ones I have already touched upon.

You are suggesting that none of this is true - that the Bible is not inerrant.

Yep, I am in fact suggesting that neither scripture, tradition or church are inerrant/infallible. And you are right, that does not provide the kind of certainty that makes people comfortable. But on the other hand, having to defend genocide, rape and sexual slavery, and some of the other moral evils that are allegedly commanded by God in scripture cannot be very comfortable either. What you are in fact saying is that Jesus did or would have commanded these things. To me that borders on blasphemy.

The bottom line is this: What you are claiming simply isn’t true. And so saying that if it were true it would have unpleasant consequences for the sense of security that a christian feels is not helpful. It IS true, and if you are correct, then one needs to reject christianity wholsale. I do not think this is the case.

At any rate, thanks to all of you for the discussion. I will end my part in it here.

 

[Sister_Terese]

Hello all,

hopefully I’m posting this in the right place.

I left the church almost four years ago, when I was a freshman in high school, as a result of research and questioning that I was going through at that time. I no longer identify with any religious group or belief system. However, I’ve maintained a real interest in religion, religious debates/discussions, etc. and am very open to different beliefs.

This forum seems to be a great place for discussion of these religious issues, so I would like to pose a question:

As an ex-Catholic, now a non-believer, why should I return to the Church? What reasons are there to convince me that the claims made by the Catholic Church are true?

Right… LOL! You’ve gotta be kidding me!!!

 

[Sister_Terese]

As a general rule, I try not to simply “accept” that something/someone speaks truth. My usual approach is to weigh the evidence and arguments that they present and try to determine what the most likely conclusion is.

Well, if that’s the case, why are you asking why you should come back?

 

[Veedar]

The bottom line is this: What you are claiming simply isn’t true. And so saying that if it were true it would have unpleasant consequences for the sense of security that a christian feels is not helpful. It IS true, and if you are correct, then one needs to reject christianity wholsale. I do not think this is the case.

My English is certainly not inerrant (mea culpa). What I was attempting to say is that what you are claiming (inerrancy of the Bible) is not true. And so arguing that if the Bible is not inerrant, that makes the foundations of the faith shaky, is not helpful. Such arguments cause people to abandon the faith when they are exposed to the overwhelming evidence that inerrancy is not true.

I would also like to add that the Church does not say that the Bible is inerrant in its entirety. To quote the compendium to the Cathecism of the Catholic Church (which draws on Vatican II):

“18. Why does Sacred Scripture teach the truth?
Because God himself is the author of Sacred Scripture. For this reason it is said to be inspired and to teach without error those truths which are necessary for our salvation.”

If the whole thing was inerrant, there would be no need to make this qualifying statement. Then the cathecism (and the council) could just have said “whatever it teaches is without error”.