Figuring Out Religion

[Xan]

Kshartle is right in that the customary and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament do not apply in the new covenant.  And it's not always 100% clear which are which.

Do you know what is one of the most common (I actually heard that it was THE most common, but I don't know that of my own knowledge) words in the Old Testament describing the actions of God?  It is "ahab", the word (both noun and verb) for "steadfast love".

[doodle]

Is "ahab" condemning someone to hellfire for this:

You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together. (Deuteronomy 22:11)

[Kshartle]

How about this one on rape? God makes it pretty clear that if I rape someone who isn't engaged I just need to pay her father 50 shekels....

Do we have a conversion chart for how much a shekel is now in USD?

New or old? The Israeli government destroyed the old one with hyperinflation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_n ... el#History

must have created a lot of net savings for the private sector! Zing! ok no MR talk here.

[doodle]

Oh Lawdy....Im just glancing over the laws in Deuteronomy again. Seriously, how can anyone use the old testament for any sort of logical appeal or argument after reading this? I'm earnestly asking this question....besides being an interesting view into the historical cultural beliefs of a certain group of people living in the Middle East, does anyone really take Gods commandments in this section and apply them? And if not, isn't that a bit presumptuous of you to be second guessing Gods word?

[doodle]

Deuteronomy 23-24: If you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket. 25 If you enter your neighbor’s grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to their standing grain.

Here is one that I like

Xan, we don't have vineyards now, but God seems to be saying that its okay if I come over and raid your fridge as long as I don't bring anything home in a picnic basket with me :-)

[Xan]

There's a fair amount of Old Testament text laying out rules for neighborliness in an ancient agrarian society.  In addition to the one you quote, there's also a rule that when the landowner harvests, he should get most everything, but not stop to pick up every little grape (or seed or stalk or whatever) that falls, which should be left for the poor or others wandering through.

[Kshartle]

There's a fair amount of Old Testament text laying out rules for neighborliness in an ancient agrarian society.  In addition to the one you quote, there's also a rule that when the landowner harvests, he should get most everything, but not stop to pick up every little grape (or seed or stalk or whatever) that falls, which should be left for the poor or others wandering through.

Those right-wingers are socialists in disguise! I knew it!

[Mountaineer]

I suggest this for your consideration:  If you are looking at the Bible as a rule book for living, as so many of the questions above seem to indicate, or if you are using the Bible as a microscope to condemn other's beliefs rather than point out the truth of what it says, or if you are using the Bible to just plain be a hypocrite or a pious do-gooder --- you are supremely missing the point.  If all you are interested in is a self-help manual for life on this earth and you care not for the hear-after, go to your local library and browse the self-help section - most of the books will "guarantee" you some type of success if you only follow the "three", "five", or "ten" sure-fire methods inside.  If on the other hand, dependence on yourself is not working out too well for you, or you want a secure and firm foundation on which to build your life, or you have become a bit tired of being your own god, you might consider going to where God has promised to meet you and thus become alive.

When a person changes from being someone who does not believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior to being someone who does, we say the person converted to Christianity.  But there is a big difference between converting to Christianity and converting to another sports team.  When someone converts to Christianity, when that person becomes a believer in Jesus, he or she did not decide to do it.  It may seem like it, but it is just not so.  Here’s why.  A person who does not believe in Jesus is dead.  Not dead in the normal physical sense, but dead in a very real spiritual sense.  God says to people who are now believers, “You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked”? [Ephesians 2:1-2].  So unless and until a person believes in Jesus, he or she is dead to any kind of a relationship with God.  That is how God describes us before we believe: DEAD.  We are unable to change or cooperate or even ask for help.  Dead people are passive - as in totally passive.  Someone else does all the work of conversion from unbelief to belief.  That someone is the Holy Spirit.  And that is a real comfort because it does not depend on us; God does it all for us.  The Holy Spirit calls people to faith when and where He chooses, and He uses the Gospel to make it happen.  All those who believe in Jesus, even with doubts and fears and questions, can say with confidence that God has forgiven all their sins.  He loves them as dear children, and they are already in a new life that will last forever.  Christian hope is based upon this because they did not make it happen; the Holy Spirit did. 

We Lutherans keep Christ and forgiveness central.  Lutherans see forgiveness as a continuing need in the life of a Christian, as the engine that drives the whole Christian life forward.  We place priority on God’s action over our action.  Ours is a receptive spirituality [not active spirituality] that rejoices in receiving all the gifts of God on God’s terms.  Like embryos at the end of the umbilical cord, it is all about living on the receiving end of God’s grace in Christ.  We stress God’s Word and take things on God’s terms, as revealed to us in the Bible.  Specifically, Lutherans say that God’s Word determines the reality but our faith determines the benefit.  Lutherans prefer to take reality as it is, or better, as God’s Word says it is; we do not speak of creating reality ourselves by our own perceptions.  That’s a God-thing.  This relates to allowing unresolved tensions and paradoxes.  The Holy Spirit’s role is to take the things that Christ won for us and apply them to our lives.  We have different goals in mind for spiritual growth.  We do not see ourselves as growing more and more spiritually independent from God but more and more aware of our spiritual dependence on God.  Our growth is a growth in faith and trust, not in self-sufficiency.  There is no goal of steady upward increase or perfectionism.  We remain mere babes in relation to Christ - more like spiritual embryos. 

… Mountaineer

Edited to include this definition of Word:  Word has a three-fold meaning, Jesus, the proclaimed Word, and the written Word.  Jesus is the Word.  The Pastor's absolution and sermon are examples of the proclaimed Word, and the Bible is the written Word.

[Mountaineer]

At least, that's the way I see it. And the fact that I see it in a different way from you and those other guys only illustrates my point that this stuff is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. By criticizing Christians for not following your own personal interpretation of Christianity, are you not yourself guilty of the very thing that you accuse Christians of doing when they criticize members of other denominations or religions for having it all wrong?

Im not saying what is right and wrong. I happen to believe that those don't exist (at least in a universal sense)...Im presently a nihilist. Im simply pointing out that you cannot be pro-gun, pro-death penalty, and a follower of Christs message at the same time. The hypocrisy and contradiction is what I am criticizing. If you want to be pro-gun FINE! But at least have a philosophy that is somewhat internally consistent.

Jesus' overwhelming message is to NOT RESIST EVIL. If you want to be a Christian then follow that to the best of your ability and turn the other cheek. Don't go out and buy an arsenal of weapons and then hang a picture of Jesus over top of your gun rack for crying out loud.

Actually, Jesus clearly stated that he was ok with guns as long as they had no more than a 10-round capacity. 

But seriously, I think you have a decent point here Doodle.  While I don't see a rule against personal arms in the OT or NT, self defense and the right to bear arms didn't appear to be a high priority of Jesus and his followers.  I'm a Christian and a gun owner (I was a gun owner 20 years before becoming a Christian), but I struggle to find much to appreciate about the "god-fearin', gun-totin'" religious right culture.  I'm still studying the Bible, slowly but surely, so maybe I'll happen across a verse where Jesus sounds like Dirty Harry, but I haven't found it yet.  Meanwhile, it appears that Jesus's message was focused primarily on men's hearts, not their proficiency with weaponry. 

I haven't sold all my guns yet (so don't come fer my gold coins), but I'm much less enthusiastic about them lately.

Something to think about:  On the Last Day, Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead.  Those who believe in Him will be with Him for eternity.  Those who do not will be condemned to eternal damnation.  That sounds a whole lot worse than having a bullet wound or an ear cut off with a sword.  Personally, I think Jesus has something way more powerful than a gun in his arsenal and will use it on the Last Day.  Personally, I don't think guns are inherently bad, any more than a sharp fork is inherently bad; it's like everything else Jesus teaches - it is what is in the heart that counts, i.e. what do you intend to do with that gun, or fork, or knife, or that sharp tongue spewing forth hate or attempting to lure others into unbelief .......

FYI, the Scriptures teach the following concerning Christ's second and final coming:

1. Christ will come visibly and all people will see Him (Acts 1:11; Matt. 24:27, 30; Luke 17:22-24; 21:27, 35; Mark 13:24-26; 14:62; Rev. 1:7).

2. Christ will come in glory surrounded by the host of His angels (Matt. 13:39-43, 49; 16:27; 24:30-31; 25:31; 2 Thess. 1:7; Rev. 19:11-14; Titus 2:13; Jude 14, 24; 1 Pet. 4:13; Zech. 14:3).

3. When Christ returns, a bodily resurrection of all the dead will take place. Believers will be raised to salvation and unbelievers to damnation (John 5:27-29; 6:39-40, 44, 54; Rev. 20:11-15; 1 Cor. 15:12-57; Dan. 12:1-2). All believers, both dead and living, will, be "caught up" to "meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4:13- 17). Death will be destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26, 54-57; Rev. 20:14).

4. When Christ returns, He will judge all people, both the living and the dead (Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:27; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 2:16, 2 Tim. 4:1, 8; Jude 14- 15; Rev. 20:11-15). Believers will receive eternal salvation and unbelievers eternal damnation (Matt. 25:31-46; 1 Pet. 1:4-5, 7; 5:4; 1 John 3:2; Heb. 9:28; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:6-10). Satan and the Antichrist will be destroyed (2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 20:10).

5. When Christ returns, "new heavens and a new earth" will be created (2 Pet. 3:10-13). Nowhere, however, do the Scriptures teach that at His return Christ will establish a this-worldly, political kingdom or "millennium."

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

At least, that's the way I see it. And the fact that I see it in a different way from you and those other guys only illustrates my point that this stuff is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. By criticizing Christians for not following your own personal interpretation of Christianity, are you not yourself guilty of the very thing that you accuse Christians of doing when they criticize members of other denominations or religions for having it all wrong?

That seems like a cop-out.  I thought the ultimate point was Organized Religion, Inc. (ORI) was evil not that we have to absolve our hands of any and all responsibility of blaming ORI's individuals followers for giving up their spiritual power to external forces to be exploited.  They're so stuck in the red herring logic of forever sinning and perpetually racing to ORI for absolution, they can't see their way out of a paper bag.  Our job as the irreligious is to deprogram them from false spiritual tyranny into true spiritual freedom.  Just as in AA, they have to learn to take responsibility first.

[Xan]

MachineGhost, if you're perfect, then I will be glad to drop my definition of sin and take up yours.  Somebody who's perfect is bound to collect lots of followers.  Hey, that's exactly what happened!

[MachineGhost]

Exodus has nothing to do with Christs message. The Old Testament is an insane book. God is the most vindictive, jealous, horrible thing.....a far cry from the loving God of the New Testament.

That's easy to explain.  The New Testatment is for Christians which reflects Jesus's hippy-loving philosophies, the Old Testament is just leftover from the Jews which has more of the Hell, Fury and Brimstone Greek-Pagan influences.  It was all subjective by the Church exactly which collection of texts was going to be included in The Bible anyway.  The missing texts are rather revealing (and not in a good way).  And then there's innimerous Hebrew to English translations which have completely transformed the original intent, meaning and context, so its like the deluded aruging over which delusion is less deluded than another?

[Pointedstick]

That seems like a cop-out.  I thought the ultimate point was Organized Religion, Inc. (ORI) was evil not that we have to absolve our hands of any and all responsibility of blaming ORI's individuals followers for giving up their spiritual power to external forces to be exploited.  They're so stuck in the red herring logic of forever sinning and perpetually racing to ORI for absolution, they can't see their way out of a paper bag.  Our job as the irreligious is to deprogram them from false spiritual tyranny into true spiritual freedom.  Just as in AA, they have to learn to take responsibility first.

I guess I'm doing a bad job because I don't feel like deprogramming anyone. I find that it's much nicer to just accept people as they are, warts and all. Why do we have to constantly try to change other people to be more like ourselves? If they want to change, they will. And if they don't, then what do I care? There's lots of people in the world.

As for religion, it seems like the developed world is pretty solidly moving toward irreligiosity already. The religious people are worried about it. If you thing religion is silly, all you have to do is wait!

[MachineGhost]

MachineGhost, if you're perfect, then I will be glad to drop my definition of sin and take up yours.  Somebody who's perfect is bound to collect lots of followers.  Hey, that's exactly what happened!

I strongly suspect you're misattributing why the historical Jesus collected lots of followers for sake of religion reinforcement.

Anyway, I view the core problem in general as not being an alleged leader claiming to be perfect, but the act of following...  The whole illogical concept of perfection and sin is a shtick to keep believers hopelessly entrapped psychologically.

[MachineGhost]

I guess I'm doing a bad job because I don't feel like deprogramming anyone. I find that it's much nicer to just accept people as they are, warts and all. Why do we have to constantly try to change other people to be more like ourselves? If they want to change, they will. And if they don't, then what do I care? There's lots of people in the world.

Good point.  Maybe social engineering is inherent in all of us!  It is a demon that must be beat into submission time and time again.

[MachineGhost]

I'm happy to join you in the club of confusion on this one Doodle. I was a hard-core Christian until I told myself I would not tolerate internal inconsistency in my beliefs. If statements and beliefs contain such obvious contradictions they can't be true.
And I say this with all love to beleivers. Not trying to hurt your feelings. I've been there. Just trying to point out what now appears so obvious. It's only been obvious since I stepped back after questioning it. If you get away for a year you will probably never go back.

I wouldn't conflate ORI's dictums and scribbles with a spiritual leader's actual message.  Heck, look at how far Buddhism has devolved from an enlightened leader who didn't even claim to be divine!  Religious followers appear to do this conflation a heck of a lot, but I surmise its all part of the risk when they give up their spiritual responsibility to others.

Anyway, did you go from being a hard-core Christian straight into Anarcho-Capitalism?

[MediumTex]

I'm presently a nihilist.

Which one are you?



***

The exchange above doesn't sound too much different from what I would expect from a bunch of little green plastic army men arguing about the nature of the Light Bulb and his plan for their lives. 

Doodle finds the message in the Bible to be inconsistent, confusing and ultimately incoherent.  Others see the Bible as an internally consistent single message to humanity from God that only seems confusing to us because we are flawed mortals.

But return to my light bulb example for a moment, and think about how far off even the wisest and most perceptive little green plastic army man would be in his description of the true nature of the Light Bulb.  He simply wouldn't have the tools to comprehend its nature, and the closest he could get would almost certainly still be WAY off.  Why would the Light Bulb allow such confusion to reign?  Because the Light Bulb doesn't care about the confusion inside the minds of the little green army men; the Light Bulb is concerned with making light.  The perception, interpretation and speculation about the meaning of the Light Bulb from the perspective of the little green army men would almost certainly be of no concern to the Light Bulb.  If someone in an inferior position to you misunderstands you, is it your job to clear up the misunderstanding, or is it the job of the person in the inferior position to improve his understanding?  Judging by the diversity of opinion regarding the nature of God, God appears to have made the decision to let misunderstanding exist, and that's where we're at.

I think that we can all agree that there is a God if we define the term "God" broadly enough.  I mean, everything got here somehow, and thus there are causes embedded in everything that we observe around us and within us.  That cause is God or a manifestation of some facet of God's nature.

What gets us into trouble is when we begin to narrow the definition of God to make him more culturally recognizable and to fill the role of "spiritual narcissism enabler."

Think of how easy it would be for the little green army men to conclude that the Light Bulb favored them in any battle they got involved in.  Why wouldn't the Light Bulb want them to win?  Why would the Light Bulb provide light to a group of soldiers who he didn't intend to prevail in every battle?  But from my perspective, that whole line of reasoning is just spiritual narcissism, in the same way that it's narcissistic for a professional athlete to think that God helped him score a touchdown.  Is God THAT much of a micro manager, and if he is why didn't he just knock the other team's plane out of the sky before the game even started if he wanted to express his approval with one of the teams?  Or maybe have a promiscuous kicker named David on one of the teams hit an offensive lineman on the other team in the head with a stone launched from a sling?

To me, the "truth" of a message is revealed in whether the teachings yield the promised results.  The problem with the Bible is that it does seem to give contradictory advice with respect to common human situations.  For example, when someone threatens you what are you supposed to do?  Well, in the New Testament the message seems to be that you shouldn't resist.  That was Jesus's teaching, and he followed it right into the grave.  Even if Jesus came out of the grave three days later, that isn't helpful to the rest of us who are going to stay dead if someone kills us (a classmate of mine from junior high was murdered last week by two robbers), and thus the question of the appropriate use of force is an important one, and Jesus's message may actually not be that helpful if he had the ability to regenerate in a way that we don't.

In the Old Testament, the response to aggression and the policy regarding self-defense was quite different from the New Testament.  In the Old Testament when someone fucked with God's People, the correct (and expected) response was let's go kick some ass!  This appears to be the policy that the current Israeli government follows, as opposed to the more gentle New Testament way of responding to attacks.

It's almost like God is this hard-ass retired Marine-type, while his son Jesus is sort of a hippie pacifist.  Does anyone have a better explanation for the almost unrecognizable versions of God that we see in the Old Testament compared to the New Testament?

Old Testament God:



New Testament God:

[Tortoise]

Exodus has nothing to do with Christs message. The Old Testament is an insane book. God is the most vindictive, jealous, horrible thing.....a far cry from the loving God of the New Testament.

Actually, Exodus is all about Christ. The entire narrative arc of the Old Testament pointed to and foreshadowed Christ--as Jesus explained to his disciples in Matthew 24:37, Luke 17:26, Luke 24:27,45, John 3:14, etc.--and Exodus is a prime example.

In the Israelites' exodus from Egypt, the Israelites represented all who are saved in Christ, the Egyptian slavery represented the bondage of this sinful world, the plagues represented God's judgment of evil on the Last Day, and the miraculous deliverance of Israel out of Egypt and eventually into the Promised Land represented Christ's deliverance of His children out of this sinful world and into the New Earth.

The Passover in Exodus is also all about Christ. When God told the Israelites to sacrifice a Passover lamb and sprinkle its blood on the doorpost as a way of protecting themselves from the Angel of Death, it was a direct foreshadowing of how Christ the Lamb of God would sprinkle His blood on all those who believe in Him in order to save them from eternal death.

Finally, also from Exodus, the Ark of the Covenant was all about Christ. It was made of wood overlaid with gold, symbolizing the fact that Christ was to be both man (wood) and God (gold). The priest, acting on the Israelites' behalf (thus pointing to the vicarious role of Christ) sprinkled blood from the sacrifice over the mercy seat, which represented Christ's throne. Furthermore, the two cherubim--one on either side of the mercy seat--subtly foreshadowed John 20:12, in which Mary looked into Jesus's empty tomb and saw two angels sitting where his body had been: "one at the head and one at the feet."

The entire concept that the Israelites weren't good enough to follow God's impossible Law perfectly all the time, thus provoking rebukes from God and requiring constant animal sacrifices in the tabernacle for atonement, was one big neon sign pointing to Jesus Christ--the "Lamb of God" who, as the final sacrifice, would finally pay the ultimate price for every believer's sins and free them from the tyranny of having to measure up to the Father's holiness by their own human efforts. Christ the Son was--and is--perfect so that we aren't required to be. The purpose of the Law was always to tear us down and show us how miserably unworthy we are to approach the Father. Its purpose--even before Christ lived as a man--was always to bring believers to repentance, to get them to admit that they had absolutely no hope without a Savior.

The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same. You'll find violent judgment in both testaments, you'll find love in the face of constant rejection in both testaments, and you'll find gracious forgiveness and salvation in both testaments. The God of the NT is just as full of wrath and judgment towards the enemies of Christ and His people as the God of the OT was toward the enemies of the nation of Israel. The narrative arc of salvation traverses various genres and tones as it progresses from OT to NT, but it's consistent throughout.

[Kshartle]

As for religion, it seems like the developed world is pretty solidly moving toward irreligiosity already. The religious people are worried about it. If you thing religion is silly, all you have to do is wait!

You don't think it's human nature to believe in supernatural beings?

[Pointedstick]

Hmm, it's going to be a long wait...
http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html

Perhaps MG could start an athiest mission effort.

That only tells half the story, though. When you also take into account the number of people who are renouncing their religion, and the number of children born in non-religious contexts who never adopt one, the full data paints a different picture:

USA:
[img width=400]http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/01/nones-exec-7.png[/img]

UK:
[img width=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... on.svg.png[/img]

Australia:
[img width=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... on.svg.png[/img]

Austria:
[img width=400]http://www.metropop.eu/wp-content/uploa ... raph1B.png[/img]

New Zealand:
[img width=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 1-2006.svg[/img]

[Mountaineer]

Hmm, it's going to be a long wait...
http://fastestgrowingreligion.com/numbers.html

Perhaps MG could start an athiest mission effort.

That only tells half the story, though. When you also take into account the number of people who are renouncing their religion, and the number of children born in non-religious contexts who never adopt one, the full data paints a different picture:

Keep the faith.  There has been and will always be a remnant (until the Last Day that is).  Got down to only 8 with Noah and look where we are now.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

You don't think it's human nature to believe in supernatural beings?

No. I think it's human nature to be curious, and religion has satisfied that curiosity extremely well for the past several hundred thousand years. We want to know why. And for ancient peoples with no ability to sensibly answer most of these questions, it was perfect. But today, science is increasingly answering those questions. That science can probably never answer the ultimate questions such as "what is the meaning of life" will IMHO probably mean that religion will never fully die out, but because not everybody cares to ask such questions, for many it will be of no consequence. Similarly, most people with a certain amount of faith in the ability of science to explain things will actually have no idea how things actually work, the same way that your average believer has probably never read much of his faith's holy book and is mostly following social pressures or someone else's leadership.

That's not the point. The point is that I think  most humans want to believe that there's some kind of system out there that explains things, even if it can't explain everything, or they don't understand its explanations. It's comforting. Whether that thing you believe in is a big bearded dude in the sky or the laws of thermodynamics (quick, can you actually name them?) we like to know that they're simply there, passively explaining the workings of the universe.

At least, that's the way I see it.

i suspect religion will always exist, not because the children's bed time story version of big bearded daddy in the sky fills some anti-intellectual need to quell fears. It will do so because of the experiential (gnostic) nature of religions source, and a small hand full of people will always rediscover it. I suspect that eventually science will end up pointing to the same direction, i don't know what form that will end up taking, holographic universe, quantum non locality, or something else... but i wouldn't be surprised to see a ""eureka"" moment when science says wow that's what all that largely incomprehensible, 99% misunderstood stuff those profits, mystics and son of god were saying was trying to explain ..

[Mountaineer]

Re. Laws of Thermo,

Many people understand them even though they can't quote them precisely.  For example, the common term of "shit runs downhill" is a description of entropy.  Or, "you bring a knife to a fight and I'll bring a gun" ... well, not quite with that one. 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

MG, what does your "spiritual freedom" consist of?

Well, I suppose thats a trick question if one's "spiritual freedom" resulted in them going right back to being ensnared by religion!  So, I'll have to dwell on it.

[MachineGhost]

Perhaps MG could start an athiest mission effort.

But I'm not an athiest, and I really dont want to take up the torch for yet another ultimately inflexible ideological zealotry (haven't we had enough of those already?).  I do think that the truth of the cosmos as revealed by reason is self-evident and people will gradually wake up to this truth over time (as the stats from PS seem to show).  Anthropomorphised religion is just not it, sorry.

I came across the below article by accident when reading another article from another thread and it is very interesting and relevant to this thread:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinion ... t-atheism/

I could perhaps tolerate being called a "soft athiest" so long as religious followers are practicing "refined religion".  After all, we all do need to focus on real-world outcomes, not arguing over what color the Light Bulb is.