If someone is using the doubt surrounding certain books to protest Christianity as unintelligible or 'confused', then the issue does really become a smokescreen. Is that what is happening here?

That's what I perceive happening here.

You missed the point. Would it have been okay for Israel to go around burning up whole cities without God telling them to?

Most likely not. Why? Because God is the one who has the right to give and take life. It is His prerogative.

Did God give all these groups of people a fair chance, by sending a prophet like Jonah in to warn them ahead of time that they were doomed?

Why didn't God just do the dirty work himself - why have his Chosen People storm cities and go on killing rampages, slaughtering men, women and children? (The psychological effects of constantly doing stuff like this can't be all that great.)

Again, delightfully modern and individualistic in your approach. The fact is that we all deserve this. God had already marked the Caananites for destruction in Genesis. And it's clear from cases like Rahab or the Gibeonites that there was a way out: lay down arms and join the Israelites.

As for why Israel was to do it: well, it was going to be their land.

And why it is okay for God to design whole civilizations of people to fail, then destroy them for failing like God knew and planned?

While we're at it, why is it okay for J.R.R. Tolkien to create characters, and civilizations, design them to be evil, and then destroy them for being as evil as he had made them? See the problem?

Yes, it does...I'll admit it.

And while I pray to the Christian God and ask him to give me faith, I can't help but wonder - shouldn't I do this for every god that anybody through out history has claimed to exist, just in case one of them is the real one?

Because only the Christian God matters. Look at every other religion: every other faith is a salvation roulette wheel. Islm? Allah is an inscrutable totally other who is not bound even by his covenants. Judaism? Keep an unkeepable law and you'll live. Buddhism? Walk around in circles toward an unreachable goal. And the thing is with each of these is that, if you're a good Christian, you're still ok---no really. If their versions of salvation by works are correct, then a Christian can attain it too.

On the other hand, if Jesus is risen, then He's the only way. Christianity is the only really exclusive religion.

You want miracles? You want God to do something dramatic to convince you? You're kidding yourself there: that's pride. If God wants to convince you, He'll do it without all the flashy stuff.

TBG

*peeps in* I've been faithfully reading this, and something really struck my eye, and I felt I had to say something to it.
First of all though, I'd like to thank The Black Glove - it has really encouraged me reading your posts, thanks so much for doing this.

While we're at it, why is it okay for J.R.R. Tolkien to create characters, and civilizations, design them to be evil, and then destroy them for being as evil as he had made them? See the problem?

If there was anything that would make me "de-convert", it would be that I believed God just made Earth and all of it's inhabitants for fun, and kills us off when he feels like it, when he thinks it will make the story more dramatic. That he made helpless dust into evil people that he was planning on torturing after a while. God doesn't design us to be evil, we are made in his image - Satan tempts us to it, and we are unable to resist.
I've had a lot of questions lately - why would God make us, knowing that how many of us? are going to never believe in him, or trust him, and are going to perish in hell. It's not possible for us to be perfect, because of Satan, but God knew what Satan would do. I know it'll be wonderful, beyond wonderful, when he comes and saves us, but how about all the other people? That is why I'll never ever believe in pre-destination - that God just sat up in heaven, saying "I choose this one to believe in me, and this one to go to hell."
I'd appreciate any help. This will never make sense to a non-christian, but all we can do, is trust God. Who are we to think we can understand him?

Satan tempts us to it, and we are unable to resist.

If we're unable to resist, then why are we held responsible. The objection is that God has created the world such that there is evil, and therefore He is not good.

Yet what kind of God is it that we serve? Fun, you say? You seriously call the cross fun? Any time you think to accuse God, remember what He did.

“I see everything,” he cried, “everything that there is. Why does each thing on the earth war against each other thing? Why does each small thing in the world have to fight against the world itself? Why does a fly have to fight the whole universe? Why does a dandelion have to fight the whole universe? For the same reason that I had to be alone in the dreadful Council of the Days. So that each thing that obeys law may have the glory and isolation of the anarchist. So that each man fighting for order may be as brave and good a man as the dynamiter. So that the real lie of Satan may be flung back in the face of this blasphemer, so that by tears and torture we may earn the right to say to this man, ‘You lie!’ No agonies can be too great to buy the right to say to this accuser, ‘We also have suffered.’

“It is not true that we have never been broken. We have been broken upon the wheel. It is not true that we have never descended from these thrones. We have descended into hell. We were complaining of unforgettable miseries even at the very moment when this man entered insolently to accuse us of happiness. I repel the slander; we have not been happy. I can answer for every one of the great guards of Law whom he has accused. At least—”

He had turned his eyes so as to see suddenly the great face of Sunday, which wore a strange smile.­

“Have you,” he cried in a dreadful voice, “have you ever suffered?”

As he gazed, the great face grew to an awful size, grew larger than the colossal mask of Memnon, which had made him scream as a child. It grew larger and larger, filling the whole sky; then everything went black. Only in the blackness before it entirely destroyed his brain he seemed to hear a distant voice saying a commonplace text that he had heard somewhere, “Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of?”

~From The Man Who Was Thursday

TBG

've had a lot of questions lately - why would God make us, knowing that how many of us? are going to never believe in him, or trust him, and are going to perish in hell. It's not possible for us to be perfect, because of Satan, but God knew what Satan would do. I know it'll be wonderful, beyond wonderful, when he comes and saves us, but how about all the other people? That is why I'll never ever believe in pre-destination - that God just sat up in heaven, saying "I choose this one to believe in me, and this one to go to hell."

Here's my perspective on all this.

First of all, there is a distinction between what God desires, and what God allows. God allows many things to happen that He does not want to happen. This is the core of much of the suffering in this world: it is suffering that God does not want to happen, and in fact, He experiences sorrow alongside us during those times.

To understand why He even allows suffering, then, the key is that God desires relationship between Himself and His creation. (Note that He does not need us in any way; He created humans because He wants us.) However, one critical part of relationship is that it has to be freely entered into by both sides. God has all the power to force us into relationship with Him, but He wants us to be an important part of that relationship, so He does not do that. Rather, he offers us the choice of entering into relationship with Him.

Unfortunately, part of allowing for that choice is allowing humans to turn away from Him. This is a necessary part of relationship, and is why God allows Satan to try to tempt humans to turn away from Him. And when Satan did just that with Adam and Eve, it was pretty much a big heartbreak for God. Not only had His creation chosen to avoid relationship with Him, but their hearts were such that they would tend towards this avoidance from then on. And what was worse, because God is holy and desires justice, humans could not come back to relationship with Him, and would suffer death as punishment for their sins.

The rest of the Biblical story, then, was God's great plan to bring humans back into relationship with Him. To do that, God would send His Son to die on the cross, taking in his place the punishment due for us. Then, as long as any given human was willing to turn to Him and accept a relationship with Him, God would joyfully re-enter into relationship with that person, and through His power free him from the bindings that caused his heart to tend to turn away from God. (As was mentioned before, this was applied retroactively, too, so the same concept applied even in the Old Testament times.) And, of course, while their physical bodies might decay, their soul would never die, but experience eternal life with God.

With all that said, I'd like to address the whole predestination thing. It's a tricky topic, and one that is hard to fully address. But here's a way to look at it.

Remember, God desires that all of us choose Him. However, he allows us to reject Him. And since God is all-powerful, "allowing" is, for Him, the same as "choosing". If someone has rejected Him and is about to die and go to Hell, God certainly has a choice: allow him to perish, or force him into faith. However, because the latter does not count as relationship, it completely goes against the very nature of God, and thus, He does not choose to do that.

In this sense, the picture of God up in heaven saying "This one goes to heaven, this one to hell" is rather inaccurate. For a more accurate picture, consider God as a husband whose wife has had an affair and wants to divorce him and remarry this other guy. And he knows this other guy will only bring her despair. So he pleads with her to reconsider, to come back to him and start their relationship anew. But in the end, she refuses. He could just kidnap her and lock her in the house if he wanted to, but he knows that would not be best, so in sadness, he lets her go off into the life she has chosen.

Now, all that said, by no means is God inactive here, just letting people decide on their own whether they wish to come to Him. He's at work, doing his "pleading" by working directly in their lives, or through those other humans that He's already in relationship with. And this latter part is particularly important, because God also desires that his humans be in relationship with each other--in that sense, He does leave a lot of work in the hands of His children. (His children, still having to struggle with sin, will mess things up a lot, but God knows that just cleaning up after them every time and not letting them learn lessons is not best for them.)

Ultimately, because God desires relationship, His choice for what He allows is to be co-workers with His creation. He does His part, and if creation does their part, then relationship is formed and all is well. But if creation does not do their part, He allows for the consequences of that to happen, because that is also part of relationship. This is all part of the strange union of sovereignty and free will that certainly can be confusing to grasp.

That's my view. If you want another view on this, I recommend watching this video. As the video suggests, I would also recommend doing your own research on this.

But do you really think arguing theology with people on the internet will change any of this? I'm sure you already realize it won't. There must be some other reason why you would devote so much of your time to carefully forming out arguments for us to read.

That's why I specifically said that for this topic, I'm just responding to issues that have been brought up from my point of view. I'm not on a crusade to de-convert NarniaWeb, that'd be pointless. I only happen to be debating this way because the conversation has morphed quite a bit since the moment I initially jumped in.

One of the arguments you made against Christianity was that you thought it was a time-waster; that the people who spend all their time praying and serving God would end up wasting their lives -- a life which could have been put to better use. Therefore, it would be contradictory for you yourself to waste your time debating religion with people on the internet, if you thought there was no point to it.

The reason I don't mind spending a lot of time being involved in these debates is because I think they have some educational merit. I've learned some new things about Ancient History and the Bible through both researching material for posts and reading people's responses, and I've also been able to test and tweak a lot of my arguments so I'll be better prepared to present them in real-life debates with Christians.

Waggawerewolf27, I'm not doubting that Abraham is a real historical figure or that Jesus never existed, or that Moses probably had an extremely hard time keeping the Israelites in line. I just don't think God set it up to be easy for himself with such a rebellious, ill-behaved group as his "Chosen People". I thought that was the whole point of destroying the world in Noah's Flood - to start over with a culture that really respected God. The human race as a whole dissolved back into generally evil, sinful heathens in a very quick time period.

Jesus was the man who told the Pharisees that the one who is without sin is the one who should cast the first stone, whereas to this day, stoning women taken in adultery is a horrifying local custom in places like Afghanistan or Nigeria which hold to Islamic beliefs - they say.

But as I'm sure you're aware, the Israelites were commanded to stone women for similar crimes as well (such as failing to present sufficient evidence of virginity on a wedding night). Since you think that the local Islamic custom in Afghanistan or Nigeria is horrifying, maybe you can understand why I feel so repulsed by many of the practices of Hebrews in ancient times.

God is life. As for the Israelites, as I mentioned before, that is the sort of thing invaders do. They don't need God, Thor or any other deity as a justification to do what common sense dictates if they want to survive as individuals or as a nation. Failure to do what they did had consequences, the chief of which was that they would not survive themselves for very long.

This (and the rest of what you said) just causes me to wonder why God would want Israel to even be surrounded by such giant, sinful civilizations in the first place. Israel was a tiny country surrounded by enormously powerful empires. Israel can hardly be a light to the nations if it is constantly struggling to survive, and God has to use the sinful empires to punish the Israelites for misbehaving!

If someone is using the doubt surrounding certain books to protest Christianity as unintelligible or 'confused', then the issue does really become a smokescreen. Is that what is happening here?

I don't view the issue as a smokescreen, and neither does Rose. The issue of doubt surrounding certain books was incredibly important to me while I was still a Catholic. Catholics will justify with verses from the Apocrypha many of their beliefs that Protestants criticize.

Approximately half of all Christians believe in the infallibility of one set of books, and the other half of all Christians believe in the infallibility of another set of books. To me, that's a huge problem with the infallibility argument because there is not a definitive majority amongst Christians that supports a particular set of books. If one is to go so far as to defend every single individual verse in the Bible, one cannot automatically dismiss six whole books.

The fact is that we all deserve [death]. God had already marked the Canaanites for destruction in Genesis.

The reason that Canaanites were even marked for destruction is one that I find ridiculous to begin with. When I read the passage about Canaan's "evil" act that got him cursed, it doesn't seem like Canaan even did anything bad. He happened to see his father in an unsightly state because he couldn't help it...if one walks into a room and sees something they shouldn't that they didn't know would be there, it's an accident, not their fault for looking. Canaan's brothers never ended up seeing Noah because they had been warned by Canaan. Cursing all of Canaan's descendants with a horrible fate for this does not sound like personal moral accountability to me.

While we're at it, why is it okay for J.R.R. Tolkien to create characters, and civilizations, design them to be evil, and then destroy them for being as evil as he had made them? See the problem?

The problem is that the only place Middle Earth exists is in our minds. Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, and the orcs aren't sentient beings that can experience physical pain. J.R.R. Tolkien didn't dream up Gollum's storyline in his mind with the intention of any sort of conscious creature having to go through the same experiences.

Here, I'm going to write a one-sentence story about a man named Biff. One day, Biff was thrown into a wood chipper. OOOOOHHHHHHHHH I KILLED SOMEONE I'M SO EVIL...no, I didn't actually kill anyone. "Biff" was never more than a concept.

Because only the Christian God matters. Look at every other religion: every other faith is a salvation roulette wheel. Islm? Allah is an inscrutable totally other who is not bound even by his covenants. Judaism? Keep an unkeepable law and you'll live. Buddhism? Walk around in circles toward an unreachable goal. And the thing is with each of these is that, if you're a good Christian, you're still ok---no really. If their versions of salvation by works are correct, then a Christian can attain it too. On the other hand, if Jesus is risen, then He's the only way. Christianity is the only really exclusive religion.

And the problem I see with all of that is that Christianity used to be Judaism...which was exactly what you said, keep an unkeepable law and you'll live, otherwise you'll be exiled or stoned or burned or something. If I had happened to live before Christianity existed, it would've been impossible to be a Chrisitian.

How do we know that the one ultimate true religion won't have it's prophet/deity descend upon us sometime in the future?

Cursing all of Canaan's descendants with a horrible fate for this does not sound like personal moral accountability to me.

Thankfully, the Bible is not individualistic either. Collective moral accountability is a very important aspect of Scriptural teaching as well. The sin of one taints the whole. And actually, the Canaanites were specifically marked for destruction when God gave Canaan to Abraham and told him that his descendents would claim the land when the wickedness of the Canaanites had reached its full measure.

The problem is that the only place Middle Earth exists is in our minds.

I'm tempted at this point to argue that the world only exists in the mind of God---but a foray into Berkeley's philosophy, as amusing as it would be, is beside the point.

More to the point, though: why is it so wrong that God has jurisdiction over life and death? Why do you think it so wrong that God has the right to deal death and judgment? And where do you get this standard fo judgment?

If I had happened to live before Christianity existed, it would've been impossible to be a Chrisitian.

Read Hebrews 11. The saints of old trusted Christ. God's election transcends historical accidents.

How do we know that the one ultimate true religion won't have it's prophet/deity descend upon us sometime in the future?

Because revelation is complete.

TBG

Thank you very much for your answers, The Black Glove, and Stardf. I really like your point, Stardf, but whenever someone brings it up, I have to ask. Is anyone who calls themselves a Christian going to say that God doesn't know everything that ever happened, and ever will? He knew that so many of us would refuse him, and then perish in hell, he knew that despite his own suffering (thanks SOO much for that quote, TBG - it's an amazing book), so many people wouldn't believe. So why would he make a world, make all of us, when he knew we would go to hell?
But now that makes him sound like a puppet, who's just sitting watching helplessly. I really like your description of pre-destination, but I still can't really understand it. But no one ever has, have they? He knows what will happen, he can change it, but he chooses not to?
But who are we to know? Thanks for your reproof, TBG - I needed it.

In this sense, the picture of God up in heaven saying "This one goes to heaven, this one to hell" is rather inaccurate. For a more accurate picture, consider God as a husband whose wife has had an affair and wants to divorce him and remarry this other guy. And he knows this other guy will only bring her despair. So he pleads with her to reconsider, to come back to him and start their relationship anew. But in the end, she refuses. He could just kidnap her and lock her in the house if he wanted to, but he knows that would not be best, so in sadness, he lets her go off into the life she has chosen.

I created my child. I created his world and gave him everything. I love him and want him to enter into a relationship with his creator (me.) But, he has the choice to reject that relationship, despite the emotional turmoil it would cause me. Have I set aside a trap door under his feet leading to a furnace of fire, that opens the moment he says "I don't love you father?" No, I have not. My love is absolute. I wouldn't dare subject my children to such passive aggressive narcissism.

He knew that so many of us would refuse him, and then perish in hell, he knew that despite his own suffering (thanks SOO much for that quote, TBG - it's an amazing book), so many people wouldn't believe. So why would he make a world, make all of us, when he knew we would go to hell?

And now you're starting to understand why people disbelieve in this deity. The contradictions he creates are so immense that they are irreconcilable. Regardless of how many biblical hurdles you jump over, ultimately you'll come back to this same question; the only answer is to "have faith," or "who are we to know the answer?" It's completely circular, and ultimately, I can't subscribe to it.

Berserker, the fact is that we were created for relationship with God. God doesn't need us, but we need Him and when we reject Him, cut ourselves off from Him, He says, "fine, have it your way. I'll remove myself." And at that point He gives us over to sin and we waste away in sin, becoming little shadows of ourselves because we've cut ourselves off from that which gives life. The image (and it is an image) of fire is used because of the way that sin burns away the soul. C.S. Lewis powerfully depicts this in his novel The Great Divorce.

And now you're starting to understand why people disbelieve in this deity. The contradictions he creates are so immense that they are irreconcilable.

What contradiction, precisely, do you see? Reconciling God's justice with His mercy can be difficult on a practical level, but it's not contradictory.

For those truly questioning, I can recommend this series of interviews with Tim Keller. EDIT: several banned topics are discussed in this video, so please do not discuss them. If you are unsure of what these might be, review the forum rules.

TBG

Interesting thoughts, Fencer. I'll be on the lookout for those titles.

As for desert islands---this is why you commit Scripture to memory.

I wonder how many Christians have the entire Bible committed to memory.

What about the poor soul who didn't care a bit for religion or the Bible or anything until God brings him to his knees in isolation? I suppose he's just been forsaken whether he repents and reaches for God or not?

So is the problem with the Bible or with you?

Actually, the problem originates with God, because he created me to be a sensitive person that has this peculiar aversion to things like children being massacred. Always have, and I hope I always will.

Then pray that God would let you see His word for what it is.

Nope, can't even use that phraseology: saying it's his word indicates that it's. . . his word. But I what I will pray for, and I do pray for, is to see the Bible for what it is. Including all versions.

I was thinking the books of James and Revelation, actually. The apocryphal books---well, he recognized that those were never Scripture to begin with. This is the distinction you have to understand: we're not deciding what is canon---we are recognizing what God has already inspired.

And that's exactly what I am doing when I look at portions of scripture and say, "I do not believe that is the word of God," and what I am doing when I look at other verses and feel God's presence. Who's to say I'm wrong and you're right? Who's to say you're wrong and the Catholics are right?

Picking and choosing is a recurring theme here, isn't it?

We'll go with the 66 books which all Christians recognize. You have to understand that God speaks through both the reading and proclamation of the word. We can go into details later, but there is a broad consensus here, and frankly, the apocrypha issue is a smokescreen.

No, you can't talk about the importance of believing in the whole Bible and then say, "Well, we'll just go with the 66 books everyone agrees on."

People who are interested in the truth don't perpetrate smokescreens. I think there's something fundamentally wrong with your argument of believing in the whole Bible when you yourself may not be believing in the whole Bible.

Ah, but you can't say this. On what authority do you have this? Is this God's word speaking, or your own thoughts? I'm not saying I doubt your salvation---I'm saying that without infallible Scripture, you should be the one in doubt about it.

Freedom of speech?

I'm not going to believe the Bible is infallible just because I'm scared of condemnation if I don't. I don't believe in letting fear fuel my beliefs or actions, and I'm pretty sure God wouldn't like it either.

I would be in far more doubt about the fate of my immortal soul if, driven by fear, I tried to put faith in something that does not make sense to me, and does not ring true in my heart. Wouldn't do a mite of good for anything or anybody when all is said and done.

Look up Jesus' teachings on the Sabbath. For example, when the Pharisees berated the disciples for picking grain as they walked on the Sabbath. What the Pharisees had done here was to bind consciences beyond the teaching of Scripture (by the way, this is why Reformed Protestants, like myself, hold to Sola Scriptura).

What I find very problematic about this is that one moment Jesus is telling the Pharisees that a law permitting divorce—scripture!—was wrong and defied the will of God, and then the next, he berates them for not recognizing that David eating consecrated bread—again, scripture!—was a truly righteous act within the will of God. How were they supposed to know what was actually right, based on scripture alone?

How is one supposed to approach scripture when that's the way it works? It strikes me to be more of a test than anything else. Frankly, seems to indicate that Christ was encouraging picking and choosing, and scolding those who got it wrong. Don't know what else it could mean.

Whether they were seeing something in its real form or something symbolic, it might be hard to tell because, either way, they couldn't fully comprehend what they were seeing.

So in that case, the only thing in the Bible that we know is symbolic would be the parables?

Confusing scriptures are made clear by other scriptures. Scripture explains scripture. If you haven't seen this yet, it's most likely because you haven't finished reading/studying yet.

We'll see.

I believe the "real Bible" is the 66 books in standard Bibles. That's why I asked for an explanation of why the other books are left out. It helps to know the history.

Only trouble with that is one man's history is not always the same as the next guy's.

It might be easier than you think. When you read a book of philosophy by someone, you're able to find out what they believe, right? Even if it's different from what you believe?

It's one thing to read something that was written by one person as their personal belief system, or talk to someone about their philosophy. It's an entirely different ballgame when you are reading something with the idea that This Is Supposed To Be God's Word, and that you're going to build your entire faith around it. That's where the thousands of denominations come from, because that's how the majority of Christians view the Bible, and then they have to figure out how to deal with what it says.

I'm lucky in the respect that, when it comes to Bible infallibility, I can take it or leave it, and don't have to read the Bible with the task of rearranging everything it says into something I'm comfortable believing in. So I will probably have a better chance of understanding whatever message the Bible succeeds in expounding as a whole. But it doesn't mean I will like it or agree with it.

What about the poor soul who didn't care a bit for religion or the Bible or anything until God brings him to his knees in isolation? I suppose he's just been forsaken whether he repents and reaches for God or not?

This was to TBG, but let me chime in. The fact is, we aren't told about the mechanics of extraordinary situations. We have to trust in God's dispensation here. I do not understand why it is needful to know the precise workings - that God is merciful and ever-willing that men come to knowledge of Him should be enough to satisfy our minds. TBG seems to me to be charting the normative means of doing so - but, to allude to something Timothy Keller said in that video, that fact that God has not disclosed to us any 'trap door' doesn't mean, a priori, that there is not one. We are working on a need-to-know basis. Or ( ), "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent."

Waggawerewolf27, I'm not doubting that Abraham is a real historical figure or that Jesus never existed, or that Moses probably had an extremely hard time keeping the Israelites in line. I just don't think God set it up to be easy for himself with such a rebellious, ill-behaved group as his "Chosen People". I thought that was the whole point of destroying the world in Noah's Flood - to start over with a culture that really respected God. The human race as a whole dissolved back into generally evil, sinful heathens in a very quick time period.

Jesus did exist as easily the most influential person in world history. There were plenty to attest to his existence, not only friends like the Apostles Peter, Paul, John, James and others. But also other Christians who wrote about Jesus, Romans like Tacitus or Suetonius, or the Jewish historian, Josephus, who, not being followers of Jesus could be considered as objective witnesses. Stephen the Martyr was stoned to death for his belief in Christ, and Paul, who survived a stoning himself, was also executed by the Romans under the Emperor Nero.

With all that going on, with the Pharisees, the Sanhedrin and the Romans on their case, it would be a fairly big lie to make, to die for, if there really hadn't been such a person. That is what convinces me that Jesus Christ did live, and since nobody ever found the body, that Jesus Christ also rose from the dead.

Why the Israelites? Well God promised Abraham he would look after his descendants, and yes, he did.

But as I'm sure you're aware, the Israelites were commanded to stone women for similar crimes as well (such as failing to present sufficient evidence of virginity on a wedding night). Since you think that the local Islamic custom in Afghanistan or Nigeria is horrifying, maybe you can understand why I feel so repulsed by many of the practices of Hebrews in ancient times.

I have made a note of your previous Biblical references, and am glad when you supplied them. As this is a PG site, and we have to be careful what we say, it is definitely a good idea to supply the Biblical reference pertinent to what you say, without the embarrassment of quoting what actually was said. I found a Good News Bible that is easy to read and to follow, and found the following in Exodus and Leviticus, the main legal areas.

1. Slavery: Exodus 21:1-11 deals with the foreign and Israelite slave issue, especially how it affects women. This area goes to considerable length to protect the rights of women sold into slavery, er, marriage. Exodus 21:12-26 deals with penalties for violent acts. An injured slave is to be set free, it is illegal to kidnap a man to sell him into slavery and if you get injured in a fight there might be damages to pay. There are all sorts of financial penalties that sound strangely modern to my way of thinking. Much of this section of the Torah has deep echoes in what in England later became known as Common Law, also an influence in USA law and especially here, Down Under.

2. Moral laws etc.: Chapter 22: 16-31 deals with some of the issues you mention, including the infamous verse condemning to death any woman who practises magic, plus those who offer sacrifices to strange gods and those who indulge in practices possibly in relationship to those strange gods. Israelites are to treat foreigners well, and are further not to speak ill of God or of their leaders - a hard ask for the Prophets I would think. Chapter 23 deals with honesty, justice and fairness, moreso than you think.

Now those Leviticus immorality laws. Leviticus starts with heaps of sacrificial offering, sin offering, and financial repayment offerings. (And I was grizzling about the hour or more I spent on the phone about an insurance claim ) I think you are referring to Leviticus 18 in particular:

It starts off with this: The Lord told Moses to say this to the people of Israel, "I am the Lord your God. Do not follow the practices of the people of Egypt, where you once lived, or of the people in the land of Canaan, where I am now taking you." This chapter concludes (verse 30) by saying. "Obey the commands I give, and do not follow the practices of the people who lived in the land before you"

This is ever so important. Last June I visited the Tutankhamen Exhibition currently being shown at the Melbourne Museum, and was gobsmacked at what was shown. It seems that this Pharaoh, who might well have lived at the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or their descendants, was married to a half-sister, and his parents were also siblings. No wonder then that the Israelites were specifically warned not to engage in such practices.

And let us not forget what the Canaanites got up to. In this section, I noticed prohibitions of and penalties against seances and consulting the dead. Another restriction, the one I think you meant, concerns ritual cleanliness, which when stripped of its Biblical mystique and coy Biblical English terms, turns out to be nothing more than basic ordinary sanitation, given they might not have had plumbing or personal hygiene products in that day and age.

Oh yes, the stoning is only mentioned once or twice in this whole section, specifically where we'd use a gun. Some people were to get the death penalty, but not necessarily by stoning. Yes stoning is a horrible way to die. St Paul survived being stoned, but not Stephen the Martyr. But in Nigeria or in the Taliban's Afghanistan when it happened, it seemed strangely one-sided compared to its mention in the Bible, which kills all participants in such deeds. In this day and age, especially as we respect life, we would think stoning is horrible when we have alternative and more merciful methods of killing people, where the death penalty is used. But much of the stoning that happens in Afghanistan or Nigeria is especially horrible because it is inflicted on women only, not on their partners, which is not how stoning is depicted in Exodus and Leviticus, and is downright hypocritical, given that "it takes two to tango".

For a rough guide to execution methods check out the Assyrians, who flayed people alive, or impaled errant women. They were the ones in the Bible who the Prophets warned would massacre Israelite children in the garish methods MforA refers to. The Romans of course crucified people they had contempt for, and according to the Biblical book of Daniel, the Babylonians and Persians also had some horrible sorts of executions, such as immolation in a furnace or being fed to the Lions, something else their Roman cousins liked to do.

This (and the rest of what you said) just causes me to wonder why God would want Israel to even be surrounded by such giant, sinful civilizations in the first place. Israel was a tiny country surrounded by enormously powerful empires. Israel can hardly be a light to the nations if it is constantly struggling to survive, and God has to use the sinful empires to punish the Israelites for misbehaving!

Now that is where you are wrong. Could Israel been of much help to themselves or anyone else in the World, being isolated in a strange place that nobody knew of properly until after 1770? Besides in the wide sweep of history, empires rise and fall, only to revive again if they have the right leaders. UK is one of the very few nations which have divested themselves of an empire more or less amicably.

The Assyrians and the Babylonians were competitors over a longish period from the time of Abraham's Ur to the onset of the Persian Empire, under which the Hebrews were given the right of return to Jerusalem. Sometimes the Babylonians were in ascendancy and other times the Assyrians. But it was stupid of the Northern Kingdom of Israel's kings to get so involved with politics - the best way for Israel and Judah to survive was to mind their own business, remain true to their distinctive beliefs and keep their heads down.

Besides, military might is hardly the only reason why some nations grow strong then collapse. I am reading a book, Germs, Genes & Civilizations: how epidemics shaped who we are today, by David P. Clarke (2010). On page 2 he observes:

The Ancient world had no knowledge of bacteria. Instead most ancient cultures believed that epidemics were one of the main ways that the gods expressed their displeasure. In the Bible, pestilence is often a punishment for wickedness, both for disobedience by the Israelites, themselves, and for intrusions by outsiders. For example, an epidemic saved the holy city of Jerusalem from Assyrian invaders...

I wouldn't go worshipping bacteria at this point, even if it is good bacteria. But don't you find it really interesting that Leviticus puts so much emphasis on diet and hygiene? No wonder that Israel is still with us when many of their ancient foes have bitten the dust!

I'm sorry I couldn't answer in a smaller post. I think the subject is so important.

Actually, the problem originates with God, because he created me to be a sensitive person that has this peculiar aversion to things like children being massacred. Always have, and I hope I always will.

Ok, fine. However, I think we need to take a step back here because I think we've all missed the real issue here: Jesus.

Jesus, in the Gospels, treats Scripture as authoritative. Now if Jesus is who He says He is---the Son of God---then His followers are going to have to do the same. There's no getting around it.

And that's exactly what I am doing when I look at portions of scripture and say, "I do not believe that is the word of God," and what I am doing when I look at other verses and feel God's presence. Who's to say I'm wrong and you're right? Who's to say you're wrong and the Catholics are right?

But you can't do this is isolation. You have to submit to the Spirit working in the community of believers and the fact is that there are 66 books out there that the whole community of believers, whether Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or whatever, agree are the inspired Word of God.

Yes, I'm skipping apocrypha again because it's not the real issue (and going into the concept of deuterocanon and its authority versus the rest of Scripture is a tangent).

I would be in far more doubt about the fate of my immortal soul if, driven by fear, I tried to put faith in something that does not make sense to me, and does not ring true in my heart. Wouldn't do a mite of good for anything or anybody when all is said and done.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying: where do you get your notions of sin, salvation, repentance, and God apart from His word? If you don't have it from Scripture, where do you get it?

How is one supposed to approach scripture when that's the way it works? It strikes me to be more of a test than anything else. Frankly, seems to indicate that Christ was encouraging picking and choosing, and scolding those who got it wrong. Don't know what else it could mean.

What Jesus is doing is saying "Look, by focusing on the external forms, like whether divorce is legal, you are missing the point that divorce is this soul-wrenching thing that God only put in there because of your hardness of heart." Similarly with the showbread, Jesus is tellling them that acts of mercy and necessity trump ceremonial considerations. The Pharisees had focused so much on the externals that they had created this series of oral traditions that were given as much authority as Scripture and Jesus is saying "no, let Scripture interpret Scripture."

TBG

Jesus did exist as easily the most influential person in world history. There were plenty to attest to his existence.

Whoops, I mistyped in my original post there. I don't doubt that Jesus existed, at least as a person.

But much of the stoning that happens in Afghanistan or Nigeria is especially horrible because it is inflicted on women only, not on their partners, which is not how stoning is depicted in Exodus and Leviticus, and is downright hypocritical, given that "it takes two to tango".

I agree, at least in the Bible it said to stone the woman and the man. Singling out the women for the death penalty is sexism that cannot be tolerated in modern society.

However, sexism unfortunately appears through out the Bible in many other ways. I haven't made a long post listing all the examples and analyzing them yet because I've been asked to hold back on that topic for now by someone, but I'll probably do that soon.

Thankfully, the Bible is not individualistic either. Collective moral accountability is a very important aspect of Scriptural teaching as well. The sin of one taints the whole.

Explain to me why I should be punished for the crimes of my great-great-granduncle, or an insane fellow who lives across town.

And actually, the Canaanites were specifically marked for destruction when God gave Canaan to Abraham and told him that his descendents would claim the land when the wickedness of the Canaanites had reached its full measure.

Yes, but Canaan's family was cursed a long time before that because of something Caanan's father did.

And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son [Ham] had done unto him. And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Genesis 9:24-27)

Biblical scholar Philip R. Davies says that the author of this narrative used Noah to curse Canaan, in order to provide justification for the later Israelites driving out and enslaving the Canaanites.

I'm tempted at this point to argue that the world only exists in the mind of God---but a foray into Berkeley's philosophy, as amusing as it would be, is beside the point.

Amusing indeed.

*looks at Biff* Worship me, fool, worship me!

Biff: But I'm only going to end up doing what you imagine me to do...what's the point of asking me to do anything?

Well, this is getting boring fast.

More to the point, though: why is it so wrong that God has jurisdiction over life and death? Why do you think it so wrong that God has the right to deal death and judgment?

Because then God has declared himself unaccountable for his actions. God can do whatever he please without accusation. He doesn't need to deal out judgement fairly or ever give any justification because it is impossible to question him. Historically, God has dealt out death and judgement in varying amounts of fairness. In the Old Testament, he sometimes used earthquakes to punish certain offending groups. Nowadays, it seems that all the people worthy of God's earth-shaking wrath coincidentally live near fault lines. In the New Testament, God strikes down Ananias and Sapphira for simply lying to look more generous in their Church giving than they really were. Nowadays, religious leaders like Peter Popoff can scam thousands of gullible Christians with out so much as a scratch.

Read Hebrews 11. The saints of old trusted Christ. God's election transcends historical accidents.

Then God shouldn't have had the Israelites thinking that burning animal carcasses would forgive them of their sins. The idea in the old testament was that animal sacrifice was the way to appease God (because he liked the smell of the burning flesh), not by being truly sorry and accepting God's offer for a relationship.

I watched the series of interviews with Tim Keller, very interesting stuff. It was a lot to digest, so I'll have to think some more about what he said before I give my comments on it.

A couple things here. The curse of Ham (Cannan) was not due to him walking in on Noah's naked drunkenness, but his boasting about it to his brothers. Shem and Japeth did something about it and Ham didn't. That was the purpose of Noah's curse.

You mention sexism. The Bible teaches more respect for women than any other culture in the world. There are plenty of stories in the Old Testament where women played significant roles in the affairs. Deborah is one of the major judges, who ruled over Israel for a good length of time. Ester was a queen to the most powerful man in the world at the time and could turn his head however she desired. Now did women have voting rights or political power? Outside the few given examples, not really, but as I've said many times, you are basing your judgement of the culture based on the mindset of today. This doesn't work.

Now you also mention something very big. "Fairness". Trust me. You don't want things to be 'fair'. If things were fair, you and I, as well as the rest of America would be living in the same extreme poverty as the entire rest of the world. If things were fair, you too could be killed for telling a lie like Ananias and Sapphira were. If things were fair, not a single one of us would go to heaven and each one of us would perish in hell. Fairness is nowhere to be found in the Bible or anywhere in life. You accuse God of having no one to be accountable to. Well, who could he be accountable to if it were possible? Who or what is greater than infinity? How could infinity be held to a finite standard? It doesn't work.