1. God is above right and wrong
2. There are some actions that are clearly wrong
3. Having said that, if God tells you to do something, all bets are off
4. With the caveat that we are frail humans able to interpret things a-wrong
5. Given the above
a. We should do what is clearly right and avoid the clearly wrong
b. Unless God tells us to do something, in which we ought to do what God says (and give others the grace to allow them to do the same)
c.
We should take any actions we think that God tells us to do insofar as it involves our own lives and welfare. But we should not take actions towards others unless asked by them.
What say ye? Is this a guideline we can all unite behind?
76 comments:
Seems to be going in circles a bit . . . "some actions are clearly wrong" because God says they are . . . so we know what is right and wrong based on what God says . . . so if God says something we know it is right . . . so how could he say something that is wrong?
The question is, "Did God really say it?" I share your premise that it is unlikely for God to tell me to kill or horde - or to support "gay marriage" - because that clearly contradicts his revealed Word.
In the Bible, how did people know God was speaking? There were miraculous signs. There were direct commands. There were multiple messages (Acts 10-11). And so on.
People put their lives on the line when claiming to speak for God (Deut. 18), so they were much less likely to flippantly claim to speak for God like many do today.
"In the Bible, how did people know God was speaking? There were miraculous signs. There were direct commands."
Okay, so when you have miraculous signs and direct commands against gay marriage or in favor of genocide (at God's command), maybe I'll agree with you. Lacking that, we have a disagreement on what the Bible does and doesn't teach on these topics.
You say that it is unlikely that God will tell you to kill because it cleary contradicts God's revealed Word, but it doesn't.
God quite clearly commands people in the OT to commit genocide and infanticide. IF you insist on taking that as a literal truth, then sometimes it must be okay to commit these atrocities - isn't that what you're saying (please correct me if I'm wrong)?
I'm saying that we need not take any such stories as literal truths.
And why? Not because I'm trying to remake God in my image, but rather because it contradicts God's revelation of God's Self elsewhere within the Bible, as I think you agree.
I'll agree that for literalists to take their positions, it requires a bit of circular reasoning and setting aside of consistency. I'm not sure where there is any circular reasoning in the "razor" above...
Once again you are choosing what you want to have accepted as God's Word. If you are going to do that, then how would you defend against someone who wanted to remove "love your enemies" from the Bible? That doesn't make much sense to most people.
How do you know that the parts where He said to kill people aren't the "real" parts and the "love your neighbor" stuff is the false part? (That's a hypothetical, by the way - I still think it is all God's Word and we have to accept that we may not fully understand parts of it at times).
The "literalist" ad hominem cuts both ways. You are just picking different parts to be literal about.
Exactly my point. We are BOTH choosing which parts to take literally and which parts to discount.
To say that sometimes God decides to tell people to commit infanticide is to discount the passages against harming children. You can't take both parts literally, seems to me.
I'm guessing that's where you disagree. That somehow God can literally tell us to kill children and that when God does, we are relieved from adhering to the parts of the Bible which ban such behavior?
Regardless, that's the beauty of this Razor - it allows you to believe in right/wrong, it acknowledges our lack of perfection and it allows us to follow God when others might think it wrong with the exception that we don't take those actions that harm others.
You are misstating my view. I'm saying that there is a scenario where both are true. God told the Israelites as his chosen instruments to do something on his behalf that He had the right to do. Otherwise, they were not to do it. There is no contradiction there.
But you are making the claim that these verses are wrong and that they did not speak for God, and that is rather bold.
P.S. Since you are so clear on not killing innocents I assume you are squarely in the pro-life camp (except to save the life of the mother). Hopefully we're in agreement there.
Re, "If you are going to do that, then how would you defend against someone who wanted to remove "love your enemies" from the Bible?"
That is a GREAT question. Whoever has the answer, lay it on me. I know lots of flag-waving Christian warmongers who have, in effect, done just that, and they need to hear it.
I don't know the "Christian warmongers" you are referring to but I have a funny feeling that they might have some reasoning along the lines of protecting people rather than just hating their enemies. Perhaps not.
But isn't it fun when you get to pick and choose which verses are God's and which are not, and when you get to add things that aren't in the book?
Mark 9:43-38.
If you sin, and you're reading this, and typing on a keyboard, and you walked up to your computer, all without help, you might oughta rethink yer thinkin' on takin' the Bible literally.
Sigh. I get so tired of the Biblical literalists strawman. Look, I get the fact that the Bible uses figures of speech, poetry, metaphors, etc. Is it really so hard to understand that there is a difference between that and the concept that the whole thing is the Word of God? But I suppose it is so much easier to argue when you can dismiss others' views as being too literal.
Liberal theologians take all sorts of verses literally. How about if we try to take them in context? Is it so outrageous for a Christian to assume that if the passage reads, "God said . . ." that it really means, "God said . . .?"
Then, Jesus was exaggerating for effect?
Oh, I'm with Dan on the idea that we all pick and choose which verses to "believe" and to emphasize.
Asd to your last question: What's outrageous if the deification of the Bible, and the idea that 'twas always thus, when it wasn't even possible for most people to read it until the 15th century.
God's Word, as a colloquialism for God's Truth, can be found in the Bible. Not to be confused with The Word, that is, Christ.
To say the Bible "is God's Word," especially if what you really mean is the Bible "is God's words," is, well, extrabiblical. Superstitious, I think.
Sufficient unto salvation is one thing. Inerrant and infallible? No. The Bible doesn;'t even say that about itself -- as if the Bible says ANYTHING about itself.
2 Timothy 3:16-17: What is it referring to? The Old Testemant comprised "the scriptures" when it was written. Or, maybe it is referring to all of the early church's writings -- which would include some deemed heretical hundreds of years after Jesus. Or, it is referring to the Bible as we know it today -- which is superstition bordering on absurdity. Besides major branches of the Church have somewhat different lists of what they consider canonical books...
Oooooh, I'm feelin' frisky. ... But I'm off to mow the yard, during the break in the deluge!
"Is it so outrageous for a Christian to assume that if the passage reads, "God said . . ." that it really means, "God said . . .?""
If (and when) the Bible has places where it says "God said," that are followed by actions that are contradictory elsewhere in the Bible, we have to make a decision.
I see three possible choices - maybe there's others, but here's the three I see:
1. Do we discount the first thing God said (Don't kill children),
2. Do we discount the second thing God said (Kill these children), or
3. Do we say "Yes, God told us don't kill children, but since God is God, if God tells us to kill children, then we must do it."
The third option appears to be what you're saying you vote for, Neil.
So, that is why I said, in that case, my gay married friends have had God say to them, "Get married," and they have - even though you think that gay marriage is wrong. By your thinking, then, they would be right to get married, because God told them to and that trumps everything.
A point with which I agree. But you don't, even though that SEEMS to be what you're saying.
And so to revise my guess about what you're saying, it would be, "When the Bible says Not to do something, we ought not do it, UNLESS God has told us to do so and UNLESS I, Neil, think it correct."
Where am I wrong? I feel like we're not communicating well.
Where I would disagree is when someone says, "God told me to hurt someone else." God may or may not have told them that (I'm loathe to speak for God), but I'd suggest it's a horrid idea to put it into practice because of our penchant for being wrong.
Let me simplify my position a bit. Neil said:
I'm saying that there is a scenario where both are true. God told the Israelites as his chosen instruments to do something on his behalf that He had the right to do.
If that's the case, then do you back my gay married friends IF they think God led them to get married?
I must tell everyone about the pleasant conversations I've experienced over at Neil and T. Michael's places. Even though we were voicing disagreements, everyone remained polite to a fault.
I'd hope we could match that politeness here.
Dan:"Eleutheros, I hope it's okay that I assigned your name to it"
You should have guessed by now that Eleutheros is himself a hand puppet. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ... eh ... keyboard.
Dan:"Unless the action impacts negatively upon other people .."
Ah, but you see how mind bogglingly complex the whole thing is. Now we have to judge what negative impacts are! Tricksty, that.
In the 17th and 18th centuries capturing Africans and bringing them to other countries as slaves was not viewed as negative. After all, otherwise they wouldn't have the opportunity to become Christians. A lifetime of slavery is small price for going to Heaven.
Castrating pre-teen boys so they could sing for a couple more years to the glory of God was not viewed as negative.
Likewise in the middle ages medicine was viewed as negative. God made you sick and cured you, it was His will and interfering with a sickness was interfering with the will of God.
This list could go on and on.
I opine that you have to leave the negative bit out of it. So what's left? Don't muck with people unless they invite you to.
Dan,
As always, thanks for the friendly debates. It is nice to have a crowd that doesn't escalate things to the personal realm too quickly.
"my gay married friends have had God say to them, "Get married,""
Thanks for breaking through the confusion with that bit of clarity. I think we weren't communicating well before.
That you would render your gay friends' "message from God" to be on a par with scripture summarizes the problems with your view better than I could.
Looking forward to your commentary on my series this week. Hopefully you've been studying up on the questions on Romans I posed to you!
Peace,
Neil
"That you would render your gay friends' "message from God" to be on a par with scripture summarizes the problems with your view better than I could."
But Neil, aren't you the one saying that we can sometimes set aside what we perceive to be biblical commands if we think God is telling us otherwise?
I'm not understanding why it is right in your mind for the Israelites to commit genocide when ordered by God but not gays to marry if they feel so led by God?
Can you help me understand your position?
Eleutheros said:
"I opine that you have to leave the negative bit out of it. So what's left? Don't muck with people unless they invite you to."
I'll buy that. Razor amended.
That way we can still "do unto others" in a nice way (at their allowance) and that will serve the purpose of letting them make the call as to when an action has crossed over to negative.
Guys, step back a moment and look at yourselves. What does it tell you about your religion that you, as ‘love-they-neighbour, turn-the-other-cheek’ Christians, are seriously debating when it’s okay to kill children and commit genocide?
Basically what you’re saying is; anything, any form of viciousness, destruction or sick perversion, is okay if God says you can do it?
If God, the Supreme Being, who actually makes the laws of the universe, can’t come up with a moral code that doesn’t require exceptions to be made to achieve divine will, then he really doesn’t stack up as much in the ‘supreme being’ stakes. A god who supposedly loves everyone, but who from time to time tells you it’s okay (or even necessary) to commit genocide, is nothing more than a projection of the grubbier aspects of human nature.
Seems a bit ridiculous to have to argue against genocide and killing children - with Christians! - doesn't it...?
To be fair, no one here, I'm certain, really thinks that God would ever call them to commit genocide nowadays. They just think that if the Bible says that God said, "commit genocide" then that's what happened.
Where you and I and others here are coming from is it seems a bit odd to think that God would not possibly do that today, but God certainly did do it back then.
I'm with Liam.
If God ordered or asked or blessed genocide "back then" then God could do it now. Because if time itself is part of the creation, and I believe it is, then there is no "back then" or "now" with God.
We've stumbled into arguing about the attributes of a tribal deity who must be appeased, not the inscrutable God of the All That Is.
If God authorized the atrocities attributed to God in the Old Testatment, but God is quiet now, then God is either distracted, or asleep or appeased now.
WTH are we gonna do if God notices us again, or wakes up or gets pissed off all over again?
I offered rape as one of my examples of (apparently) God-ordained atrocities found in the OT, and the question "Where did God order that?!"
Sadly, it appears frequently. And I'm not talking about examples of rape being described but not necessarily endorsed, but rather specific commands.
If you're wanting to see that dark underbelly of the Bible, you can begin here:
Rape and "taking of wives":
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Making the rape victim marry their attacker:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Stoning the rapist AND his victim!
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
These last two passages are places where Laws are being written on what to do in certain cases. In the first case, God says, "If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst."
Maidens raped in the country (whose screams wouldn't be heard) are not to be punished.
To be fair, these Deuteronomy quotes are coming from Moses who says he is speaking these commands that are from the Lord, as opposed to coming directly from God's mouth.
These quotes begin way back in Deuteronomy 4, where Moses says:
In your observance of the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it...
And then a long list of sometimes funny, sometimes just and apt, sometimes horrifying set of commands "from God."
All I see is examples of sinful people and evil deeds by sinful people. Then I see a Holy God that is concerned with evil. He was then and He still is now.
If only mankind (Adam and Eve) had not chosen to sin, we would be living in the Garden of Eden but things have continued in that pattern of choosing evil over good ever since.
mom2, is rape wrong? Always?
Is forcibly taking a wife wrong? Always?
Dan:"Eleutheros, I hope it's okay that I assigned your name to it.."
Eleutheros' Razor? Well, it's not as if I have any other use for it!
Mom2:"If only mankind (Adam and Eve) had not chosen to sin, we would be living in the Garden of Eden "
That's quite a bit of speculation! Do you think God didn't know man would fall even before He made him? Are we to believe that God was blind-sided, that he slapped an omnipotent fist on the celestial throne and said, "Damn! That didn't work out like I wanted!"
If God is omniscient then He knew very well how it would all turn out. The fall, then, was part of the plan all along.
Thou, who man of baser earth didst make
And devised the garden with the snake
For all the sin wherewith man's face is blackened
Man's forgiveness give ... and take!
"Eleutheros' Razor? Well, it's not as if I have any other use for it!"
the thought crossed my mind...
I thought about that after I had posted and thought that I should have said, we had the opportunity to live in the Garden of Eden. Knowing the nature of man and because God gave us free wills, I imagine we would have been thrown out of the garden of Eden at another point of time. It is just too bad that we do not have the good sense to live God's way, because it is best.
What irks me with Dan's evaluation though is that it seems he wants to blame God. God IS Holy!
!!!???
I want to blame God?? I'm the one that is saying that I DON'T think God goes around telling us to commit these horrific acts. I'm the one that says that a reading of the whole Bible tells us that God does NOT want us to rape or kill children.
I certainly do NOT think God is at fault when people commit genocide or rape. How have you gotten that from what I've said? I said that I was with ER, in thinking it more likely that people have ascribed those actions to God to justify their actions.
That's why I'm asking you, is rape always wrong?
Dan, all your comment says to me there in that last one, is that you do not believe the Bible.
When the duck smells funny you can bet the walking is tangential to morbid frunket. Snicket querk bleep sheddooby wah.
Well there’s a choice I bet you never thought you’d have to make in a religious discussion, Dan; are you,
a) a disbelieving heretic, or,
b) a true believer, comfortable with divinely sanctioned rape and murder?
And child-killing! Don't leave that one out.
Can I pick,
C. None of the above?
Although, some of my favorite heroes have been heretics - Hubmaier, Hutter, Simons, Sattler...and Jesus, of course.
Maybe I WILL choose A, after all.
mom2, Did it ever occur to you that there might be more than one way to "believe the Bible?" It was not Dan, nor some liberal theologian, but St. Augustine of Hippo (and 85% of what most conservative evangelicals believe goes back to Augustine, whether they know it or not) who said that if anything we read in Scripture would bring dishonor to God's Name if interpreted literally, we must reinterpret said passage.
Others came to similar conclusions. In fact, one sees this principle in Scripture itself--see Heb. 1:1 . In the 1963 edition of the Baptist Faith and Message the article on Scripture ends with the statement, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." In other words, one begins with Jesus--his teachings, life, ministry, death and resurrection--and uses that as a lense or interpretive key for the rest--including what to do about passages depicting divinely commanded genocides, etc.
Ironically, that sentence was removed from the 2000 edition of the BF& M by the new "conservative" leaders who, with you, apparently, want to claim that God did order such genocides and rapes and yet is somehow still holy.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth and cannot even tell when you contradict yourself, mom2.
michael westmoreland-white, I have wondered if you have more than 2 sides to your mouth and it seems like I hear this rattling noise, when I read your comments. Nice to hear your sweet thoughts. :-)
I think you're all missing an important point, in both conversations.
God dealt with people in the OT under the 'old covenant' and in the NT, after Jesus' atonement for sin, under the 'new covenant'.
Sin can only be covered by the shedding of blood. In the OT that was done with animal sacrifice or, in the case of the wiping out of civilizations, by human death. Jesus brought about the new covenant with the shedding of his blood once and for all.
God has always demanded blood for sin, the only thing that changed was from whom he demanded it. Is it so hard to believe that a God who demanded the death of his only child, himself free from all guilt, could also demand the death of someone else's?
Yes.
Well then, if you choose not to believe, that's a problem with you, not with scripture.
Eben, I'm not disagreeing with Scripture, I'm disagreeing with your take on Scripture.
Or, put another way (for the dozenth time), you also disagree with Scripture. You're saying - despite what Jesus said about not harming children - that sometimes it's okay to kill babies.
I don't think the Bible teaches that. I think it's a mockery of God and the Bible to suggest that.
So, yes, I have a problem agreeing with you (and mom2 and Neil), but it's not a problem with the scripture.
Could just one of you answer a few straight questions? Is it always wrong to kill children? Is it always to rape women? Might God call someone to do this today? Do you think that God told someone to do so in the OT?
Really?
I don't really think you all think this but your comments thus far seem to suggest you do.
Do any of the traditionalists at least understand how VERY strange it is for the rest of us to be considered disrespectful of God or the Bible when we're the ones arguing for a more black/white, right/wrong interpretation and arguing against a God that would command rapes and infanticide - and we're doing because of what the Bible says?
It's not 'my take on scripture' it's the law of God.
His law states that blood must be shed for the covering of sin. This blood can be from people or animals. You simply can't believe that this would include children because it doesn't fit your ideal of what a god should be rather than what the God of the bible is.
He is a God that requires blood for sin. And he'll have his own son killed for it.
You're questions are answered by the bible, you just choose to ignore those answers. For example, was it right for Jesus to be tortured to death for your sins? God's child? No, it wasn't right, or just or fair or any other of the concepts you have in your mind about how God works. But, it was what was required. Would God call us to kill for sin today? Obviously not, we live under the New Covenant. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the differences between the Old and New covenant that was sealed with Christ's blood? It makes your hypotheticals moot.
Also, I'm unfamiliar with God commanding women to be raped, could you please point the scripture out to me?
I did it earlier, up above. Or look here.
"You're questions are answered by the bible, you just choose to ignore those answers."
Why is it so hard to get a direct answer to this question? If you believe that God actually DID command Israel to kill those people, including their children, then you can say, "It is always wrong to rape, commit genocide or infanticide UNLESS God tells you. But God DOES do that sometimes. Or at least he did in the past."
If that's what you believe, why is no one willing to step up and "say" it out loud and in print?
Could it be because God's very nature within us prevents us from speaking such horrors about God?
Or is there something unfair in the question itself? I know that sometimes questions are phrased in such a way as to not be easy to answer in a way that you feel comfortable. If so, tell me what's wrong with the question and I'll rephrase it.
I'm just trying to determine if you all are really saying what I think you're saying.
"It's not 'my take on scripture' it's the law of God."
Oh. My bad. I didn't realize that you were the final arbiter on God's law...
Lol, if the requirement of blood to be spilled to cover sin isn't plain to you from scripture, then arguing the rest is pointless. It doesn't require any arbitration.
Yes, killing children under the Old Covenant was a possible requirement as a payment for sin. Clear enough? Similar to the killing of men for being homosexuals or rapists. Heck, one time God even required a completely blameless, innocent child, his own, to be tortured to death to cover sin. Unbelievable, eh?
Being under the New Covenant, you'll never be asked to do those things. But, you may be required to be tortured to death yourself for being a Christian, how unloving!
Still waiting for the scripture where God commands women to be raped.
"Sin can only be covered by the shedding of blood."
This is very biblical -- and very tribal, and very Jewish, and very primitive, and very short of the mark God had in mind, I'm sure.
I get more Spongish (as in John Shelby Spong) every day when I think about how cavalierly people attribute the worst kinds of atrocities to God, then excuse it away by saying God is not to be questioned! Or understood! And they call that having faith.
I call it being willfully ignorant and being dismissive and ungrateful for the brains God gave us.
And thanks, Dan, for reminding me of one of many reasons I've shaken the dust of the Southern Baptist Convention off my boots! They ruined the BF&M in 2000 -- and brought shame on themselves.
Eben Flood:
From Dan above:
If you're wanting to see that dark underbelly of the Bible, you can begin here:
Rape and "taking of wives":
Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Making the rape victim marry their attacker:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Stoning the rapist AND his victim!
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
These last two passages are places where Laws are being written on what to do in certain cases. In the first case, God says, "If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her you shall bring them both out to the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst."
Maidens raped in the country (whose screams wouldn't be heard) are not to be punished.
To be fair, these Deuteronomy quotes are coming from Moses who says he is speaking these commands that are from the Lord, as opposed to coming directly from God's mouth.
These quotes begin way back in Deuteronomy 4, where Moses says:
In your observance of the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it...
And then a long list of sometimes funny, sometimes just and apt, sometimes horrifying set of commands "from God."
9:57 AM
Judges 21:10-24 - God didn't command anything in this scripture, the people decided it themselves.
Numbers 31:7-18 - 'but save for yourself every girl who has not slept with a man' Long stretch to call that a command from God to rape.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 'As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.' Once again, very long stretch to call this a command from God to rape.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 'then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes.' A command to rape? Hardly.
Like I thought, God never commanded anyone to be raped.
You're spongy about the shedding of blood being the requirement to cover sin? And here I thought the main tenant of Christianity was the shedding of Christ's blood to cover our sins. How primitive and tribal of Paul and Peter to believe such!
"Spong"-y, I said. As in John Shelby Spong. I don't buy everything he says, but he deserves consideration. Look him up.
Mocking me will get you nowhere. There are many ways to explain the Grace of God and the aims of Jesus -- and the beliefs and comprehension of the earliest Christians.
They were Jews. Of COURSE they saw the act on the Cross within their experience and world view.
But that's just what it is: Their experience, and their world view.
As a gentile Christian, I need venerate no Jewish beliefs about the shedding of blood, and I do not.
And yes, it *was" primitive and tribal of Peter and Paul to interpret the Cross that way.
Judiasm was literally tribal. And they were primitive, by our own standards, in everything else. I mean, they did ride livestock to get around.
Don't be so quick to take offense, Eben Flood. Although I can be quick to huffing and puffing myself, I mean no offense.
Oh, re: "And here I thought the main tenet (yer welcome) of Christianity was the shedding of Christ's blood to cover our sins."
The main tenet of Christianity is the reconciliation of humankind to God.
Blood shedding is a particular -- and admittedly widely held -- INTERPRETATION of the meaning of Jesus's death.
There are many theories of atonement. Just Google atonement and wikipedia. Or "substitutionary atonement and wikipedia.
I tend toward the "moral influence" view of atonement, myself. But I've changed my thinking a lot and often the 35 years since Jesus took aholt of me. :-)
From wikipedia:
The moral influence view of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. The idea of Christ's passion being an act of exemplary obedience which affects the intentions of those who come to know about it dates back to the early Fathers, and can be found in biblical sources as well as in the teachings of St. Augustine but its most famous proponent is the mediaeval writer Peter Abelard. More recently Hastings Rashall expounded the view in his 1915 Bampton lectures.
It can be contrasted with the so-called objective views of Christ's having affected human nature by his act, the various penal substitution views and the so-called classic view that Christ's death was a ransom or redemption, paid to the devil in order to free human kind from its bondage to sin.
You may have read my taking offense into my words although I have not taken any, it's the shortcomings of the medium.
I read the bible, you read into it and never the 'twain shall meet, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
We can agree to disagree, but I promise that you "read into" the Bible, too. It is impossible not to. For example, I'll bet that you "read into" the entire Bible that every word was written, whenever and wherever it was first penned, to us, for us, today. Maybe I'm wrong.
Eben said:
"Numbers 31:7-18 - 'but save for yourself every girl who has not slept with a man' Long stretch to call that a command from God to rape."
Well, that seems to me (and many others) to be the obvious meaning there (in a way not dissimilar to you reading Leviticus' "Men shall not lie with men" and thinking it obvious that it's a prohibition on gay marriage).
Same thing here:
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife,you may take her home to your house."
The most obvious, direct reading of that seems to me to be forcibly taking a "comely woman" as your wife and, if it doesn't work out (she fights the sex too much to make it worthwhile, perhaps), you can just "dismiss" her.
Ah, family values. That's God giving orders for the sort of marriages we've come to know and love, right?
This is treating women as chattel by God's command, as sex slaves to be kept or dismissed at the man's will.
Or it is IF you insist on reading it literally. And it's a horror. AS IS stoning a woman who has been raped or forcing her to marry the man who raped her.
Now understand, I don't for one second think God commands rape. I'm just saying the literalists endorse such a reading, as that's the message one comes away with in a literal reading of these passages.
But thanks, Eben, for giving a direct answer to my questions: Yes, you say, God DID command people to do what was normally against God's will.
And you go on to say that God doesn't do that today (at least insofar as killing others goes). But does God still do that today in ways that doesn't involve killing?
That is, does the principle still apply that God sometimes orders people to do that which would otherwise be a sin?
Well Dan, I'm a literalist and literally the word rape is not present in any of those scriptures, neither is there a command to do so.
If you want to think that there is something implied in those words about rape, that's your choice, but literally it's not there.
Literally, "rapture" is not there. Literally neither "homosexual," homosexuality" or "gay" are there. Literally ... oh, you get the gist.
Thanks, ER, you beat me to the punch.
If we're going to stick to what's literally in the Bible, the word "homosexual" appears no where in all of the Bible. There is a word that has been translated "homosexual offender," "effeminate" and "homosexual" that shows up in a couple of verses in some translations. The literal Greek word is "soft," as I recall. And translators have been unsure of how to translate it, some have chosen "homosexual," others have not.
No one knows.
As I understand it, there was a word for homosexuals in Greek. Why wouldn't they have used that word if that's the idea the writer was trying to get across?
That would be correct. The words in the NT mistranslated 'homosexual' are:
malakos which means 'soft'
and
arsenokoites
koite means 'bed' (think 'cot') and does have a sexual connotation. It is the root of the word 'coitus'. Arsen means 'male'. Some conservative lexicons and commentaries render the word as 'male or female homosexual' but this is utterly unfounded. It means 'male' pure and simple, and by extension it means 'strong'. It is the root of the world 'arsenic' = 'strong poison!'. So arsenokoites is a 'male of many beds'.
Dan:"As I understand it, there was a word for homosexuals in Greek."
None so stark and direct as our word 'homosexual'. In fact, no word at all appears in Koine Greek. The reason being quite simply that it was no big deal to people back then.
Dan, found your blog through Neil's blog. Enjoying the discussion there too ... you're holding your own very well!
Following this thread we see the disconnect, I think. While Dan is insisting that everyone interprets in some way, others (Neil, mom2) insist that they do not interpret at all.
I don't think there's much room for common ground there, unfortunately.
I have found, as we're seeing here, that it is nearly impossible to get real answers out of the "I don't interpret" crowd. Ask them about Judges 11:29-40, or 2 Kings 2:23-24 and you're likely to get basically nothing. Or, if you're lucky and they do answer you, they'll just give you the dispensationalist heresy that God worked differently back then. I guess God had some bears maul some kids because he wasn't a Christian yet, eh? :)
Anyway, excellent discussion Dan!
Alan & Dan, I suggest you read Job 40.
Thanks, Alan, and welcome to Payne Hollow. Pay no attention to mom2, she's a bit cranky...
mom2, Job 40 is the passage that says:
"Will we have arguing with the Almighty by the critic? Let him who would correct God give answer!"
I would suggest that no one here has argued with the Almighty. Rather, I disagree with your position that God commands genocide, kidnapping and rape.
So, unless someone's died and made you God, I'm not arguing with God, but you. And really, I'm not arguing with you, merely asking questions that go unanswered...
Such as, Is it your position that God sometimes commands us to do that which God has said elsewhere NOT to do? Or DID God used to do that, but doesn't do it any longer?
As always, I'd love to know your answer. If you're only going to respond, though, by saying that by disagreeing with you, I'm disagreeing with God, then don't let the door smack your hiney on the way out...
Dan, You sure do a good job of ducking. If you will go back and read, I did not say a word, I directed you to read God's Word. As an after thought, Job 41 is good also.
...she said as she ignored the question yet again...
Dan,
I think one key verse that seems to stop people in their tracks in Lev 20:13. Of course, most of the anti-homosexuality crowd make the case, as Neil has here, that Lev 18:22 is not a ceremonial law, but is binding today. Yet they do not do the same with Lev 20:13. Thus, not only do they pick and choose which verses to take literally, this example shows us that they even pick and choose which parts of which verses to take literally!
mom2: You should have read a bit further. Job 42 might be instructive. :)
Confessing that I did not read all 68 comments here, may I ask why we must place God above or outside of right and wrong, good and evil. I don't know if God wants to be off those hooks.
Hmm. I'd say because both "good" and "evil" are words representing human attempts to explain and describe something, and that such attempts are always faulty by definition, since they are human, and that God, being God, is inscrutable.
If God is inscrutable then we don't have a chance. Hidden perhaps, or difficult, but hopefully if we are in the image of God, that means there is a commonality which allows scrutinization and scrutability. My thought is that good itself is the clue. Therefore, we can't say God is above good, we say, "hey, this tells me the very thing I need to know about God."
Inscrutable may be something of an overstatement. Glass darkly and all that, though. The closest thing Christians have to a clean lens to see God is Jesus, who is reported to have said, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good, but God in heaven." So, yer right: God is good. Figuring out what that means exactly is part of the journey.
I’m sorry if this sounds blunt, ER, but “inscrutable” (much the same as “working in mysterious ways”) is no more than an intellectual cop-out used when people can’t reconcile the demonstrable facts with what they want to believe about God.
BRD is right; if God really is inscrutable then it’s just as likely that Yahweh is stood behind a curtain somewhere snickering at how gullible the gentiles are, thinking they can achieve salvation, as it is that he changed his mind about who gets into heaven in the first place.
And I retracted my use of the word. Or tried to.
However, the notion that wee see God, nd God's ways, "through a galss darkly" is scriptural, and as such, is worthy of serious consideration.
I'm with ER on this, sorta.
I'm a very practical person with a practical faith. I think Christianity "makes sense," for instance. If we lived in a world where everyone operated on a Do unto others basis, we'd be all right. If we lived in a world in which everyone operated under a Lookin' out for myself basis, we'd be screwed.
It just makes practical sense to me.
Having said that, I do think there is something to the notion of the Great Mystery. Of a God that is beyond our thinking. That we do see things through a glass darkly.
So I reckon I see some of both angles, tending to live in the practical realm, but acknowledging there's more than meets the eye...
Yes! and amen to the fact that being under the new covenant frees us up to many things - ex. we should no longer be, since Christ, under the curse given at the expulsion, yet we cling to the old, and don't want the new - too free and scary, I guess (look how long it took women to get back the equality they had been given divinely before the fall) .
Yes! and amen to the reality that we only see dimly, and won't understand until we've crossed into the ultimate dimension - but that's so hard for humans to accept - in that respect we're all control freaks.
So let's lighten up and understand that until we're dead, we're going to be learning, shifting, and clinging more and more to Him who does know. (And that might mean learning to accept that contradictions can stand side by side and still exist in a reality that doesn't always ask for our input)
Post a Comment