Numbers... Where do I start?

Numbers:

As I start my thoughts on the fourth book of the bible, I have spent some time rereading Numbers. I keep reading it and looking for a way to describe these people that feels true or correct. These people see the amazing acts of God over and over again. Some of the acts are for Moses, or Noah, or Abraham alone, like the burning bush, but others, like the cloud/fire over the tabernacle is for all to see. God makes Himself known to everyone visually.

They are given food when they need food (Chapter 11). They witnessed the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea. They witnessed the death of all who entered the desert, which means that the people that came out of the desert would have been born in the desert, a miracle in and of itself. They bear witness to godly act after godly act, all being delivered by Moses, Angels or God. Yet, they turn away from God whenever they aren't feeling fulfilled.

I did state in my introduction that I didn't want to dissect issues of faith or miracles, and I still don't. I won't take issue, to a point, with the suggestion that these events were possible. What I want to do is compare the nature of these people to what we see in humans today or even the early Christian faith. When we look at religious people today, anyone from pacifists to extremists, we see faith that their beliefs are correct; but we also see the “miracles” they attribute to their faith.

There is a wide range of examples or topics, and I don't want to spend too much time talking about them, but we see mother Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich, or holy men in the Far East puncturing different parts of their bodies. Shaolin monks believe in their own chi energy, and Islamic extremists believe in their promised afterlife. Speak to anyone who has had a spiritual experience and they will tell you why they believe in God, but not these early Israelites.

I see two distinct options for why these people wander in and out of faith. One, they come from a polytheist belief structure. So, if one god isn't giving you what you want then just pray to a different god. This seems plausible to me, more so than the idea that they simply slipped into sin and God had to save them time and time again. Remember, these people didn't come to God, He came to them. Well, He came to Moses and then Moses told them what to do.

More than that, we need to face a simple fact, it is human nature to build beliefs around unexplainable and amazing acts that we have observed, and considering the limited or nonexistent state of science at the time, it is obvious why supernatural ideas reigned.

The UFO phenomenon is a perfect example of that today. We have constructed an entire subculture around blurry photos and mysterious unexplainable events. As well as the tragic stories of abduction, which are strikingly similar to near death experiences, but, if the events of the Bible happened today, we would have no other option but to believe in some type of higher power. The Israelites dismiss it as if these happenings aren't important spiritually or to their daily lives.

This conflict has leaded me to believe in my second option as more correct then the first. The people, who are written about in the Old Testament, at least to this point, are fictional. They are not amazed by God. They are not people of faith. There is not one among them that believed, without a doubt, that God was there for their well being, not even Moses.

This changed later on in the Old Testament. Further in people believe on faith alone, and people begin to see God as He is seen today, but within the first five books of the Bible, no amount of proof is enough to convince these people to follow God's laws.

It certainly doesn't compare to early Christians and their faith. We have historical evidence that people were not just being killed, but brutally tortured for their faith in Christ and did not renounce it. The followers of Christ in the early church endured incredible tortures for their faith, but the early Israelites are made out as if they didn't care one way or the other, as long as they got what they wanted and weren't punished.

They seem to treat God with a mild form of indifference. This does not fall in line with human nature today and especially not with their ideas of the natural world 3000 years ago. So, either these people are fictional or they are completely different, at a fundamental level, with other people of their time (Greeks, Romans, Near and Far East, Native Americans) and far removed from how we act on or interpret signs today.

So, the first few chapters of Numbers are about the census taken of the Israelites and the Levites are given the duties of the priesthood. Although given may not be the right word. They were taken out of the covenant with God. In fact, the Levites are sacrificed to God, in a way, as a replacement to the first born sacrifice that He claimed in Exodus.

• Numbers 3:12-13 “...Now behold, I Myself have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of the firstborn who opens the womb among the children of Israel. Therefore the Levites shall be Mine, because all the firstborn are Mine...”
  
  

If you remember in Exodus, after the plagues of Egypt, God lays claim to all the firstborn children and livestock of the Israelites. So I have to imagine that the whole time leading up to this point, the Israelites have been sacrificing every families first child to God, and don't forget, in Leviticus, God loves the sweet aroma of burning flesh. Are we to infer that these people were performing human sacrifices with their own children? Exodus 13 gives us an out for coming to that conclusion. The first born male children are reserved for God, and must be bought back by animal sacrifice at the temple. We dodged a bullet there, for the males at least...

However, this conclusion would have to lead to a comparison of humans to donkeys. Exodus 13 says that a donkey has to be ransomed with a sheep. It also says that you must ransom a child with a sheep as well. Leviticus 11 tells us that a donkey is an unclean animal, so it would reason out that a child is unclean as well, at least until you kill a sheep as an offering. Sounds like a foundation for baptism. I start to see a pattern forming. The further in we go, the more we have to construe with. I understand how monks and priests could study this book for decades in solitude.

Interesting side note, we are left with the Levites being both slaves to the community, and holding the powerful position of the priesthood. That makes for an interesting dynamic within the story.

Chapter 5 shows how superstitious these people were. Verses 11-29 instruct us on how to deal with the suspicion of an unfaithful wife because of a jealous husband. It lays out how to determine if a woman has been true or not, and having reread it a couple of times, shows me the extent of ignorance these people had, and reaffirms in my mind why I am studying this book to begin with.

Do people today believe that thousands of years ago you could determine adultery with some water and a pinch of dirt from the floor? Realistically, it is the mental aspect of the ritual and fear of God's punishment that would cause the adulterer to confess to the crime not the bitter water of God's curse. Whoever wrote the Bible knew how to manipulate people psychologically, which implies a level of insight and intellect on par with ancient philosophers, but predating their writings by centuries, but are we to read the Bible literally or figuratively, because I believe that these people understood it literally and that was its intent.

A worthy talking point begins in chapter 11. The people start to complain about their living conditions to Moses. In the same chapter, Moses complains to God about his leadership role.

· Numbers 11:5-6 “...we remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; but now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes...”

· Numbers 11:11-12 Moses says “...you have laid the burden of all these people on me? Did I conceive all these people...”

When you read through chapter 11, you will realize why this chapter gives me pause. God decides to relieve Moses of some of his burden but punishes the people of Israel for the same act of complaint. I find it troubling that God would offer separate judgments for similar actions. While it does follow the established line of an angry and jealous God, it does not lead me to the loving and compassionate God I was hoping to find.

How am I supposed to know if praying to God will lead me to His grace or toward His wrath? How can anyone tell me to talk to God about my troubles? How can you convince me that I won't feel His anger? It would appear to me that suffering quietly would be what He wanted. Praying would only give you a fifty-fifty chance between a better life and punishment.

• · “...Whatever needs to be maintained through force is doomed...” - Henry Miller

The fact is the people had a better life in Egypt. They had a bountiful harvest while they lived there, and we already know that they only had to give twenty percent of it to the Pharaoh of Egypt. I have realized that the people of Israel didn't have a choice to leave Egypt. Moses went to the pharaoh and told him to let them go, then the plagues happened, after which the pharaoh told them to leave. These people were forced to leave their own lands because of Moses.

Chapter 13 talks about scouting the Promised Land. They report back that they found a land full of milk and honey, but giants lived there. The giants are known as the Anakim and later in Duet: 2:11 they are also identified as the Emim. We can trace these giants back to Genesis 6:4, before the flood. The fault in the story line resides here. Genesis 6:17 states that God will destroy everything on earth, but it would stand to reason that the giants of the Promised Land survived the flood that was supposed to kill everything. This is the problem with combining different books, written over hundreds of years, into a canonized revealed religious doctrine. Contradictions seem to be around every corner and a reasonable explanation doesn't cooperate with the long held traditional view.

I'm going to bounce around a bit for chapter 23. There is a verse that puzzles me, again, because of the traditional Christian view of the Trinity.

· Numbers 23:19 - “...God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent...”

There are a few verses in the Bible that reference the trinity of God, Christ or messiah, and the Holy Spirit. Almost all of them are in the New Testament, but a few are in the Old Testament. I have not found any that reference all three at the same time. Instead, they reference any two and we infer the trinity.

A moment of review is needed because of the verse I have referenced says that God is not a son of man. Remember back to Genesis, the sons of God are Angels, the son of man is mankind, and their offspring are the giants of Genesis, who survived in the land of Canaan apparently. In the New Testament it is important to realize that Jesus never refers to himself as the Son of God, only the son of man. It is outside of the gospels that Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, everyone else calls him that. Also in the New Testament, Matthew-12:31-32 places Jesus below the Holy Spirit in importance.

So, God is not and cannot be man, according to God's words in Numbers. Jesus is a man according to his own words in the New Testament, and the Holy Spirit is somewhere in between or equal to God according to Jesus and this can't be ignored. If the Trinity is real then they are not equals. If God doesn't take the form of man, then Jesus isn't God. He may be a lesser deity but not God. Given the age this all happened in, demigods were common, so maybe Jesus is meant to be similar to Heracles, the offspring of a god and a mortal and given trials to overcome. At the very least, God is not a man, or a son of man, so God doesn't become like us, and the traditional idea of the Trinity doesn't live up to the hype of the church.

However, I've gotten ahead of myself and moved into topics that will be better examined after we get to the New Testament. Let us return to Numbers subsequent chapters, where I would like to finish with the offerings and what Moses' left his family as his inheritances. Well, that is to say, if he was the true author of this religion, the reason for its creation becomes evident by the end of Numbers.

Reading through chapter 28 would make a PETA sympathizer tremble in a fury of disgust. God requires a daily offering of two yearling lambs that are completely burnt, one in the morning and one at dusk. Also, two quarts of fine grain flour mixed with a quarter of a gallon of oil at each time, as well as pouring out a quarter gallon of brandy twice a day for His drink offering (one for the hommies ya know). These are offered to Him as a soothing smell, to please Him. In addition to the normal daily offering, on the sabbath, you are to offer him two more male yearling lambs, with four extra quarts of fine grain flour mixed with oil and its drink offering of brandy. That totals sixteen lambs a week as a minimum offering to God, to be burnt completely within the morning or evening ceremony. This is what a modern culture believes in?

Gods monthly offering is a bit bigger. It consists of two bulls, one ram, and seven yearling lambs to begin with, too include grain, oil and drink offerings for each animal, which would be an enormous burden on the priests of the faith, plus the normal sabbath or daily offerings that were needed. But we don't end there, because there are more sacrifices for each festival and yearly offerings to think of. In the end, the best that I can figure 1256 bulls, rams, and lambs are to be sacrificed every year according to the offerings in just Numbers 28 and 29.

This doesn't include the personal offerings of promises or gifts, and ones own burnt, grain, sin, peace and trespass offerings that individuals were responsible for. Can you try to imagine the raging fires of the temple in a continual offering to God? For instance, if the beginning of the month was also the sabbath, then they would be burning two bulls, one ram, and eleven lambs in one day. I don't know how many fires it would take to completely burn all these animals on a regular basis and that is not what troubles me.

What troubles me is that God set up a covenant with all of His creation in Genesis 9:10. So what did the animals do to deserve sacrifice as their covenant? What was their original sin? Why does God enjoy or covet the burning flesh of His creation? Does he enjoy our burning flesh in hell? With a little bit of research, we can answer some of these questions quite easily.

The simple answer is that everyone was doing animal offerings. All of the cultures the existed before Judaism in the fertile crescent preformed animal sacrifice to their gods. This was not an original tradition but an established means of paying tribute in ancient traditions. In fact, I can't find any information on a major religion that doesn't have some form of animal sacrifice, except Buddhism, but Buddhism has its roots within Hinduism, which does have a history of animal sacrifice.

So, there are sects of major religions that have renounced this ancient practice, but Christianity is not one of them because their act of salvation is a reinterpretation of its original practice of animal sacrifice. The death of Jesus was a sin sacrifice and He became a tribute to God. The act of communion that serves as your redemption means that you have to condone animal sacrifice as a means of payment to God, if not cannibalism as well.

Everything, except woman, was created from dust and that implies we are all created from the same thing and we are not inherently better then anything else. Even though God givings us dominion over the animals of the earth, it isn't a clear position above them as most would interpret it. We have always perceived control over something as a dominant position, but think of the simple things that dominate us. The common cold has no cure, nor can we dictate to ocean life or fungus. If you really look at the world around us, we have little control over anything. We can kill an entire species, but we don't control it or the niche that it inhabited.

Control over any part of creation is outside of our limited ability to observe it. We don't understand existence enough to control anything yet, but that isn't to say that we don't affect it. Again, we don't have enough knowledge or data to know what is going on around us and we are powerless to control anything. So to say that we have dominion over all creation is very arrogant, not to mention, beyond reality.

To end this section we should speak of Moses' legacy. What did Moses leave his decedents? Well, only one percent of a nations wealth. Moses controlled Gods share of all things on earth. Ten percent of all things were given up as an offering to God, and Moses (with the priests) were given a tenth of the offerings. Try to imagine this, Israel is 1/7 the size of Iowa, closer to Massachusetts or Vermont in land area with the population of Boston. Now, Boston has a rough GDP of $300 billion, in modern dollars, that would give Moses $3 billion today and would easily place Moses among the wealthiest people of the planet at the time, and unlike a king or Caesar, there was no way to challenge his rule. After all, this was a man that spoke directly to God... But he wasn't unique in that day, many people claimed to speak the word of god(s).

• You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion   - L. Ron Hubbard, Science Fiction writer, founder of the Church of Scientology

 

 

Some say that the truth is the one that endures and that is why they believe in his word over other religions, but Hinduism has a longer time line then the Jewish religion. But should we be putting faith in the knowledge of a people that lived 3500 years ago. People that feared lightning or disease and turned to the supernatural out of desperation, not knowledge. These people were at a point of discovery that they needed, but didn't understand. 

 

In as much as Newton was an amazing intellectual in his day, he could not grasp gravities pull like Einsteins theory of general relativity. It was simply beyond Newtons mathematical, observational and cognitive abilities in his day. So, Moses may have been ahead of his time in many ways, and a genius but, he could not have been able to grasp the current level of scientific discovery we teach our first graders in schools today.

A discussion between my cousin, John, and myself

John's first comment

 - Jackson, I'm heartened to see that you are examining the Bible and Christianity. The honest search for truth even in places you are skeptical of is mobile and wise. I appreciate that you are trying to be an informed person and that you even started with hopefulness about what you would find. I'm sorry that you seem to have been let down in that regard. But I hope my comments can help a bit. I would be happy to be a resource for you if you want to discuss more.

One of the major themes in the Old Testament is the prevalence of sin and the seriousness of it to God; this seriousness is demonstrated by the severity of the punishment given for sin. We learn that God is holy. He must exercise justice to law breakers. This is not mean or unwarranted, it is deserved punishment. Fortunately, another major theme in the Old Testament is God's mercy. Again and again he saves his people and delivers them from hardship to try to bring them back to him and away from sin. It can be easy to overlook the examples of mercy in the midst of so much judgment. That is because in large part this mercy is only promised in the OT and not fully expressed until Jesus comes. The Old Testament is meant to leave us broken and hurting, longing for God's deliverance, and trusting, hoping, in God's STEADFAST love.

Your conclusions about God largely follow from your approach. If you position yourself above God as his judge you should not be surprised when he doesn't match up with the standards that you have created for him. God is not accountable to man. He will not be judged. If you wish to understand God or the Christian faith (which I think you truly do) you have to come with a different attitude. For example, instead of saying, "this is wrong; God must be cruel and heartless", you ought to say, "this seems out of place in my understanding of who God is; I need to study or ask about it to find out how it fits in with the rest of what the bible says about God." If you're not doing that then you're not really making an effort to "understand both sides", you're just looking for an easy way to validate your existing beliefs.

You should recognize that there are lots of regular, reasonable people who love and worship this God for good, logical reasons, and do so without ignoring or cutting out parts of the bible. There IS an answer to every question you raise if you are willing to search for it.

Some recommendations - if you really want to understand Christianity you would be better served to start in the New Testament before trying to tackle the Old. Reading through the Bible in order is not especially fruitful for someone just trying to get started. I would recommend studying Romans or John first. You should consider listening to a Systematic Theology course through iTunes U - it would give you a good foundational understanding of the faith. I've read this book and I'm sure the lectures are great.

God bless you,
Cousin John

----------------------------------------------------

My reply

 - John, Thank you for reading my blog and leaving a comment. I wish more people would because I do need a sounding board for my questions and concerns.

Just to set things straight, I did start with the New Testament and then moved on to the OT. I have made it all of the way through once, and am working on my second time while I am writing my blog. The one thing that keeps repeating in my brain from the NT, while I am reviewing the OT, is Matthew 5:17

”...Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill...”

So my bigger problems are with all of the laws and offerings. For instance, I mentioned in Exodus that Moses' father, Amram marries his aunt, Jochebed. But later on in Leviticus 18:12, this act is condemned by God. So I am not questioning God in that act, but the very idea that the text is Godly at all. There are plenty of laws in Leviticus that Christians don't follow. For starters, all of the offerings in the first five chapters. I don't see anyone preforming those today, and it is important to note that Jesus didn't come to stop the offerings. Leviticus 11:7 says that we may not eat swine, but I don't know any Christian, other then vegetarian ones, that don't eat pig products. What about seafood? Only things with fins and scales are permitted. Anything else is an abomination. There are plenty of unclean animals that we aren't allowed to eat or even touch. So people do pick and chose. Leviticus 18:22 says that a man shall not lay with another man because it is an abomination as well. Conservative Christians will cry out against homosexuality but still eat pork or crab meat.

Now Matthew 26:28 speaks of the new covenant, but it is only for the remission of sins. So I would think that we are still required to make all of the other offerings (burnt, grain, trespass, and peace). My disillusionment isn't with Gods acts but with the inconsistencies in the writing. It appears more and more man made and less divine.

Another problem that I am struggling with is the difference of how Christians describe God and how He appears in the text. Christians describe Him as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; but He is none of these things in the Bible. So where do Christians get these qualities from? I am trying to find God within religion, and maybe this is the wrong approach, but I don't have anywhere else to look. Nothing has been revealed to me, so I have to find an intellectual method.

If the Bible is a revealed text and it was given to us by an all powerful being, then why are there inconsistencies? Why was it not given to all of His creation? He established His covenant with every living creature on the ark (Genesis 9:10) not just humans.

The story that really did me in was the story of the plagues. If God wants to kill or torture His creation then that is His prerogative, but He is not all loving to His creation, nor compassionate. So again, I need to say that the trouble I'm having is reconciling what people say about God and what is written about Him.

All of this is a lot to understand at once, but I am also incorporating the historical side of the Bible as well. The fact is that Moses couldn't have written all of the first five books of the Bible like some claim. It was composed orally over about 2000 years before being written down. The NT has similar problems of authorship. The gospels weren't written by there suggested authors of Luke, Matthew, Mark and John. Both the OT and NT were edited and added to by committees, and certain books were left out for political reason not divine reasons. I just get the feeling that whatever the Bible started out to be, there isn't much left after mankind got done with it.

Thanks again,
Cousin Jackson

----------------------------------------
John Huss

 - Ok, let me try to address some of those questions.

So my bigger problems are with all of the laws and offerings. >For instance, I mentioned in Exodus that Moses' father, Amram marries his aunt, Jochebed. But later on in Leviticus 18:12, this act is condemned by God. So I am not questioning God in that act, but the very idea that the text is Godly at all.

There are two things to say about that. 1) Just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean that it's good or right. If the bible pointed out every single sin it would get very tedious. Just because it isn't explicitly rebuked does not mean it is ok. 2) Laws become laws when there is a need for them. If no one was practicing the behavior that the law is designed to prevent then there is no need for the law. God's judgment of the behavior didn't change. God didn't approve of the behavior before (though the text is silent on the matter) and now explicitly states this.

>There are plenty of laws in Leviticus that Christians don't follow. For starters, all of the offerings in the first five chapters. I don't see anyone preforming those today, and it is important to note that Jesus didn't come to stop the offerings.

The best text on this subject is Hebrews 9 & 10, especially 10:11-14.

>Leviticus 11:7 says that we may not eat swine, but I don't know any Christian, other then vegetarian ones, that don't eat pig products. What about seafood? Only things with fins and scales are permitted. Anything else is an abomination. There are plenty of unclean animals that we aren't allowed to eat or even touch. So people do pick and chose.

See Romans 14, especially verse 14. Also, Acts 10:9-16 although the main point there is going elsewhere.

>Leviticus 18:22 says that a man shall not lay with another man because it is an abomination as well. Conservative Christians will cry out against homosexuality but still eat pork or crab meat.

The sinfulness of homosexual intercourse is reasserted in Romans 1:27 and other texts in the NT, in contrast to the teaching about food which is clearly rescinded.

>Now Matthew 26:28 speaks of the new covenant, but it is only for the remission of sins. So I would think that we are still required to make all of the other offerings (burnt, grain, trespass, and peace). My disillusionment isn't with Gods acts but with the inconsistencies in the writing. It appears more and more man made and less divine.

Christians follow the example of the early disciples as described in the book of Acts and as taught by the apostles in the rest of the NT. See Acts 15, esp. verses 5,10,11,19,20,28,29

>Another problem that I am struggling with is the difference of how Christians describe God and how He appears in the text. >Christians describe Him as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; but He is none of these things in the Bible. So where do Christians get these qualities from?

There are many texts for each of these - they are well covered in Systematic Theology. But here is what springs to mind:
Omnipotent - Jeremiah 32:27, Isaiah 43:13
Omnipresent - Psalm 139:7-12, Matthew 18:20
Omniscient - Isaiah 46:9-10
When God does something, like asking Adam, "where are you?", it isn't because he doesn't know. He is relating to us on a human level. Genesis 4:9-10 is a good example of this.

>I am trying to find God within religion, and maybe this is the wrong approach, but I don't have anywhere else to look. Nothing has been revealed to me, so I have to find an intellectual method.

That's not true -- much has been revealed to you. See Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:19-20, Romans 2:14-15. Besides, God gave you a mind intending for you to use it to find him -- Acts 17:26-27. And I would encourage you, if you believe in any kind of God at all, PRAY and ask him to show himself to you. That is what I did. Don't make it just an intellectual thing, talk to him.

I'll have to get to the rest later - time for bed. God bless you

---------------------------------

Jackson

-John, I do appreciate you taking the time to work through this with me. My reply is very long but you gave me a lot to think about and this topic has truly brought the writer out in me.

I spent time today at work thinking about the differences between myself and other religious people. I would say that it is a matter of perspective. I would assume that you came to your religious beliefs with a predisposition or some occurrence of Christianity, and Christianity is the “lens” through which you view the world. Things you hear are filtered through your faith and you chose to see them as truth or untruth based on your understanding of Christianity. When you analyze the Bible you see truth, because of, or with your Christian lens, but if I were to ask you to analyze the Qur’an or Hindu doctrine, you would also look upon them through your Christian lens. You would immediately find distortions of the truth you believe and waves of inaccuracies. I think this is good. You have a deep faith, but it is important to realize that your faith is the way you experience the world, and it makes you look upon the bible different then people outside your faith do.

Now, I have always been a deist, because of that, I look at Christianity from outside of the faith. My lens is not a Christian lens, but a philosophical/skeptic lens. So, I look upon Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and other religions with the same skeptical view equally. I have always been skeptical of organized religion, mainly because of the churches history. I think that the problem of organized religion is that one has to say “...I am right and you are wrong...” So, I don't have a problem with the idea of God, but with religion, even different christian denominations don't agree on how to worship God. I'm not looking for God, just the correct way to worship Him. So it is important to remember that Christianity may not be the correct way for me, even though you see it as truth.

I don't know if you have read all of my blog or not, but there are a couple of things I wanted to be consistent on. First, I want to interpret the Bible from beginning to end. I have realized that this is the best way to experience it. All of the things I have addressed in my blog to this point have very little to do with what will happen later on. I think it is important to have the questions laid out before me. Second, I want to keep verses in context with the story they come from. The last thing is that I wanted to remember that this book, whether someone believes it is literally or not, was written between 2000 and 3000 years ago. These people knew less about the natural world then most fourth graders do today. They looked upon lightning, earthquakes, or plagues as the anger of God. (But so do some people today as well.)

The pastor at my church is very liberal in his understanding of the Bible. He once did a sermon on Jonah and he prefaced the sermon with the statement that the story of Jonah was obviously fiction. This bothered me, not because I thought the story was true, but because I do believe that the early Jewish people believed it as truth. The story of Jonah, Samson, or David vs Goliath are hero stories similar to Hercules or Achilles of Greece, and I have no doubt that the early Jewish people believed these stories were true. I have digressed.

I want to get into Hebrews 10, but first, I want you to know that I don't hold Paul's letters up as an equal to Jesus in the gospels or the words of God in the OT. Leviticus 6 & 7 are the laws of the offerings. I have tried to recognize that when God speaks in the OT, it is a law, whether stated as such or not. Numbers 15:1-18 are the laws about sacrifice. Verse 15 (Contemporary English Version) says that this law will never change, in conjunction with Matthew 5:17, Jesus' fulfillment of the Law, the requirement to preform these Laws moves into the New Testament. Paul can say in his letter to the Hebrews that the offerings don't have to be observed, but God and Jesus say they do. This example is something I planned on bringing up in my writings once I got to the New Testament.

There is, distinctly, two different sections of the New Testament. The gospels, excluding John, because it is dramatically different from the other gospels (it is very mystical), and the rest of the NT. I understand why the gospels are part of the bible, obviously, they are the life and teachings of Christ, but most of the rest of the bible is just Paul's or other peoples interpretation of Jesus' teachings. Again, it is important to bring up the idea of a “lens of faith” with Paul. Saul was a Jew. Raised a Jew and a prominent person within the Jewish community. But, as I stated before, everyone has a lens in which they observe the world. Even though Saul became Paul through revelation on the road to Damascus, he still sees everything through his Jewish lens. He interprets Christs teachings through Judaism.

So the NT books outside of the gospels, don't hold a lot of weight with me. Not that I dismiss them entirely, just when they contradict other parts of the Bible. I enjoyed reading the gnostic gospels, especially the gospel of Judas, (Reading Judas by Elaine Pagels and Karen L. King) because they continued with the teachings and not the interpretation. Judas is depicted as an evil person in the gospels but it is obvious that he was only doing what had to be done. Of course the other disciples would see it as a horrible tragedy that Jesus died, they didn't understand anything Jesus was trying to tell them, but Judas recognized it as a necessity to fulfill the prophecies.

Moving on...

You said in your last comment “...God's judgment of the behavior didn't change. God didn't approve of the behavior before (though the text is silent on the matter) and now explicitly states this...”

But Romans 5 talks about Adam's sin. It says “...sin was in the world before the Law came. But no record of sin was kept, because there was no Law...” So, yes, the morality of it might not have changed, but God did change the judgment for the behavior “...the law came, so that the full power of sin could be seen...”

When you say that God is trying to relate to us on a human level, I remember that God describes Himself in emotional and human terms, so I don't have a problem doing the same. Its important to realize that, if God doesn't have human like emotions, then he doesn't care about us one way or the other. He is an angry and jealous god, and also a loving and merciful one. He is not just trying to relate on human terms, but be fully engaged in human emotion as well.

This stems into another concept of traditional Christian belief that doesn't make sense to me. That God is unchanging (Hebrews 1:12, 13:8 ; Psalms 102:26). God changes many things in the Bible. If nothing else, He fundamentally changed the way to salvation. His attitude of how to deal with mankind completely changed. The whole point of the NT is how God has changed things through the death of Christ. Also Luke 2:52, if Jesus is God then Jesus would be able to change either. Personally, I don't have a problem with a changing God. It makes sense to me that God would have to change things as time went on, because we have freewill. That doesn't mean that it would change His plan though. His plan would have the changes built in to adjust for the complexity of chaos theory to reach His end game. Philosophically, God has to change or have the capacity to change. If you believe God to be all powerful, then you limit His power by saying he can not change. Besides, God changes his mind many times in Numbers. Whenever He wants to wipe out mankind, Moses prays for Him not to, and God doesn't. On that note, if God is unchanging and has a plan that would also have to be unchanging, then prayer is useless except to fulfill our own selfish needs.

To finish this reply I just want to say that I read the verses you gave me on omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent examples, and surely those verses have people speaking on the nature of God. But you can't dismiss other parts of the Bible that show God as not being all powerful, knowing, or present. (Judges 1:19 ; Genesis 18:9 ; Acts 7:48) You And when I spoke that the revelation had not been revealed to me. I simple meant that I haven't had an overwhelming religious experience that would lead me to believe Christianity beyond reproach.

It is important to remember Proverbs 28:26 - "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but who so walketh wisely, he shall be delivered."

Morality and Thomas Aquinas' - Five Ways (His proof for the existence of God

Morality:

I have spent most of my recent downtime after work in the late hours of the day and early morning reading books or watching debates and discussions by atheists and theists. I have always found it important to listen to both sides of an argument that I have questions about. You learn much more this way than if you are closed off to half of the questions or solutions.

Along these lines I have found that I can not stand on the side of religion on the topic of morality. I think that the argument is a none issue. Since I have started this journey, I have come to realize that religion has no moral ground to stand on. More then just the obvious problem of genocide, rape, torture, and incest God does or allows, but then tells us its wrong, there are many other morally shameful acts against His chosen creation in the doctrine, but there are other reasons to second guess any religions claim on morality.

No religion can be called a moral code. A simple reason for this idea is that these beliefs were developed thousands of years ago and morality is an ever evolving subject of study. Things that are morally reprehensible today, have often been common practice for the last 3000 years, like marriage at an early age (and with that idea, teenage sex, and condoms).

In the time of Jesus' mother, Mary, women were often married off in their early teenage years (12-14), while men averaged mid-twenties for their first marriage. Imagine a 25 year old marrying a 14 year old today. It is thought that Mary would have been between 12 and 14 when Jesus was born, but Joseph was much older. Today, if someone is married before the age of 20 they are looked at as if they are rushing into it, and told to slow down, take some time and think about it.

More importantly, I would think, morality is a subject of right and wrong. Religion is a subject of “my” right equals reward and “my” wrong equals punishment. Morality, as a guideline, has to be free of reward and punishment, and while evolving, it must also seek to reveal good and bad universally. Once you start to give external and eternal spiritual rewards for certain behaviors, you are no longer talking about morality. Instead you are talking about training people.

I have and love dogs. If I trained one to attack intruders entering my house by feeding them bacon every time they got aggressive at the front door, and another to sit and wait patiently to receive its reward ,which one would be doing a good thing? If you came to my door and my dog seriously hurt you, it would think it was doing a good thing, the same as the dog that sat and watched, because the “good” I “commanded” them to do for their reward was observed by each, respectively

While I would think that this kind of training is morally wrong without justification for the attack dog being needed, the dog still thinks that it is doing good work in my name, so to speak. (I would think that a dog would be a theist, they look at me like I am a perfect being, and I can not do any wrong in their eyes, but my cat is an atheist (maybe a deist) because he looks at me like he knows better, and only needs me for a clean place to poop.)

“...In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are consequences...”

- Robert G. Ingersoll

It is impossible to say that biblical laws are the same as a moral code; because religion is simply trying to train people to do right, instead of expecting people to know right and wrong (shown in Genesis when God denied man the knowledge of good and evil) and helping them live accordingly. In fact, I would argue that religion, even faith, or belief in any righteous and revealed moral code is the reason that so many evil people find justification for their malicious actions. Good people will do good things whenever they can, and I think it is fair to say that evil begets evil whenever it can. However, religion seems to, in many ways, deem us as sick from the start, giving truly sick people absolution from their moral responsibility to humanity. It is up to religion to cure us of our illnesses, like sin or immorality. I don't like the idea that God created me (personally) abject, inferior, or naturally/morally sick from the start; and then through worship and adoration to Him, I can be cured, but only if it is His will.

How does this play into the thought that we are created in God's image, as almost every religion claims? What does it say about the creative power God has? Did God's creator make Him impure and He found purity? (Given that a creator would have to have a creator as well, same thought as to what was before the big bang?) Or is it just placating our need to create God from our image? I find it hard to have faith in either belief or doctrine. In fact, I would find it wonderful and exciting to discover that God had revealed Themselves, and Their purpose, to us with supporting and irrefutable evidence of His existence or His great plan.

• Side-note: What happens to personal responsibility when someone has come to relieve you of any sins? If I were to rape and murder for the rest of my life but find and believe in Jesus on my death bed I am allowed into heaven, but if I were to be good, just, and charitable to everyone around me but reject God or Jesus then I would go to hell. This seems wholly unrealistic in my eyes.

The doctrine, in fact, is the biggest problem. The doctrine can not be changed without excruciating pain to the faith. For example, the catholic doctrine on condoms. This is a belief that is killing hundreds of thousands of people every year in undeveloped, AIDS infested countries worldwide. It is a death sentence for these people All in the name of an outdated religious idea that has no real presents in scripture. It all comes out of the Catholic Church, and the Papacy, not the Bible. Not to restrain myself to Christianity, Islam has an offensive history when it comes to vaccination in similar countries. Polio could have been eradication worldwide if religious doctrine hadn't gotten in the way. The spread of containable diseases should be condemned by all humanity regardless of religious conviction.

• Rufus: Mankind got it all wrong. Taking a good idea and building a belief structure around it.

Bethany: Are you saying having beliefs is a bad thing?

Rufus: I just think it’s better to have ideas. I mean you can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier.
- Dogma (1999), Kevin Smith

Moving on...

I feel a need to assert that if there is an all powerful creator, then He would stop evil acts done in His name. How can any all powerful, all seeing, ever present being let any evil act happen in His name, unless – (1) it was part of his greater plan, or (2) the creator isn't concerned with the day to day activities of His creation. If you are willing to say that God has a plan, then you must be willing to accept the “evil” allowed because of the plan, as well as the good done. Especially when God can circumvent natural laws to enact His will through miracles.

Also, it is always confusing to hear a person of faith claim that God is only love and compassion, and in the next breath forward all the worlds evil to the devil or mans inferior nature. How do you reconcile that God would have to have created the devil and mans nature, so must have created evil, or at least the ability for evil acts, on purpose and for a specific reason.

How is God of the Old Testament all loving and compassionate to any people living at the time, even selling His chosen people to the Philistines (Judges 13:1). This would mean that the Philistines were not an evil people, even though being called a Philistine became a derogatory term. They were just doing Gods will, right? Same with the Egyptians in the Exodus, and Judas in the New Testament.

You have to believe that Judas was necessary to the story. He wasn't doing an evil act, but helping fulfill destiny. He was sacrificing himself. Someone had to do it, and I didn't read anything about Jesus turning himself in. Judas took the step that he thought was needed to fulfill Jesus' teachings. But instead of looking at this man with some sort of acceptance or empathy for his situation, he is called evil.

What does this say about the morality of the Bible or Christianity? I see a book that tells you what to think. I see people in this book doing what God makes them do, and it being called evil. What is the difference between the Israelites doing what God tells them to do, and the same God forcing the Egyptians to do His will. How is it moral to call them or their actions evil? When you use force, you remove choice, and you move the burden of guilt to the one using force to enact their will.

Don't get me wrong, there are good things to learn in this book. There are great philosophical ideas. The problem comes with the idea of forced obedience, or the thought of reward and punishment as a moral code. And I'm not so ignorant of human nature to know that some people need rules to live by or at the very least guidelines for a community, but laws are different then morality.

So call it Gods law, or rules of the Bible, but don't tell me it is a moral code to live by.

On Thomas Aquinas “Five ways”

The first proof says, roughly, that God exists because things change. It implies that, in the beginning, the universe was still and unchanging until God set things in motion. I don't see in his argument a need for the first mover in the way he describes it. He says that everything is moving from a potentiality to an actuality, and to do so there has to be a being of only actuality. Fire is actually hot and makes wood, which is potentially hot, actually hot; but the fire had to be put in motion by some other motion, is his example.

The reason that I don't need God to explain the first movement has to do with modern astrophysics and cosmology. Now science has not yet been able to discover experimentally what happened at the origin of the universe, but they have theories that describe the universe back to a point that is less then a split second after this bang. I think William of Ockham would agree that placing a supernatural event before this moment and saying that everything came from this supernatural event is going to far.

Why confuse the facts with unprovable wishing? There is no need to add to the complexity of the beginning of the universe by saying that everything was created by God and set into motion when he decided to let it go. Now, I bring up these ideas of cosmology because one thing that Aquinas didn't know about in his time was gravity. After the bang that created mass and matter, the weakest of the four fundamental forces began the construction of the beautiful galaxies we see in the night sky. I think this is more astounding then any miracle described in the bible. I think that looking at images of the Hubble telescope, like the Carina Nebula, are simply breath taking, but if someone came up to me tomorrow and said that his father was God and his mother gave birth to him while still a virgin, I would think that they were crazy not amazing.

I challenge you to look upon modern people that say they speak to God with the same reverence that you would give Abraham, Noah, Moses, or Jesus. I'm not talking about your priest, or traditional people of faith, but the people outside your normal existence. Those four people I mentioned stood outside their norm and tried to change things, against the odds, and told those of the local traditional faith, that they were wrong. So too you must stand with those that say God speaks to them today, like He did thousands of years ago; and if you can “know” who is actually speaking to God and “know” who is just talking to themselves, then you have an obligation to tell the world who is right.

Also, I want to speak on the idea of the potential and the actual. To say that God is only actuality and not potentiality implies that God only exists in the now, and does not have a presents in the past nor knowledge of the future because he would have to have a linear existence to only be actuality. If God doesn't have potentiality, as Aquinas says, then God doesn't know the potential existence to come. Without knowledge or ability of potentiality, then God can not be omniscient. God and His creation would have to be both actual and potential.

In the second proof I can not find any reason for dispute, except to again speak of Ockham's Razor. If you want to imply a supernatural necessity for the first cause, then your adding complexity where none is needed. The origin of all existence is confusing enough for the average person, but attaching the existence of a supreme being only adds to the turmoil. I am looking for clarity in this origin, not imposed complexity. There is nothing wrong with saying “I don't know” and I would want more people to embrace this idea.

The third proof is basically a rehash of the first. He has exchanged the terms first mover with the idea of a necessary being. A first mover is the same as a necessary being so any argument in this proof should be similar to the argument in the first proof. Also, in this proof, is the idea that given enough time, everything in existence would cease to be. This is exactly what modern science says will happen; but Aquinas wants to make the argument that an infinite possibility of existences would lead to non-existence. While it is true that non-existence is a possibility, it doesn't have to come before or during existence to be true. We could exist within one of many possible lives before non-existence happens. On a side-note, the way Aquinas wrote his third proof is exactly the way science says the universe will end. We are in a period of existence and life, but, given enough time the universe will move into a dead zone.

The fourth proof states that because there are differences between beings, that there must be a supreme being at one end of the spectrum. There must be a perfect being because of the very idea of its existence. But this does not imply that this perfect being created us. If you want to argue that our existence implies the actuality of another superior being, fine, but you must also find a reason that this being would create humans. Which would include a need for this superior being to create us. Also, this idea implies that God sees us as better then the rest of His creation. I would like to think that if God loved all of what He created, and saw that it was good, even the AIDS virus, then all of existence would be equal in His eyes. In the end, the existence of a supreme being does not give raise to our creation. Also, the existence of one being does not limit the amount of other similar beings in existence. So, one end of the spectrum, limited to a perfect being does not confine that existence to one perfect being. It could be many.

What about the other end of this idea? If you are to reason that because there are differences, there must be a perfect being, then there must also be some wholly imperfect being. I would think that it is more reasonable to say that just because something is possible doesn't mean it has to be. Just because this line of thought leads to a possible perfect being doesn't mean a perfect being has to exist.

The fifth proof describes a reality that would preclude freewill, as it is written by Aquinas. He argues that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act as if they have intelligence, so intelligence must have been given to us by some other being. Now, it is obvious that intelligence varies in all existence, and this variability would mean that I have only been given enough intellect to do/understand as much as God wants me to. So I wouldn't have the ability or choice to understand anything God doesn't want me to.

But his argument also implies that the motion of the natural body, you growing from a child to an adult, is also directed by God. This idea is what we would recognize today as intelligent design. This proof has been completely ruined by the amazing work of evolutionary biologists, like Kenneth Miller, who is a Christian that is not afraid to say that intelligent design is not good science. He has a perfect lecture on how evolution can explain reducible complexity of advanced organism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

(This video was suppose to be a debate on intelligent design/evolution, but the ID side didn't show up)

Now, a lecture that I listened to on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, has an idea that needs to be examined. Since God is perfect, did God create the best of all possible worlds? The professor in the lecture says that the very idea of a best possible world is self contradictory. It is to say that you can always add some new attribute to this world to make it better, but can't the same be said about the best possible being? If the idea of a perfect world is self contradictory, then so is the idea of a perfect being.

I think that most people use the wrong definition of perfect. Is perfect an absolute, or pure, or complete, or correct in every detail? I think that most people want it to be these things, but in the end, it is “the exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose” that people really mean. People will change and adapt their view of God to be whatever they want or need for the situation. As much as philosophers have tried over the centuries, there is not a universal definition of what God is.