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."