Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Eran of Arcadia]

Whatever. The point is, God, being smarter than us, will often do things we don't understand. Now, telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and by extension, getting Isaac to allow himself to be sacrificed, was a one-time thing that He did for reasons we may not understand. Bear in mind that at this time, sacrificing one's children to various deities was not all that uncommon, so it didn't quite have the impact it would today. And it may be worth repeating, frequently, that God didn't actually want Abraham to sacrifice his son. So blame Abaraham for being willing to do so, but not God just for bringing it up.

 

[warpus]

He isn't perfect because He says so, He's perfect because He is.

But how would we know, if he didn't tell us?

 

[Elrohir]

But how would we know, if he didn't tell us?

How do you expect me to answer this? If we could understand and know everything about Him, He wouldn't really be God, now would He?

 

[MrCynical]

Whatever. The point is, God, being smarter than us, will often do things we don't understand. Now, telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and by extension, getting Isaac to allow himself to be sacrificed, was a one-time thing that He did for reasons we may not understand.

I don't accept the "God knows what's right and wrong better than we do" argument either logically, or on scripture related grounds. God is not above morality if he is in fact morally excellent, since he must submit to the moral code just as much as humans. Much as I reject the entire contents of the Old Testament, it also baffles me why people who claim to accept it use this argument. It is firmly stated in Genesis that after the fall of Adam and Eve, they and all their descendants would know right and wrong, like God(s).

Bear in mind that at this time, sacrificing one's children to various deities was not all that uncommon, so it didn't quite have the impact it would today.

The old "everyone else does it" argument does not carry much weight in moral terms. I suppose it might have reduced Abraham's suffering a little (though that would make him of severely questionable moral fibre), but it doesn't make it any more right.

And it may be worth repeating, frequently, that God didn't actually want Abraham to sacrifice his son. So blame Abaraham for being willing to do so, but not God just for bringing it up.

What was the purpose of this? Some sick test of loyalty? No God should need or want to do that. It doesn't seem to have been a test of morality, since if it was Abraham failed abysmally. The only morally acceptable response would have been outright refusal, combined with a disbelief that a God would tempt a human to commit sin (now whose job is that supposed to be...?). To incite someone to commit a crime makes you as responsible for the crime as them, and even if you prevent its completion you have still corrupted the person in question.

 

[shadow2k]

True. But do you not agree that there is such a thing as "false guilt"? Or every time you feel guilty, have you committed a sin?

I imagine if you taught a child growing up that eating peanut butter on waffles was a mortal sin against God, he wouldn't like the idea of eating peanut butter on waffles, and if convinced to do it, would likely feel very guilty over it. But does that mean eating peanut butter on waffles is a win? Of course not. It may not be the healthiest meal ever thought up - but that hardly makes it immoral, or guilt over eating it necessarily valid.


He can do that because He is perfect, and Perfectly Just. What God says is True is True, and isn't subjective. Complaining that God get's to override what we think on moral matters is like complaining about a scale overriding your opinion on how heavy something is. It just doesn't make sense.


He isn't perfect because He says so, He's perfect because He is.

What you call God's "huge ego" would be arrogance for a finite human being - but God is so far beyond us, that He isn't being arrogant when He asks for our love and obedience - He's just pointing out how things actually should be.

The guilt remains because the feeling that it's wrong still lingers in the back of your mind...even if you know it not to be the case. It's just the stigma attached to whatever it may be, for whatever reason.

As far as God goes...where do we get all these ideas about him? From the Bible...Man's written word revealed to him by God. Right?

Ok, so let's assume he's a higher being. I'd classify Archangels as such as well. Yet, we don't assume that a fallen angel such as Satan to be any of these wonderful things we attribute to God. So can I assume the "higher being" argument can be trashed?

But the Bible tells us that God is good, and Satan is evil. Well, that's just one side of the story, isn't it? I mean, wouldn't Satan tell us that he's perfect, tell us he loves us, and would never lie to us?

I'm not telling anyone to run off and worship Satan. But considering all the evils in the world, I'd consider it far more likely that the God that many of you worship is far more sinister than you've been led to believe.

You obviously won't agree. But at least think about it. What would Satan have written, had he been the one doing the revealing? I'm pretty sure that the Bible wouldn't look that much different. Perfect cover to get people to follow him. They'll never know he was lying until it's far too late (dead).

So...what if God was really the Devil pretending to be your loving God? All you have to go on are his words. And again, judging by the things we see all over the world, and throughout history...it's not all that far-fetched.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I do believe God is morally way above us. But He is also much smarter than us, which means that He knows things we don't, which means that when He makes decisions He has access to information we don't, which means that He may come to a conclusion we can't. That is what I mean when I say God sometimes does things we don't understand. To Him, all this criticizing probably seems exactly like how a teenager calls his parents "fascists" for attempting to give him guidance or limit his behavior.

And, no, I don't rely entirely on the Bible for either my belief in God or my understanding of Him, and certainly not on a literal, inerrantist interpretation thereof.

 

[warpus]

How do you expect me to answer this? If we could understand and know everything about Him, He wouldn't really be God, now would He?

So how can you possibly know anything at all about him?

 

[shadow2k]

I do believe God is morally way above us. But He is also much smarter than us, which means that He knows things we don't, which means that when He makes decisions He has access to information we don't, which means that He may come to a conclusion we can't. That is what I mean when I say God sometimes does things we don't understand. To Him, all this criticizing probably seems exactly like how a teenager calls his parents "fascists" for attempting to give him guidance or limit his behavior.

And, no, I don't rely entirely on the Bible for either my belief in God or my understanding of Him.

Parents are actually a better example for my argument.

Just because parents may know more, and have more experience...doesn't make them inherently right, or incapable of making mistakes. Just because they created you doesn't make them inherently good. Just because they tell you to obey and respect them doesn't mean that's always the wisest of decisions.

Maybe when we grow older, God will let us all know that he isn't really infallible or all-knowing. That there are other Gods, but that we were too ignorant at the time to make such an important decision yet. That he does lie to us, but only for our own good. That the Bible was full of fairy tales, only told to us because we couldn't have understood the truth 2,000yrs ago.

Maybe God drove Satan to rebellion with his constant nagging, and they'll make up sometime soon.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Maybe that will happen, who knows? I certainly can't say that we know all there is to know about God. There is a great deal more that we are not ready to know, and some of it may very well surprise us.

 

[ironduck]

I think it's fair to say all the biblical authors believed what they were writing.

I don't know why you think that is fair to say. It's some pretty crazy stories that have no way of being verified unless you think you are hearing it straight from god (and many of these stories can be shown to be old myths that predate the time they were written down in the OT books). To me it's rather obvious that many of the stories are symbolic, the creation myths for instance. Either way, it doesn't matter if people believe something, that doesn't make it less fiction if it is fiction.

You, and most people on this forum, obviously don't believe the bible is fully fact. However, to call it fiction, and then compare it to James Bond, or Star Trek, or call them fairy stories, is kind of insulting.

Why is that insulting? From what I can tell it is most likely fiction. Saying something is probably fiction is not the same as spitting on people's sacred beliefs. Do you think scientology's books are fiction? I do. Yet, I can show you plenty of people who think it is facts and they consider the texts sacred. By pointing out that I think it is fiction (and why), how am I insulting them? Someone might think Harry Potter is truth. Should I be concerned about calling it fiction in case I offend someone?

If someone today wrote a history book that was later found to be incorrect in some parts would you call it a work of fiction? For me you probably need to find a different word between fact and fiction for the bible.

The parts of a history book that clearly have no basis in facts are fiction. What else would they be? Misunderstandings? Sure, misunderstandings written down telling a story that never occurred -> fiction.

 

[ironduck]

I would call it something else. It can be considered scripture if it is considered holy by anyone, regardless of its veracity. Mythology is not in my mind the same as fiction even if it is not literally true. The same would go for the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. But not Dianetics.

If anything can be considered scripture if it's considered holy by anyone then anything written down at any point is possibly scripture - you never know, so you better treat it as such. Not very practical, but ok, not a problem by itself as long as we're free to call it lies and fiction if we believe it is.

Why is scientology scripture different from other scripture? There are people who believe it is true and who find it provides strong moral guidance (I say misguidance, but I also say that for other scripture).

 

[ironduck]

Again, I would not call every factually untrue thing ever written "fiction". That may be a matter of opinion, however. But at the very least, I think that it is extremely unlikely that nothing in the Bible is factually true. There are also things like poetry and wisdom literature that don't really fall under the "fiction/nonfiction" heading.

I already addressed this. There's plenty of stuff in most fiction that is factually true (the James Bond example). That doesn't change the fact that the story is fiction!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I don't know, I am just cantankerous and have something against Scientology. Actually, I think by my definition it could be considered scripture. I do use the term "scripture" broadly. But if I capitalize it then I am referring only to that scripture which I myself consider holy and inspired.

And I think that what happened isn't that the stories in the OT that you and so many other find so unbelievable, were created in that form. They probably got embellished and exaggerated at each retelling after starting out based on somtehing else.

 

[ironduck]

Because conscience is largely based on guilt. You don't do something, because you have a feeling that you'll regret it, or be guilty later - or you're sorry you did something, and won't do it against because you're feeling guiltly. Sometimes this is true, but sometimes it's not, because you can have "false guilt"; feeling guilty isn't always an accurate indicator of actual guilt or innocence.

Ah, this is where we differ. My feeling of what is right and wrong is not based on guilt. I go by what is referred to as the golden rule here lately, and I intuitively feel when I'm breaking that. Now, breaking that may cause me to feel guilt, but it also causes me to feel a lot of others, much more constructive things. And doing opposite things similarly causes me to feel a bunch of things that are not related to guilt.

I realize that the feeling of guilt can be a major problem and often consumes people. If that is how one bases one's morals it will be very easy to lose sight of what is truly right and wrong, and I can see the need for an outside guidance in those cases. The solution, however, is to reconnect to one self and not be guided by guilt.

 

[Elrohir]

The guilt remains because the feeling that it's wrong still lingers in the back of your mind...even if you know it not to be the case. It's just the stigma attached to whatever it may be, for whatever reason.

What, exactly, is your point? Mine was only that guilt is not always rational, or connected to actual wrong-doing.

As far as God goes...where do we get all these ideas about him? From the Bible...Man's written word revealed to him by God. Right?

Not quite. I would define it as God's Word written down by man. It was guided by God, and is thus reliable.

Ok, so let's assume he's a higher being. I'd classify Archangels as such as well. Yet, we don't assume that a fallen angel such as Satan to be any of these wonderful things we attribute to God. So can I assume the "higher being" argument can be trashed?

No, it can't. You see, Satan is indeed a higher being on the spiritual ladder than humans. (In our current state, anyway) However, he is still a sinful, and fallible being - God is not. God is not sinful, or fallible. God isn't just the next guy higher up on the ladder - He's so far above the top of the ladder that we can't comprehend it.

Moral authority is not gained by being a higher power, like Satan or the angels have. It is gained by being an actual moral authority, as God is.

But the Bible tells us that God is good, and Satan is evil. Well, that's just one side of the story, isn't it? I mean, wouldn't Satan tell us that he's perfect, tell us he loves us, and would never lie to us?

I'm not telling anyone to run off and worship Satan. But considering all the evils in the world, I'd consider it far more likely that the God that many of you worship is far more sinister than you've been led to believe.

You obviously won't agree. But at least think about it. What would Satan have written, had he been the one doing the revealing? I'm pretty sure that the Bible wouldn't look that much different. Perfect cover to get people to follow him. They'll never know he was lying until it's far too late (dead).

I imagine, if Satan had had his followers write their own bible, it would sound an awful lot like what you're saying right now.

As for God being "sinister" - well, I can't really prove to you that He's not. This isn't a math equation where I can show you that "x = 2y + 24". God is, by His very nature, so far above us that we can't comprehend it. If we could, He wouldn't be God. (How could the finite comprehend the infinite, anyway? That doesn't even make sense) All I can say is that I see no evidence that He is sinister, and plenty to suggest that He is not.

So...what if God was really the Devil pretending to be your loving God? All you have to go on are his words. And again, judging by the things we see all over the world, and throughout history...it's not all that far-fetched.

What if it turns out the entire universe we know is really just one cell in the body of a super-universal chimp? I would say that there is, quite honestly, about as much possibility in that coming true as in your proposition; I see no evidence of either.

Ah, this is where we differ. My feeling of what is right and wrong is not based on guilt. I go by what is referred to as the golden rule here lately, and I intuitively feel when I'm breaking that. Now, breaking that may cause me to feel guilt, but it also causes me to feel a lot of others, much more constructive things. And doing opposite things similarly causes me to feel a bunch of things that are not related to guilt.

I realize that the feeling of guilt can be a major problem and often consumes people. If that is how one bases one's morals it will be very easy to lose sight of what is truly right and wrong, and I can see the need for an outside guidance in those cases. The solution, however, is to reconnect to one self and not be guided by guilt.

Why would "one self" know what is right and what is wrong? Why would an imperfect human being know this when God does not? And how is "one self" different from what I already am, anyway?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I already addressed this. There's plenty of stuff in most fiction that is factually true (the James Bond example). That doesn't change the fact that the story is fiction!

Well, Bond contains true facts but not true events. Whereas I am willing to bet that at least some of the events described in the OT really happened. And unlike Bond, it wasn't intended to be fiction, or to be read as such. I am quite certain that the authors of the historical parts not only intended them to be read as history, but were trying to write it as history.

 

[ironduck]

I don't know, I am just cantankerous and have something against Scientology. Actually, I think by my definition it could be considered scripture. I do use the term "scripture" broadly. But if I capitalize it then I am referring only to that scripture which I myself consider holy and inspired.

Scientology is an evil organization founded by L. Ron Hubbard as a money machine which destroys peoples' lives. Which is why it's the perfect example because there are people who believe his fictional writings to be divine revelations.

And I think that what happened isn't that the stories in the OT that you and so many other find so unbelievable, were created in that form. They probably got embellished and exaggerated at each retelling after starting out based on somtehing else.

Of course, that's how myths and legends are created. It still makes them fictional, though.

 

[ironduck]

Well, Bond contains true facts but not true events. Whereas I am willing to bet that at least some of the events described in the OT really happened. And unlike Bond, it wasn't intended to be fiction, or to be read as such. I am quite certain that the authors of the historical parts not only intended them to be read as history, but were trying to write it as history.

There are plenty of fictional stories that contain true historical parts. Almost any war novel, for instance.

I'm pretty sure that many myths and legends were meant mainly to be morally inspiring and entertaining rather than accurate historical descriptions. What exactly would be accurate about a cow formed by ice and fire giving birth to the first god, for instance?

 

[ironduck]

Why would "one self" know what is right and what is wrong? Why would an imperfect human being know this when God does not? And how is "one self" different from what I already am, anyway?

All decisions are based on a limited amount of information. The basis of the golden rule is that you can analyze your decisions and insert as much information as you can possibly gather. Most of the time the answer is fairly obvious, sometimes it isn't (ethical dilemmas). When it isn't, we need to work hard and think hard to try to find a correct decision.

So if you don't have an instictive knowledge you can rely on reason. Or combine them.

As for god - I don't know any god, so how can I implement that concept into my moral thinking? The answer is that I cannot.

 

[Sidhe]

Particularly in the Old Testament you have to wonder just how accurate it's portrayal of history is, Ancient historians often wrote hearsay and stories that grew in the telling up as fact, Herodotus is famous for this, Apparently there were over a million men in the invasion of Greece, depsite this number being logistically impossible to support even to this day. He also wove myth and local legend into what was suposed to be historical text, Marco Polo's work has often been described as the work of a man who never visited China, because of the glaring innacuracies of his work, and the fact that even though he visited the area he failed to mention the Great Wall Of China.

History is full of stretched truth. The New testament also stretches the truth somewhat in it's historical record,according to one gospel when Jesus is born Herod attempts to kill all first born children, despite there being no mention of this in historical texts of the time, this myth is held to be true though, even though another Gospel says Joseph an Mary return home without incident. I wouldn't question the message necessarily but, the stories are a bit warped by time. And why wouldn't they be, why should we place the Bible above other historical texts in accuracy, many suffer from some waywardness from fact to some extent or another, unless your one of those odd people who believes everything in the bible is fact, despite it contradicting itself, So then Joseph both returned home without incident and was hounded in a search for his first born? Yeah OK