Job 8-10

[wolfpurplemoon]

Job is still bemoaning his torment at the hands of Satan (with permission of God), he is definitely justified in his complaints.

Comments

[iopha.livejournal.com]

Hi Jaron,

If a person who claims to be a Christian does something contrary to the Bible, like say, killing heretical Christians, you can't blame Christianity for his actions.

That's an interesting point, and I wonder how it applies to non-Chrisians. For example, I think it's pretty clear in the writings of Karl Marx that he thought one of the central goals of communism was supposed to be freedom. By parity of reasoning, if Stalin did something contrary to Marxism, we can't blame Marxism for it.

I wonder, though, who gets to define what is contrary to the Bible? Most Christians agree that the Bible requires interpretive work; it can't be taking literally, word for word (particularly the old Testament.) Take, once again, Deuteronomy, specifically Deut 13:6-9.

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.

Now, if you are a Christian living in North America (or in fact pretty much anywhere) chances are you do not follow this rule very closely; proselytizers from other religions are tolerated and this not only under law, but by conviction. Most people do not believe it is good to murder believers of different faiths.

Why is that? Well, maybe Christians believe only the law of the New Testament stands, because it forms a new covenant. I find this appealing myself, but then what to make of the other moral stances based on the Old Testament (such as the stance on homosexuality in Leviticus)? It seems they must be discarded along with God's command to kill anyone who tries to convert you (including, I guess, Scientologists, Buddhists, Pagans, and so on).

If we want to keep some of the Old Testament rules, but not all, then I guess we should decide what to keep and what to leave out based on our reason. I think it's pretty clear that we think it's immoral to kill people of other faiths, even if they try and convert people to their religion (would you kill me?), despite what the Old Testament says. So our interpretation of the Bible matters, and this interpretation is guided by moral reasoning: so moral reasoning is prior to the literal content of the Bible.

This is an important point, I think, because being 'contrary to the Bible' is pretty controversial (always has been!). Maybe there are Christians who think we should kill those of different faiths, as God smote the heretical tribes who allegedly practiced child sacrifice (though one wonders whether the infants of these tribes deserved death as well). Maybe the Christians who did what we consider horrible things believed themselves to be in accordance with the Bible and consider today's Christians actually... unchristian!

Now as you point out, the New Covenant has a very different ethical system: "You don't find any examples of a person being killed for not becoming a Christian in the New Testament."

Well, Jesus does say in Mark 6:11 that cities which do not receive Him will be destroyed and suffer more than Sodom and Gomorrah! But maybe there's a good way of figuring out which Old Testament rules stand and which do not based on a careful reading of the New Testament. This careful, interpretive reading can't be avoided since Jesus doesn't go over all the rules Himself. Once again, moral reasoning is paramount.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

It's frustrating to me how people like yourself show a total lack of understanding of what the Bible says and means. You sound AS IF you know what you are talking about though, so you more than likely lead people astray.

First, if the "other gods" which were followed back in those OT times called for killing children as worship, then you pretty much deserved the death penalty for worshipping them. You make it sound like someone got killed for simply bowing their head to a false god, when much darker things were happening.

Second, I happen to think Jesus, in sparing the prostitute, showed us that we are to stop killing these sinners and point the way to forgiveness and salvation. Homosexuality, which you mentioned above, is listed as a sin several times in the NT, as I think I posted elsewhere here. So there no actual room for interpretation there for Christians. Just about every law from the OT that we dont follow anymore has a passage in the NT explaining why.

Finally, as you mentioned in your last paragraph, God will punish sinners in the end with possible death. But nowhere is force, abuse, or coercion portrayed as an option for us humans in spreading Christianity.

[jaronsjournal.livejournal.com]

Just to add something about homosexuality. It's still listed as a sin in the NT. But, as the prostitute was spared from death, we arent to abuse them or kill them. We simply share the love of Jesus, and lety them know they have the option of accepting him. We do however have to be firm that their actions are sinful.

[funkybomb.livejournal.com]

Threatening someone with death is exactly the sort of thing that coercion is.

[iopha.livejournal.com]

Hi Jaron,

It's frustrating to me how people like yourself show a total lack of understanding of what the Bible says and means. You sound AS IF you know what you are talking about though, so you more than likely lead people astray.

I'm sorry; it certainly isn't my intent to frustrate you here. The only point I was trying to make was that, as a matter of fact, there are very many competing interpretations of the Bible available. How to read it, and what to take away from the Old and New Testaments, is anything but self-evident. You claim that every rule no longer followed from the OT has a NT basis. But surely you recognize the fact that other Christians might practice and understand the Bible differently, and agreement on these matters is not forthcoming.

I didn't mean to imply that Christians have a duty to convert forcibly. It was just an example to bring out interpretational difficulties.

In the past, these interpretational conflicts led to religious war. On the European continent, the Peace at Westphalia brokered a tenuous religious peace that only secular governance guaranteed in the long-term. I'm not that interested in various arguments for or against Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism (or the hundreds of various sects and sub-sects). Rather, I just want to very humbly suggest a few political theses that we should be able to agree on:

First, the freedom to worship as one sees fit, or refrain from worship, should be respected. I think we're on the same page here.

Second, given the immense variety of religions in the world, monotheistic, polytheistic, and so on, and the doctrinal differences within religions, our political systems should take no stand or promote any particular sect, creed, or dogma. Government should neither promote atheism nor Christianity.

Third, arguments in the public sphere should be argued with what I'll term "public reasons." A public reason is something that can, in principle, be intelligible to everyone regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. For example, I'm not a Christian; so defending a certain moral prescription on a purely Biblical basis is not going to persuade me. However, since we've agreed that morality is rational, with or without a God, you can provide me with non-Biblical arguments. I think this is an important civic duty to perform.

So, while it may the case that homosexuality is condemned both in the OT and NT, because I don't recognize the authority of the Gospels (along with Jews, Buddhists, Muslisms, and so on), I will ask for the reasons why the NT says this, and evaluate these reasons. Likewise, our political system should never make laws on a solely Scriptural basis.

The reason I brought up the case studies of Norway and Sweden was to show that these secular countries are quite capable, without direct Biblical inspiration, of allowing their citizens to prosper and enjoy their freedom. Of course as a private citizen you are perfectly free (and should be perfectly free) of following any moral rule you see fit that goes over and above what secular consensus achieves.

In Canada, where I live, no Church, priest or minister is forced to perform gay marriages against their will; but gays and lesbians can marry if they so choose. This seems right to me.

[iopha.livejournal.com]

I should mention that I do find the concept of Hell, as traditionally conceived, intrinsically coercive. Many think that Atheists reject God out of pride, or out of a sinful desire to do what they wish, but that deep down we know He exists. I can assure you, at least for me, this is not the case.

I've really, honestly, deeply, and at length thought about it. I considered the arguments, looked at the evidence. At the suggestion of friends I've even "prayed" and waited for an answer. There was nothing. Nothing at all. I feel like I've done my absolute best. I'm not angry at God; I just genuinely don't think there is such a Being, not the Christian one, not the Zoroastrian one.

If I'm wrong, and if I do have a soul, and I stand in judgement before your God (or Allah, or Ahura-Mazda, or whoever) and this God looks in my heart and mind and sees that I did not reject Him from malice or hatred or jealousy or pride, that I did my best in this all too short and brief life-span, and just came to the wrong conclusion, I can't believe I would be condemned to an eternity of suffering and pain. It would have been an honest mistake committed in a brief, frail and fallible mortal life.

For an infinitesimally small fraction of time, I was wrong about something very important; and if I were to stand in judgement and see Him before me, and truly know I was wrong to be an atheist, I would immediately repent. Will I go to Hell? Would a just God condemn me to horrible suffering forever and ever? Maybe. I don't have the answer to that question. You might think "well, why take the chance?" then I ask: "Well, who's right, then?" because, as I've said, I've looked at the evidence, the arguments, the texts of dozens of religions that claim I will be damned if I don't choose them. So I politely decline Pascal's wager.

As far as I'm concerned, the evidence for Islam is as good as Christianity, which is to say, not that great; and both say I will be punished. Maybe you think that if I looked hard enough and honestly enough at the Bible I could not help but become a Christian and see the truth of these doctrines, and the falsity of others. Of course, the Muslim feels the same way; and I, as an atheist, have come to the conclusion both are (probably) wrong, barring future evidence and arguments I may not have considered.

But it's been a thoroughly honest process; and if there is a God, and I am punished for all this, the possibility of this punishment certainly doesn't speak to the goodness of this being or my desire to worship it. It seems to me any being who would torture me forever because I made a mistake doesn't deserve the name 'God.'