Josiah Concept Ministries

VJack reacts to Christian reaction to his Bible thoughts:

When faced with an atheist who is actually reading their bible and still rejects it, the argument becomes one of interpreting things too literally. “You’re missing the point. Christians don’t read their bibles literally like you are doing.” In other words, I am attacking a straw man by unfairly criticizing Christians for believing things they don’t actually believe. (source)

I’ve never said that VJack was reading the Bible too literally, only that he’s not taking everything into consideration.  To read anything–including the Bible–literally is to allow the writer to employ accepted literary devices, such as metaphors and hyperbole.

But, in the portions that VJack has posted so far, he is reading the Bible correctly.  God demanded animal sacrifice.  God declared certain things clean and other things unclean.  Nothing symbolic about those statements.

But, as I’ve pointed out, God has, through Christ, made all things clean.  Now, we are no longer bound to the Jewish ceremonial laws, which are the ones that include animal sacrifices.  There is a better sacrifice, pure and innocent blood poured out for our sins.  That blood was the blood of Christ, which we may use to enter the Holy of Holies pure and blameless before God.

The Old Testament is symbolic of the New Testament.

I should note that there is such a thing as HYPER-literal, but that is a different subject altogether.  People reading the Bible hyper-literally do not allow for any sort of literary device.  They will take obvious metaphors and read them literally.

For example, they take the Bible’s phrase “foundation of the world” (Ps 104:5) to mean that the Bible teaches a flat earth.  Of course that’s ridiculous.  Equally ridiculous is using the poetic phrase “circle of the earth” (Is 40:22) to prove that the Bible was forward thinking enough to teach a round earth.  The Bible isn’t a science text book and is neutral on cosmology.  The phrasing represents the author’s understanding of God’s revelation to him.

VJack is making an attempt–a half-hearted one, it seems–to understand the Bible.  I commend him for that.

In my previous post, I examined the verses that appeared on all four of Steve Ray’s lists of infallibly defined verses according to the Roman Catholic Church. In this post, I will take a quick look at two verses which appear on two of the lists, Matthew 16:16-19 and Matthew 26:26-28 et. al. with 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.

Before I look at those verses, I thought that I would point out that the Catholic interpretations of these verses neglect the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:4-5).

Matthew 16:16-19

The massive debate over this verse is centered around whether the “rock” is Peter, or his confession of Christ as the messiah.

The New Testament seems to assume that all believers are a holy priesthood (1 Pet 2:4-5).   Given that there is only one mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5), and all believers are baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13), it is unlikely that the apostles were made special priests.  Instead, all believers were made ministers of a new covenant (2 Cor 3:6).

See a longer argument here.

Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29

It isn’t much of a surprise that Jesus’ exact words were recored in the gospels, given that they are biographies of His life.  Paul repeats the key phrases “This is my body . . . This is my blood” in his first letter to the Corinthians.

But the larger context of 1 Corinthians 11 is rules and order for spiritual worship, not a theological treatise on the body and blood of Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist.  Therefore, it is unlikely that either Paul or any of the gospel writers were attempting to validate transubstantiation.

Moreover, interpreting these verses literally then asks us to interpret John 6:53-57 literally:

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. . . .”

But reading that passage literally fails to take verse 63 in to account: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (emphasis added).

Defining the verses this way seems to be self-defeating.

Second, is the god depicted in the Old Testament books I have read so far (Genesis through Numbers) the same god that I will encounter in the New Testament, or are these two different gods? If it is the same god, then it would seem that reading the Old Testament is worthwhile because it will teach me quite a bit about the character of this god, even if the covenants change. On the other hand, if we have two different gods here, then I should probably stop reading the Old Testament, as it is really telling me nothing useful. (source)

Yes, the God from the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament.

You hit the nail on the head.  The covenants change, which is why the seeming change in character.  I assure you, however, the Father is every bit as wrathful as you see in the Old Testament (cf. Rom 9:22-24; 1 Cor 11:32b; Rev 3:19).  It is the Holy Spirit that shows the nurturing side of God’s character, and the Son who bore the Father’s wrath so that we, the elect, don’t have to.  For a good outline of the Father’s continuing wrath, see this recent post.

Because God is a Trinity–three Persons of one essence–anything spoken of one can also be spoken of the others.  So Jesus Christ–God–is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8), and so is the Father.  His character has not changed, His wrath is merely sated in a different fashion.

By all means, read the Old Testament.  It will give you insight into God’s character.  He does punish, He does destroy.  He is vengeful and full of wrath when His children sin.  He smites the disobedient.  But He is more complex than righteous anger.  He loves the world so much, that He offered us the means of salvation (Jn 3:16) if we only confess faith in Christ (Rom 10:9-10).  A single confession that will change your life forever for the better.

VJack from the Atheist Revolution has really been catching my eye with his recent posts. I’m still in the middle of critiquing his view of the Bible’s early books. I have to answer one more question that he has proposed, which I will get to probably early next week. I’m going to be working quite a bit, and I still have a lot of reading to do for both this site and my new site.

On to VJack: his most recent post on Christianity and Dehumanization can be summed up in the following paragraph from it:

When those who embrace Jesus are perceived as being better people than those who do not, we have an entryway to dehumanization. The Christian bible teaches that god has a chosen people who are favored above all others. This jealous god routinely kills those who disobey his commands and leads his followers in the destruction of multiple outgroups. When god is on one’s side, one can do now wrong and one is has a certain moral superiority over all others. The bible teaches Christians that non-Christians are evil, admonishing them to kill nonbelievers and persons who worship other gods.

If I actually bought into VJack’s statement, “When god is on one’s side, one can do now [sic] wrong and one is has a certain moral superiority over all others,” then I would agree with the rest of his point.  Yes, the Jews were the chosen people of God, but they did plenty of things wrong during the course of being His chosen ones.  All of that is recorded throughout the books of Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and the Prophets.  God never protects us absolutely from doing anything wrong; it is still our free will to sin.

Next, I don’t believe that the Bible teaches anywhere that Christians are morally superior to anyone.  It exhorts us to remain blameless–which indicates that we are not, in fact, blameless, since we must be exhorted to remain so.  Romans 3:23 succinctly states that “. . . all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”  All.  As in everyone: “Everyone has turned away. Together they have become rotten to the core. No one, not even one person, does good things” (Ps 14:3).

What does Paul say of Christians and sin?  After building a case for total depravity more harsh than the one I just stated above (see Rom 1:18-32), he goes on to say this: “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things” (Rom 2:1, emphasis added).

The bumper sticker says “Christians aren’t better.  We’re just forgiven.”  How true those words are!

Next, I don’t believe that Christianity dehumanizes anyone.  The Bible teaches that we are all made in the image of God (Gen 1:27).  Also relevant is the story of Peter’s vision in Acts 10.

VJack’s final assertion, “The bible teaches Christians that non-Christians are evil, admonishing them to kill nonbelievers and persons who worship other gods” interested me since the Bible actually commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves, which is part of the Greatest Commandment.  And the Great Commission admonishes us to baptize every nation in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  I’d argue that it is impossible to do those things if we are killing the people we are supposed to love and baptize.

The apostle Paul writes:

Don’t pay people back with evil for the evil they do to you. Focus your thoughts on those things that are considered noble.  As much as it is possible, live in peace with everyone. Don’t take revenge, dear friends. Instead, let God’s anger take care of it. After all, Scripture says, “I alone have the right to take revenge. I will pay back, says the Lord.” But, “If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink. If you do this, you will make him feel guilty and ashamed.” Don’t let evil conquer you, but conquer evil with good.  (Rom 12:17-21)

I checked VJack’s proof text for Christians commanded to kill non-Christians, and it happens to be this:

In one of the cities the LORD your God is giving you, there may be a man or woman among you who is doing what the LORD considers evil. This person may be disregarding the conditions of the LORD’S promise by worshiping and bowing down to other gods, the sun, the moon, or the whole army of heaven. I have forbidden this. When you are told about it, investigate it thoroughly. If it’s true and it can be proven that this disgusting thing has been done in Israel, then bring the man or woman who did this evil thing to the gates of your city, and stone that person to death.  (Deut 17:2-5)

Deuteronomy is a lousy book to use for a proof text of anything.  In context, this book is a suzerainty treaty between God and the nation of Israel, a nation that has since been destroyed.  This means that the terms of the contract–especially the enforcement clauses–are no longer binding on anyone.  Paul says of the law of Moses, “. . . the letter kills, but the Spirit brings life” (2 Cor 3:6).  Since the law is no longer binding on us, we should look at why that rule was given and follow the reasoning behind it rather than rely on the actual words of the law.

The Bible is our written source book; by which we can objectively check how God reacts to certain actions or behaviors.  The penalties ascribed show that what we think of as minor sins, God actually views as a very big deal.  The law is really written in our hearts (cf. Ps 40:8 and Jer 31:33).  We need Christ, not the law (cf. Gal 3:24-26).

But I want everyone to notice something: VJack is wrong about the interpretation of this verse.  Note that it says “there may be a man or woman among you,” that is, a Jew!  This verse is only speaking of Jews, not the Gentiles.  VJack is seriously misrepresenting what the Bible says regarding in this matter.  I’ll close with the words of Christ:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Mat 5:43-45)

First, please help me locate the part of the New Testament that will make it clear to me that Leviticus, Numbers, and whatever other books to which this claim applies were invalidated by Jesus. I’m not saying you are wrong - I’m nowhere close to even starting the New Testament yet - I’d just like to know where I’ll find this part so I can be more careful about how I’m reading the Old Testament now. (source)

The Old Testament law is essentially divided into two basic categories.  Jewish Ceremonial Laws (which includes dietary laws) and General Moral Principles.  I would think that reading the law books, this division would be obvious to a reasonable person such as VJack.  In Romans and Galatians, Paul makes the purpose of the law clear: to teach us what sin is (Rom 3:19-31; Gal 3:10-14).  We are enslaved to sin (Eph 2:1-3).  But thanks to the grace of God that we enjoy through Christ, sin no longer has any dominion over us because Christ’s sacrifice freed us from the law (Rom 6:14).

Why do we still have the Bible?  My brother-in-law shared this in an e-mail to me, and I think it perfectly expresses what I’m trying to say:

It [the Bible] was written long ago, but it very much is valid in modern times. It is a timeless book of truths that is 100% correct. It should be our source for faith and understanding, but not the ONLY source. That is what prayer and thinking of Christ does for us. We are able to look past what the scripture says to the WHY. But without the initial scripture, we could never have anything to hold it accountable to. The Bible is the final authority. Period.

And if we are free of the letter of the law as my brother-in-law says (and Paul says in 2 Cor 3:6), then why not just live a life of sin?  We’re saved anyway, right?  We can find ways to argue that our sin is the “spirit” of the law, can’t we?  Well, the apostle Paul said it better than I could in Romans 6:1-14.  If we profess a life of righteousness by faith, we ought to live that life out rather than just talk about or think about.

I may have misjudged VJack from Atheist Revolution. I thought that his true motive behind reading the Bible from cover to cover was to poke fun at it. But it seems that the convicting power of the Holy Spirit may be at work in his heart, as he now seems to actually want to understand what he is reading with more clarity:

When confronted with scriptural evidence that there are many laws, clearly stated as such, for which the penalties are often banishment or death, which virtually no modern Christian even attempts to follow, one should expect a predictable Christian response. The wording will vary, but the response will be along the lines of how the Old Testament no longer applies because god’s covenant with Moses and his predecessors was replaced by Jesus and the New Testament.

Fair enough. I’ll ask two things of the Christian making this claim, and I’ll ask them not in a challenging manner but as a plea for assistance. (source)

I’ll answer his questions in a moment. But first, let’s understand why there are no more animal sacrifices.

First off, we have to understand that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23a). Calling death a “wage” implies that we earn it through our sins. All have sinned (Rom 3:23), so all have earned death by their sin. This means that every human being on this planet deserves to die because we all sin. Everyone.

With that in mind, is it so terrible that God demands the death penalty for some sins that we consider relatively minor? Of course not–it is all sin, which is paid for by death. “[W]ithout the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb 9:22)–either our own blood or someone else’s. Up to this point, the blood of animals had been used to cleanse and purify us from our sins (Heb 9:13). Now, the precious blood of Christ purifies us (Heb 9:14).

Christ offered Himself to the Father, perfect and without blemish (Heb 9:14), as propitiation for our sins once for all (Heb 9:26b). Throughout the book of Hebrews, the author argues that the tabernacle and Tent of Meeting described in the Book of the Law is an imperfect copy of heaven (Heb 9:1-12). Jesus has entered into the real thing–heaven–and is seated at the right hand of the Father, making intersession for us in a way that no high priest ever could (Heb 1:3b, Heb 7:11-28).

The prophets predict an end to animal sacrifices. Malachi predicts that a new type of sacrifice will be offered:

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (1:11)

This is fulfilled by Christians living by the word of God, everyday and in every place:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Rom 12:1-2)

Christ’s sacrifice perfects us. We no longer need animal blood to do so.

I will address VJack’s specific questions in my next post. Stay tuned.

The $10 million dollar question asked of Roman Catholic apologists has finally been answered, and not because we asked it about a zillion times.  It was answered because Steve Ray got curious.  The $10 million dollar question is thus:

Which Bible verses are infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic Church?

The answer still isn’t a definitive answer.  Instead, he gives us 4 separate lists, which he asserts are similar, but really are very different.  I thought I’d take a look at each verse over the next few days, compare the dogmatic definition with a traditional, common sense exegesis of the text, and see how different they are.  James White apparently isn’t going to do this.  The only other person I could see doing this is Carrie from But These Are Written, but she’s more of a quotation kind of girl.

I’ll keep an eye out to see if anyone else is doing something similar, and link to their analysis.

Here is each list:

First List

1. Romans 5:12
2. 1 Corinthians 4:7
3. Isaiah 7:17
4. Genesis 3:15 in conjunction with Luke 1:28
5. Philippians 2:6
6. Matthew 16:16-19
7. Luke 22:32
8. John 3:5
9. Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24
10. Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29
11. Malachi 1:11
12. John 6:54-57
13. Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23
14. James 5:14
15. Deuteronomy 6:5 and Matthew 22:37

Second List

1. John 3:5
2. Luke 22:19
3. 1 Corinthians 11:24
4. John 20:22-23
5. Romans 5:12
6. James 5:14-15

Third List

1. Romans 5:12
2. John 3:5
3. Mathew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:23
4. John 20:22
5. James 5:14
6. Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24
7. Matthew 16:16, John 21:15

Fourth List

1. John 3:5
2. Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24
3. John 20:23
4. John 20:22
5. Rom 5:12
6. James 5:14

Starting from the first list, I have no disagreement with the “sin” referred to in Romans 5:12 as “original sin.”  This is our propensity to sin, this is why we are totally depraved.  Remember that famous verse, Romans 3:23: “. . . for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

I don’t have a problem with divine grace as being a gift from God, solely given to us without merit of our own.  I’m just not sure that 1 Corinthians 4:7 is the sole proof text for that concept.

I also have no problem with Isaiah 7:14 defined as a prophecy of Christ.

Finally, I believe that Philippians 2:6 clearly states the divinity of Christ as the RCC asserts also.

Now, the rest of that list I have some problems with, which I will detail in my next post.

The Bible says this about nonbelievers:

They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. (Eph 4:1

It is my sincere belief that this is a willful darkening of their own understanding.  This is ignorance by choice.  They aren’t trying to understand the Bible in its social context.  Instead, they are looking for reasons not to believe in it.

In this post from the Penitent Atheist, this ignorance becomes obvious:

As we all know, Jesus tells us to love our enemies and, if someone should strike us in the face, he commands that we invite that person to have a go at the other side. Now, as wonderful as this idea sounds in theory, most sane people understand that in practice this approach would be highly dubious. In fact, even committed Christians consider these commands to be so impractical that they willfully ignore and disobey them.

. . . Christians teach their children to defend themselves because they understand that a child who acted as Jesus commands would come home bloody and without lunch money, and even worse, without dignity. But let’s set aside the children and just talk about us adults. Jesus does not even allow us to hold up our hands in defense; we must open ourselves and invite second and third attacks. Who does that?

The PA isn’t the first person to have this type of an objection.  J.P. Holding had to answer a similar objection from the book Atheism: The Case Against God by George Smith.  This is what Holding has to say:

The “slap on the cheek” is a type of personal insult, so that the command to turn the other cheek is essentially a command not to start trading insults, but take the higher ground and turn away from the exchange. It is not, as many Skeptics have supposed, a license to allow yourself to get beat up. (source)

The PA is taking things to the height of illogic.  He starts with a complete misunderstanding of what the Bible is actually teaching.  My advice to him would be to try to learn what a problem teaching means before he posts something that looks completely ridiculous on his blog.

A poster going by the name of “ppederson” seems to be an apologist for Scientology. He has challenged my interpretation of this article, which I briefly touch here. Since I don’t have a name for him, assuming that he is male, I’ll call him our friendly “Scienpologist” for the time being. I’ve always wanted to interact with an apologist for Scientology, since it is one of the false religions that I speak against and I’ve never been able to find one on my own. But mainly I wanted to use that “Scienpologist” joke. I’ve been waiting for almost a year for that.
Our friendly Scienpologist (I’m the only one who finds this funny, aren’t I?) informs me that the pastor in the CNN.com article was using The Way to Happiness, which is written by L. Ron Hubbard but is not Scientology per se. I disagree. The cover gives it away: the road leading to the bright sun? That is Scientology symbolism very similar to the bridge leading to the bright sun that they use in their actual Scientology materials.

Scientologists have a history of deception to acheive their ends.

The Way to Happiness has 21 precepts for living a better life.  The pastor from my previous article adopted these, found Scriptural support for each one, and uses The Way to Happiness in his sermons.  His daughter is quoted as saying that they are “Pentecostal Scientologists.”

Most of the precepts are good.  But there are a few that aren’t Christian.  The precepts in question are “Do not harm a person of good will,” “Respect the religious beliefs of others,” “Try not to do things to others that you would not want them to do to you,” and “Try to treat others as you would want to be treated.”  These may have some Biblical support, but each–followed to a logical conclusion–should be rejected by the church.

Before I show why those should be rejected, the final precept in The Way to Happiness is worth special mention.  “Flourish and prosper” now puts the supporters of this pamphlet square into the prosperity gospel.  God does not want us to flourish and prosper–at least not all of us.  God created a world where it is simply not possible for everyone to get everything that they want.  This sort of mentality causes greed.  Look at this article and pay attention to some of the purchases that these prosperity preachers have made.  More about prosperity theology here.

Do not harm a person of good will.  That sounds excellent.  Most people will be honestly surprised to read that I don’t believe that this is Biblical.  Why?  Because it doesn’t go far enough, that’s why.

Jesus rejected this notion.  He said:

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mat 5:43-4

I echo the Lord’s rhetorical question: If you do not harm those of good will, what are you doing that is so different or better than anyone else of this world?

Respect the religious beliefs of others.  The problem here is that, to some extent, nearly every religion (except for the more New Age ones like Scientology or Unitarian Universalism) teach some sort of exclusivity.  Logically, if all roads led to God, what freedom have we?  I’ve argued previously that if there was never an incorrect choice, then we wouldn’t truly be free-willed creatures.  Without true freedom, there is no responsibility for our decisions.  This means that there is no logical possibility of sin.  At this point, almost every part of the Bible is wrong.

Jesus drew a line in the sand when He claimed to be the only way to God (Jn 14:6). A Christian who honors this precept is not being true to the gospel.

Try not to do things to others that you would not want them to do to you and try to treat others as you would want to be treated.  “Try” has the built-in notion of failure.  Jesus doesn’t want us to try; He wants us to do.

Yoda told Luke Skywalker the wisest words ever spoken by a puppet: “Do.  Or do not.  There is no try.” Jesus isn’t asking us to try: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mat 5:48).  Jesus, again, is calling us out on our lifestyle choices.  All the Scientology pamphlet is asking us to do is to give it a shot.  If we fail, then at least we tried.

“. . . and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) 

VJack from the Atheist Revolution is reading the Bible from cover to cover since it has been forever since he’s done that, and he wants to see if his atheism is going to make a difference. He’s sharing his initial impressions now, so I thought I’d analyze them.

This is the first time I’ve read the NIV translation, and it certainly makes for an easier read than the King James. Still, I like to go back and forth to compare both versions and note some of the seemingly important differences. As but one example, NIV replaces “thou shalt not kill” with “you will not murder.” At least to my mind, there is a world of difference between the meaning of “kill” and that of “murder.”

Having free Bible study software has finally paid off. The word rendered “kill” in the KJV and “murder” in the NIV is the Hebrew word ratsach (Strong’s H7523), which is a “primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).” The word literally means “kill,” but it is properly understood as “murder.”

Genesis makes for an interesting read, and I genuinely enjoyed it. A certain beauty is evident in some of the language and imagery. Of course, one must set aside the realities of modern science to some degree or else one will experience it as little more than a list of false claims about nature.

Wow, I could do a Dave Armstrong 8000 Word Answer To That Tiny Paragraph Alone(tm). To use just one example, if you use the word “kind” in Gen 1:21 to mean “species,” then you have a scientific falsehood. Scientists have observed speciation, the separating of one species into another species. But, if we understand “kind” as “type of animal,” then we have no such falsehood.

As for the creation story itself, I can’t recommend any better apologetics resources than Evidence for God from Science, and my own friend Mike the Geocreationist’s site. Those guys do a great job of reconciling the “differences” between mainstream science and the Bible.

The god described in these first three books is difficult to recommend. This god is presumably almighty and yet needs to rest while creating the universe. This god is presumably wise beyond measure but places two forbidden trees (that of knowledge and that of life) in the Garden of Eden where early humans can access them. Moreover, this god evidently botched the first attempt at creating humanity to the point where it was necessary to slaughter all except Noah and his clan. Thus, with regard to power and knowledge, this god seems to be quite flawed.

Wow. Where to begin? Well, first of all, my atheist friend from work once told me that the Bible says that God needs no rest, yet He rested on the seventh day. I have the same answer I gave then for VJack: I don’t need to keep this blog, but I do. I don’t need to drink Pepsi, but I do. Because a person (made in the image of God) doesn’t need to do something, doesn’t preclude him from doing it. Same with God. He rested, though it wasn’t necessary.

It should be noted that the Tree of Life was not forbidden, only the Tree of Knowledge.

Note that the creation account was marked by separating opposites: Light from darkness (remember this; it is recurring theme), day from night, sky from earth, and dry land from ocean. This is a world defined by opposites. The Tree of Life represents eternal life (light), and the Tree of Knowledge represents death (darkness). We cannot be truly free willed creatures unless we have right choices to make and wrong choices to make. If every choice led to eternal life in heaven with God and happiness, then we would be “slaves to righteousness.”

Instead, the Bible teaches that we are slaves to sin–the Tree of Knowledge (Eph2:1-3). Remember this part, too, as this will become very important as VJack later tries to ruminate on God’s actions from a moral standpoint. That is very interesting that a slave to sin, to unrighteousness, is prepared to make a moral judgment upon his creator.

There are good choices in the world, and there are bad choices. Unless we had both, I would argue that we aren’t free. We can only make one choice–either good or bad, whatever is present. But both are present, as well as the ability to distinguish between them. We are slaves to sin–the wrong choices–and we continuously make the wrong choices.

Instead of looking at it the way VJack does, “this god evidently botched the first attempt at creating humanity to the point where it was necessary to slaughter all except Noah and his clan;” look at as though we botched things up pretty bad. In my previous post, I talk about taking responsibility for our actions. With the choices God enabled us to make, we must take responsibility for making the wrong ones–even if we are enslaved to sin.

Some people are confused on the point of God’s omnipotence and omniscience. They believe that if God already knows the result of our choices, that we are forced to make them. It doesn’t logically follow that if someone knows we will do something, that we must do that. It only means that this someone knows we will. That until we make the choice, it is simply another possibility until we make the choice and turn it into an actuality.

This alleviates God from the responsibility for our decisions, and places it squarely upon our own shoulders. That means it was human action that necessitated the flood, and that we are the ones responsible for bringing God’s judgment. We must accept that, not place it all on God as VJack does.

Now the fun part. A creature passing moral judgments upon his creator:

What about morality? Well, there is little question about this. This god repeatedly refers to itself as jealous and demonstrates wrath, impatience, cruelty, intolerance, and more. The god described in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus is certainly willing to provide humanity with a number of laws, the majority of which are completely ignored by virtually all modern Christians. This god makes it clear that it is to be honored with animal blood and burnt offerings (i.e., animals sacrificed and burned on altars). However, most modern Christians would never dream of doing this, going so far as to equate such acts with Satanism when they were in fact mandated by the very god they claim to worship.

God defines our reality. Everything is a little less real when compared to Him. He made us in His image, and so it is very likely that He demonstrates a lot of the same types and characteristics that we do. As for jealousy, I would say that He is the Creator of the Universe and all life therein, so I think that He is justified in being jealous if we, who owe everything to him, pay homage to other deities that are nothing more than carved idols.

I would like to see a cite for impatience. I can counter with references to infinite patience.

Cruelty is subjective, so is intolerance. The Jews were the chosen people, so cruelty and intolerance to other peoples would be expected. During the events in the Torah, God’s covenant is only with the descendants of Isaac.

Wrath is another story altogether. Remember that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23; cf. Eph 2:1-3). Sin is a violation of the divine law of God. So we should expect that we have incurred His wrath if we do sin. The Bible clearly teaches us that we do sin; we are slaves to sin–we are dead in sin. Therefore, as above, we must take responsibility for our decisions when they don’t line up with God’s law and accept the fault for incurring His wrath.

Let’s examine why Christians “ignore” laws laid out in the Torah. I’m glad that VJack used the example of animal blood, since that is key to understanding the atonement of Christ. Repeatedly throughout Leviticus, God requests that we make animal sacrifices and pour the blood out as an atonement offering for sin. But, as VJack rightly observes, no Christian today would ever do something like that. But why, when the Bible so clearly tells us that that is how God wants us to atone for our sins against Him?  After all, there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22).

The answer lies in the book of Hebrews:

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? (Heb 7:11)

In other words, Jesus has now nullified the old covenant, under which animal sacrifices were required, and ushered in a new covenant. But, why aren’t animal sacrifices necessary? Because of Jesus Himself:

For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:

“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
‘You are a priest forever.’”

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:18-25, emphasis added)

So we have a better covenant in Christ, and He saves us to the uttermost, not the animal sacrifices.  For

. . . when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he(X) entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Heb 9:11-14, emphasis added)

The prophet Malachi also predicted a new type of sacrifice:

Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. (Mal 1:10-11, emphasis added)

What does that mean?  I propose that it is answered by the apostle Paul in the book of Romans: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (12:1).  Our bodies, purified by the blood of Christ, can now be offered to God as living sacrifices, living according to His word and not according to the ways of the world.

This is why there are no animal sacrifices.  We have found a superior atonement for sin through Christ, and our now-purified bodies may be offered as a living sacrifice to God.

VJack continues:

The infamous passage in Leviticus does indeed state that male homosexuality is wrong (and that men who engage in homosexual must be killed), and yet, this is embedded among so many other laws given to humanity that it hardly stands out. It is fascinating that Christians obsess about the couple brief mentions this receives while completely ignoring the call for blood sacrifices, the clear requirement of stoning for minor crimes, and the multitude of references to the evils of yeast.

It is not fascinating in the least the such a big deal is made about this insignificant law. Christians are not the ones who make a big deal out of it. I have gay friends and I don’t preach to them. I doubt they know my position on homosexuality at all–that I believe it is sin, as the Bible teaches. This is an issue that gay rights groups have fought to bring to the forefront of controversy.

Homosexuality should be treated as any other sin. The homosexual should be urged to honor God with his or her lifestyle, and then shown in the Bible why homosexuality is wrong. That person shouldn’t be allowed into church leadership until the lifestyle is renounced for good, but by the same token he should also not be excluded from the church or made to feel unwelcome in any way. Granted, the second one is tough after a confrontation about his lifestyle, but the gospel message is meant to offend people. It is meant to make people feel uncomfortable. That is the convicting power of the Holy Spirit at work.

As for minor crimes–well, a sin is a sin in God’s eyes. Stoning disobedient children serves to underscore how serious that offense is in God’s eyes, even if it is only relatively minor in our own.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m glad that today’s Christians ignore nearly all of the laws their biblical god hands down in these three books. And yet, I remain puzzled that anyone claiming to be a Christian can ignore all of this, selectively choosing the couple parts that make them feel good while neglecting the bulk of what is actually there. This is the sort of god who is unlikely to react favorably to such neglect. If I believed in such a god, I don’t think I’d go near anything containing yeast!

I think that I have satisfactorily answered his conclusion. The laws are meant as guideposts for living until Christ came to set us free from our bondage to sin. The letter of the law kills, but the Spirit gives life, according to the apostle Paul. The issues pertaining to morality are the ones we pay special attention to.

As to choosing only the parts that make me feel good, I struggle with sin each day of my life. I wish I had it as easy as VJack claims I do; I wish I could ignore the parts that give me pause. I wish I could look lustfully upon women–but I know that is sin. I wish I could take more shortcuts at work, but knowing that I work for God and not for Burger King stops me almost every time. (Yes, almost–I never claim perfection! I too fall short of God’s glory.) I wish I could read notes in the office not addressed to me to keep up on what’s going on or entertain dark fantasies.

In VJack’s world, I can because I’m a Christian and I can do whatever I want while still claiming morality. But I know that isn’t the case, and I pray that I have shown why that is not the case.

“. . . and you will know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (Jn 8:32)