Kevin's Watch

One of the most troubling questions of Christian faith: (and one I think about a lot.)

Av wrote:Didn't the approach sorta change from "kill everybody" to "love everybody"? (I exaggerate for effect...you know what I mean.)

The question of, "How do Christians deal with the question of whether the God of the Bible is a schizophrenic, two-headed monster?" is a pretty important one, I think. (!)
I don't think the divide is along the lines of "Old Testament God" versus "New Testament God" at all, though.
But I think any "simple" response that cuts off dialogue is bound to be insufficient.

I think a lot of it has to do with ones assumptions.
I think society has imported some Christian (or "Christian") assumptions for "how a (theoretical) God should be" - but they don't really work outside of their original context.
So we end up with some myth about "the way the world should be if there is a God"... like this one:

Of course God will forgive me; that's his job.

Okay, I think it was said with grim irony in its original context...

But I think everything changes when someone is working with the assumption that there is a God who made us.

I thought I'd create a story to respond*…
Hasn't anyone had a co-worker who comes to their job with a sense of entitlement, knows he or she isn't doing the job he could be, yet is full of complaint?
This kind of person practically would say, "Well, if the CEO thinks there's a problem with my work, he or she can come down here and tell me."

What do people think?

* after realizing that most ways I came up with to try to "respond" were real conversation-killers.

To really answer your question, I'd have to throw out your entire premises Briefly: I believe that if there is a 'God', there is no reason to believe it takes interest in little ol' us. It's allegedly the thing that created the universe, lies outside of it, and is bigger than it, why should it take notice? Why should it give incentive to us to 'behave'? That, to me, is like a house builder trying to make a deal with a singular grain of sand beneath the fourth board of the porch of the house. God would have grander designs.

Now, to discuss within your premises: the disparity between the Old and New testament was once explained to me thusly: Old= hundreds (sometimes thousands) of years in few pages, New= 30 years in the same number. The idea being that if equal treatment was given to the Old vs. the New, you would see a very patient entity trying constantly to warn his people away from its self-destructive behaviour until what we see: their terrible downfall.

This same person also said that the book of Joshua was nationalist propaganda written hundreds of years after the fact. I liked this particular teacher

As an outsider, I'd say why bother to reconcile? [Since it is a given, for believers, that one can't possibly understand God, anyway].
If you can rationalize the old testament with contradictions in other parts of the old testament, fine. You're a Jew.
If you can rationalize new testament with new testament fine, you are a Christian.

The attempt to align them with each other is purely politics and power.
Or, another perhaps less inflammatory way: If you are a parent, you know that the rules you make must change for different children and different ages. Eating shrimp and pig used to be dangerous [MOM: DON"T PUT THAT IN YOUR MOUTH! YOU DON"T KNOW WHERE IT"S BEEN!]. Not so anymore, or at least not Mom's decision.
/shrug.

Orlion wrote:To really answer your question, I'd have to throw out your entire premises Briefly: I believe that if there is a 'God', there is no reason to believe it takes interest in little ol' us. It's allegedly the thing that created the universe, lies outside of it, and is bigger than it, why should it take notice? Why should it give incentive to us to 'behave'? That, to me, is like a house builder trying to make a deal with a singular grain of sand beneath the fourth board of the porch of the house. God would have grander designs.

Okay, so that's where you're coming from.

Doesn't calling God an "it" tend to make God less in our eyes than humans? When I see an "it," I think that implies a being lacking personality.

Admittedly, you're working with a totally different set of premises than I am. Maybe this way, though, i get to find out how different...

Orlion wrote:The idea being that if equal treatment was given to the Old vs. the New, you would see a very patient entity trying constantly to warn his people away from its self-destructive behaviour until what we see: their terrible downfall.

Yeah... there's something in this I like too. Do you really mean "self-destructive" there, or just "destructive"?

Vraith wrote:As an outsider, I'd say why bother to reconcile? [Since it is a given, for believers, that one can't possibly understand God, anyway].

I think there is a good deal of wisdom in this.
One of my favorite theologians points out that many Christians get "burned" because we expect to be "insiders" to knowing God's plan for everything and it comes as a humbling shock when we learn "by bitter and bewildering experience" that we don't.

J.I. Packer wrote:...we feel that, for the honor of God (and also, though we do not say this, for the sake of our own reputation as spiritual Christians), it is necessary for us to claim that we are, so to speak, already in the signal-box, here and now enjoying inside information as to the why and wherefore of God's doings...

(Well, so glad I was warned so I can escape that kind of conceit. Oh wait, I will surely find plenty of other forms of pride and conceit to entangle me!)

Vraith wrote:The attempt to align them with each other (New Testament and Old Testament) is purely politics and power.

Okay, this I'm curious about... what do you mean?

Vraith wrote:Or, another perhaps less inflammatory way: If you are a parent, you know that the rules you make must change for different children and different ages. Eating shrimp and pig used to be dangerous [MOM: DON"T PUT THAT IN YOUR MOUTH! YOU DON"T KNOW WHERE IT"S BEEN!]. Not so anymore, or at least not Mom's decision.
/shrug.

Okay, so this part sounds like you're seeing them strongly as two different sets of rules for two different scenarios...

Linna Heartlistener wrote:

Orlion wrote:To really answer your question, I'd have to throw out your entire premises Briefly: I believe that if there is a 'God', there is no reason to believe it takes interest in little ol' us. It's allegedly the thing that created the universe, lies outside of it, and is bigger than it, why should it take notice? Why should it give incentive to us to 'behave'? That, to me, is like a house builder trying to make a deal with a singular grain of sand beneath the fourth board of the porch of the house. God would have grander designs.

Sure. That's where you're coming from...

Doesn't calling God an "it" tend to make God less in our eyes than humans? When I see an "it," I think that implies a being lacking personality.

Admittedly, you're working with a totally different set of premises than I am. Maybe this way, though, i find out how different...

'God', as an 'it' separates this entity from us, in other words, I'm placing God where it ought to be, without any personifying trappings. In this sense, it does lack a 'personality' in a human sense. Whatever it does, it does from a 'God perspective', not a 'human perspective'.

So I'm trying to avoid associating God with people. It just seems ridiculous to me, like talking about a friend in terms of how an amoeba might act.

Orlion wrote:The idea being that if equal treatment was given to the Old vs. the New, you would see a very patient entity trying constantly to warn his people away from its self-destructive behaviour until what we see: their terrible downfall.

Yeah... there's something in this I like too. Do you really mean "self-destructive" there, or just "destructive"?

It's ultimately both, I suppose

I don't believe in a deist or a Christian God,so I might not have much to say here .

I will resond to this, though:

Linna Heartlistener wrote:Hasn't anyone had a co-worker who comes to their job with a sense of entitlement, knows he or she isn't doing the job he could be, yet is full of complaint?
This kind of person practically would say, "Well, if the CEO thinks there's a problem with my work, he or she can come down here and tell me."

Some discrepancies here, I feel. When I signed up for my job I signed a contract, after reading it and making sure I fully understood the terms. Those included what was expected of me in return for my paycheck, and what the consequences would be if I didn't meet those expectations. That contract also holds my employer to account for their treatment of me.

If a Christian God is my boss, what we have is a contract I have never seen, signed upon my birth without my knowledge, which affords me no rights or protections, holds my employer accountable for none of his behaviours, with an ill-defined and oft seemingly paradoxical job description, and an arbritrary pay system, collectable on death, which see me either packed off to the companies luxury retirement village, or fired and sent to a prison that makes Abu Ghraib look like the Gold Coast.

Linna Heartlistener wrote:

Vraith wrote:The attempt to align them with each other (New Testament and Old Testament) is purely politics and power.

Okay, this I'm curious about... what do you mean?

Vraith wrote:Or, another perhaps less inflammatory way: If you are a parent, you know that the rules you make must change for different children and different ages. Eating shrimp and pig used to be dangerous [MOM: DON"T PUT THAT IN YOUR MOUTH! YOU DON"T KNOW WHERE IT"S BEEN!]. Not so anymore, or at least not Mom's decision.
/shrug.

Okay, so this part sounds like you're seeing them strongly as two different sets of rules for two different scenarios...

Those two points are connected, even if I didn't make it clear. They are two different sets of rules for two different scenarios. And because they are that, taking rules from the first scenario [old testament world] doesn't serve God's purpose in second scenario [new testament world]...it only serves the purpose of people...mostly bad people. There is some actual overlap [is "turn the other cheek" really any different than "though shalt not kill?"...no, if anything it is an expansion of the original commandment...the same can be said for adultery, the whore, and "go and sin no more," and a number of others]. But, if you are a Christian, do you really think Jesus is up there thinking "Christ!...oops I mean ME!...I knew I shoulda bashed the homos! Now they'll mess up everything!"

Linna Heartlistener wrote:One of the most troubling questions of Christian faith: (and one I think about a lot.)

Av wrote:Didn't the approach sorta change from "kill everybody" to "love everybody"? (I exaggerate for effect...you know what I mean.)

My understanding is that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament for the Christian, so that isn't an issue.

Cambo wrote:I don't believe in a deist or a Christian God,so I might not have much to say here .

I will resond to this, though:

Linna Heartlistener wrote:Hasn't anyone had a co-worker who comes to their job with a sense of entitlement, knows he or she isn't doing the job he could be, yet is full of complaint?
This kind of person practically would say, "Well, if the CEO thinks there's a problem with my work, he or she can come down here and tell me."

Some discrepancies here, I feel. When I signed up for my job I signed a contract, after reading it and making sure I fully understood the terms. Those included what was expected of me in return for my paycheck, and what the consequences would be if I didn't meet those expectations. That contract also holds my employer to account for their treatment of me.

If a Christian God is my boss, what we have is a contract I have never seen, signed upon my birth without my knowledge, which affords me no rights or protections, holds my employer accountable for none of his behaviours, with an ill-defined and oft seemingly paradoxical job description, and an arbritrary pay system, collectable on death, which see me either packed off to the companies luxury retirement village, or fired and sent to a prison that makes Abu Ghraib look like the Gold Coast.

Not being a Christian, I also have a limited role in commenting here, but as a Jew, what Cambo wrote prompted me to think that what I have (whether I live by it or not) is a contract, or more properly a covenant, with my "boss". Yes, it was sealed at my birth without my direct consent, but the terms (all 613 of them) are pretty clearly set out. There are those who contend we are chosen, but what we are chosen for is not entirely clear. Sometimes it does not appear to be anything particularly positive -- but it is what it is.

Is it coincidental that some of these terms resonate in SRD's works? Certainly nobody has claimed him to be an author with strong Judaic influences...

Savor Dam wrote:There are those who contend we are chosen, but what we are chosen for is not entirely clear. Sometimes it does not appear to be anything particularly positive -- but it is what it is.

This is a common misunderstanding.

"The Chosen" does not refer to Hashem choosing the twelve tribes of Israel, but that the tribes chose to accept the Torah and Hashem as their G-d. My understanding is that the covenant was offered to multiple peoples, but it was the children of Jacob who finally agreed to embrace it.

Damelon wrote:

Linna Heartlistener wrote:One of the most troubling questions of Christian faith: (and one I think about a lot.)

Av wrote:Didn't the approach sorta change from "kill everybody" to "love everybody"? (I exaggerate for effect...you know what I mean.)

My understanding is that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament for the Christian, so that isn't an issue.

But Christians appear (or claim) to adhere to many of the instructions/etc of the OT. How recently has it been decided that the new supersedes the old?

--A

Linna Heartlistener wrote:One of my favorite theologians points out that many Christians get "burned" because we expect to be "insiders" to knowing God's plan for everything and it comes as a humbling shock when we learn "by bitter and bewildering experience" that we don't.

Very interesting. People have a wrong idea about Christianity as they approach it. Groundless expectations that they have somehow latched onto. I recently posted some quotes about people approaching Zen with expectations that they aren't going to achieve.

Avatar wrote:

Damelon wrote:

Linna Heartlistener wrote:One of the most troubling questions of Christian faith: (and one I think about a lot.)

My understanding is that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament for the Christian, so that isn't an issue.

But Christians appear (or claim) to adhere to many of the instructions/etc of the OT. How recently has it been decided that the new supersedes the old?

--A

I'm not an expert, but I believe it's evolved since near the beginning. Taking the most obvious one, Christians don't have to follow Moses' dietary laws as laid out in Leviticus because in Matthew Jesus said, "Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man, but that which comes out of the mouth".

Menolly wrote:

Savor Dam wrote:There are those who contend we are chosen, but what we are chosen for is not entirely clear. Sometimes it does not appear to be anything particularly positive -- but it is what it is.

This is a common misunderstanding.

"The Chosen" does not refer to Hashem choosing the twelve tribes of Israel, but that the tribes chose to accept the Torah and Hashem as their G-d. My understanding is that the covenant was offered to multiple peoples, but it was the children of Jacob who finally agreed to embrace it.

The children of Jacob, but pre-10 commandments, right? If it's post 10 commandments, the story itself is almost null in terms of importance since god already has given the commandments to the children of jacob to obey...

Damelon wrote:I'm not an expert, but I believe it's evolved since near the beginning. Taking the most obvious one, Christians don't have to follow Moses' dietary laws as laid out in Leviticus because in Matthew Jesus said, "Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man, but that which comes out of the mouth".

But up until as late as the 1800's, they still relied on Exodus 22:18 despite Jesus saying "Let him who is without sin..."

I just wondered if it's an official teaching that the NT overrules the OT, and when it was first instituted. Officially.

--A

Avatar wrote:

Damelon wrote:I'm not an expert, but I believe it's evolved since near the beginning. Taking the most obvious one, Christians don't have to follow Moses' dietary laws as laid out in Leviticus because in Matthew Jesus said, "Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man, but that which comes out of the mouth".

But up until as late as the 1800's, they still relied on Exodus 22:18 despite Jesus saying "Let him who is without sin..."

I just wondered if it's an official teaching that the NT overrules the OT, and when it was first instituted. Officially.

--A

Taking a risk to answer a question that has a definite answer... (if I'm mistaken I'll just go back to my little hole)

Church history is a definite thing. It is distinct from belief. It is something we have definite historical record of. It was essentially one definite institution and there was essentially nothing outside of it for the first thousand years of Christianity (simplifying a little, leaving the Copts out of it for now...) That is a matter of historical record, and people who would dispute that do so without said record; in short, imagination and wishful thinking, vs hard
evidence that we actually have.

That evidence overwhelmingly confirms the existence of one institution, an official thing, if you will. That institution, for better or for worse, decided what the Christian canon was, what was the make-up of Scriptural canon and what the creed was. It held councils to determine what teachings were to be accepted and be considered orthodox (meaning right and true) and which were to be considered heresies (false teachings which ultimately undermine the entire faith).

So when you speak of Christians relying on a text, it must refer back to that and what the texts were always understood to mean. The situation you see today, of thousands of denominations driven by personal opinion of interpretation of Scripture, did not exist. There was official authority which did institute the ideas you are asking about. That authority, to the external observer, underwent the Great Schism a thousand years ago, yet the two separated parts - the eastern (Orthodox) Church and the western (Catholic) Church - continued to teach and worship in e established manner, although teaching - and not so much worship - diverged more and more as time went by until the so-called Reformation, which failed to reform much of anything,
so it's a level-one misnomer.

If you follow me so far, then I can say that that authority determined at the very beginning that the old covenant was finished and completed, and a new covenant was established. This covenant is expressed in text (which we call the OT and the NT), but not only in text, but also in the worship, iconography and commentary of the Church fathers and so on. So it is NOT a case of a legal text being superseded by a new text, but of a promise of a living God. The understanding of that covenant extends beyond the concept of merely a text that you can read for yourself and decide for yourself what
it is, and for most of Christian history was stated by a definite authority that was external to the individual, and consisted not only of living, but dead people as well. IOW, until the Roman idea (heresy in the Orthodox understanding) of a single man being able to make calls on his own, nowhere was the idea of the supremacy of one man accepted. All Councils, from the first one in the book of Acts, were collegiate affairs.

In the East, the collegial structure was maintained. In the West, it mutated to the papal structure you see today, beginning with the disintegration of Roman imperial authority, and the attendant abuses became possible which Martin Luther rebelled against, leading to the effective dis-integration of western Christianity, kind of like Arnor falling apart in Tolkien's tales, with the ascendence of the authority of the individual to reinvent deeply complex theology on one's own authority. Thus, in the west today, you cannot HAVE an "official" version, for there is no overarching authority to appeal to for it. But there was, and the ideas, historically, came out of that institution, of which only a few clear claimants to complete continuity - an essential
requisite if one is to take the Christian faith seriously - remain.

Again, the history is not merely my personal opinion, though the history is one of the things which ultimately confirmed my faith for me. Nothing, not the geopolitical entity known as America or the religious movement which is today called "Christianity" can be understood without reference to it's historical context. Yet it seems to me at the religious movement is very frequently treated without historical reference, something I now consider essential, not for salvation, but certainly for understanding. Just imagine a pompous Russian or whoever claiming to understand America and Americans without knowing anything of colonization, the revolution, westward expansion, the civil war, and so on. What sense could they possibly make of our religious, racial and other differences without that knowledge? So it is with Christianity.

PS: I realize there are errors of punctuation and spacing in my text, but it is impractical to correct them with this virtual keyboard that has no up/down arrows. (I know the difference between 'its' and 'it's' - I have to teach that stuff)

My apologies for the errors.

Vraith wrote:There is some actual overlap [is "turn the other cheek" really any different than "though shalt not kill?"...no, if anything it is an expansion of the original commandment...the same can be said for adultery, the whore, and "go and sin no more," and a number of others].

At the risk of niggling the example you chose to make your comparison... I'd like to take that comparison a bit further. Not killing someone is a simple commandment to avoid taking out your wrath on others. Anger is to be avoided. "Turn the other cheek" gives someone else who is expressing their anger an opportunity to reconsider. Not sure if that is an extension or a 'weaponization' of the commandment.
One of the few homilies that sticks in my mind was a presentation on the social context of "turn the other cheek". Instead of being a simple lesson in "be nice", my priest presented as a form of public dare, an invitation for someone to shame themself further, attempting to point out the folly of that path. I think the reason this resonated for me, and why I remember it today, is because it was one of the first examples I recall where humility was offered as an activist's tool for positive change, instead of how it is usually showcased, which is a passive granola-munching-love-in-can't-we-all-just-get-along chant.

dw

DukkhaWaynhim wrote:

Vraith wrote:There is some actual overlap [is "turn the other cheek" really any different than "though shalt not kill?"...no, if anything it is an expansion of the original commandment...the same can be said for adultery, the whore, and "go and sin no more," and a number of others].

At the risk of niggling the example you chose to make your comparison... I'd like to take that comparison a bit further. Not killing someone is a simple commandment to avoid taking out your wrath on others. Anger is to be avoided. "Turn the other cheek" gives someone else who is expressing their anger an opportunity to reconsider. Not sure if that is an extension or a 'weaponization' of the commandment.
One of the few homilies that sticks in my mind was a presentation on the social context of "turn the other cheek". Instead of being a simple lesson in "be nice", my priest presented as a form of public dare, an invitation for someone to shame themself further, attempting to point out the folly of that path. I think the reason this resonated for me, and why I remember it today, is because it was one of the first examples I recall where humility was offered as an activist's tool for positive change, instead of how it is usually showcased, which is a passive granola-munching-love-in-can't-we-all-just-get-along chant.

dw

No, that's fine...because I chose that one because of what you say. It is sometimes presented as passive, a submission/humbleness/other variations, but it isn't always, and isn't necessarily....and a couple film versions of Christ have actually presented that particular thing very well. And I don't think it's an accident, I think it is meant to act in both ways.