Religious Language quickly re-appropriated by the ungodly

[Linna Heartbooger]

The presence of hypocrisy in religion has long troubled many, many people.

This year, it's really been coming home to me how even in the Bible itself... the people we see are .
But, you also get to see some of them exposed as hypocrites.
(or strongly hinted at by the narrative!)

Example 1: Jacob engaging in his act of deception against his brother Esau.
Esau was sent off to hunt some delicious game, and he's supposed to come back with the food for his dad and get his blessing from him.
Because of eavesdropping, Jacob and his mom cook up some meat before the brother gets back.
And Jacob brings said dish to his old, blind father, pretending to be Esau.
But Isaac's suspicions are raised and for a moment, the game is almost up!
He asks his son, basically:
If you're really Esau - well, how on earth did you find this food so quickly?
And then the pious language out of his son:
"Because the Lord your God granted me success."
And I wonder if that lie "greased the path" to Jacob's success with his deception...

And then another prime example is the story of a king... King Saul in 1 Samuel 15. He has done some things he was told to do by the prophet, but he definitely went directly against what he was told to do concerning LOOTING.
The prophet (Samuel) comes out to meet him, and his speech is queued.
It begins:
"Blessed be you to the Lord. I have performed the commandment of the Lord..."

Who else has ideas & observations about this?
...it's a subject that fascinates me, and frankly would be quite useful for my LIFE.
I think that Jesus got in a bit humorous burn on people like me when He said that, "the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light."

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

In part, though, the appeal is to the foreordaining of things, that is, the sinner acknowledges that their sin is part of the plan of history, incorporated into it somehow, so that it will, in turn, be defeated---whether the sinner will be defeated, personally, is a different, THE different (here) question, since only those who die "in" sin will die forever, as it were.

Now this might also be a matter of "let evil be done, that good might prevail" or something, too, which is unseemly, but perhaps a common argument of the heart.

OTOH I do have specific glosses of e.g. Jacob/Esau and the children-of-light precept, that do not go directly with a greater comportment of those two sections along your lines, so I have to rethink my glosses, how they might fit with your meta-analysis (if you will).

[Avatar]

Dunno if it counts strictly as hypocrisy, but I'm always struck by things like the bears tearing apart 42 children because they laughed at the prophet's baldness, and the Israelites being instructed to kill every man woman and child of their enemies, etc. etc.

I know, old testament stuff, but seems to speak to the nature of god to me.

(Or at least, how that nature was determined by the wants and needs of the people who believed.) (?)

--A

[Linna Heartbooger]

In part, though, the appeal is to the foreordaining of things, that is, the sinner acknowledges that their sin is part of the plan of history, incorporated into it somehow, so that it will, in turn, be defeated---whether the sinner will be defeated, personally, is a different, THE different (here) question, since only those who die "in" sin will die forever, as it were.

In a way, your description suits the narrative, because we're talking about Jacob, who much later - he is that guy who wrestled with God.
And that was so defining of a moment for him, and for revealing much about God.

I think the element of time is very essential here, too.
Whether one is thinking about past sin, or sin one is being tempted to in the present moment...

Now this might also be a matter of "let evil be done, that good might prevail" or something, too, which is unseemly, but perhaps a common argument of the heart.

Oh, that last one -IS- such a common argument of the human heart.
I remember the day I first saw that argument brought forth before my eyes.
Some guy came on a Christian teen chat channel (lol!) and was saying, "Well if God has saved you, and you're going to go to heaven in the end... you can just do whatever bad things you want!"
I didn't know what to say to it, but I was just lookin' at my screen going, "That has to be wrong!"
And I had no idea of how many, how strong and how carefully-developed the arguments against it (antinomianism) were...

OTOH I do have specific glosses of e.g. Jacob/Esau and the children-of-light precept, that do not go directly with a greater comportment of those two sections along your lines, so I have to rethink my glosses, how they might fit with your meta-analysis (if you will).

Hmmm... interesting.
I guess that when I see that portion of Old Testament narrative... the family conflict between Jacob and Esau, Rebekah and Isaac, these days, I think "Of those four characters in the story... there are no 'good guys'!"


Avatar- you bring up some things that I think I have some interesting responses to.
I want to give that some proper attention... (I'm not saying I get obsessive when it comes to such ticklish issues of scripture. but then.. I'm not saying I don't get obsessive!)
so that will be later...

...except right now, I say in response to this:

I know, old testament stuff, but seems to speak to the nature of god to me.

You never need to apologize for bringing up Old Testament stuff with me... I am very much of the mindset that it needs to be all one piece.
and yes, for that reason... nature of God, character of God needs to be the same.

[Avatar]

I look forward to hearing your take on it.

--A

[Skyweir]

Me too

[Linna Heartbooger]

...I'm always struck by things like the bears tearing apart 42 children because they laughed at the prophet's baldness...

Ah, so things like that...
Here's a situation kind of like that, except not as much.
Instead of being about Elisha, it's about Elijah, his predecessor & mentor:
Calling down fire from heaven on military units sent by King Ahaziah.

There is totally a discussion of it in the New Testament.
And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" But he turned and rebuked them, saying, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of." And they went on to another village.
(Luke 9:52-56)

So my opening thoughts are that this indicates that an action of something as serious as that... calling fire down from heaven... is not something that someone can readily rip out of its original context and say, "It would be fitting here." (in some other situation)
Jesus himself rebuked his followers for that.
This is a strong guard against some of the abuses that you (and I) fear.

Oh, as a bonus, this Samaritan city episode was mentioned in this post wayfriend made back in April. (the discussion in it was really food for thought for me.)

okay, enough of what I think on this for now... that's a start.
Av, I have a question for you.
Do you remember what context you'd encountered the story of Elisha and the bears in?
Was it just reading through that part of the Bible, or somewhere else?

and the Israelites being instructed to kill every man woman and child of their enemies, etc. etc.

Here are 3 things that helped answer the questions that bothered -me- about that one.
Mind you, I was someone who already -wanted- to believe in the God of the Bible and that that God is good; my question was, "if so, how can this be okay?"
though in a way, I think it was a defensive thing... more like "I don't want others to think bad of me" than that I had a carefully-considered opinion on whole cities, including women, children and livestock being declared herem* (devoted to destruction).

1. I encountered this line, in a discussion God has with Abraham long before those commands to kill every man, woman, and child in various cities were issued:
Then the Lord said to Abram, "Know this for certain: Your offspring will be foreigners in a land that does not belong to them; they will be enslaved and oppressed 400 years... In the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." (literally, "...Amorites is not yet complete.")
(Genesis 15:13, 16)

2. One day I was teaching Sunday School kids about the battle of Jericho... and I came in with some of the anxieties a grown-up has, "oh, no, how are they going to react to the killing part?"
but actually telling the story, I... try not to you know, "sanitize" it..
So there came a moment when I quietly said that they were to kill everyone.
One of the kids informed me, "So they wouldn't come back."
And then the memory of what consequence -not- following that command had (in many cases, it was -not- followed.) came flooding back to me, and I was just there, thinking to myself, "huh."

3. Most of all is the story of Rahab the prostitute, who lived in a house built into the wall of Jericho.
It's in Joshua 2, and 6.
Have you heard this one?


* Yep, we are talking about the word that SRD gets the name of a raver from.

[Edit: replaced "that command to kill every man, woman, and child was encountered" with "those commands to kill every man, woman, and child in various cities were issued."]

[Avatar]

Do you remember what context you'd encountered the story of Elisha and the bears in? Was it just reading through that part of the Bible, or somewhere else?

Not 100% sure, might have been in Bible Ed in school, might have been random reading.

Gotta say though, I don't think you actually said what you thought about God causing 42 children to be torn to pieces by bears for calling his prophet "Baldy."

Maybe it can't be readily removed from it's context, but in that context it still seems pretty extreme...

Mind you, I was someone who already -wanted- to believe in the God of the Bible and that that God is good; my question was, "if so, how can this be okay?"
though in a way, I think it was a defensive thing... more like "I don't want others to think bad of me" than that I had a carefully-considered opinion on whole cities, including women, children and livestock being declared herem* (devoted to destruction).

Interesting, seems to have a similar root to "haram" (forbidden) in Islam.

2: Kids are generally quite alright with murder and mayhem, if they think the victims "deserved: it.

3: Yes, I'm familiar with the story of Rahab.

We might as well throw poor old Job in here too, God killing all his children as part of a bet to prove how devoted Job was to him. Never really approved of that either...

--A

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

I know, old testament stuff, but seems to speak to the nature of god to me.

You never need to apologize for bringing up Old Testament stuff with me... I am very much of the mindset that it needs to be all one piece.
and yes, for that reason... nature of God, character of God needs to be the same.

That's all well-and-good as long as your interlocutors don't think that "needs to be all one piece" means "logically coherent". Cuz if that's what they're waiting for, they're gonna either be sorely disappointed or have their deepest biases confirmed.

The paradox 'twixt the God of Justice/Wrath and the God of Love/Mercy is resolved in a Person (Jesus), not in a "system" or "formula".

In the meantime (until the Last Day), all that theologizing can do in this regard do is to perpetually avoid the Scylla and Charybdis represented by, on one hand, something like Marcionism (a good NT god and an evil OT god) and, on the other, a mutable god as found in something like Process Theology. Dynamically weaving between these two poles (steering through the "eye of the paradox") is the joy and frustration of the (both ever-unchanging and ever-new) work of theology.

[Linna Heartbooger]

Not 100% sure, might have been in Bible Ed in school, might have been random reading.

Was that like High School? And if so, I am curious about which year(s) (freshman/sophomore/jr/sr)?

Gotta say though, I don't think you actually said what you thought about God causing 42 children to be torn to pieces by bears for calling his prophet "Baldy."

Maybe it can't be readily removed from it's context, but in that context it still seems pretty extreme...

Right; I didn't.
Consider it a movement from familiar territory to less-familiar territory before approaching the completely-unfamiliar.
Where I go with 2 Kings 2 may depend on what things you see in 2 Kings 1.
Next move is yours.

2: Kids are generally quite alright with murder and mayhem, if they think the victims "deserved: it.

Ahh, kids...

3: Yes, I'm familiar with the story of Rahab.

Alright, so they let her live... what's up with that?

We might as well through poor old Job in here too, God killing all his children as part of a bet to prove how devoted Job was to him. Never really approved of that either...

The story of Job is very relevant to this thread.
I mean, just look at the level of the human dialogue... what words end up coming out of their mouths?!?

That's all well-and-good as long as your interlocutors don't think that "needs to be all one piece" means "logically coherent".

That's something I wasn't thinking about.
Well, do you see any flaws in me shifting "don't expect it to be logically coherent" to "don't expect a single human mind to be able to independently confirm it's logically coherent in a finite amount of time"?

The paradox 'twixt the God of Justice/Wrath and the God of Love/Mercy is resolved in a Person (Jesus), not in a "system" or "formula".

And how quickly we humans are enticed to replace Him (!) with a "system" or "formula"... (and here, I'm thoroughly culpable. Ugh.)

"Resolved in a Person"...
We're learning a Person.
And what a Person.

In the meantime (until the Last Day), all that theologizing can do in this regard do is to perpetually avoid the Scylla and Charybdis represented by, on one hand, something like Marcionism (a good NT god and an evil OT god) and, on the other, a mutable god as found in something like Process Theology. Dynamically weaving between these two poles (steering through the "eye of the paradox") is the joy and frustration of the (both ever-unchanging and ever-new) work of theology.

I don't know about those being two poles...
Those -would- be two major ways humans would come up to try to resolve the paradox, (or apparent-paradox) but... I hope there's more dimensions involved. (though not I'm not necessarily hoping for there to be more heresies involved!)

but "ever-unchanging and ever-new" I can dig!

[Avatar]

Not 100% sure, might have been in Bible Ed in school, might have been random reading.

Was that like High School? And if so, I am curious about which year(s) (freshman/sophomore/jr/sr)?

Really don't remember. (It works differently here anyway, right? ) If it was high school, it was early on, since I converted to atheism not long after I was 15, so figure somewhere between 12 & 15.

Right; I didn't.
Consider it a movement from familiar territory to less-familiar territory before approaching the completely-unfamiliar.
Where I go with 2 Kings 2 may depend on what things you see in 2 Kings 1.
Next move is yours.

Not sure what you're asking? Do I think it's ok for the captains and their men to have been immolated?

2: Kids are generally quite alright with murder and mayhem, if they think the victims "deserved: it.

Ahh, kids...

3: Yes, I'm familiar with the story of Rahab.

Alright, so they let her live... what's up with that?

The story of Job is very relevant to this thread.
I mean, just look at the level of the human dialogue... what words end up coming out of their mouths?!?

Again, not sure what you're asking? Job basically saying that if god gives he can take away?

--A

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

The story of Job is very relevant to this thread.
I mean, just look at the level of the human dialogue... what words end up coming out of their mouths?!?

Again, not sure what you're asking? Job basically saying that if god gives he can take away?

I think that she may be referring Job's three friends taking the sanctimonious high-ground (and perhaps, Job's accusing God of injustice).

Or maybe not.

Have some turkey?

[Avatar]

Not a big fan of turkey actually. Now, some rare roast beef on the other hand...

--A

[Skyweir]

So many incongruences in the Bible!

The bible as a recording written by men/trained scribes .. it tells a story with a clear agenda. That their God is the most powerful deity in existence, more terrible than Ba'al .. to be more feared than Osiris.. blast blah blah ... our God commands the slaughter of not only our enemies, but their women, children, cows, sheep .. everything! That's how big and 'bad' our God is!

Our god smiles on Lot's offering of his daughters to a group of violent townsfolk to rape - to save his male guest from being violated by them!

The mosaic law jarrs uncomfortably with the law Christ introduces.. love your neighbour, forgiveness, don't judge, the men who bring the woman who was caught in the act of adultery to be stoned, are chastened, whereas the mosaic law would have seen her stoned to death. The New Testament was written and compiled years after Jesus died. It was also written selectively in order to fulfill biblical prophecy but they slipped up as there are incongruences in the apostolic 'recordings'.

So yeah .. lots of problems and contradictions.

[Linna Heartbooger]

The bible as a recording written by men/trained scribes .. it tells a story with a clear agenda. That their God is the most powerful deity in existence, more terrible than Ba'al .. to be more feared than Osiris.. blast blah blah ... our God commands the slaughter of not only our enemies, but their women, children, cows, sheep .. everything! That's how big and 'bad' our God is!

Our god smiles on Lot's offering of his daughters to a group of violent townsfolk to rape - to save his male guest from being violated by them!

I am like you, in that I wince when I read the Bible's assessment of Lot as "that righteous man." (in Jude)

But now, you've forced me to go ahead and think about it.
Which is a good thing.

'cause there's this question percolating in the background for me:
"What DOES the Bible even mean when it talks about 'a righteous person'?"
(It might be one of those questions that I could study and learn more about till the day I die!)

So, like... a righteous person... will sometimes mess up.
(and yet there's the idea that people will be judged by the fruit of their deeds, their works...)
But, anyway, what if we interpret Lot's action there as a righteous person falling - and disastrously?
Pushed into a horrific, seemingly no-win situation, he went down... he did wrong.
In his anxiety and (probably) anger, he could think of no better "solution" than that horrible one in which he failed to protect his own daughters.
I know that one of the things that often tends to alienate me from God is a despairing fear when it appears there's no good solution to a moral quandry.

It seems to connect to the verse from proverbs that goes "the righteous falls seven times and rises again, but the wicked stumble in times of calamity."
That verse sounds like it's almost intended to sound paradoxical:
"seven" representing complete... falling seven times would mean someone is completely crippled, or completely paralyzed... and yet he gets up.

Then I looked up the verse in Proverbs itself... (silly evangelicals like me, only remember half a verse, quote it to others, and don't look it up in context. it's one of those things I'm all like 'we need to not do it that way!' but I'm still a culprit, arrg!) ...I read it in context and sort of got chills by how relevant it is to Lot's situation:
"Lie not in wait as a wicked man against the dwelling of the righteous;
do no violence to his home;
for the righteous falls seven times and rises again,
but the wicked stumble in times of calamity."
So yeah, I think the verdict of the Bible is that was what Lot did there was NOT OKAY.
(or what he did later!)
And yet somehow, he's counted as a righteous man by the end.

Well, I know you've investigated a bunch of apparent inconsistencies in the Bible before, skyweir...
...even as a really big project at one point in your life.
My dad said he read through the whole Bible twice - once when he was fairly young, and once at a time of great stress.
So that brings up a bunch of questions for me.
Like, how do I treat that - and the ensuing disappointment - with the respect that's due...
...even while I am engaging in a similar enterprise (to yours and perhaps my dad's) and getting different results?
And I ask myself, what will she think?
That my investigations are doomed, or have potential for hope?

And I have a question for you.
What is your reaction to the ideas about Lot here?
Any reaction you got!
(I'm afraid to ask about my tone - I don't want to be some self-satisified happy-clappy Christian gal saying "oh this is so easy for me! Let me fix your ideas there." No, these are deep things that require much of a person. each person in the conversation.)

I saw what you said here about going through a crisis of faith and seeing everything you'd built your life and your family's life on seemingly crumble.
there's so much heartache in that.
As Foamfollower would say, "That's a sad tale."
I bet there's mountains of stories in that story. Sometime I hope I can ask.

And thank you for your kind words on the other thread. ("The Last Great Prejudice")
When I get into these conversations (like on this thread here) that feel adversarial... I know I tend to go into my shell.
...so that majorly helped.
Maybe even if we can't solve some of these weighty theological problems, "once and for all," we can still solve some questions about how to make discussions on the internet where two people disagree work better.

[Skyweir]

I loved your post Linna - thank you for such a kind and gracious assessment. You can always ask me anything - about my no longer faith about anything.

We can PM chat any time - Im Suzanne Given on Facebook and messenger. I used to AOL account but haven't used since Furls (ack even that beautiful woman's name gets me!!!).

She was a wonderful woman of faith ..there are so many people are. People can be .. well .. people .. but it has never been about people. My faith crisis was pretty much solely about doctrine.

My reaction to Lot, is shock, horror and disgust. Of course you have to look at the past in its historical context - and in Lots day and pretty much throughout both old and new testaments women were no much different from an asset or than property. So this mitigates to some degree Lots actions - because his own daughters may have been viewed less valuable than the male stranger.

The problem I have with the Bible (and the institution of religion itself) - and there are some beautiful principles - predominantly with the introduction of the Christ that still very much resonate with me - even though I no longer believe a Christ ever existed. I still love the Christ persona. What a wonderful, self-less, loving character.

We can discuss off line anything you wish. I do not want to offend you though by my lack of belief/faith. So if I don't agree or see things as a person of faith does - its not meant to tear down what you believe. I may come across like that - and if I do ever roll my eyes (I know I am guilty of that - just give me a gentle reminder to tone it down. hahahahaha .. also I may drop the occasional obscenity - LOL - if find obscenities to be very expressive and utterly satisfying but - not all share my flippancy.

Also Im old now - and happy where I am in my life. My world is filled with love, love of my husband and family and my totally gorgeous granddaughter. Im more than comfortable with where I am today.

I think I may not have responded as you have asked. But yeah .. LOL .. I think you're truly great. I have enjoyed reading your posts. Keep posting - and if hook up if you are on facey

Cheers
sky!

[Linna Heartbooger]

Thanks for sharing what you did there, skyweir.
(and in conversation over e-mail too!)

You know, I find it a huge challenge to speak simultaneously to the theology of a thing and also to another human being's own experience and sorrows.
So sometimes I get stuck!
Apologies for that long pause.

...My reaction to Lot, is shock, horror and disgust. Of course you have to look at the past in its historical context - and in Lots day and pretty much throughout both old and new testaments women were no much different from an asset or than property. So this mitigates to some degree Lots actions - because his own daughters may have been viewed less valuable than the male stranger.

Okay, now you've gotten me thinking... about how human perspectives in that time often treated women as significantly "less valuable" than men.
And yet at all times, God places the value of any human being as immense.

So for the last few weeks I've been sort of doing my Bible reading from the perspective of expecting God to be telling the story with assumptions that were subversive-at-that-time about the high value of all humans - even those who were treated as "lesser." ...like women and slaves.
(oh. and I'm in Genesis, skyweir!)
_____________________________

...If it was high school, it was early on, since I converted to atheism not long after I was 15, so figure somewhere between 12 & 15.

14-15 was about the same age my convictions started to push me towards Christianity.
Those teenage years - maaan, there's a lot going on - including ideologically.

Sorry you've had to deal with a kinda slow pace outta me on this thread, Av.
If I were in your shoes I woulda maybe gotten tired of that by now...
But if this still holds interest for you after all those months... read on!

Right; I didn't.
Consider it a movement from familiar territory to less-familiar territory before approaching the completely-unfamiliar.
Where I go with 2 Kings 2 may depend on what things you see in 2 Kings 1.
Next move is yours.

Not sure what you're asking? Do I think it's ok for the captains and their men to have been immolated?

You're right... I sorta didn't put a specific question!
If I were to pick a question RE 2 Kings 1, it would something like:
"Why was the king trying to make Elijah come to him?"
Also, I would characterize this as beginning with military action against Elijah.
What evidence for/against that view is in the narrative?
_____________________________

I think that she may be referring Job's three friends taking the sanctimonious high-ground (and perhaps, Job's accusing God of injustice).

And lastly, thank you wosbald for trying to explain what I was likely thinking while I went AWOL on this thread!

Yes, I was referring to that!
especially the first and also, the second a bit.
I find it really fascinating Job is almost wall-to-wall human dialogue on suffering.

I had an old mentor who described Job's three friends' actions as such:
"They were great when the came and sat with him while he was suffering.
Once they opened their mouths, though, they were like a case study in what NOT to do in response to someone's suffering."

[Skyweir]

Dear sweet Linna, I truly love your thinking process .. you try to cover off on so many possible perspectives and interpretations of a particular point. I think that shows great compassion and empathy for others, those who share your views, those perhaps struggling to come to terms with a particular view as well as those who think entirely differently.

I think this is how, even in adversarial threads we can make them work better. I can learn from this, but not sure I will be able to replicate your approach, successfully or otherwise.

As to women, I spoke of women and their position and status historically. This is kinda born out in some scriptures in the Old Testament and the new, a woman should submit herself to her husband.

Ack I have to get the comp as my phone makes copying pasting and quoting impossible. LOL

[Avatar]

Sorry you've had to deal with a kinda slow pace outta me on this thread, Av.
If I were in your shoes I woulda maybe gotten tired of that by now...
But if this still holds interest for you after all those months... read on!

That's ok, I'm not going anywhere.

You're right... I sorta didn't put a specific question!
If I were to pick a question RE 2 Kings 1, it would something like:
"Why was the king trying to make Elijah come to him?"
Also, I would characterize this as beginning with military action against Elijah.
What evidence for/against that view is in the narrative?

Doesn't really make sense to me...guy just wantonly slaughtered 100+ men because their king sent them to ask him to come to him.

--A

[samrw3]

My personal take on religious matters is that there are so many built in difficulties in truly understanding them.

First of all, there are different translations of the Bible. I have had occasion to read a Greek translated version (still written in English but translated from a Greek version) and some of the texts that I had read in the King James version had a totally different meaning to me in the Greek translated version [sorry I don't remember any specifics]

Then there is a problem of scriptural accuracy...there are many biblical scholars who feel that Job is made of amalgamated people or some that Job existed but the stories he went through were amalgamated experiences that happened to various people.

We also have to remember no matter how good the scripture is ...it was written by man, then translated by different men and now interpreted by each individual. [Don't even get my started on the Nicene counsels where men decided what scriptures to include or exclude and how to write certain passages]

I think of it as the "whisper game" (sorry don't recall real name) where you whisper a sentence to a person and they whisper to next person and so on down the line. By the end of the line it usually comes out totally different - especially if one the people in the line intentionally makes up stuff.

My overall point is I tend to take some of the scriptures with a grain of salt or on occasion a mountain of salt. How I try to approach it (not saying I'm always successful) is how can what I am reading make me a better person or the lives around me better? If I cannot think of anything then I usually don't spend too much time on it and move along.