Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

Apparently this is a fun discussion. Lets see where it goes. Here's what started it:

Rod quote: (that's ME!)
"...the liberal/Buddhist/Hindu/Mormon/Pagan moonlight ritual baby sacrifice deity that modern Christian church-goers are seeking and longing for."

Phil's response: "Rod, you really do think you're the only one that really understands the God of Christianity, don't you?"

Caleb joining in: "My bad Rod, I thought you serious there for a minute. I had a whole rant prepared and everything haha.

I am serious. This is where our Christian Church is going. We are filling our churches full of folks who don't want the Bible, Or the Biblical Jesus, Or the God of the Old Testament, or this God's Heaven...
They want what THEY want. They WANT a religion that lets them have all their desires and comforts at very little cost. They want Peace and tolerance and will bend every religious theology to get it.
I'm not alone in this Phil. I haven't said anything that John MacArthur, Chuck Swindol, or R.C. Sproul doesn't agree with.

So what are your thoughts?

Are you really classifying competitive religions alongside "ritual baby sacrificers," Rod?

Maybe you forget that Christianity is an outgrowth of belief in a God who once expected child sacrifice. It's very odd that you then attribute that to other religions instead.

:D

People will sacrifice many things for their religious desires. Babies are just the height of historical dedication.

Lee wrote:

"Maybe you forget that Christianity is an outgrowth of belief in a God who once expected child sacrifice..."

Defend this. I think this is completely, dead wrong. I've heard you say it before, so it's apparently one of the myths you value because it helps you to imagine yourself superior to the people around you -- like that ridiculous crap about "the traditional view of heaven" being that heaven is "in the sky."

Phil, first two things. 1. I did not say the traditional view of heaven was "up in the sky." 2. Heaven was, in Biblical times, understood as up in the sky.

For examples of child sacrifice, see Exodus 22:29-30. In Ezekiel, God explains why he demanded child sacrifice: see Ezekiel 20:25-26. See also Micah 6:7, where Micah wonders if he should sacrifice his own children; it goes without saying here that child sacrifice is considered the highest form of worship.

Unquestionably, you can find verses that condemn child sacrifice, too. Indeed, it is one of Israel's accomplishments, that they outgrew it faster than competing religions.

Finally, what does any of this have to do with my feeling superior? I don't know anyone on this board who presents a more superior attitude than you...and it's not even close. Is this a matter of you projecting your own faults?

Just a few observations:

Paul had lots of people who opposed him in Acts - Pharisees (of which he was/used to be one), Sadducees, Greeks. He engaged with each of these people differently - we can compare his sermon in Athens (Acts 17) to how he spoke t Jews and we can see his use of the resurrection to show his agreement with the Pharisees vs. the Sadducees.

I mention that to show the huge flaw in Rod's statement - "...the liberal/Buddhist/Hindu/Mormon/Pagan moonlight ritual baby sacrifice deity that modern Christian church-goers are seeking and longing for."

Not everyone is exactly the same. Liberal Christians are different from Mormons, Buddhists are different from Pagans. This statement is reckless and I can't see even an echo of its dehumanizing nature in scripture.

They want what THEY want. They WANT a religion that lets them have all their desires and comforts at very little cost. They want Peace and tolerance and will bend every religious theology to get it.

Maybe you ought to take the stone out of your own eye first, eh? It is easy to point fingers at what everyone else is doing. Do you really want to obey Jesus' commands? I mean, if he is God (which we agree on) shouldn't we listen to him?

I bring that up because again your statements are reckless. Jesus said "you have heard it said an eye for an eye...but I say to you." Jesus is overturning an OT law. I don't see this as a contradiction, but there is hard work and deep prayer to figure out what this means, and just complaining people don't want the God of the OT is shallow.

Someone steals your stuff. Someone slaps your face. Do you obey the OT (eye for an eye) or Jesus (don't fight back).

Rod wrote:

...the liberal/Buddhist/Hindu/Mormon/Pagan moonlight ritual baby sacrifice deity that modern Christian church-goers are seeking and longing for... I'm not alone in this Phil. I haven't said anything that John MacArthur, Chuck Swindol, or R.C. Sproul doesn't agree with.

I think what you must be talking about is the attempts to shift Protestant teaching in a direction that younger folks can accept -- to alter the presentation to match the changes in the culture. People are becoming more self-oriented in American culture, and that does affect how pastors need to address their congregants. But cultures always change. That's just flesh; and in the end, flesh is just flesh.

I don't view those attempts with the same disdain that you do; probably because I have less contempt for my brothers than you do. Contempt is flesh -- ALWAYS. We need to rid ourselves of it.

The leaders you mention are among those who regard any deviation from "historic Christianity" as heresy. I think they're conceited. What they call "historic" is an innovation from the 15th century that's as radical a shift as anything being introduced today. "Historic" Christianity dates from the 1st through 4th centuries, not from the 15th century. They should go rent some humility if they don't have any of their own.

Even allowing their conceit, there are a number of improvements that can be made to Protestant theology without pushing the limits of orthodoxy. We're seeing some of those from guys like Dallas Willard and NT Wright, and also from guys like Rob Bell. Willard and Wright are excellent, truly inspired teachers. I'm suspicious of Bell, but so far I've liked most of what I've heard from him; I need to read some of his books to see where he's heading, 'cause he's hanging with some guys who are not so benign.

What I've seen of guys like MacLaren and Pagitt -- the Emergents -- is off base; I think they're confusing the truth of Christ with Progressive politics, which is going to bite them on the butt pretty badly one of these days. The Progressives are not friends of the Church, they're Marxists. Their definition of "justice" is Marx's hellish distortion. Jim Wallis, Obama's buddy, is a pure Marxist in sheep's clothing. I don't even call him "Christian."

The problem I've seen that concerns me, Rod, is how many pastors I encounter don't even really understand the faith they're teaching. The level of instruction I hear in some places is just wretched. But that's really God's problem, not mine. I'll teach anybody who's open to be taught, and that's what I need to be concerned about. If I do the job God called me to do, that's all I can do. You're in the same boat. So maybe you ought to concern yourself less with what's wrong with "the Church," and devote yourself to walking closer to God yourself. I'm just sayin'.

The Rapture will be a seminal event in more ways than one. The Conservative Christians will be whisked away to join Jesus, while the Liberal Christians will be left to their "heaven" on earth. Lee and his throng of merry gays will finally be rid of us concerned with God's word about sin and will be free to engage in a never-ending Bachynalia (might as well celebrate the God you REALLY pray too). David (moderator) can still have his liberal lovefests on the college quadrangle with the aganostics and discuss how a loving God couldn't possible condemn the disobedient (It's SO out of character). And Phil could beat his little boy breasts and whine and cry about the unfairness of it all because that's all he really enjoys anyway.

Lee wrote: "Phil, first two things. 1. I did not say the traditional view of heaven was "up in the sky."

Uh... I'm pretty sure you did.

Lee wrote:

2. Heaven was, in Biblical times, understood as up in the sky."

Yes... and given their limited understanding of the details of astronomy, that was a perfectly reasonable understanding. But that's irrelevant to what you were saying about the traditional view of heaven, so why mention it?

Lee wrote:

Child sacrifice: Exodus 22:29-30. Ezekiel 20:25-26. Micah 6:7.

You've misinterpreted those passages horribly.

Yes, the Lord declares that all the firstborn belong to Him. But He does not want the humans killed. Take a look at Exodus 34:19-20, which is the same Law:

"19 "The first offspring from every womb belongs to Me, and all your male livestock, the first offspring from cattle and sheep.
20 "You shall redeem with a lamb the first offspring from a donkey; and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. You shall redeem all the firstborn of your sons. None shall appear before Me empty-handed."

Redeeming animals was optional. Redeeming human sons was not. They were not to be killed, they were to be dedicated to the service of Jehovah.

And notice what He says in Numbers 3:12-13 regarding the Levites:

12 "Now, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the sons of Israel instead of every firstborn, the first issue of the womb among the sons of Israel. So the Levites shall be Mine.
13 "For all the firstborn are Mine; on the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, from man to beast. They shall be Mine; I am the LORD."

Again, same Law, only about 2 years later. He wasn't calling for the Levites to be killed, He was saying they were devoted to His service.

Your claim about Micah is anachronistic. Child sacrifice was part of the Bronze age culture, yes, which is why Abraham could accept such a command from Jehovah. But Jehovah's prophets were quite clear about denouncing child sacrifice. Deut 18:10 makes that very clear; and even if you're one of those who imagines (incorrectly) that Deuteronomy was written by priests at the time of Josiah, that would be contemporary with Micah. Micah wrote around 700 BC, by which time the word of Jehovah would have made child sacrifice strictly forbidden.

It's also counter-textual. He's listing things that constitute profane worship in Jehovah's eyes. He was listing things God would NOT accept, not things God WOULD accept. Good grief.

And Ezekiel? That's late, written during the captivity. Even if you believe the nonsense putting child sacrifice in the Torah, it's counter-factual to read Ezekiel that way. He's talking about things He gave them over to, like Paul does in Romans 1:20-25. He's talking about the things they did that He rejected, not about things He commanded them to do. In that context, He's clearly denouncing what they did to their own children.

Regarding feeling superior: it's your motif, and the common psychology of all liberals, both theological and political. You don't believe what those lesser, superstitious Evangelicals believe; you're too sophisticated for that. Liberalism is simply arrogance masquerading as intellectual sophistication.

No, I'm not projecting. Nice try, though.

You're hard to figure, Phil. You clearly recognize that the traditional view of heaven differs from what the Bible teaches, and you surely recognize that the vast majority of people who talk about heaven speak of it as a place, with pearly gates and all, not a state of being. If that is not so, I would very much like to hear what you think the traditional view is, and why you reject the Biblical view.

In any case, I tend to give the Bible credit for saying what it means and meaning what it says. Let's look, for example, in the passage from Ezekiel, where God is speaking and says:

"So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.’"

I really don't know how you manage to twist this verse into something counter-textual. God tells them to sacrifice their firstborn (referring, surely, directly to the verse in Deuteronomy), and he did so to defile them and fill them with horror. That's what the verse says, pure and simple.

Now, I realize you don't like child sacrifice. So you turn the verse into something it doesn't say. Then, you claim liberalism requires intellectual sophistication, lol, when all it requires (in this case) is the ability to read without your bias.

Here is an interesting example of God commanding child sacrifice.

http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/0...

Lee wrote: "Here is an interesting example of God commanding child sacrifice.

http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/0..."

Oh, PLEASE. You, yourself, acknowledge that child sacrifice was a common part of Bronze Age worship, so it was not surprising to Abraham that God would command it. Yet, God did NOT want Isaac's life. He supplied a substitute. So God used a common item of Abraham's day but did not accept child sacrifice.

I'm sorry, Lee, but this whole discussion is so far from anything sound that I cannot take you seriously. End of discussion. Enjoy your ignorance, you work VERY hard to maintain it.

Wow, it's great to really get to know where all your theology is at. Amazing...

And yet you all encourage me even more to stick too my Biblical guns.

Phil getting his jabs in:
" So maybe you ought to concern yourself less with what's wrong with "the Church," and devote yourself to walking closer to God yourself."

This place is proof that we need more people to be concerned and discerning about how the church is doing. So that is my job and passion. :D
My goal is always to walk closer to God...never-ending quest.

Phil, how do you know that God did not want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Because the Bible was probably rewritten to say he didn't?

You never seem to have any evidence for your opinions. You just state them as if they are obvious. Unfortunately for you, they are not researched or even well-thought-out. The best argument you can ever muster is to call someone ignorant or arrogant who doesn't agree with your ignorant and arrogant bias. I see no reason whatsoever to read anything you write.

Lee wrote: "Phil, how do you know that God did not want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Because the Bible was probably rewritten to say he didn't?

You never seem to have any evidence for your opinions. You just s..."

You're saying that the Bible was rewritten because it doesn't say what you want it to say, and YOU are chiding ME for not having evidence????????

You ZERO!!!!!

Discussion's over, Lee. I supplied the evidence for everything I said. You didn't accept it, because you WANT to be heretical. I'm simply not going to waste my time further. Bye.

Good riddance, Phil. Take your arrogance elsewhere.

Sorry about derailing your thread, Rod. Carry on asking Phil about his view of God and heaven and why he ridicules anybody who differs in opinion from him.

I wouldn't take it personally. Phil has a habit of dismissing an entire body of research out of hand if it doesn't match his narrow-minded view of the Bible. For example, when the Documentary Hypothesis and midrashic sources lead to the logical conclusion that the earliest version of the story of Abraham may have read that Abraham did indeed kill Isaac, he pouts and sinks into his "but the Bible says" spew...and then claims that there's no evidence for such scholarly research, forgetting that he has zero evidence for his own Bible-thumping view. Phil's education is lacking, and he doesn't seem to know it, but assumes that anyone who gives credence to scholarly discoveries like the Documentary Hypothesis is "ignorant and arrogant." So of what value is his contribution? None, that I can see.

Lee - I'm not defending Phil because I've seen more personable rocks, but he believes the Bible is truly the Word of God and that's the limit on his scholarly focus. He dismisses my scientific erudition because he's taken one philosophy of science course and believes that's sufficient for Biblical support. Maybe some day he'll learn to stick by his guns in his core beliefs, but learn from the more knowledgeable in other fields, but....., until then, he's merely an obsessive one trick pony who can't tolerate extraneous discussion.

To be fair, I don't think Phil reads the material for our group, so he isn't aware that the arguments I quoted about God-ordained child sacrifice came directly from one of our apologetics books. When I said to Rod, "Maybe you forget that Christianity is an outgrowth of belief in a God who once expected child sacrifice," I was asking if Rod forgot what we read together. Everybody else probably recognizes this but Phil, who gets it in his head that I make this stuff up.

As I get older, I guess my buttons get easier to push.

Ha!, Ha! Lee - I get more crotchety by the moment, you have a rich future as a curmudgeon ahead of you.

I can see why no NEW people really join this group. Especially Christians.

You guys are frightening. This place is useless Spiritually.

Lee quote:
" I was asking if Rod forgot what we read together."

Do not assume that the crap you present Lee is accepted by me as truthful or helpful. I trust the Bible as the Word of God. If you don't like that then please stop wasting time here.

Our goal here WAS (I assumed) to discuss how best to do Christian Apologetics and spread the Truth of God (that we know through his Word) to a sinful hellbound world.
Everything YOU do here goes against that. You're holding up the train Lee.

Apologetics are worthless spiritually, Rod. We're in this forum to approach objective truth, not to advance our spiritual well-being.

I do recognize the need for spiritual encouragement, but I sure don't come to this forum for it. Maybe we should keep a thread or two running for that purpose, so that we don't get too polarized.

Besides, it's a little odd that you object to Bible passages which hint that people once sacrificed children to Yahweh. You are always going on about how God is unmerciful and vengeful. You have nothing against stoning and genocide. I guess child sacrifice is too evil for even you to stomach?

Rod - the Bible is the Word of God, but for spatial and temporal reasons is skimpy in history and science. Thoughtful Christians try to resolve modern knowledge with Biblical truth. There's nothing sinister going on with most of us - just searching for a consolidated Truth which I don't see as any insult to the Kingdom.

If we're trying to obey the Bible, where does the Bible say the Bible is the word of God? Where does it say we are to trust the Bible as the word of God?

I suspect you can find plenty of passages where Jesus or Paul references the word of God in reference to (an undefined) number of Jewish scriptures. But it is a view we bring to our 66 books, a view from our tradition as Christians, to trust the entire 66 book Bible as the word of God. I have no problem with that, I don't mind admitting the role of tradition.

David - what difference would it make if the Bible said in huge block letters "this is the official, child and handicapped approved, Moses and Elijah verified, Word of God?" None to the naysayer who denies it in his head, and none to the believer who knows it in his heart. Faith is funny that way - it makes the Truth easy to capture for those whose eyes have been opened for them and impossible to grasp for those without that benefit.

I don't necessarily disagree with that point Robert. My comment was more directed to Rod then the supposed "naysayer". Rod repeatedly speaks of the Bible as the Word of God, practically to the point where (it seems) his view of a true Christian is based on your view of the Bible.

So my question is to those who have such a view of the Bible - do you get that view of the Bible from the Bible or do you bring it in from outside? I think you bring it in from outside, but I'd like to hear if I am wrong on that.

David - I agree with Rod that the Bible is the ONLY RELIABLE Word of God. Do some bring their preconceptions to a reading of it's contents and translate toward their dispositions? Yes, of course, and it's difficult to read the Scriptures literally, as Rod does, or as being inerrant as I do because throwing our cultural biases into the mix is so tempting and natural, we can't avoid it. But the alternative condition is much more dangerous. It goes like this: "I've read the supposed Word of God; I don't like it in spots - seems harsh and out of touch with reality; Ah, but I hear God talking to me because I'm now his emissary; surely, He wants me to........"(fill in the blank). In all but a few instances, this isn't God giving direction at all, but the individual's own wants and prejudices peeking through and taking control. Leads right back to walking with Satan one more time.

Thanks Robert. I would agree the Bible is reliable in that it points us to Jesus Christ (who the Bible does refer to as the word of God and if we're going to try to be biblical maybe we should stick with that). I don't find the word inerrant helpful.

I do think there is another alternative condition then the one you mentioned - the Bible is the accepted reliable, specially inspired text for the Christian church; it is the book of God's people in the past (tradition) and today (community, church). So we don't read it as you said in your alternative condition by ourselves, we read it in light of tradition (if I come up with a new interpretation no one ever had, I'm probably wrong) and community (if I come up with something that only works in suburban USA but not in the persecuted or poverty stricken church in the world, I am probably wrong).

My point is just that we don't need to come near idolizing the Bible (as I think Rod does) if we just accept the place for church tradition and church community (and the Spirit working through all 3).

What does it mean to be "wrong", David?

Are you measuring wrongness against what the authors intended you to glean from the writing? Or against the Church? Against the Spirit, without respect for the original writings (in which case, the Bible could be "wrong" for promoting a spirit contrary to God)?

Because culture and social setting change, we MUST interpret the Bible differently than the prior generation, or it grows stale, like yesterday's news. I expect Living Word to remain relevant in changing times.

Haha, I don't know. Lee, I like those questions and I agree (with your third paragraph). I think it is a slightly different set of questions to the ones I was pursuing though.

I think many Christians (like Rod) harp on the "Bible is God's word" thing to such a point I see them placing the Bible in the trinity or making a certain belief about the Bible (inerrancy) a work to earn salvation. Robert offered what he saw as the only alternative, which read to me like a sort of "I just read the Bible myself and what i like is what is true". I don't think that works either.

I think a respect for tradition and a place in community is incredibly helpful - take that as a minimal point. I didn't mean to say you can't disagree with previous Christians (heck, they all disagree with each other!). I disagree with many. And if you have a totally new interpretation, it is likely you might be right. But if I respect those who have gone before me, I need to at least take account of the fact that what I am saying is new. Let me put it this way - the burden of proof is on me, with my new view.

As for community, I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be read and interpreted by individuals as authorities. The Bible is not just a source for some truth we can then write a theology book about. The Bible ought to be the tool that equips us to get about God's mission in the world.

So I'm not sure if I answered your question. I am not trying to set forth a measure of wrongness, by any stretch.

Actually, you answered my questions perfectly. David for Pope! (I'll wear your campaign button).

No David, you've misinterpreted the "like" part. What I like is immaterial. The Bible tells me how to conduct a Christian lifestyle and I'm to adhere to it whether I like it or not.