I started to leave this post as a comment on ratamacue0‘s recent post, What Started My Questioning? but decided to post it instead. Fellow blogger (and friend) unkleE left this comment as part of a conversation that he and ratamacue0 were having:
…most non-believers seem not to recognise that there isn’t one consistent portrait of God in the Bible – it changes through both Testaments – and then to choose the worst picture (which is often the earliest one) to critique. But if the claimed revelation of God is progressive, it would surely be fairer to choose a later picture.
I think most non-believers do recognize the difference; it’s just hard to forget that first impression given in the OT.
And really, how progressive is the picture the Bible paints? The NT points out that God doesn’t change, so those harsh characteristics he possessed in the OT are still being claimed by NT writers. The NT also repeats some things like “vengenance is mine, I will repay.” And it tells us not to fear those who can destroy the body, but he who can destroy both body and soul. The NT also gives us the doctrine of Hell, regardless of what that might mean.
I think some of the NT writers, like Paul and the author of Hebrews, are arguing that the method of salvation and the specific requirements God has for people are changing, and in that way the message becomes more progressive. More emphasis is placed on the mind and not just physical acts, for instance. But as to who God is, I don’t think that image really progresses from OT to NT. The same God that killed Uzzah for trying to steady the ark, condemns anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus, even though it’s hard to blame many of the Jews for saying Jesus was a blasphemer, considering the teachings in the Old Law.
Such a God is irrational. Many Christians seem to agree, which is why they don’t believe in parts of the OT. But since the NT still claims the same irrational God, I see no reason to believe in him at all. And to me, that seems much more consistent than trying to hold onto parts of the mythology, while rejecting the unsavory parts. If that god were real, and he wanted people to know about him, I think he’d keep the one source of information about him pure. Since that obviously didn’t happen with the Bible, why continue to hold to it at all? Why not put faith in a god who isn’t concerned with petty dogmas, one who simply set things in motion for us? One that may inspire people from time to time, but is largely content to let us live our lives without interference? To me, that seems to fit the evidence far better… and while I don’t have any actual belief in such a deity, I can see why some would. Why mesh it with Christianity, when it seems so superfluous?
Finding Truth 
kent, I can get finding comfort in the idea of god and all of that. If it comforts or strengthens you or others, then why not stay with it.
…but it’s just that even to you, it’s an idea. Your idea gives you hope, other people give you support and on and on. like you said, without that idea of god, others also have strength and hope, etc… so what does god do?
he doesnt cure the sick (at least all of them). he doesnt give you his shoulder to cry on. He may listen to you vent or offer praises to him, but wont bother speaking back. more often than not is answer is “no,” which looks a lot like he’s just ignoring you.
I just think that belief in your god and in your book look too much similar to belief in any god or in any book. It looks like the good that god does looks too much like all the things god doesnt do too.
I like to believe that all things will work out and will be okay. My belief in that, while it may give me some peace and comfort, does not make it true. people die awful deaths, others are maimed or disfigured for life, while others lose children or spouses, or whatever – so it doesnt all “work out,” yet I keep telling myself that it will, and you keep telling yourself that jesus cares.
I’m not trying to be condescending, I’m just trying to point out that faith boils down to blind faith. You all may have anecdotes that illustrates god’s providence, and UnkleE may have some scholars who agree that there was a real guy names jesus who lived in Palestine in the first century, but there is nothing that points to jesus performing literal miracles or being the literal son of god any more than there is to validate Athena helping Achilles in the battle of Troy.
so we boil it all down and it’s hope. I cant knock that. I just dont buy it when it’s wrapped up the way that it is.
LikeLike
Sure. And, by extension, we can also draw our own conclusions as to the underlying cause behind the miraculous wonders performed by the apostles in Acts 5:12—right?
LikeLike
…and some conclusions are just more plausible than others.
LikeLike
“If you check out the text, it doesn’t say God did anything. They just died, and we can draw our own conclusions as to the cause. ”
They didn’t “just die” unkleE , according to Peter.
They lied to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and they conspired to test the spirit of the Lord (verse 9)
“Many christians would say God did it, but I have never been totally happy with that explanation. ”
If this were a story you were “happy” with , you would be saying the logical conclusion points to God taking their lives.
Hmmmm
LikeLike
NIV’s when Ananias heard this does not do justice to the simultaneous action indicated by the present participle), suddenly he falls down and dies (exepsyxen, used primarily in accounts of death as a result of divine judgment–Acts 5:10; (biblegateway.com)
The shame and agony of detection, the horror of conscience not yet dead, were enough to paralyse the powers of life. Retribution is not less a divine act because it comes, through the working of divine laws, as the natural consequence of the sin which draws it down. (biblehub.com)
1. That the sin of this person was of no ordinary magnitude, else God would not have visited it with so signal a punishment. (sacredtexts.com)
I think it is safe to assume that God took their lives, whether you are a believer or not.
LikeLike
Amazing, but I agree with unklee. He is right on the money. The passage does not say Yahweh did it.
There may be a tacit implication but there is no express mention.
I mean, there is no doubt that Yahweh ordered Joshua to liquidate the Canaanites.
There is no doubt that Yahweh ordered Noah to build a boat as he was going to annihilate humanity – as was his divine right, of course.
In fact there are myriad places throughout the bible where Yahweh made his wish explicitly known and when compliance was not forthcoming he, like the savage, meglomaniacal son of a bitch that he was acted; swiftly and generally without mercy.
All that’s left are a air of sandals with little wisps of smoke.
Lot’s wife was turned in a lump of condiment, just like that. No messing about.
So, although it galls me to say, this passage, as unklee rightly points out is somewhat vague and ambiguous.
The alternatives are:
1. The couple felt so wracked with guilt that they had each a spontaneous cardiac arrest.
2. Peter killed them with his magical power.
3. It is a simple plot device to scare the es aitch one T out of kiddies and Christians so they don’t short change the collection plate during Sunday Service and thus it didn’t really happen.
LikeLike
Ark and Unkle agree?? And ya’ll say there’s no such thing as miracles! 😉
LikeLike
@William: Fair enough, my friend!
LikeLike
Man, you guys don’t need me at all. 🙂 This has been an interesting read!
LikeLike
Noooo! Come baaaaack!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark,
On balance, I think I’d be repeating myself to address your comment. However, I’ll point out…
This is consistent with what I said. I’m not arguing for historicity. I’m arguing for apparent / intended meaning.
LikeLike
S’okay, ratamacueO. It’s all good.
I am a bit sore today , what with my tongue being in my cheek all yesterday evening. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can honestly say, hand on heart, Yeshua Ben Josef-strike-me-dead if I lie, that I am a kinder person & unklee has been winding me up for quite some time.
LikeLike
@Ark
I am a kinder person
Actually I think I agree with you on this. Isn’t this a TV trope? The one with the harsh exterior tends to be the kindest person while the friendly calm guy almost always turned out to be the sinister main villain all these time.
LikeLike
@powellpowers
There is a tendency for the religious types to come across as all Sugar & Sweet, especially in the blogosphere.
Meanwhile, one must bear in mind that they (Christians) fully believe you are going to ‘Hell’ should you not genuflect at the knee and bow to the god they have committed themself to.
As with Eusebius of old, one gets the distinct impression that they are not above subtle manipulation of doctrine and dogma,(scriptural interpretation if you prefer) where it suits their needs – Christianity is a proselyting religion after all.
I have bantered with unklee for a number of years until he banned me from his blogs over an issue regarding Nazareth.
I find him, as with so many Christians of all stripes, to be condescending in the basest of fashion. His debating technique usually relies on exactitude when it suits him – as has been demonstrated by his interpretation of this particular piece, and his further views on Luke and Acts but he will bend this rule quite easily when it doesn’t suit.
See if he will engage you with any degree of honesty on the Virgin Birth!
His reliance on scholarly consensus is totally self-serving, ( he does enjoy mentioning Maurice Casey, does he not?) as he refuses to apply the same criteria for Old Testament consensus, considering it has little bearing on his Christian Worldview.
His apparent openness and willingness to discuss these issues is a complete sham. He has absolutely no desire or intention to consider the possibly that his worldview is wrong, although he will smugly tell you differently.
A quick perusal of his blogs will reveal his ”gentle” manner has a rather uncomfortable side and after one or two comments I for one was left with an unpleasant taste in my mouth.
And similar views have been expressed by a number of those who have interacted with him.
I consider he is a hypocrite who will use whatever means he sees fit to push his brand of religious diatribe.
LikeLike
@Ark
Didn’t really expect such a lengthy reply, but I appreciate the time and effort taken (or perhaps the disdain towards our subject at hand?).
In any case, I must say my way of thought is closer to yours and I do admire your courage for the no-holds-barred style which I don’t think I have the flair nor the cojones for.
That said, though I do agree with your conclusion above, I still believe in gentlemanly conduct towards people in general. Perhaps a good analogy would be a police officer administering reasonable force (or perhaps bad analogy given all the police brutality cases recently).
If the guy is civil – fine I would accord to him the same level of civility even though I may think that he is talking utter trash. I guess as part of society we have to be tolerant to each other eh? If not I’m sure there may be a long line of people waiting to sock me at the back of my head.
That is the pacifist me talking.
Not sure if you see what I’ve spoken to Arch about earlier regarding rights to belief.
I’m still not entirely sure every single belief is deserving of a right. Especially when a belief is based on falsehood. We do say that it’s not the thought but the action that matters. But to a certain extent I that is incorrect, especially since when it comes to children who may have extreme beliefs, adults do take sometimes drastic steps to correct them in their beliefs. So are we saying that rights of children can be violated? We certainly don’t tell them that they are entitled to their opinions and we respect it and stop there.
Obviously there is a corrective intent on our end. Some may say children do not have good grasp of knowledge hence it is ok that we educate them and correct their thinking. That is all fine and dandy, but what about adults? Is there a difference between a teenage neo-nazi vs a 35 year old neo-nazi? Why do we educate one and “respectfully disagree” with the other? Is it because one group we have control while the other may punch us back in the face?
Why this is important for me is because this actually change the ballgame with regards to civility and how we approach differences in opinions/beliefs. If there is indeed good case for rights to all beliefs without discrimination, then the right thing to do is indeed to be civil. On the other hand, if there is no so called “rights” to false believes, then it becomes paramount that we do our best to correct baseless thoughts (lets discuss what constitute baseless thoughts another day) and perhaps civility may and should be secondary in such a discussion.
I don’t know, from your all brazen style I suppose you are closer to the latter? E.g. there is no need to respect stupid beliefs and it would be better to eliminate them altogether.
LikeLike
@powellpowers
Oh, I can discuss in a reasonable fashion ’til the cows come home, humorous or straight or go at it hammer and tongs. Each way I always try to approach in an open and honest manner.
I object to the sycophantic fashion in which some bloggers, notably the religious kind, approach discussing their belief on the internet, especially with non-believers.
When you have someone like Kathy or Brandon on the line you know up front you are dealing with an indoctrinated half-wit, and one is occasionally inclined to give them some slack.
To paraphrase Yeshua Ben J ”Forgive them Father for they know not they are behaving like ignorant arseholes.”
But when they come on gooey and nice, trying to behave all intellectual … well, I give short shift to this type and am inclined to piddle on their cornflakes.
It must always be borne in mind that this rot is indoctrinated into kids … ask Nate.
Think Ken Ham.
And it all starts with the bible.
So while the likes of unklee may believe they are being reasonable, one way or another they generally won’t stop teaching this filth to children. He has a theology degree, apparently,and although it is not worth the scroll it is printed on, one generally doesn’t take a degree unless one is planning on using it for some purpose.
Everyone is entitled to believe what they like. Everyone. But the religious must simply keep it to themselves. But while children are exposed, then I will have my little say.
And I do not give a monkey’s uncle who may get upset.
LikeLike
“E.g. there is no need to respect stupid beliefs” – My problem, Powell, is not so much the “stupid beliefs,” as it is the gall it takes to come onto an atheist board and peddle them. You stay on your own blog and sing hallelujah at the top of your lungs, I’m not going to take the trouble to come to your blog and tell you you’re full of it, but you come onto an atheist blog and do the same, you are disrespecting the opinions of the atheists who post there, and I have no sympathy for you. I will either treat you with the same degree of disrespect that you are showing us, or I will be over on your blog, showing your followers why I think your elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top floor (and I’ll be bringing facts with me, not pie-in-the-sky “feelings”) – or both.
(You DO understand that that was the impersonal “you” –)
LikeLike
@unklee
Regarding Acts:
“Acts presents a picture of Paul that differs from his own description of himself in many of his letters, both factually and theologically.” biblical literature (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [1].
“That an actual companion of Paul writing about his mission journeys could be in so much disagreement with Paul (whose theology is evidenced in his letters) about fundamental issues such as the Law, his apostleship, and his relationship to the Jerusalem church is hardly conceivable.” biblical literature (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [2].
LikeLike
UnkleE, you write
Theologians and apologists like yourself made god immutable, you can consider it silly. What I think is silly is to go to a college to get a theology degree, now there we are talking silly.
So when you say god’s portrait is changing, do you imply he is inspiring different writers differently about his character or is it that as the writers interact with more enlightened peoples, their ideas of god change to the point where at its apex, they have god dying to save mankind from itself or what was your point?
Could you make it clear in a few words.
And please spare us the trope that we must read some expert in biblical interpretation to see that it ain’t full of some very sick stories. What has a god that wants to rich humanity with double speak and coded language unless you mean to say your beloved deity had from the very beginning intended to stack the deck against a vast majority of the human race.
LikeLike
“Theologians and apologists like yourself made god immutable, you can consider it silly. What I think is silly is to go to a college to get a theology degree, now there we are talking silly.”
Hi Makagutu, do I detect from your comment here that you thought my use of the word “silly” was directed at you? If so, I am sorry, that wasn’t my intention. I was calling some theology “silly”, a view you may agree with – and presumably go further than I would! 🙂
“So when you say god’s portrait is changing, do you imply he is inspiring different writers differently about his character or is it that as the writers interact with more enlightened peoples, their ideas of god change to the point where at its apex, they have god dying to save mankind from itself or what was your point?
Could you make it clear in a few words.”
Yes, both of those.
” What has a god that wants to rich humanity with double speak and coded language unless you mean to say your beloved deity had from the very beginning intended to stack the deck against a vast majority of the human race.”
It is a basic principle of communication to start where people are at, and take them at a pace they can handle to where you want them to be If you can).
Thanks for your questions.
LikeLike
@unklee
Interesting. Then why, in you opinion, did your god manifest in a relatively obscure area of the Roman Empire with a literacy rate of around 3 percent?
Would you consider it might have been better to manifest among people who were functionally literate or better? Or, do you believe literacy was likely a hindrance, and such a human manifestation from God was better directed at those more credulous and accepting of descriptions of supernatural occurrences?
If you are afraid or feel uncomfortable to answer me directly you could always direct a reply to Mak; I am sure he would not mind.
Or simply respond as an open comment.
Thanks
LikeLike
UnkleE you write
Why hasn’t there been a new revelation to the present age? What people like you are doing is reinterpreting old stories to make them make sense
LikeLike
No Ark, I definitely won’t mind.
LikeLike
Hi Makagutu, what makes you think that there is no new revelation in the present age?
LikeLike