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 
Last I heard was Joseph Smith and many people consider him a fraud. Has there been any other?
LikeLike
Plenty. But I think we may be talking at cross purposes. If you want to discuss this seriously, why don’t you clarify what you are asking please? If it’s just idle chat, lets do something better with our time.
LikeLike
You said there are many revelations, I asked you to tell me a few. How do you want me to write that seriously?
LikeLike
Let me explain what I’m thinking and you tell me what you think. You are an atheist I think, and I am a christian. Sometimes on blogs like this, atheists and christians have good discussions which everyone enjoys and sometimes we even learn things. Other times the discussions are just people sniping at each other from the trenches. I generally try to stay out of those “discussions”.
I’m trying to check out whether you want to have a thoughtful discussion about revelation and what one christian thinks about it, but so far I’m feeling like you are just sniping – that’s what the comment “What people like you are doing is reinterpreting old stories to make them make sense” sounds like. But I may be wrong, so I’m checking with you first.
So please tell me – is there something about revelation that you’d like to discuss with me, or are you just sniping?
I would like to be friendly, but I’m just wary. Sometime it is best to check out the ground rules before we start. Is that OK? Thanks.
To give you a clue where I was going with my comments, I believe in the trinity and the Holy Spirit, and I believe the Holy Spirit is active in revealing things to people.
LikeLike
@unklee
It is a statement such as this that perfectly illustrates that you have no genuine interest at all in uncovering truth as this is simply an issue of faith and has no basis in verifiable evidence.
In fact, if you were to demonstrate an iota of integrity you would readily admit this doctrine was devised by the church.
(Maybe I am being overly harsh and you are simply ignorant of the historical aspects of your religious doctrine? You have a degree in theology, so it begs the question:why are you unaware of this fact? The evidence is there. )
Thus your penchant for attempting to sway arguments by packing your defense with supposed expert testimony is little more that disingenuous bunkum as faith precedes everything in your book and any claims you may make to suggest you would be swayed should the evidence support a non-theist view are balderdash.
And we can know this simply by looking at arguments presented by any former Christian, who I am pretty sure, will read what you write,nod their head and admit:
”That’s exactly how I was. My god, now I realise how stupid I must have sounded!”
It is the level of (unintentional) hypocrisy that causes many of those who choose to answer your fallacious nonsense to become ”snipey”.
This is what Christian apologetics and religious indoctrination is all about , unklee and no amount of careful cherry-picking through scripture is going to alter this fact.
LikeLike
UnkleE what I am isn’t relevant to this discussion. I interact with theists of whatever stripe mainly for their entertainment value.
That check, I must say will not be useful to me, maybe for you. You see I don’t think there is anything that would qualify as revealed religion. I have no belief that gods exist and further what gods are. How such beings whose existence we don’t know could interact with men remains unproven. It is an idle fancy to believe some piece of writing qualifies as revelation.
You don’t have to be friendly. You have no obligation to answer me, mostly because your answers will be laced either with the holy spirit tells me or such and such a person says this. And you see many times for me, whereas I value what those who have gone before us have written, I would like to hear what you think after reading what they wrote.
LikeLike
[NOTICE!!! This comment is completely off-topic. If you’re interested in reading it, go for it. If you’d rather just stick to the conversation at hand, you can skip this one. — Nate]
DID THE APOSTLE PAUL RECOGNIZE CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS? BY STEVE FINNELL
Did the apostle Paul acknowledge the concept of Christian denominations? No, he did not. Denomination are created so Bible doctrine can be altered to meet the opinions of men.
Romans 16:16 ……All the churches of Christ greet you.(NASB)
The apostles Paul did not say all the churches of Judaizers greet you.— Galatians 2:4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who has sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. (NASB)
The apostle Paul did not say all the churches of The No Resurrection of The Dead greet you.—1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? (NASB)
The apostle Paul did not say all the churches of Rebellious Men and Empty Talkers greet you. —Titus 1:10-11 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. (NASB)
The apostle Paul did not say all the churches of Hymenaeus and Philetus greet you.—2 Timothy 2:17-18 …..Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset the faith of some. (NASB)
The apostle Paul did not say the churches of Shipwrecked Faith greet you.—1 Timothy 19-20 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. 20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme. (NASB)
The apostle Paul did not say the churches of Worldly and Empty Chatter greet you. —1 Timothy 6:20-21 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”—21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith….(NASB)
The apostles Paul did not say the churches of Savage Wolves greet you.—Acts 20:29-30 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things , to draw away the disciples after them. (NASB)
The apostle Paul did not say the Angels of Light churches greet you.— 2 Corinthians 11:13-14 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.(NASB).
The apostle Paul did not say the churches of Catholics greet you.
The apostle Paul did not say the churches of Methodists greet you.
The apostles Paul did not say the churches of the Communities greet you.
The apostle Paul did not say the churches of The Salvation Army greet you.
The apostle Paul did not say the churches of Calvinists greet you.
The apostle Paul did not say the churches of Baptists greet you.
The apostles Paul did not say the churches of Pentecostal greet you.
The apostle Paul did not the churches of The Latter Day Saints greet you.
There is only one body of Christ. (Ephesians 4:1-16)
YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com
LikeLike
It’s true, no one here has to be friendly to anyone, but I think it’s much nicer when we are.
I have no doubt that there are some apologists who are little more than liars — those who aren’t at all concerned with facts, but are only interested in using dogma for their own purposes. But honestly, there are people like that everywhere, even in skeptic circles. I don’t think unkleE fits that mold. I think he’s sincere in his beliefs, and to me, it seems evident that he’s put a lot of thought behind them. Of course, I don’t think he’s completely free of bias — but no one is.
Back to the actual topics at hand:
unkleE, you’re taking the position that God still reveals things to individuals today via the Holy Spirit. Mak is thinking more in terms of blanket revelation, like the Bible, Qur’an, Book of Mormon, etc. Do you have any thoughts on why we don’t see more revelation of that sort today? If you take the stance that the NT was the last reliable revelation of that sort, why do you think God’s waited to long to give us a new volume?
Also, the argument that God had to meet people where they were has never carried much weight with me. If God created man and was with him at the beginning (depending on how much validity one gives the Adam and Eve story), how could things have gotten so bad? God had the opportunity to mold people right from the beginning. It’s hard for me to imagine that if the best parent imaginable had been involved with humanity from the beginning that they would get so screwed up. And if that is what happened, how would a progressive revelation change anything? Why think that people could get better if hands-on parenting failed so miserably?
To me, this indicates that God was more like a deadbeat dad — someone who never showed his face around the family campfires. It’s hard to square the idea of progressive revelation and “meeting people where they are” with a god who’s very involved at the beginning. Do you have any thoughts on that?
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
I’m going to let your comment stand, but just as an FYI, it’s kind of a jerk move to hi-jack a thread the way you just did. We weren’t discussing anything related to the comment you just left. If you want to drive traffic to your blog, you would do much better by just engaging with people on different blogs and joining into their conversations. If they’re interested by you and the things you say, they’ll check out your blog. But just jumping in with something so off-topic is typically just going to get people irritated with you.
Thanks
LikeLike
unkleE wrote:
“I am the LORD, and I do not change” Malachi 3:6 (NLT)
“God is not like people. He tells no lies. He is not like humans. He doesn’t change his mind. When he says something, he does it. When he makes a promise, he keeps it.” Numbers 23:19 (GWT)
That seems fairly biblical to me.
LikeLike
Nate, I don’t think Steve is going to come to check what people say about his irrelevant comment. I have seen a number of such comments of his on my blog and they do have a relationship with spam or trash.
You get the gist of my question. If whole bibles, Korans and book of Mormon could be revealed then, why not now.
Nate you may have a soft spot for uncleE, all my previous interaction with him he always defers to scholar so and so said this and that’s it. He can hold his beliefs sincerely and I will not begrudge him for that, but to claim he is genuinely interested in exchange of ideas, that am far from buying.
Ron, now I know why I missed you. You are a walking encyclopedia
LikeLike
Well, you may be right about the exchange of ideas thing, I don’t know. unkleE obviously thinks his position is the right one, so he’s probably more interested in defending that position. But I think we can all be that way — I know I certainly think my position is the right one. I’m open to being wrong, but I don’t currently think I am. I think unkleE is much the same way. I could be wrong, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt.
As to his use of scholars, I don’t mind that too much. At least he attempts to give reasons for his positions, and when he lists scholars, it gives me sources that I can check. So I don’t guess it bothers me too much, though I could see it getting old if someone went too far and started using the “appeal to authority” fallacy.
Anyway, I do think your point about revelation is excellent. Things have certainly progressed quite a bit since the Bible’s canon was wrapped up. I would argue they’ve probably progressed more significantly than the period between the post-exile prophets and the NT epistles, so I should think we’re due by now. It would also be nice to not have to hear that “first century readers would have understood…” argument anymore. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, and thanks for the info about Steve. If I get any more comments like this from him, I’ll block him.
LikeLike
at least we will have something current. At the moment we still have in the text they refer to commands such as thou shall not suffer a witch to live. Isn’t it time a revision was issued.
LikeLike
These are the type of verses that have ordinary Christians frothing at the mouth and babbling ridiculous crap in defense.However, revision is happening, oddly enough, with subtle additions and changes to translation. Though I am unaware if this particular line about witches has undergone any recent scrutiny. Anyone got an answer?
The belief that apologists are ”sincere in their beliefs” without any sort of serious rebuke from non-believers is to hat-tip to nonsense that all too easily develops into extremism.
Would we be so accommodating to an AK47 wielding member of ISIS who is also sincere in his beliefs?
He might well be inclined to kill you for them as well.
Let’s see shall we? Flash him a Mohammed cartoon.
The fact is, such extremism is borne at the knee of ”Gentle Jesus Sunbeam” or Mohammed pbuh(sic) type platitudes.
”Don’t forget to say your prayers. And remember, Jesus is watching, okay? And he listens and hears every word.”
Do normal people believe this? Of course not. We all know it is rubbish! But does someone like unklee believe in the efficacy of prayer? Oh, yes indeedy, he most certainly does!
Being exposed to enough of this crap as a kid, one can easily see how fanatics are made.
Yes, I have no doubt the likes of unklee are sincere in their beliefs. But they are wrong beliefs and indoctrination and a theology degree have merely cemented this attitude and equipped him and his ilk with the apologetic tools to do a comprehensive snow job.
If he has no genuine answers for simple basic questions then he should simply be honest and state that his beliefs are based on faith and faith alone, for he has no evidence .
Oh, and keep this tripe away from children.
LikeLike
Mak, I have to ask … could we trust a revision any more than the original? Think about it. It too would be written by “men” …
LikeLike
indeed to ask we be accommodating to all sincerely beliefs isn’t a very good idea.
And Nate, we are all subject to be biased at one point or another. The Buddha taught not to believe everything you read, everything passed down by tradition but to question. Now there are areas where am going to defer to an expert. Like when people start talking quantum gravity, but when someone comes with a straight face and tells me that we die because some couple ate a fruit given to them by a talking snake and that there is a way of reading this to make it less absurd and that I must believe it or I go hell, then that is the time I dismiss him and his expert. He has simply abandoned common sense
LikeLike
Nan, I like your question. I don’t trust the first one, ain’t going to trust the next one but my comment really was about this issue of god revealing himself gradually to people. It is only prudent that we have a current version of events.
LikeLike
“…revision is happening, oddly enough, with subtle additions and changes to translation.”
Unfortunately, some, if not most of that revision, is being done to clean up the image of the Bible’s god – for example, in one version (which I don’t have before me at the moment), the passage in Isaiah 45:7, that has this god admitting that he creates evil (KJV), has been revised to say that he creates misfortune – ergo, a kinder, gentler god.
LikeLike
LOL….and Jeffrey Dahmer, Adolf and Josef weren’t ”evil” either … just the products of Yahweh’s misfortune!
Love it.
So when he … i’m sorry … He annihilated the world he wasn’t really being evil he was simply creating misfortune when all those millions died.
I can’t wait for the undated WLC on Divine Command Theory.
Maybe some of the Christians on this thread would like to comment on the new and improved Yahweh?
‘And that’s not all folks ….’
LikeLike
Typo… chuckling to myself. Updated
LikeLike
Yes, the talking snake story is crazy — I see that now. But there were many years where I believed it was actual history. When you believe in a God that can do ANYTHING, then miracles are a piece of cake. I mean, why not? If he created the laws of physics, why can’t he break them?
Again, I now see the problems with that position. But I can still empathize with people who believe that kind of thing.
For me back then, ridicule wouldn’t have worked at all. I had the infallible Bible as my basis. I would have needed hard data showing the problems in the Bible. Or I might have been reached by examining the problems with morality in the OT, etc. But miracles were not a stumbling block to me at all.
Not making any points with that — I just thought it was interesting, and mak’s comment made me think about it.
LikeLike
^ditto.
LikeLike
good point, nate, and I agree. it was the same for me.
as I began to really question things it suddenly clicked when i realized everything from the bible, the miracles, the stories, jesus, heaven and hell, baptism and church were all just claims of men.
even if their claims were true, unless we actually know, beyond any doubt, then it’s just a claim – not a known or verified fact. a claim we can believe or disbelieve. and if we believe their claims, and then by extension believe in their god, i realized that this is still faith in the claims of man, and not a faith in god.
500 people witnessed the resurrection? that’s cool, who are they, where are their testimonies? and why should I believe them even if i had that information? if 500 people witnessed a deer cross the road, i’d have no issue believing that, but this different isnt it? I’ve seen video and photos of bigfoot, and have read and seen testimonies of many how have seen them – but I dont believe in them. and even if I thought they may be real, that there may be something to all of those claims and that evidence, there’s no way i’d swear by it if a gun was to my head. I wouldnt KNOW, not for sure, that bigfoot was real until I saw one.
that realization cleared it all up for me. It allowed me to fully consider that the bible was essentially just made over time by typical, albeit real guys, and that freed me.
I mean sure, now I either laugh at myself or cringe with shame that I believed the ridiculous stuff, but i couldn’t even begin to see it’s madness until other steps were taken.
LikeLike
on a slightly separate note, i saw an interview on a news network this morning regarding ISIL and a government analyst commented that ISIL wasnt Islamic, as no religion in history did or condoned the things that ISIL is doing.
I thought that he was mistaken, as it reminds me a great deal of the Israelites’ conquest of canaan.
either god has changed and ISIL is wrong, or god is the same and ISIL is his chosen people now… and then i guess, god’s got nothing to do with it, although religion does seem to.
LikeLike