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 
As well you should laugh, Unk, as you’re a classical example that my conclusions are far from evidence-free. I think the irony is pretty funny myself.
LikeLike
Then everybody’s happy! 🙂
LikeLike
As a clam in heat! And that’s happy – clams don’t get out much.
LikeLike
UnkleE, you suggest
but what you really want us to do is to accept the bybill as the word of god. You have refused to be imaginative yourself and see that book for what it is, a book by men trying to understand the world around them. You have decided to ignore facts on how Christianity was spread or the role of Constantine in giving it protection.
And so the NT says that we no longer live according to rules of law but the freedom of the Spirit.
You say this quoting Paul and ignore what Jeebus whom you believe in said that he was here to confirm the law not abolish it.
You really are a dreamer. Why assume that the world was created and specifically by your god? It is juvenile in my view to try to modify science to fit with whatever belief a person holds.
You may have been questioning your views for 50 yrs or more unfortunately you seem to have been the same place where you must have began with a slight modification if adding the current scientific knowledge to your bible stories. You remind me of what Mark Twain wrote about search for truth. A man once he thinks he has attained truth never changes it. You are unlikely in my view to change your views concerning the bible regardless of what anyone would say plus you believe Enns word to be infallible.
As to my entertainment value, don’t take life so seriously, you still die at the end.
LikeLike
Makagutu,
Like I said, I don’t want to play the sniping game, and I have little respect for an approach that uses mocking and infantile words like “bybill” and “Jeebus”. I have many things I could say in response, but I think I’ll pass thank you.
LikeLike
By all means pass. It bothers me the least
LikeLike
LikeLike
LOL, laugh of the day:
@unklee Makagutu,
Like I said, I don’t want to play the sniping game, and I have little respect for an approach that uses mocking and infantile words like “bybill” and “Jeebus”. I have many things I could say in response, but I think I’ll pass thank you.
unklee your entire comment is a snipe,
but you end it with “I think i’ll pass”,
as if you are the bigger person.
well, you didn’t pass, you sniped.
had you have passed, there would have been no comment for me to have cut and pasted.
thanks for the laugh 🙂
LikeLike
hey Arch,
babies and christians,
it’s hard to tell them apart!
LikeLike
saying the democrats are waging a war on babies and on christians is just as dumb as saying republicans are waging a war on women or that christians are waging war on… whatever.
cute little sound bites do little, if anything, to further a cause as they only resonate with those who already think that way. And like the above, they’re typically so skewed or typically ignore all the surrounding issues that they cease to have any relevance.
LikeLike
Sorry there was no “LIKE” button for your last comment, I looked for one! So I’ll trot out my handy dandy do-it-yourself kit: LIKE!
LikeLike
As much as unklee is a frustrating blogger to read – and for others to interact with – he prefers not to engage me as I ask too many pertinent questions 😉 – it strikes me as odd that he hasn’t yet realised he is on a hiding to nothing every time he ventures away from the comfort of The Way.
Truth be told, he is on a hiding to nothing on his own blogs, but he is better able to filter out comments that rankle, and of course he always has Ignorant Ian to call upon should he become stuck in quicksand.
However, that said, I would be genuinely interested to hear from any other blogger here on Nate’s site who believes unklee has ever made a single theological point that has been worth considering and why?
LikeLike
SaintPaulie, you make a good observation.
He claims am sniping because of two words and leave the rest of my criticism unattended just because I said at one point I do it for its entertainment value.
Some people complain a lot
LikeLike
Ark, that is the thing. Why pretend he hasn’t seen your questions.
His theological contribution is we should read Enns
LikeLike
So, Ark, “Ignorant Ian” is Unk’s equivalent of Colorstorm’s “Without-a-Clue Wally”? Funny how these guys seem to always have sidekicks.
LikeLike
This isn’t his proper handle, but this is how I first read his name and I wasn’t feeling up to trawling through his blog for the correct spelling. I apologise for any offence.
Yes, a bit like the Batman and Robin of the Apologetic World.
I’m sure you or Paul can come up with a suitable one-liner?
LikeLike
Gee, Ark, I’m so sorry. I really wish I could help you, but unfortunately, I can’t offer any evidence that unk has offered any theological points worth considering.
On the contrary, I spent considerable time with him on one of my posts in which he actually devalued some of the sources I used for my book because they didn’t match up to his standards (although he’s quick to point to “other scholars” that agree with him).
LikeLike
arch sometimes it is good to have a Jesus brigade to call for back up and encourage one that they are blessed
LikeLike
Scary stuff:
Pastor Tony Evans Talks Changing America for Good by Pairing Churches with Public Schools
LikeLike
we are all here people of common sense or I hope we all are. Someone please tell me how a scholar, whatever his distinction is going to make talking donkeys, walking snakes, kangaroos in Palestine, woodpeckers in a wooden boat for a year’s voyage, whale transport among others conformable to common sense.
And please for brevity’s sake, don’t tell me I should plough through 450pgs of rationalization to make sense of it
LikeLike
arch that is scary stuff
LikeLike
@Nan.
Yes I remember that particular post and commented on it as well.
By the way, I don’t know if you ever did much research on Casey, but he is in a very small minority regarding the Aramaic gospel sources. (Sauces?) Of one , if I recall.
Unklee could get a job as a groundsman at Old Trafford ( Manchester United’s ground)
at the drop of a hat – he is quite an accomplished goal-post mover.
LikeLike
Wow, I really don’t get all the trash talking at unkleE. There are a handful of times that I’ve read a comment of his and felt that he was being condescending, or dismissive, etc — but the vast majority of the time, I’ve appreciated the way he’s interacted with me and others. In this thread, I was a little surprised by his initial comment about Ananias and Sapphira, but that’s it — I think he’s been pretty courteous everywhere else, and honestly he wasn’t even being discourteous there. I think the rest of us, at least in this thread, have been the instigators, and I’d prefer we just move on to something a bit more productive.
unkleE, thanks for posting the long reply about your position. You’ve probably said something similar to me before, but I think this comment really helped it click for me. Of course, like you said, I still find atheism or deism to be a better explanation of the facts, but I at least see your line of thinking now.
I also have a couple of specific questions about your statements on revelation.
1) Do you have any thoughts about why God (or the Holy Spirit) doesn’t choose to interact with everyone, if that’s the method that’s primarily used today?
2) Is it possible for a Christian to have an incorrect view of what God wants? For instance, if Bob believes the Holy Spirit has told him something that seems to violate scripture, should he go with what the Holy Spirit has said? Or if two people believe the Holy Spirit has told them two separate and contradictory things, are both still right? Does God send different instructions to different people?
Thanks
LikeLike
I’m not a mathematician, but if a math wizard had 3 chalk boards filled with a sinlge complex fromula and what have you of very complicated things, should I believe the answer he arrives at if I’ve seen his work of 5+5=8 and 4+4=3, just as long as he has something like 2+2=4?
I read a book, Lone Survivor, about a SEAL team that gets attacked by some Afghans and all but one SEAL is killed. As I was reading the book, nothing supernatural took place, but i still suspected that perhaps some of the story was at least slightly embellished. It was a good book and I’d recommend it, but I know that a person’s memory isn’t perfect and that estimating exact numbers of enemy combatants isn’t easy to do when you’re ducking for cover and all that, so I suspect that some of the things in that book, of an actual account, is not a perfect representation, even though it may be close.
when i read the bible and see obvious errors, why on earth should I believe the supernatural claims that cannot be verified? And I think that those who support the bible and who have seen some of the errors, would not and do not accept that the other religious books could be wrong in parts, but are still overall works of a perfect god. to me, this seems inconsistent.
If we cant trust a perfect god to get a genealogy right, then how are we to have confidence in a plan of eternal salvation or in a description of heaven? if we cant trust the authors to get a consistent story together, how can we be sure we can trust their claims of a god?
if history supports that jesus was a real guy, that in no way begins to prove he was really the son of god or that he raised people from the dead and on and on.
I feel like this is obvious. I feel like it is also obvious that bible believers who have seen the issues yet still believe, do so by holding the bible to a special standard, as they treat no other book or faith or claim that way.
unless said scholar can produce new evidence, their leaps in conclusions mean very little to me. “jesus was likely thought of as healer and is believed by some to the son of god,” does not equal “jesus must have been a miracle working son of the one true god.”
LikeLike
@arch — yeah, that article is terrifying. I’ll be on the lookout…
LikeLike