Is Christianity Ashamed of the Bible?

[Targaryen]

Since the greater part of what is called christianity survive off two servings of leavened bread per week( I did not say all) it is hard to be embarrassed of that which you do not know.

Leavened bread if they are lucky Rick.

 

[rick357]

Leavened bread if they are lucky Rick.

True often times its only a packet of yeast

 

[Harry3142]

You have the consequences of obedience or disobedience correct.

However consider that you are missing the basic reason those laws and commandments were put in place.

___________________________________________________________________

The basic reason that these laws and commandments were given to the Hebrews was to form a foundation for their society. Even the agreement which God made with them for their keeping those laws was a purely societal one:

If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers. He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land - your grain, new wine and oil - the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land that he swore to your forefathers to give you. You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor any of your livestock without young. The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. (Deuteronomy 7:12-15,NIV)

There it is. In exchange for the Hebrews' remaining loyal to the laws contained in Torah, their society would flourish. They would have abundant crops, ever-increasing flocks and herds, progeny, and freedom from diseases (which historians suspect were largely STD's). But there is no mention of an afterlife even existing anywhere in Torah, muchless the people's earning a place in it through keeping those laws. Instead, they were to see death only in this manner:

"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19,NIV)

People get confused when they read the New Testament, see 'the law' referred to there, and assume that 'the law' is referring to the original 613 laws of Torah. But that is not the case. Those laws were purely societal, and had nothing whatsoever to do with attaining eternal life. Instead, what 'the law' refers to in the NT is literally 10's of 1,000's of laws which had been added to those original laws by the Pharisees via subsets in order to convert them from being societal to being salvific. The Sabbath commandment alone had over 1,000 laws attached to it via one of these subsets, and it was these extra laws that the Pharisees accused Jesus of violating. The other commandments had similar subsets attached to them, and it was the obedience to these extra laws that determined whether a person would be resurrected or not.

This is why many Jews even today do not believe in an afterlife. You're born, you live, you die, and that's the end of you except for the memories you leave behind. They accept the teaching of Torah that our end is to return to the dust of the earth, and therefore see death as a wall rather than as a doorway.

 

[Harry3142]

Squint-

Moses was reared and educated in Egypt. Even his creation story of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a direct referral to the egyptian creation epic, written centuries earlier:

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

He simply 'cleaned it up' so that it referred to only one deity creating all that now exists, rather than many deities being involved in creation.

Even the story of the fall of man was plagiarized from egyptian mythology. It was originally the story of Ra, the sun god, battling Sebau, the serpent-fiend, defeating him, then maiming and binding him in order to make him crawl on the ground. We find the story referred to in The Egyptian Book of the Dead, under the heading 'A Hymn of Praise to Ra'. I daresay that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are plagiarizations of much earlier egyptian myths, 'reformatted' in order to teach lessons that Moses wanted the Hebrews to learn.

Whether they want to admit it or not, the Hebrews owe much of their society's strength and cohesion to stories and laws which Moses was taught as a child in Egypt's royal court.

 

[briancfcf]

Well let me give you a list, then, of what I believe many modern Christians are ashamed of:

1) Genesis and evolution contradict
2) Exterminations of men/women/children in the OT
3) Eternal torture in hell
4) Demons
5) Commands in the OT that give the death penalty for apparently trivial crimes (e.g., the execution of children for cursing parents - also endorsed by Christ)

That's just a short list: I believe there is much in Scripture that has been abandoned.

>> Worldly people have always attacked these Scriptures in their effort to denounce God in heaven. But with the advancement in technology today it has increased, and so your concern is justified.

However, I think you are missing the most damaging and serious attackers against the Holy Bible, those that are coming from within the corporate Church. These are imposters that profess to be children of God but in their works they sabotage the integrity of the subjects in your list from the inside out. In other words they compromise Biblical principles with worldly principles.

So actually, the Holy Bible is being attacked from the outside and the inside, and a house divided cannot stand.

Source: ww.endtimesalert.com

 

[rick357]

Squint-

Moses was reared and educated in Egypt. Even his creation story of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a direct referral to the egyptian creation epic, written centuries earlier:

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

He simply 'cleaned it up' so that it referred to only one deity creating all that now exists, rather than many deities being involved in creation.

Even the story of the fall of man was plagiarized from egyptian mythology. It was originally the story of Ra, the sun god, battling Sebau, the serpent-fiend, defeating him, then maiming and binding him in order to make him crawl on the ground. We find the story referred to in The Egyptian Book of the Dead, under the heading 'A Hymn of Praise to Ra'. I daresay that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are plagiarizations of much earlier egyptian myths, 'reformatted' in order to teach lessons that Moses wanted the Hebrews to learn.

Whether they want to admit it or not, the Hebrews owe much of their society's strength and cohesion to stories and laws which Moses was taught as a child in Egypt's royal court.

Hey harry did you know the egyptian stories were originaly from babel. Is it a mystery that men who all came from the same source had stories that were the same only changed over time to fit their nations desire. Ever hear of mrystery babylon she goes further back than any sect of religion on earth. So it comes to this was Moses inspired and talked to by God or just a guy who wrote some stuff. I believe the former if you believe the latter then I think you shouldnt but thats between you and God

 

[Nanopants]

Squint-

Moses was reared and educated in Egypt. Even his creation story of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a direct referral to the egyptian creation epic, written centuries earlier:

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

He simply 'cleaned it up' so that it referred to only one deity creating all that now exists, rather than many deities being involved in creation.

Even the story of the fall of man was plagiarized from egyptian mythology. It was originally the story of Ra, the sun god, battling Sebau, the serpent-fiend, defeating him, then maiming and binding him in order to make him crawl on the ground. We find the story referred to in The Egyptian Book of the Dead, under the heading 'A Hymn of Praise to Ra'. I daresay that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are plagiarizations of much earlier egyptian myths, 'reformatted' in order to teach lessons that Moses wanted the Hebrews to learn.

Whether they want to admit it or not, the Hebrews owe much of their society's strength and cohesion to stories and laws which Moses was taught as a child in Egypt's royal court.

I don't buy it personally. Among ancient religions of the Mideast, a "solar" deity was a prevalent theme (e.g. Ps 84:11). Additionally, people of other nations who were encountered are described as having some knowledge of the existence of YHVH (e.g. Gen 20:4, Num 23:8). Besides the possibility that the theme is an indicator of common origins, plagiarism doesn't account for the exhaustive genealogies recorded, almost as if this account had been passed down- it wouldn't make sense to include these if all Moses wanted was to teach a moral or cosmological lesson.

 

[squint]

Squint-

Moses was reared and educated in Egypt. Even his creation story of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a direct referral to the egyptian creation epic, written centuries earlier:

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

He simply 'cleaned it up' so that it referred to only one deity creating all that now exists, rather than many deities being involved in creation.

A LOT of atheists make that same claim Harry. I'm surprised you fell for it.

Even the story of the fall of man was plagiarized from egyptian mythology. It was originally the story of Ra, the sun god, battling Sebau, the serpent-fiend, defeating him, then maiming and binding him in order to make him crawl on the ground.

Again, the atheist camp presentation Harry. And also positions that are forced on a lot of college kids. Patently FALSE in both observations above.

I'm kinda surprised at you on these. I thought you were pretty solid fundy type.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't buy it personally. Among ancient religions of the Mideast, a "solar" deity was a prevalent theme (e.g. Ps 84:11). Additionally, people of other nations who were encountered are described as having some knowledge of the existence of YHVH (e.g. Gen 20:4, Num 23:8). Besides the possibility that the theme is an indicator of common origins, plagiarism doesn't account for the exhaustive genealogies recorded, almost as if this account had been passed down- it wouldn't make sense to include these if all Moses wanted was to teach a moral or cosmological lesson.

That's a point historians make to distinguish an ancient legend from documentation intended to be history. Ancient histories are certainly not of the same quality as you'd expect of a modern history, but they do have earmarks that distinguish them as purposeful documents different from legends.

For instance, a legend tends to be nebulous in time (e.g. "once upon a time" or "long ago and far away"). They don't attempt to pin down times and places to known events and persons.

Even oral histories are distinguishable in this way from oral legends.

 

[Achilles6129]

>> Worldly people have always attacked these Scriptures in their effort to denounce God in heaven. But with the advancement in technology today it has increased, and so your concern is justified.

However, I think you are missing the most damaging and serious attackers against the Holy Bible, those that are coming from within the corporate Church. These are imposters that profess to be children of God but in their works they sabotage the integrity of the subjects in your list from the inside out. In other words they compromise Biblical principles with worldly principles.

So actually, the Holy Bible is being attacked from the outside and the inside, and a house divided cannot stand.

Source: ww.endtimesalert.com

Interesting post. I think that you are basically correct in what you're saying. I also think that modern Christianity is uncomfortable with some Biblical passages. There's a lot of denial out there...

 

[Achilles6129]

Modern Christian scholarship is embarrassed by the miracles of Scripture. They spend a lot of time arguing against a literal interpretation and talking around miracles, especially creation. With the resurrection and the Incarnation they simply avoid the subject as far as I can tell.

Outstanding points. If they're arguing against the miracles in Scripture, then what else are they embarrassed by?

 

[rick357]

Outstanding points. If they're arguing against the miracles in Scripture, then what else are they embarrassed by?

Yes it would seem easier to me to believe blind eyes opened than God became man, but men who say they believe the latter deny the former...weird.

 

[Achilles6129]

Achilles6129, I am interested to know your thoughts on my reply in post #53. Thanks.

Sorry, I didn't see your request.

To be honest, Christians should not be worrying about what the radical atheists have to say about the Bible.

Hmm. Not sure I agree with this, but let me see what else you have to say.

First of all, the radical atheists, like many atheists, begin with exact opposite presupposition of the Bible than most Christians. That is, they believe it is not true, and this is combined with a near total rejection of things spiritual. Thus, presuppositionally speaking, there is no ground for meaningful discussion of spiritual truths. There really is no use in discussing it with them unless Christians who do so are gluttons for punishment.

I guess I feel that antitheists are managing to sway a large portion of the public with their claims about Scripture (particularly the morality of the Bible). If they're left unchallenged then it will look like theology has no good response to their claims.

To show just how much they're managing to influence people, I would point to the title of this thread. Most theologians no longer believe the Bible was written by who it says it was written by. They become uncomfortable when certain passages of Scripture are mentioned and tend to avoid them altogether when preaching in order to focus on other things (at least, in my experience).

As antitheism basically owns college campuses and the media, I feel that they need to be challenged.

So what is it the radical atheists really want? Well, they build their reputations upon isolating and reducing Christianity to the most extreme versions of Evangelical Fundamentalism, removing Christianity from its historical context, and finally trying to scandalize their opponents with primarily Old Testament prooftexts. In short, the radical atheists are interested more in the denigration of Christianity specifically, and spiritual and religious beliefs more generally.

Right, and it's working quite well, and theology doesn't seem to have a coherent response. This has been the case since the Enlightenment (I believe).

They rarely discuss Christianity within its historical context (unless they bring up the Crusades and the Inquisition for more "ammunition"), and they ignore the different methods of interpretation that have been applied to "problematic" texts throughout church history.

Well, they're not interested in trying to interpret the Bible or find out what it really means, you're correct. But they are also correct when they mention certain passages in Scripture and how modern Christianity has no good explanation for them.

You're correct in that they associate alot of things with Scripture that they shouldn't (like the Crusades, etc.). They absolutely ignore most Biblical theology; you're right about that too.

If they acknowledged these things, it would take away their ammunition for implicating Christians in the justification of murder, rape, torture, etc. It is a vicious circle that too many naive Christians get caught in and humiliated because they do not understand how presuppositional argumentation works.

I would agree.

Sorry for my long-winded post. These have been my observations with this sort of thing.

Not a problem! Your post was well-thought out and I think that alot of what you're saying is true.

On the other hand, I do think that there is an attempt within theology to tone down a lot of the stuff that happens in Scripture. This works within Christianity because people don't challenge that stuff as much as they do when they have a vested interest (like antitheists). So when modern Christianity comes up against antitheism in a debate modern Christianity can often be shocked at the accusations that are leveled because those sorts of things aren't said in church: in other words, they're simply unused to such rhetoric.

They often don't know how to respond or, it attempting to respond, simply try to dilute various Biblical passages and end up looking bad. Then people think that theology has no answer and basically jettison the entire thing. You get the point.

So, in response, I believe we have to develop a new systematic theology of Scripture. We clearly need a deeper understanding of theology than what we have currently.

 

[squint]

I believe we have to develop a new systematic theology of Scripture. We clearly need a deeper understanding of theology than what we have currently.

Strictly literal interpretations deserve all the intellectual criticism they bring upon themselves.

Atheists see the fact that there is not much more expressed ignorance in this world than a literalist thumper with a bible in his hand.

They are right to see such as driveling idiots imho. Those people drive me crazy too. Not that I don't think people like Phil Roberson aren't saved or don't have the right to their personal religious opinions, but biblical literalist thumpers too often forget the position that all of us have, that of being sinners.

Being a believing sinner in exaltation over other sinners is an intellectual and theological crime of mostly minor proportions but they have been crimes of major proportions against our neighbors in the past. Even against other believers.

Trying to say this guy:



is less a sinner than this guy:





will remain a RIGHTFUL sight of religious hypocrisy in the eyes of most atheists.

 

[RDKirk]

Strictly literal interpretations deserve all the intellectual criticism they bring upon themselves.

Atheists see the fact that there is not much more expressed ignorance in this world than a literalist thumper with a bible in his hand.[/qjuote]

There has been a dumbing-down of the original concept of Fundamentalism versus theological Liberalism, which was not initially a dispute of literalism versus allegory but was a dispute of the authority of scripture.

An original Fundamentalist might interpret a passage allegorically or literally, but either way asserted its absolute theological authority. A Liberal might also interpret a passage allegorically or literally, but deny its absolute theological authority either way.

But today's dumbed-down Fundamentalism insists that all things must be interpreted literally in order to be Fundamentalist.

As I mentioned earlier, nobody teaches Song of Songs as anything but an allegory. I sure would like to be in a study of what it means literally, though.

They are right to see such as driveling idiots imho. Those people drive me crazy too. Not that I don't think people like Phil Roberson aren't saved or don't have the right to their personal religious opinions, but biblical literalist thumpers too often forget the position that all of us have, that of being sinners.

Being a believing sinner in exaltation over other sinners is an intellectual and theological crime of mostly minor proportions but they have been crimes of major proportions against our neighbors in the past. Even against other believers.

It's more like the distinction between being an alcoholic in AA who has not drunk in 10 years (a "dry" alcoholic) compared to the alcoholic lying in the gutter in a drunken stupor.

The dry alcoholic is well aware that he's only one drink away from that gutter every day of the week. But he is not there today, and that is an important distinction he clings to.

The dry alcoholic is also aware that the man in the gutter is not his enemy. His enemy is always the bottle and his own inner weaknesses that yearn for the oblivion the bottle promises. The man in the gutter is not his enemy, the man in the gutter is a victim just as he was.

"There but for the grace of God go I."

I have to understand that sentence does not say I'm God's favorite, yay me. That verse says, "I missed a bullet I didn't even see coming--that guy didn't see it coming any more than I did."

Does the fact that the tower of Siloam fell on those guys instead of us mean that they are more sinful than we are? Jesus said, "I tall you, nay! You must repent of your own sin!"

 

[squint]

There has been a dumbing-down of the original concept of Fundamentalism versus theological Liberalism, which was not initially a dispute of literalism versus allegory but was a dispute of the authority of scripture.

An original Fundamentalist might interpret a passage allegorically or literally, but either way asserted its absolute theological authority.

Or both. Literal and allegory exist, overlapped, in all the scriptures. To lean on one or the other only presents issues.

And YES entirely on that.

A Liberal might also interpret a passage allegorically or literally, but deny its absolute theological authority either way.

But today's dumbed-down Fundamentalism insists that all things must be interpreted literally in order to be Fundamentalist.

Yes, and I object to that approach. It presents God in Christ as a double dealer. All us 'hypocrites' are entirely 'off the hook' for our sins whilst we simultaneously THUMP all the other sinners who are not in our 'sect' or are 'unbelievers.' It's dramatically too simplistic of sights. I'd call it more of a stone age theology.

As I mentioned earlier, nobody teaches Song of Songs as anything but an allegory. I sure would like to be in a study of what it means literally, though.

I think LLOJ posted a picture here once of how a 'literalist' would see God in Christ as described in the SoS. It was quite grotesque to say the least. Quite funny in a belittling absurdity kind of way.

It's more like the distinction between being an alcoholic in AA who has not drunk in 10 years (a "dry" alcoholic) compared to the alcoholic lying in the gutter in a drunken stupor.

The dry alcoholic is well aware that he's only one drink away from that gutter every day of the week. But he is not there today, and that is an important distinction he clings to.

True enuf. There but for the grace of God...our sins are kept in a hopeful checkmate. We don't 'get there' by lying about the facts.

The dry alcoholic is also aware that the man in the gutter is not his enemy. His enemy is always the bottle and his own inner weaknesses that yearn for the oblivion the bottle promises. The man in the gutter is not his enemy, the man in the gutter is a victim just as he was.

And a hearty bravo agreement to that sight as well.

"There but for the grace of God go I."

I read as I go. Got there above before I read this...heh heh

I have to understand that sentence does not say I'm God's favorite, yay me. That verse says, "I missed a bullet I didn't even see coming--that guy didn't see it coming any more than I did."

Does the fact that the tower of Siloam fell on those guys instead of us mean that they are more sinful than we are? Jesus said, "I tall you, nay! You must repent of your own sin!"

Indeed. The tower looms over all at ALL times.

As an incident link in terms, Siloam can mean both 'sent' one and 'sent away' one. I find it a most interesting deployment in a couple of N.T. locations, both at the tower and the pool.

I think we know who the 'sent away' one is meant to depict. That would be the devil from and with whom all sins originate....just like the bottle above.

There is as they say, more than meets the eye in most cases of observations.

s

 

[Unix]

I agree. Neither are Christians over here any better for example since the vast majority of them want war and a military defense system:

I'm not ashamed of the Bible. I am, however, ashamed of how many people use it. There's lots of bronze-age practices shown in it. But God doesn't leave his people there. My problem is when the Bible is used in an undiscriminating way that makes it look like he does. This is what provides the ammunition for aggressive atheists.

I honestly don't think most Christians in the US differ in their ideals from the better agnostics.

 

[Tzaousios]

There has been a dumbing-down of the original concept of Fundamentalism versus theological Liberalism, which was not initially a dispute of literalism versus allegory but was a dispute of the authority of scripture.

An original Fundamentalist might interpret a passage allegorically or literally, but either way asserted its absolute theological authority. A Liberal might also interpret a passage allegorically or literally, but deny its absolute theological authority either way.

But today's dumbed-down Fundamentalism insists that all things must be interpreted literally in order to be Fundamentalist.

This is a very good observation. One can see this dumbing-down constantly on the forum when various Evangelicals and Fundamentalists reject out of hand all allegorical interpretation as "of the devil" or "doctrines of men." To them, strict wooden literalism is the ONLY way to interpret Scripture (if they even admit that they interpret).

Then you have the tendency of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to reject out of hand patristic and medieval interpretations of problematic texts as being equally "of the devil/doctrines of men" and/or "Catholic," which removes a tremendous, historical weapon from their use before it is even discovered.

Evangelicals and Fundamentalists do not do themselves any favors with the exclusivist view they have on literalism and condemning great works of their pre-Reformation Christian heritage as poisoned by "Catholicism."

 

[Albion]

Well, we've now gone off onto the sideshow of saying we're "ashamed" of things that people do in the name of the Bible. But, if we were to stick to the topic of the thread, there are indeed people who are Christian but are also ashamed of the Bible itself.

 

[squint]

Well, we've now gone off onto the sideshow of saying we're "ashamed" of things that people do in the name of the Bible. But, if we were to stick to the topic of the thread, there are indeed people who are Christian but are also ashamed of the Bible itself.

Or perhaps they are just ashamed of their perceptions of it, thinking their perceptions are factual.

There are some pretty incredible challenges in the O.T. on the dark side of the ledgers when viewing Gods actions.