I recently got into a debate about Numbers 31

[Sirami]

It's very difficult for me to understand the viewpoint of the truly faithful. I recently got into a debate with my aunt, who is a strong fundamentalist. Scripture came into the debate, and I brought up numbers 31.

Here's the New International Version for reference:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

I suggest you read the whole chapter, but here's a paraphrase for those that won't read it:

God told Moses to wipe out Midian as a result of them worshiping other Gods. So Moses people did wipe them out.

After all the fighting men of Midain were killed and the women and children were brought back to camp.

Moses got angry and told his officers that all of the women must be killed, and to kill all of the children as well, except for the children that were female virgins. The female virgins were forced into marriage with the people that destroyed their homes and families.

Now, when reading the bible it's pretty clear that not only did God approve of all of this, God demanded that all of this happen. To me that sounds a lot like the LRA of today.

How could somebody respect God and Moses after reading something like this?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 40:

In many ways I feel my friend is speaking to me here...

You speak as if every person who takes the Bible seriously, but not literally, is just striking out on his own and making his own individual choices without regard to anything or anyone but his own personal prejudices -- as if the only important question involved is whether or not a particular thing actually happened, and as if there were no such thing as academic scholarship, as a tradition of teaching and thought, or any other question other than "Exactly how dogmatic should I be?"
...

I'm guilty of this myself - where I tend towards literalism and expect others to do the same. Granted, I'm trying to learn that it's kinda the debate regarding the lessons that may be most important, even for this atheist. This is one of the most important things I've learned from folks such as cnorman18 - it may not be important whether one "believes", but it's dang important one learns and applies the lessons.

This notion seems the most reasonable and logical one to make - especially as the Bible declares humans so fallible. All evidence indicates Bibles are at least printed and distributed by these fallible humans, so surely God wouldn't get too upset if some of us might not believe. But to not act according to "the lessons" may be the biggest sin of all. Even where there's conflicting notions, could it be that if this God sent these texts, He expects us to do right by them, and not follow the "wrong" conflicting notion?

I'm slooooowly learning there's more important questions regarding the Bible than "is it 'true'".

[Jrosemary]

From Post 40:

In many ways I feel my friend is speaking to me here...

You speak as if every person who takes the Bible seriously, but not literally, is just striking out on his own and making his own individual choices without regard to anything or anyone but his own personal prejudices -- as if the only important question involved is whether or not a particular thing actually happened, and as if there were no such thing as academic scholarship, as a tradition of teaching and thought, or any other question other than "Exactly how dogmatic should I be?"
...

I'm guilty of this myself - where I tend towards literalism and expect others to do the same. Granted, I'm trying to learn that it's kinda the debate regarding the lessons that may be most important, even for this atheist. This is one of the most important things I've learned from folks such as cnorman18 - it may not be important whether one "believes", but it's dang important one learns and applies the lessons.

This notion seems the most reasonable and logical one to make - especially as the Bible declares humans so fallible. All evidence indicates Bibles are at least printed and distributed by these fallible humans, so surely God wouldn't get too upset if some of us might not believe. But to not act according to "the lessons" may be the biggest sin of all. Even where there's conflicting notions, could it be that if this God sent these texts, He expects us to do right by them, and not follow the "wrong" conflicting notion?

I'm slooooowly learning there's more important questions regarding the Bible than "is it 'true'".

Great posts CNorman & Joey. I agree that it doesn't matter whether this or that book of the Bible is factual. (Except from a standpoint of historical curiosity.) The Bible has plenty of truths to offer to those it resonates with--some of them are much more likely to be mythic truths than historical facts, but so what?

(I'd say the same is probably true of the sacred Scriptures of all the major world religions. And I think you can sometimes find the same mythic truths in world literature and other story-telling mediums, even when said stories are not explicitly religious.)

I'm not even sure if it matters whether G-d 'factually' exists or not. That's why I've never joined the 'theist' group, since I don't always know whether I'm a theist or agnostic or monist or panentheist . . . it usually depends on the day! But whatever view of G-d I may take at the moment, I always seem to profit from study, discussion and argument about the Torah in my synagogue and in online communities like this.

[Wootah]

CNorman I look at your position with some valour but I haven't found that I lose any of the wisdom in the bible by believing the historically intended sections as history.

I do think we lose some faith that the bible is the word of God when we start rationalizing history as story. I know you would argue that you lose faith when you are forced to read the stories as history. But mine is a justified fear that the bible is false, yours is the fear of what the bible means if it is true. Truly I think these days that people consciously reject God and I put far less weight in appeals to not knowing or being undecided. It's simply not that hard to work our where you stand.

[Woland]

CNorman I look at your position with some valour but I haven't found that I lose any of the wisdom in the bible by believing the historically intended sections as history.

Who gets to determine which parts are "actual history"?

Young-Earth Creationists?

I do think we lose some faith that the bible is the word of God when we start rationalizing history as story.

That's because there's not a single relevant reason to believe that the Bible is anything else than the word of mere mortal men who did their best to try to convey ideas about their view of "God".

I know you would argue that you lose faith when you are forced to read the stories as history. But mine is a justified fear that the bible is false, yours is the fear of what the bible means if it is true.

Again, in the utter absence of any relevant evidence to support any of the supernatural truth claims of the Bible (especially not of your personal reading of it), and given the proliferation of "supernatural belief systems" (and their respective failures to produce evidence which isn't confined to "making claims and then believing them") which can obviously best be explained by the strong tendency in humans to believe either their own wishful thinking or whatever they've been taught is true from an early age, the only reasonable option is a healthy skepticism (which most humans sadly haven't been humbled into adopting yet).

However.

IF your reading of the Bible were somehow to be reconciled with reality (and again, I wish you good luck in this endeavor), it would imply that we are, I repeat, abject slaves under an absurd and perfectly invisible celestial dictatorship, liable to be disposed of at the convenience of an immensely heinous and petty deity, guilty of countless acts of unthinkable cruelty but unsurprisingly redefined as "perfectly just" by those who hope to gain favor from this tyrant once they die.

It would be tragic. Again, you will find that, just like even the vilest of actual tyrants had/have/will have supporters willing to define their cruel actions as "just", even imaginary tyrants will be defended by people who believe that they exist in reality.

Truly I think these days that people consciously reject God and I put far less weight in appeals to not knowing or being undecided.

It's understandable that fundamentalists would like to make themselves believe that others reject THEIR God because "they just want to sin" or whatever, but such notions are confined to the imagination of dogmatists.

It's simply not that hard to work our where you stand.

You have, in as few words as possible, perfectly described the problem that affects a large segment of the world population - and most especially of some parts of the U.S.

-Woland

[cnorman18]

CNorman I look at your position with some valour but I haven't found that I lose any of the wisdom in the bible by believing the historically intended sections as history.

I never said that you did. What I said was the inverse on that: that I didn't lose any of the wisdom by NOT believing them to be (necessarily) history.

I do think we lose some faith that the bible is the word of God when we start rationalizing history as story.

I quite understand that. But from my point of view, one opens oneself to all kinds of very rational and reasonable objections, as well as putting oneself in the position of having to do a LOT of rationalizing and explaining away and making excuses, when one attempts to insist that the Bible IS literally accurate history when so much of it plainly isn't.

I know you would argue that you lose faith when you are forced to read the stories as history.

As I've said more than once, it isn't wise to presume to "know" what another person would argue. I would say no such thing.

First, I do not understand how anyone could be "forced" to read anything in any particular way; I certainly can't. I read it as I honestly understand it. No one can make me do otherwise.

Second, I can't conceive of how I would "lose faith" in that way. I never said that the Bible doesn't contain a substantial amount of actual history in the first place; on the contrary, I think that it probably does. I just don't think I have any warrant to make pronouncements about where it is true or to what extent.

My own faith is not dependent on the infallibility of a book. I do not worship the Bible.

But mine is a justified fear that the bible is false...

But that's the part I don't get. Why do you define "not necessarily historical" as simply "false"?

This is just another version of the argument I have with atheists, over and over and over again: "If the Bible isn't the literal and infallible Word of God, it's nothing but a worthless pack of lies and ought to be thrown out completely." That's a false dichotomy from them, and it's a false dichotomy from you: "If you don't believe the Bible to be absolute objective fact, you must therefore believe that it's total garbage, and you cannot perforce believe in God." You're handing me the same false choice as the atheists. There are other perspectives, and my people have affirmed them for thousands of years. Some Jews are literalists; many are not. That doesn't mean that our faith is impaired or weaker or less strongly held or inferior to yours in any way.

...yours is the fear of what the bible means if it is true.

Fear? What fear would that be? You're presuming to read my mind again, and you have neither the right to do that nor any warrant to make that claim. I have no "fear" of the Bible being literally true any more than I "fear" going to Hell. Those are not beliefs to which I give any thought. I don't consider them worthy of consideration and I have no "fear" of them whatever.

We're about to see where these ideas come from, I think.

Truly I think these days that people consciously reject God...

That's precisely where, in my opinion, you make your biggest mistake. I don't think that ANYONE consciously rejects God. I think people consciously reject certain beliefs about God, which very often have to do with a literalistic and dogmatic approach to the Bible.. That isn't the same thing.

If I were to tell you that the being we call "God" is a space alien who takes pleasure in tormenting humans and watching us torment each other, would you reject that belief?

Of course you would, and rightly so. But would that be the same as rejecting God?

Rejecting YOUR IDEAS about God is not "rejecting God." That seems to be the point that you don't quite grasp here.

...and I put far less weight in appeals to not knowing or being undecided. It's simply not that hard to work our where you stand.

There it is again. Do you think that my statement that "I don't know" is some sort of debating tactic? It's not. I really don't know, and I don't know any way to find out. Some can believe as an act of the will: "I DO believe, I DO believe, I do, I do, I do!" Sorry, I can't do that, and if I could, I wouldn't. I won't PRETEND to believe anything.

I believe in God whether the Bible is absolutely true in a literal, historical sense or not. That IS where I stand.

What about you? As I asked you earlier: Is God your God, or do you worship the Bible?

[Wootah]

Who gets to determine which parts are "actual history"? Young-Earth Creationists?

Well let's let CNorman tell us. Which miracles in the Bible does he regard as having occurred in history. Did the red sea part?

That's because there's not a single relevant reason to believe that the Bible is anything else than the word of mere mortal men who did their best to try to convey ideas about their view of "God".

Exactly. You are evidence indeed of the effect of CNorman's lack of faith in some aspects of the Bible as history.

Again, in the utter absence of any relevant evidence to support any of the supernatural truth claims of the Bible (especially not of your personal reading of it), and given the proliferation of "supernatural belief systems" (and their respective failures to produce evidence which isn't confined to "making claims and then believing them") which can obviously best be explained by the strong tendency in humans to believe either their own wishful thinking or whatever they've been taught is true from an early age, the only reasonable option is a healthy skepticism (which most humans sadly haven't been humbled into adopting yet).

What you fail to see is that the skepticism you yearn for is totally lost outside of religion. It's you Woland, not me, that is not skeptical of your views. I doubt there is a Christian that isn't skeptical. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that faith = skepticism and one that believes the Bible as fact and without doubt is not being faithful (personal opinion and conjecture I am happy to explore).

You have, in as few words as possible, perfectly described the problem that affects a large segment of the world population - and most especially of some parts of the U.S.

I aim to be concise.

It's my understanding that CNorman is Jewish. The general question I have is which miraculous section of the bible does he regard as having occurred in history.

[Wootah]

I never said that you did. What I said was the inverse on that: that I didn't lose any of the wisdom by NOT believing them to be (necessarily) history.

The wisdom exists in the story whether we take it literally or not. So let's cut the wisdom out of the Bible stick it in the big book of wisdom and leave God out of it. My reason for not doing that is that I believe that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Yours?

I quite understand that. But from my point of view, one opens oneself to all kinds of very rational and reasonable objections, as well as putting oneself in the position of having to do a LOT of rationalizing and explaining away and making excuses, when one attempts to insist that the Bible IS literally accurate history when so much of it plainly isn't.

I am yet to see a rational and reasonable objection hold up under scrutiny. And as you infer by taking my position there is a lot of rationalizing and thinking to do. Consider a topic. Now don't consider it. Which takes more effort. Most atheist posts are simply exercises in hoping that Christianity is something they don't have to consider. I find myself personally considering Islam, Buddhism, atheism, political views, a lot more because I am called to challenge my beliefs.

As I've said more than once, it isn't wise to presume to "know" what another person would argue. I would say no such thing.

I'd say it's wise to try to work out what another will do but remain flexible. I often actually post that way to get more discussion into a post due to the nature of a forum.

Second, I can't conceive of how I would "lose faith" in that way. I never said that the Bible doesn't contain a substantial amount of actual history in the first place; on the contrary, I think that it probably does. I just don't think I have any warrant to make pronouncements about where it is true or to what extent.

So what are your views on the Old Testament?

But that's the part I don't get. Why do you define "not necessarily historical" as simply "false"?

If I wrote a book on history and had not-history in it and sold the book as history then I am being false.

This is just another version of the argument I have with atheists, over and over and over again: "If the Bible isn't the literal and infallible Word of God, it's nothing but a worthless pack of lies and ought to be thrown out completely." That's a false dichotomy from them, and it's a false dichotomy from you: "If you don't believe the Bible to be absolute objective fact, you must therefore believe that it's total garbage, and you cannot perforce believe in God." You're handing me the same false choice as the atheists. There are other perspectives, and my people have affirmed them for thousands of years. Some Jews are literalists; many are not. That doesn't mean that our faith is impaired or weaker or less strongly held or inferior to yours in any way.

Not really. Take a genealogy list. I am OK if there is an error in it (Christianity isn't Islam). I am OK arguing that the bible is inspired by God but if I were to find out the whole genealogy was a lie then I think there is grounds to disregard the Bible as truth about God. Atheists as we just discussed, look for the simplest reason to allow them to disregard the book in toto.

Fear? What fear would that be? You're presuming to read my mind again, and you have neither the right to do that nor any warrant to make that claim. I have no "fear" of the Bible being literally true any more than I "fear" going to Hell. Those are not beliefs to which I give any thought. I don't consider them worthy of consideration and I have no "fear" of them whatever.

I am talking about what concerns us. It concerns me, I fear, the Bible is false. Since you do not believe the Bible is literally true then it is deducible that you fear what if it is true.
Claiming, 'no fear' is just bravado. It makes me think of Jonah, we are all Jonahs, 'yes God it's all nice thanks for saving me .. what I have to act ... can't someone else.' That is the fear that is occurring when people resist the Bible being real. It's not just a book of wisdom it is a call to action and to being something else.

That's precisely where, in my opinion, you make your biggest mistake. I don't think that ANYONE consciously rejects God. I think people consciously reject certain beliefs about God, which very often have to do with a literalistic and dogmatic approach to the Bible.. That isn't the same thing.

Really? I consciously reject Buddha and Allah and Zeus and et al.

If I were to tell you that the being we call "God" is a space alien who takes pleasure in tormenting humans and watching us torment each other, would you reject that belief? Of course you would, and rightly so. But would that be the same as rejecting God?

The difference is that if the Bible referred to the alien I would reject the Bible as well. It occurs to me as if you want your bible but not your God.

Rejecting YOUR IDEAS about God is not "rejecting God." That seems to be the point that you don't quite grasp here.

Well that leads to another issue. If God is real then we can only know about God if God reveals itself. Either God has done it or hasn't done it. Which is why I started this digression and expressed my surprise at Woland. I am certain Woland regards 1/2 faith as better than 3/4 faith. Woland should be the one posting here talking to you but he isn't. I'm doing Woland's job but for a very different reason to him. At best you must believe that a book can contain vast wisdom and vast foolishness. Let's just cut out the bits we regard as wisdom and move on.

There it is again. Do you think that my statement that "I don't know" is some sort of debating tactic? It's not. I really don't know, and I don't know any way to find out. Some can believe as an act of the will: "I DO believe, I DO believe, I do, I do, I do!" Sorry, I can't do that, and if I could, I wouldn't. I won't PRETEND to believe anything.

To me again, either God has revealed himself or not. I am satisfied that the bible holds up to scrutiny. What is the reasoned and rational discourse that you feel challenges my view?

I believe in God whether the Bible is absolutely true in a literal, historical sense or not. That IS where I stand.

Which God?

What about you? As I asked you earlier: Is God your God, or do you worship the Bible?

I can't simply make God be my God. As you said, 'Some can believe as an act of the will: "I DO believe, I DO believe, I do, I do, I do!" Sorry, I can't do that, and if I could, I wouldn't. I won't PRETEND to believe anything.'

Even if God exists, if God is not good then I would not make him my God either.

I am of the opinion that God as Jesus is the best reconciliation of our daily reality with the potential for a good God to exist. I am not aware of another belief system that succeeds in that regard.

[Jrosemary]

Really? I consciously reject Buddha and Allah and Zeus and et al.

I have a hard time understanding why any Jew or Christian would reject All-h. It's just the Arabic term for "G-d." (Technically for "The G-d," as in "the One and Only.") That's like saying I believe in "G-d" in English but not "Di-s" in Spanish. It doesn't compute for me.

If you want to say "I have certain arguments with the Muslim conception of G-d," then ok. Personally, I regard the G-d of Israel, the G-d of Christianity and the G-d of Islam as one and the same G-d, but I think we could all have fruitful discussions about the different ways these three traditions understand G-d. But that's another topic.

I also don't understand what there is to reject about the Buddha, since he doesn't seem to have ever claimed to be a deity. But that, too, is another issue. And not too many modern Pagans will knock on your door and hand you a pamphlet extolling Zeus--so you're probably pretty safe there.

[Wootah]

I have a hard time understanding why any Jew or Christian would reject All-h. It's just the Arabic term for "G-d." (Technically for "The G-d," as in "the One and Only.") That's like saying I believe in "G-d" in English but not "Di-s" in Spanish. It doesn't compute for me.

Since a Jew doesn't regard Jesus as God then perhaps it is easier for a Jew to refer to Allah as God.

If you want to say "I have certain arguments with the Muslim conception of G-d," then ok. Personally, I regard the G-d of Israel, the G-d of Christianity and the G-d of Islam as one and the same G-d, but I think we could all have fruitful discussions about the different ways these three traditions understand G-d. But that's another topic.

So God is also Zeus just the conception is different?

I also don't understand what there is to reject about the Buddha, since he doesn't seem to have ever claimed to be a deity.[/quote] The whole reincarnation, desire is the essence of suffering, reality isn't real, attack on the self stuff. I reject the lot and Buddha with it is all I mean.

Btw we all know what letter - refers to, 'f'. I find it most bizarre to not type it. God isn't Voldemort. I just really detest superstition.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 47:

Wootah replies to another poster...

...
My reason for not doing that is that I believe that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Yours?...

Not fearing magic, spirit folks of which I've yet to see the first'n. 'Specially when it's tales of woe and suffering that're so often used to spread fear before fact.

...
Most atheist posts are simply exercises in hoping that Christianity is something they don't have to consider...

Or are you misunderstanding their arguments?

Atheists have to consider Christianity if only for the Fred Phelpses of the world - and I 'pologize cause we got some mean'ns over here with us. (Lifehack - In some bars they'll call you on overgeneralizationin', and it ain't pretty when they do. I'll never set foot in Oklahoma again.)

I find myself personally considering Islam, Buddhism, atheism, political views, a lot more because I am called to challenge my beliefs...

Don't let your mind stand still, in all seriousness.

...
Atheists as we just discussed, look for the simplest reason to allow them to disregard the book in toto...

I hope you ain't in a bar in Oklahoma. Your attitude is dismissive and condescending, both at the same time. You expose your simplistic understanding of people, atheist or not. Yours is a failure to recognize others may possibly be on a par with you intellectually, and your words are wet from a fresh coat of Dunning-Kruger.

...
I am of the opinion that God as Jesus is the best reconciliation of our daily reality with the potential for a good God to exist. I am not aware of another belief system that succeeds in that regard.

More serious intellectual concerns aside, but your reality is in question here.

You have a belief that a god came to earth to die a most gruesome death in order to appease his own displeasure, or love of, the humans he was expecting to act anything but human. When you declare restrictions on humans, you face violators. This can not possibly be the action of an omniscient god, or the action of a god that possessed the brains some other god promised a billygoat.