Christian "belief" is sometimes due to the Stockholm Syndrome

[cardw]

fccool,

I agree with the reasons you outlined. What I am referring to is more of an individual response that is from another fear based core. I think examples of this are present when we see people afraid to be critical of god because god might hit them with a lightening bolt or withdraw his so-called protection, etc. The person will begin to identify with this threatening god as a god of "love."

[fccool]

There's not really a need to prove for tragedy being an "act of God". Tragedy... definition in context of this conversation:

A disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life

If you don't find tragic events in the OT which were acts of God, then perhaps you need to read it again . We have people flooded, nations destroyed, and fire falling from the sky, death left and right, the firstborn dying, people being stoned for picking up sticks on a certain day... It was pretty tragic.

So, I would not be so fast to dismiss the violence on part of God. Violence is always tragic.

On the other hand we have to think about who wrote the OT. Much of these were Jewish nationalists. They were raised in a way that promoted national superiority to the point of apartheid. It's very easy to see from the view of OT authors that much of the attitude was Israel-centric. I.E. It was "The God of Israel", and not the God of the universe and other nations. They claimed the ownership, and such was the perspective of the OT. They either could do no wrong in eyes of God, or they done too much wrong and get punished by being conquered and dissipated with identity being dissolved. Everything was attributed to God in some way. If they did well, it was because of God. If they did not do well, that's because God punished them for disobedience.

Even if you do a minor research, it's fairly obvious that Moses did not write the Torah. It was likely written by multiple authors and assembled into a somewhat coherent account of early history of Israel, and then attributed to Moses for validity.

I certainly do question attributions of certain violent deeds and actions during that time in the OT era... and these could easily be George Ws... "God told me to invade Iraq" type of statements, which are really chauvinism masked as true religion. This type of attitude is prevalent in Israel today... I.E. our actions are justified by God.

There's much of awkward editorial interpolation to reconcile various traditions of various stories... i.e. no one is allowed to go and see God but Moses, but then elders and Joshua come up and eat and see God. We have Moses "tricking" God into not destroying Israel and making Him feel better about Israel making the calf by telling Him that it would make Him look bad in front of all of the nations... and then after begging Got to spare Israel Moses comes down, asks who is on God's side and demands them to kill their brother, friend and neighbor... and such is the beginning of Leviticus priesthood, because ...

"Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, so that he might bestow a blessing upon you this day."

How great would it be to "ordain" the pastors today by demanding some blood of their rebellious brother, friend, son, or neighbor.

Yet, all of this is very awkwardly spliced in and justified by subsequent attempts to reconcile these traditions which we avoid today like wildfire, because they do portray God in rather macabre way.

[skyblue888]

In other words, based on how we view these incidents and interpret them, God is less than righteous. Is that not how Satan is seeking to portray God?

sky

[cardw]

skyblue,

I don't happen to believe that the god of the bible is great or righteous. It has nothing to do with Satan. The god of the Bible behaves terribly and because we hold this god as a loving god it creates a form of Stockholm syndrome where the victim identifies with their source of security even if that security is abusive.

[Overaged]

These "portrayals" are purely in the mind of the beholder; what you or cardw represent to be a portrayal" could be called a smear campaign - depending upon one's perspective and purpose.

The Bible tells us in Job 37:21 how men choose to not see the bright light which is in the clouds - the kind where people who have been through worse than you ever will be say: "My Lord, and my God!" But even while we sit in "darkness" (Micah 7:8) God is still a Light to those who have broken through the clouds of atheism, agnosticism and unbelief to the sunlight of His love and mercy and kindness. You and cardw have mentioned many many "clouds" in this and a few other topics but not a one of them or any combination of them are even half enough to obscure the Light of Christ, my Hope in glory, and in this life.

Your belief in God, or your belief in His mercy is not required in order for anything that I have said to be true. I see the Light and hope of Christ in the darkest of clouds, no matter how many there are.

[skyblue888]

If the God of the Bible is not righteous in all His ways, then He is not God for that is what God is, righteous in all His ways. We forget that the Israelites had elected to fight with the sword against their enemies and to solve problems within their own camp. In spite of this the God of Heaven did not forsake them. If He had the Israelites would have been wiped off the earth by powerful nations or they would have destroyed each other.

No the Lord in His mercy and wisdom gave them instructions according to the choice they had made with the hope that soon or later they would abandon the sword. So when we read about the wars of Irael in the Old Testament we need to keep this in mind. Then we will have no trouble seeing that the God of the Old Testament is not only righteous but all-wise and merciful.

Under the theocracy the Lord gave instructions not only in religious but in civil affairs as well and because the Israelites had chosen to fight with the sword the Lord in His mercy instructed them how to use their swords but that did not mean that this was His way. Far from it. When He walked this earth He made it clear that it wasn't His way.

sky

[skyblue888]

When Israel took the sword , the Lord was left with three alternative courses of action. The FIRST option is that He could simply have said that He would walk with them no more. They would then have been on their own and what would have happened to them would entirely have been their own fault. This was the same course open to Him in the Garden of Eden. There, He could have argued that He had given Adam and Eve everything, including adequate warnings of the cost of disobedience. Having shown their ingratitude, they were undeserving of any further help from Him so He would have been entirely justified if He had left them to their fate. This is how He could have chosen to act.

Likewise, if the Lord had chosen this when Israel took the sword, how speedily that nation would have been destroyed. Firstly, they would have fought with their weapons among themselves. Secondly, they were no match for the highly trained and experienced Canaanites who, as Satan's allies, longed for nothing so much as to remove Israel from the face of the earth. For God to have walked out on the Israelites would have committed them to certain death.

If the Israelites had elected to completely go their own way, then God would have had no choice but to leave them to themselves with all the consequences. But in many things they were still prepared to go God's way. They accepted the Sabbath institution, the sanctuary service, the general leadership of God, the provision of their daily bread, and even His counsels on how to best use their swords.

Therefore, in the very nature of His character, God could not leave them because they had departed from His ways in one thing or even in a nunber of things. He would stay with them while there was still some place where He could bless and heal them. He will never leave nor forsake us. It is the human who leaves and forsakes God.

The SECOND option was for God to simply ignore the people's sin; to pretend that it had not happened. But He certainly could not do this. Sin demands attention. It imposes a situation which cannot be left unattended. To ignore sin is to condone it, or excuse it, or to admit that there is no answer to it. It is to suggest that if you pretend it is not there, the wretched nightmare will simply fade away.

This leaves the THIRD possibility. God would remain with His people to whatever extent they would have Him in their midst. He would lead, protect, forgive, bless, and teach them. In those areas where they had chosen their own way He would offer them counsels which, if received and obeyed, would save them from the worst effects of what they had chosen. In the meantime, they might be led to see the error of choosing their own course of action and return entirely to the Lord's way.

This is what God did in the incident of the golden calf and in all the conquests and their attendant slaughters in the land of Canaan. What they did in all this was their doing not His. They had established their own codes and God had no choice but to let them have it thus. But He could and did counsel them on how they could operate in their own way without it being the worst of that way. This was love. This was returning good for evil. This is going the second mile.

sky

[skyblue888]

Please allow me to pursue the view expressed above by considering the following object lesson:

Picture a smallish town located in an area where wild animals, such as bear, deer, mountain sheep, and various big cats abounded. As is to be expected, the majority of men in the town were keen hunters never missing the opportunity to take their guns out and track down the game.

But one man was different. He had the love of God in his heart and to kill the beautiful dwellers in the forests and mountains was contrary to his nature. So he was never seen in company with the men trailing off to seek their adventures in the blood of others. For their part, they were troubled by this odd man out and never lost an occasion to persuade him, if possible, to join them. At one time, they even bought him a splendid hunting rifle for his birthday. With Christian graciousness, he gently declined the gift. This was naturally resented, causing those men to increase the pressure on him, but despite this, year after year, there was no change in him. The only equipment with which he would hunt was a good camera.

This man had a fine son whom he was most anxious to protect from the influence of the hunters around. He worked untiringly to instill into him the same love of the wildlife which he possessed, and was gratified to see that he was having good success in this direction. Thus the father was working to have the boy do things his way as distinct from the hunter's way.

The father did not take away the boy's freedom of choice. When he eventually reached later youth, he became answerable for himself and was no longer under the direct control and discipline of his father. He received an invitation to spend some weeks away from home and, eager to see new country, accepted the kindly offer. This was a clever plot by the huntsmen, who sent their sons along to invite the boy, once he was away from the father's direct influence, to go hunting with them. They urged him to try it just once to see how he liked it. Feeling that no harm would be done by an on-the-spot personal appraisal of the hunting business, he went along.

His first reaction was unfavorable but, something about the challenge, thrill, and excitement, drew him back and soon he was an enthusiastic devotee. He went to the sports store, selected a beautifully engineered weapon, and in due time returned with it to his dismayed father. He had exercised his choice and now the father was confronted with a situation which required a response. How would he now relate himself to this turn of events? Clearly the young man had instituted in his life a course contrary to the ways of his father.

For the father, the choice lay between several alternatives. The first option was to disown the son, forbidding his entrance to the home and requiring he go his own separate way. The justification for this would have been the certainty that the principles of father and son could never harmonize.

Another course would have called for the use of force to coerce the lad's surrender to his father's wishes and ways. This was not the answer for two reasons. Firstly the youth had achieved the age of independence, so it would have been impossible for the father to achieve the desired result anyway. But, secondly, it was not in his father's nature any more than it is in the character of God, to use force. To them, the only acceptable service is that which springs from an educated heart of love.

A third alternative was to quietly ignore the change, pretend that the rifle had never been brought into the home, and act as if all were well when, in fact, it was not. Having considered and rejected each of these possibilities, what would have been left for this godly man to do?

Firstly, the man recognized that his son had placed himself, other people, domestic livestock, and wild animals, in a position of great danger. Being an inexperienced and untrained rifleman, he did not understand the necessity of looking beyond the target to ensure that there was no buildings, people, or farm animals in the line of fire. He needed to understand how to carry the weapon so that in climbing through fences, for instance, he did not, as so many have done, shoot himself or his friends. He must be made aware of the awful potential of the ricochet, when a bullet, glancing from rock or tree, will embed itself in a target far to the right or left of the original sighting. He must come close enough to the game to eliminate the possibility of only wounding the animal which would then drag itself away to suffer a lingering death. These and other things he could be taught in order to save himself and others from the worst effects of what he had chosen.

While the father could no longer save the youth from taking the gun, he could, if permitted, provide the instruction needed to save him from these serious consequences. Even the wild animals would benefit from this saving ministry, for, while they could not be saved from death, they could be delivered from a painful and lingering one.

When the boy's father found that his long pursued objectives of saving the youth from taking up weapons had failed, he still recognized that there was much he could do to save the boy from the worst effects of what he had chosen.

So, sadly, but with tender dignity the father drew his son aside and spoke with him. He expressed disappointment that the younger man had chosen to go the way he had, but assured him that he would respect his decision fully. He gently suggested that there were dangers associated with the use of such a weapon, from which perils he could only be safeguarded by receiving and obeying a number of specific precautions. The father intimated that he was more than willing to carefully instruct the son in these things so that he would be saved from the worst results of what he had chosen.

The son, relieved that his parent was not launching against him a fiery denunciation of his ways, no longer braced himself to resist such pressure. Instead he expressed his willingness to learn. Israel, for instance, was not prepared to trust God fully by leaving the sword alone, but they accepted and followed His counsels regarding the restrictions designed to minimize its evils. In like manner, the son who had abandoned his father's principles regarding the total rejection of firearms, was prepared to respect his counsels in the use of them.

God, who has been placed in the same position by the determination of His children to take up weapons of destruction, has likewise solemnly warned that His effort to save them from the worst effects of what they have chosen does not indicate any change in Him, even though His actions could and have been interpreted otherwise. The father in our story did not have to change his ways in order to instruct the son to be a kind killer, neither did God have to change His ways to save Israel from being cruel users of the sword.

Now suppose that one of the villagers, the man who had most ardently sought to convert the father, had happened to come down the lane as this session was in progress. From a distance too great to hear all that has been said, he beheld the father instructing the son in the use of firearms. What assumptions will this man make? What conclusions will he draw? He never was possessed of the spirit of the father and therefore, could never understand it. Accordingly, there was no possibility of his correctly assessing what the father was doing. Instead, he would have interpreted what he saw as sure proof that the father had changed.

The onlooker would have lost no time in returning to his hunting companions to announce the father's conversion. He would have told them that he was now one of them. He would have offered as proof to his incredulous listeners, what he had seen of the father actually instructing the boy in gun-handling. The evidence he offered was factually true, for this is exactly what he had seen the father doing, but the conclusions drawn from those evidences were the opposite from the truth.

Even as the father was misjudged, so God has likewise been.

At the golden calf, God gave direct instructions through Moses for the Levites to take their swords and execute the unrepentant rebels. Men have taken these facts and from them have drawn their own conclusions. While the facts are correct, the conclusions drawn from them are wholly wrong. They have declared with great satisfaction that God has changed and has become like one of them--a destroyer. They could not be more mistaken. Thankfully, God has not changed. He has not become like men; He is not a destroyer. Sin has not changed Him, neither have sinful men.

sky

[skyblue888]

Now the conclusion:

It is a principle of faith that belief in the testimony of Christ which clearly states that rebellion was not to be overcome by force must be maintained in the face of evidences which declare the contrary is true. Thus in the Old Testament, God's actions seem to say that He did use compelling power to achieve His righteous ends, that He did resort to force to put down rebellion, and that He did make an example of some by crushing them with terrible punishments.

The choice of belief between the declarations of God and the appearances of what God did in the human arena is before every person. The greater proportion choose to believe what they think they see rather than what God has said. Therefore, the almost universal belief is that God does use force, that He exterminates whole nations who have utterly rejected Him, and that He relies on compelling power to put down rebellion.

But the true child of faith will believe what God said despite any evidences which at least appear to be contrary. God said that rebellion was not to be overcome by force so he believes that, even though he cannot rightly understand what God really did in those Old Testament incidents. He will simply admit to the challenger of his faith that he does not yet understand just what God did, nor does he have to necessarily. In the meantime, he will assure the doubting questioner that he has the plain utterances of God, so that he can be assured that, even though he cannot explain it in detail, God does not do what He appears to do. This is the way faith works. It is based on God's utterances, not appearances. In due time such a faithful one will discover, under God's wise tutelage, just what God actually did in each varied incident. When he does, he will find that God did not once act contrary to His principles, but only in perfect harmony with them.

Either we believe God's utterances or we build our belief on the witness of sight and circumstances. If we believe God's declarations that compelling power is found only under Satan's government, and that He never turns to the use of force, and never crushes to destruction those who do not serve Him, then we are children of faith. (D.A.759)

Otherwise, if we believe that God did find it necessary to use force to destroy His opponents, then we are unbelievers, because we have allowed the witness of appearances to take precedence over the witness of God's words. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. (D.A.22)

Without question the witness of sight and circumstances is very powerful. When the Old Testament stories are read wherein it is reported that God rained fire and brimstone on the Sodomites, that He poured forth the waters of the flood until they were all drowned, and so on, it is easy and natural to believe that God was personally resorting to the weapons of force.

But that pure faith, the faith of Jesus, which clings unswervingly to the declarations of God, recognizes that if this is so, then God is truly inconsistent. He has said one thing but does the other. This is the charge which Satan laid against God in Heaven and which the great controversy is designed to remove.

If the Lord was to act contrary to His stated principles, then He would quickly and effectively give Satan the very evidences he needed to prove the point he had sought to make up in Heaven. It would have been much better for the Lord to have admitted inconsistency to Satan in the first case than to blatantly continue it where it could be openly seen by all. But, the very nature of the great controversy and the issues involved in that, demand that if the Lord is to triumph, He must be utterly consistent with Himself. He cannot say one thing and then do another. To do so, even for a single instance, would be to lose everything and give the victory to Satan and his angels.

Thank you for taking the time to read these posts and now I would appreciate your comments.

God bless,

sky

[phkrause]

Excellent analogy Sky.

[cardw]

That's my point. This god does not deserve our worship because this god doesn't even exceed the moral insight of humanity.

The problem with your presentation is you have a whole culture within Jainism that had rejected violence. And yet god didn't see fit to protect them.

Instead this god decides to give laws that included stoning for all kinds of less than stone worthy offenses.

It is far more likely that we are reading a stone age view of god that has little more insight into the mysteries of the inner life than they had in science. I think we should give no more attention to their ethical considerations than we would give their understanding of science and the natural world.

[Overaged]

Now the God that I have come to know in my Christian walk is not at all like this. I noticed the title of this topic is Christian belief is SOMETIMES due to... Can you be very specific and provide references for an example of this sometimes?

The God I know is a Righteous Judge. (2 Tim 4:8). I see no need to question His judgements in the past; but I do question human judgments about God.

Regardless of anything you say: The name of the Lord is a Strong Tower; the righteous run to it and are safe. (Proverbs 18:10).

[cardw]

If you take the stories in the Bible seriously you have a god who orders Moses to stone a man for gathering sticks, issues an order to kill every other race that exists within the promised land, allows his people to rape the virgins from the people they conquer, asks a man to sacrifice his own son, has his greatest king sacrifice the opposition on their own altars, sends a flood to destroy every person except for 8, sends bears to kill children for making fun of a bald prophet, allows slavery to exist for thousands of years, sets up death penalty for minor offenses, gives a couple heart attacks for not giving what they promised, and will eventually kill the majority of all humans in a lake of fire. But he loves you and is a righteous god. Hardly. He makes Hitler look like a choir boy.

And we have a very confusing description of how to be saved that no one can exactly figure out because we have over 40,000 different ideas of how this is accomplished. And many of these claim that their way is the only way and if you don't do it their way then this god will kill you.

And we are supposed to reconcile this god with Jesus turning the other cheek, love your neighbor as yourself, judge not that ye be not judged, and other wisdom sayings that make a lot of sense.

To me it is rather obvious that this god does not exist. Only people could come up with something so stupid and insightful at the same time. It is a reflection of the human condition, not divine intervention.

Now there may be a god or something you may be connecting to, but I don't believe the Bible contains a description of this god.

[Overaged]

Well; this is all good "apologetics, but I am more interested in facts; rather than the doting fiction of intellectual giantism.

The very words of Jesus say: "the scripture cannot be broken;" so you have totally failed with your own attack on God and the Bible. Your insistence on breaking the scriptures into little snippets of "evidence" which appears to lend credence to your anti-God religion; rather than telling, also, THE REST OF THE STORY.

God is love we are told in 1 John 4:8 and Love never fails, we are told in 1 Cor 13:8 It is not God that is the problem in any of the cases you point to. It is people who are the problem. There is no need to "reconcile" this with any of your poison darts. There is plenty of evidence to refute your game plan.

[cardw]

I have yet to see you present any evidence or reasoning.

I'm not sure what you mean by intellectual giantism. All I'm describing is inconsistent and violent behavior of this god of yours.

You can quote the Bible all you want. It still doesn't reconcile its own inconsistent description of this so called righteous god.

Quoting the Bible is not a source of proof for itself. And facts by themselves don't really say anything.

[Overaged]

Yes; it is OUR source because the very "stories" you use to point your finger at God with come from the Bible!! You yourself have said so!! So lets quit beating around the bush and get down to what I have shown you about WHAT JESUS SAID when He said "the scriptures cannot be broken!"

[cardw]

You are free to give the Bible what ever authority you want. My point has been that because we give such authority to the Bible we have endorsement of a lot of violent activity along with a number of great ethical insights.

I have advocated a rational evaluation of the Bible's claims rather than simply accepting it on authority.

So telling me that the Bible says the scriptures can't be broken is meaningless to me.

[skyblue888]

Cardw, the problem is that instead of letting the Bible explain its own language, we humans have taken upon ourselves to interpret it according to our own ways and thoughts but the Bible itself has warned us not to fall into this trap which is the devil's trap. See Isaiah 55:8,9.

Here is a perfect example of this.

In 1 Chro.10:14 we read that God killed Saul and turned the kingdom over to David. But in verse 4 we read that Saul killed himself.

Even though verse 14 says that God slew him, verse 4 makes it plainly clear that we must be careful not to interpret verse 14 man's way and according to man's thoughts.

Saul had committed the unpardonable sin and God had no choice but to abandom him to his own fate. This is how God slew him, by no longer being able to protect him from his own evil passions or from his worse enemies.

This is only one example taken from the Old Testament but these verses of Scriptures are to be taken as a warning as to how we are to read the language used.

sky

[cardw]

I don't really buy the idea of god's mysterious ways as proof really holds water.

The Bible isn't so much a mystery as simply an example of iron age thinking. I think we give it far too much credit.

This idea that these violent actions of god are some sort of mystery thinking plan on the part of god is just silly. If this is an example of how god communicates its pretty poor, unless you want to communicate the idea that god is going to kill everyone who disagrees.

[skyblue888]

cardw, who said anything about God's mysterious ways? The passages of Scripture quoted do not say that His ways and His thoughts are mysterious but that they are not our ways or our thoughts for as the heavens are higher than the earth so are His ways higher than our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts.

I have no problem agreeing with you that it was an iron-age thinking and for that very reason God had to wink at many things because of the ignorance that prevailed and His instructions were given accordingly. The people did not understand God's way any more than the prophets did . It is said that both Elijah and even John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, were also mistaken. They did not understand the nature of Christ's kingdom. (See D.A.215, 217)

They too misunderstood the Old Testament Scriptures and therefore were plagued with a serious misconception of God's character.

It was Jesus Christ Himself who was following and guiding the Israelites in their wanderings in the wilderness. It was He who had instructed them and yet when He walked this earth His instructions were totally opposite of what the people expected them to be and for that He was accused of making the Old Testament of none effect.

But the light shown from 1 Kings 19:11-12 and The Desire of Ages is illuminating, isn't it?

sky

[cardw]

Is not the idea that God's ways and his thoughts being higher suggest that they are mysterious to us?

I don't want to play a game of semantics.

What you seem to be suggesting is that god winking at the ignorance of the OT is not explainable to our puny minds.

Are you saying that god did not really order the Israelites to kill and rape their neighbors?

Are you saying that god didn't really send the bears to kill all those children who mocked the prophet for having no hair?

Are you saying that god didn't really order the stoning of the man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath?

[skyblue888]

No I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that God in mercy to themselves and their enemies gave them instructions as to save them from the worse of the consequences of having chosen the use of the sword against their enemies and within their own midst.

Also their concept of the character of God was no better than the nations that surrounded them. They looked for Him to reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire or by the sword.

Their concept of God was that He was waiting to punish the sinner for his sin. Nothing else made sense. Anyone who would tell them otherwise would be considered a fool. So the Sabbath breaker like the woman caught in adultery needed to be punished swiftly and God somehow gave them instructions to do just that. It was Christ who gave these instructions to them and yet it was the same Christ who rebuked those who were ready to stone some woman who had been caught in adultery by saying to them, "He who is without sin let him throw the first stone." We know the rest of the story.

What I am saying is that there is more than meets the eye here.

sky

* Think about this for a moment. Jesus seemed to content Himself with gathering disciples about Him, and healing and teaching the people, eating at the tables of the publicans while every day the Roman yoke rested more heavily upon Israel, while King Herod and his vile paramour worked their will, and the cries of the poor and suffering went up to heaven. To John the Baptist, the desert prophet, all this seemed a mystery beyond fathoming. Can we not hear the whispering of demons torturing his spirit while he was perishing in the dungeon? Could it be that the long-hoped for Deliverer had not yet appeared? Like the prophet Elijah he had pointed to the Messiah as the One whose fan was in His hand, and who would thoroughly purge His floor, who would gather the wheat into His garner, and burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Like the prophet Elijah, in whose spirit and power he had come to Israel, he looked for the Lord to reveal Himself as a God that answereth by fire! But like Elijah he could not have been more mistaken!

[cardw]

I'm not sure how god is saving the people of Israel and their enemies from the sword by ordering Israel to destroy their enemies with the sword.

And I'm not sure how god acting like a god that answers by fire is going to raise their concept of god. It seems like he is verifying their concept.

And if they are a people who believe that god is a god who punishes the sinner for their sin and he does, how does that help?

And then Jesus acts the opposite way and gets killed because he doesn't act like the god of the OT seems like a set up to me.

What seems to be more believable is that the ancient Israelites simply made up a god that acted like they did.

[fccool]

Sky,

And that's exactly the problem with intellectual dishonesty we take on when we approach the Bible. The more I've studied it, the more I realized that it's not a "God dictated" book. There are many of inconsistencies, trivialities, historic justifications... reading into things that were not meant to be so. The problem with Christian faith is the cultic approach to interpretation... i.e.

1) Bible is always right

2) If Bible is wrong, see #1

Such approach does not allow for any truth to surface, because it automatically assumes infallibility by taking the blind side or rationalizing away to the obvious problems. After all, the Bible is right because it says so. If it does not say so, then it's wrong

The more I study the Bible, the more I realize the fact that it's not a God's take on God. It's a human take on God... in many cases uneducated human's who would like to makes sense of certain happenings and explain these by means of God's working in this world.

Is there God? I don't think that many atheists would exclude the possibility I don't see cardw coming out and saying there is no God. The problem is the Biblical narrative itself. It's not a one continuous narrative. It's hundreds of narratives spliced together in attempt to conjure up a sort of systematic theology... a system of belief of what God is and what He is about.

Until very recently, the world has been ruled by the "people of God". Whichever way you turn in history, you will see the priest-dominated cultures that would have people follow the group of people who can "pacify" the Gods. Ironically, all of the God's require blood sacrifices... these seem to be blood-thirsty. OT take on God is more of the same... God is angry, and when he's angry He absolutely needs some "justice" in form of blood.

It's an archaic view of God. When God is on our side we win, when God is angry with us then things don't go our way and God is punishing us... so something needs to be done to pacify Him.

[fccool]

In hermetic teachings there's a concept of egregore... i.e. collective consciousness. Basically, if all of the people believe that something is real... then it becomes so (on mental level imo). So, if all of us believe that there's an invisible moon in the sky, then invisible moon in the sky becomes a "reality".

As humans we lack experience to know the world outside of our immediate surrounding. We rely heavily on media to explain it to us. Thus our concept of God is not direct, it's "mediated". I.E. God does not really speak to anyone, God speaks to only select group of people who he chose to be mediators.

So, he spoke through prophets who wrote books, which we are to believe... or die. Don't you see that as sort of a set up for a massive system of mental manipulation? If God is truly a personal God with unlimited resources and capacity for love and justice, why would he choose a handful of people to explain to us His reality?

Imagine you are in class with no teacher, and student stands up and says... I spoke to the teacher, and teacher told me what to teach today, let's get cracking... then another one stands up and says, this guy is lying... I spoke to teacher and teacher told me what to teach and say. This situation can't be reconciled without the teacher physically present. It just creates more confusion and frustration on behalf of those searching to knowledge.