[clue-talk] Re: Bible Academia

[Angelo Bertolli]

David L. Willson wrote:
>>> Could God be warning us about Hell, not threatening us with Hell?
>>>   
>>>       
>> There isn't really too much talk about hell in the Bible.  Ironically, 
>> most of it comes from the New Testament, whereas the God of the Old 
>> Testament is very much more concerned with punishment in "real-time."
>>     
>
> That doesn't really answer the question, though.  Let us say that Hell
> is a choice, or a natural consequence of a choice, and that since God
> gives us freedom to choose, mightn't he be warning us, something along
> the lines of:  "Careful of that cliff there.  I am the way the truth and
> the light.  I happen also to be standing in the right spot.  None cometh
> away from the cliff but by me (because it's pretty narrow way).  Put
> down your - Oops, there goes your buddy.  Now, put that junk down and
> follow me."
>   

Well, my general answer would be that if you think that hell is simply a 
state you are in due to the current choices you are making, then yes, it 
could just be a "warning."


>>> I walked alone for several lonely and trouble-filled years before
>>> returning my focus to my God and my Jesus.  One of the primary reasons
>>> that I stopped "being Christian" was that "If Tom's going to Hell, for
>>> the lack of belief, then I can't worship God."  My friend Tom was and is
>>> one of my most admired friends, and was and is, a total atheist,
>>> entirely apathetic to God, and annoyed by most forms of religion.
>>>   
>>>       
>> You could have just rejected the doctrine that said that Tom was going 
>> to hell, you know.  You don't have to believe in every last syllable... 
>> we cherry-pick the stuff we want to believe out of the Bible anyway.
>>     
>
> I'm not sure, but I am not sure that I could reject Hell comepletely
> without also rejecting Christianity.  I have successfully reframed it.
> I generally think it's wrong to reject teaching from qualified sources.
> To say that no one can know God better than me is immature.  I look for
> knowledge.  I like to think of myself like a child, eager to learn,
> ready for correction, and actively looking for chores that I'm capable
> of doing.  For everything I know, about language, sociology, math, even
> about the nature of God, there is someone who knows more, and who is
> willing to share knowledge to help me along my road.  I will do well to
> have my eyes and ears wide open, even if I must disassemble everything I
> collect later, in order to make sure each part is good.
>   

By rejecting the doctrine, I did mean the traditional view of what hell 
is all about.  In your interpretation of hell, does Tom still get 
condemned?  Does everyone who "rejects Jesus" here on earth 
automatically get condemned?  These are not easy questions.


>> For example, is it right or wrong to stone a woman who was caught in 
>> adultery?  The God of the Old Testament prescribed this measure.  Then 
>> Jesus changed our thinking about this.  So which is right?  We pick 
>> which is right.  Most people pick Jesus.
>>     
>
> Jesus preaches forgiveness.  Forgiveness is good.  Punishment is also
> good.  Without punishment, few people learn.  Even my infinitely sweet
> children do not learn without an occasional barking at.  Punishment
> ~and~ forgiveness, now that's a powerful combo.  BTW, do you have a
> reference for the recommendation to stone adulteresses?  I'd like to
> read it for context.  I'm sure it's there, I just wonder how much of the
> driving on that code was God and how much was Man.
>   

Most of the stoning stuff is in Deuteronomy, the book that was written 
to provide laws for the people.  (I think this was written by Moses?)  I 
know there's a lot of parts that talk about stoning, but I think we can 
all agree that we really only need to consider one of them to serve the 
purpose of discussing the concept.  I picked the one about stoning for 
adultery (Deut. 22:13-24) because it covers "all the bases" of 
inconsistencies for also being mentioned in the New Testament.

First I'll lay down my cards:  I think stoning a woman for adultery is 
wrong.  And I mean, it's morally wrong and was wrong even before Jesus 
told us it was wrong.  (Remember, the Word was with God from the 
beginning!)  So the problem I have is that the God of the Old Testament 
told people to do something that was wrong.  It's like my friend said:  
we're way more moral today than the old testament was.

I have in general gotten one response from more fundamentalist type 
Christians, which is idea that either morality changed because "God said 
so" or that without Jesus, it would really be OK to stone women.  (Let's 
keep in mind, not just OK, but RIGHT to stone women--you SHOULD stone 
them.)  I think they must choose this stance because of the "I did not 
come to change the law" part on Jesus' behalf.  If Jesus did not come to 
change the law, but merely add upon it, then you really can't say that 
stoning women back then was wrong.  I don't like this answer.  I think 
it was just as wrong back then as it is today.  Today we know better.

The only other answer is that the Bible is not the "inerrant word of 
God."  In other words, maybe God did not really prescribe that--maybe 
whoever wrote the book made those laws for the people at the time.  
Which makes it doubly errant because the fact that Jesus acknowledges 
the law later and doesn't "dismiss" it as errant means the New Testament 
is errant as well.  The only problem is once you decide that parts of 
the Bible might be in error, you are now really just reinterpreting the 
Bible according to your current culture and morality.


Angelo