Dear Mr. President; In With God's Word, Out With the Constitution
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly rejects it... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
A Concerned American
(read on Mama Miller's Morning Show on Air America Radio Monday, 6/5/06)
www.stephaniemiller.com
posted by Matt @ 12:33 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Unfortunately whoever wrote that doesn't know a whole lot about the Bible.
I'll outline it if you like. You see, the "old testament" (where all of those quotes come from) is where God chose a people to reveal Himself to, and held them to a standard. He was showing the rest of the world (and us) that He is not something to be trifled with or taken lightly. He gave them a law to uphold, and punished them when they failed to do so (specifically when they wantonly disobeyed). Part of that law was holding others in the community accountable for their actions, as one person could potentially condemn the entire nation as a whole.
Christianity, which is what both George Bush and I practice, is, in some respects, an addendum to the Law of Moses (the old testament). In effect, it totally cancels out the repurcussions of the Law for anyone who chooses to embrace Christ and His salvation. If you read Numbers and Leviticus, they outline the duties of the Priest -- this is a human, flawed man cleansing himself and his people before God. Christ does all of this perfectly because He is one with God and perfect; He becomes all humanity's high priest. Anyone that comes with Him, in effect, avoids the fallout of the fact that we do not (or can't) live by the law. Therefore, the burning of bulls etc. to atone for sins is no longer required.
However, the moral positions represented in the law still demand some consideration. Early Christian fathers demonstrated that many of the Jewish laws were specifically purposed to separate them from other nations, to set them apart from the rest of the world as a sacrifice to God. At this point, Christ wants us to become ONE people, and therefore the need to make ourselves different does not lie on what we eat or which clothes we wear, but on what we do and how we love each other. Hence, many of the injunctions involved in the written code are "cancelled out" (Col. 2:14).
This does not change the fact that matrimony is still a holy thing, and the new testament specifically states that marriage is for life, the marriage bed should be kept pure, that people should shy away from sexual immorality, and that openly or defiantly immoral "Christians" should be separated from the church to avoid negative associations.
You undoubtedly will not read this the way I have intended, but I hope it answers your questions sufficiently, however disparagingly they were asked.
No Kaggie, I didn't read it as you intended. But you obviously know a whole lot about your religion. Kudos to you... I've been going to church for my whole life. Then the college thing happened and I stopped going. Not once did I ever learn about the complexity of our relationship to God that you speak of in terms of the old testament and the new one. I was pretty much taught that the whole book was to be taken literally and that every word was directly from God. Now, I know that through the New Testament, all Christians who accept Jesus as their savior no longer have to abide by the rules of the old testament. In fact, they have no rules to abide by because they're forgiven for all of their sins.
With that said, if there is a God, I find it incredibly hard to believe that He/She would make it sooooo hard to understand the distinction.
I do believe in God, but not in some ancient God who stopped talking to us two thousand years ago. The only thing we know about that God comes from hundreds and hundreds of translations and edits and copies of the original gospels and books of the bible that have been passed down for 1800 years.
The idea of a God who is judgemental of His/Her own creation is ridiculous to me.
Guess I'm going to hell for that statement. That's cool though, I'll be chilling with the other 5 billion people on the planet who don't believe that Jesus Christ is the only path towards heaven.
The idea of a God who is judgemental of His/Her own creation is ridiculous to me.
Thats kind of a silly thing to say. You discipline your dog don't you? Or your child? How much moreso the discipline if you increase the love? Imagine absolute love. Now imagine absolute responsibility. That is what God is / has. He has absolute love for His creation, enough that He lets us do whatever we like -- even at the cost of our own lives.
Thats the amazing part to me, really. He loves us enough to let us condemn ourselves; He forces no one to Him. At the same time, if you come to Him its tabula rasa (and free of charge, too!).
I never said we have no rules to abide by. Christians have many rules to abide by; Christ told us that he didn't abolish the Law, but perfected it. Instead of fear of punishment, we have love. Instead of death, there is life and peace.
"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment."
1 John 4:18
So, having said that, the old Law is still a valuable guide. It just isn't the way we achieve salvation any longer. A good corollary would be to say that even though Physics as exceeded far beyond what Newton founded, his laws are nevertheless true. All analogy is suspect, but that one is near to the mark.
If you really want to understand (you claim to be a "seeker") the relationship between the old testament and new, read first the book of Leviticus (the majority of the Law) and then read the book of Hebrews (new testament writing to the church in Jerusalem, which was mostly Jewish converts).
If you lack a bible contact me and I will mail you mine.
I really truly appreciate your knowledge on the subject. But where you and I come to odds is in what you know to be true about life and god, and what I've come to know through my experience. I've read the bible in sunday school, I've been confirmed. I know the apostle's creed like the back of my hand... yet all this talk about new laws, old laws is really just individual interpretation into the thousands of different (often contradictory) passages of the bible.
sure the bible has fantastic parables and stories that help people lay out a certain way of living (one way). but i've found those same teachings and much more in different writings. and yes, i am a seeker... and in being a seeker, i'm open to any kind of spiritual teaching. right now, christianity doesn't necessarily hold my interest, partially because it's so out dated and I just can't believe in a God that doesn't love me unconditionally. unconditional love has absolutely nothing to do with punishment, but that's just my opinion.
that's what the rapture is all about, that's what judgement day is all about. i'm sorry, but if that really is reality, i don't want to have any part of it. the conclusions that i've come to in life are so opposite of your own that it would take you lots of time and patience to be able to brainwash me into accepting christ as my one and only true savior and salvation so lets not go there.
thanks for the offer on a bible, but i have two sitting next to me right now along with many other great books. i think i'll pass on leviticus tonight, maybe a little matthew, some mark... ooo revelations always gives me goosebumps.
thanks for your concern and sorry if i'm offending you, i really do respect your concern. i was a christian once too, bent on showing everyone the truth and converting waywards towards the lighted path that was christ. now i'm on a different path, and it really feels right so i think i'll stick with it.
I just can't believe in a God that doesn't love me unconditionally.
You won't find that anywhere in the Bible. God does love unconditionally, moreso than anyone can understand. A god that doesn't love unconditionally wouldn't sacrifice part of Himself, His only Son to die for His meager creation. If you really want some excellent discourse on the topic of love and what exactly the sacrifice "meant" I suggest reading Mere Christianity or Miracles by C.S. Lewis. I can send you my copies of those as well, if you like. They're worth the reade, whatever your thoughts on Christ or the Bible happen to be.
One thing to note: the ancient languages, specifically Hewbrew and Greek, used no punctuation. Instead, they relied on emphasis in repetition to prove their points. Nowhere in the Bible is God described as "love, love, love" or "nice, nice, nice" but only "Holy, Holy, Holy." In this respect, no matter how much He loves (and He does love) He must, He has to be holy. It is His nature. Part of this entails His purity and justness. Any deviation from the standard He made would void His holiness.
At any rate, you can't offend me or upset me. And I'm not really trying to convert you per se. You're representing one view of the Bible, and I'm representing another.
Here is an excerpt from one of my posts from a couple months ago called Pseudo Christianity:
The Bible is not, as the Bible-ists would have others believe, the "Word of God".
The Bible is, rather, a complex and often contradictory recording of innumerable oral histories. In many cases those oral histories are of uncertain origin. And there is no one Bible. There are thousands of translations of that record of oral histories, modified by various religious persuasions to suit their own purposes. Remember, the printing press didn't exist 2,000 years ago... not even 500 years ago.
that pretty much sums it up... i find it interesting how you'll take in every word of the bible without need of proof. yet, when it comes to global warming, something with 928 peer reviewed studies over 15 years that all come to the conclusion that we are the cause of the warming of our planet... you are the ultimate skeptic. i HATE hypocracy...
I've read quite a few studies about the Bible, most recently a book entitled "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, one of the worlds leading Biblical scholars (who, incidentally, does not belive in the infallibility of the Bible).
From what I can tell, the Bible is the most highly accurate, highly corroborated, and most-copied book in existance. It passes numerous authenticity tests that countless other "accepted" books do/can not (e.g., the Iliad, the second most printed book).
Now I understand the objections to the old testament, as you are correct -- it was an oral tradition. However, the new testament began as a book, on paper. Additionally, by that time the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the old testament was prevalent in the old world. Thus, everything in the new testament was based off of a conrete recorded old testament scripture (which we have, such as the dead sea scrolls).
The new testament is hands down the most highly corroborated and authentic historical document, merely by the staggering number of copies that exist (literally hundreds of thousands of manuscripts, some within one "generation" of the autograph, or original copy).
Wikipedia (which I love too, by the way) places the best secular estimate of the authorship of the new testament starting in 49 AD and ending around 150 AD. Christ died in 30 or 33 AD -- this means that we have works relating to Christ written within 15-20 years of his death. That would be like us having books on Vietnam. People were still alive that had actually SEEN him.
This is amazingly important "as the average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.
The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph, most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion."
So we have stuff one generation out, meaning that when the copies of the manuscripts we actually HAVE were penned, there were folks still alive that were contemporary with Christ. No other text from antiquity has that claim (incidentally, the Quran was not written until well over 500 years after the death of Mohammed -- not even penned. Hence the volumes of contradictions and overal low quality of the work).
There are, at the best estimate, about 150,000 variants contained between all of the manuscripts we have of the new testament. The overwhelming majority (>99%) are script errors, such as misspelled words, missing letters, flipped words, etc.
Dr. Benjamin Warfield states, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must declare it marvelously exact."
So don't worry, I've gone over the new testament with the same rigor and thought and skull-sweat that I try to go over everything that I have enough of an opinion to comment on. My faith is backed up by a mountain of amazing historical evidence. I really enjoy reading about the topic.
All quotes from
http://home.earthlink.net/
~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html
and the book "Misquoting Jesus".
I hardly think I count as hypocritial for arriving at a different conclusion than you, given that I have likely started with different (more) initial data.
I think that was a great rebuttal. You're very passionate about the subject and I admire that. Some bloggers wouldn't admit it, but you seem to have won this fight. I don't know enough about the subject to carry on with this debate but I will leave you with a couple more points. It seems to me that the 'accuracy' of the bible that you speak of can really only be seen in the consistency of copies from bible to bible. but what about from book to book?
Who was at the empty tomb of jesus christ? Was it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
countless other examples of inconsistency at:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Don't get me wrong, I will say that hands down, Jesus of Nazareth was one, if not the greatest spiritual and moral teacher history has ever seen. He was the ultimate pacifist, the greatest advocate for distribution, sharing the world and helping the poor. Original copies of the bible say both that he was a man, and that he was the son of god.
I like these parts of the bible
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
but i dislike these
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
see how people can be skeptical? i know you'll have a perfectly well thought out explanation for all of this... so if you still like, I'd love to hear it.
Well, it may seem like pussyfooting to you, but to me none of those gospel accounts contradict each other. They all state Mary Magdalene was there, and include varying amounts of additional detail. If you failed to mention that in the room with your computer there also was, for example, a desk or a printer in one account, and include a reference to your desk drawer in another, would that invalidate the original claim?
I'd read more at the link, but a) its cut off and b) I don't think the purpose is a case-by-case rebuttal. I admire you, and I like your style of debate (this isn't an argument, which is extremely enjoyable for a change). I prefer not to win discussions, but rather to have facilitated an environment that promotes intellectual or spiritual growth. ...Ok fine, I like winning, too.
I've often heard that comment, that Christ was a great moral teacher, but not a God or anything more than a "good man". However, that really doesn't hold water in my opinion.
If a man slapped you and you forgave him, that would be entirely logical and understandable. It would also be very big of you, generous. However, if a man slapped me, and you forgave him, it might actually make me mad at you. Where would you get off doing that? But thats exactly what Christ did. He walked around forgiving people for their sins that they committed to others. His message is not one of peace and advice about earthly life; truly, that's something that wise men have preached in varying forms since the inception of society. I don't think its any great secret that charity, love, and magnanimous behavior towards your fellow man are great tips at getting along with others. The golden rule is nothing new. Nothing Christ said was monumental -- except for the fact that He was capable of forgiving your sins to others. All of them. This was His message, it really was the bulk of what He preached. Of secondary note, He also told people to be nice and love each other as themselves, and spent a great deal of time telling people to relax and not worry about tomorrow. But as far as being a great "moral teacher," he was not.
He was either who He claimed to be, or an outright raving lunatic. A man saying that He is the Son of God and part of an all-powerful triumvirate that will reuinte to judge the world and all mankind for their sins is not a man whose words you can pick and choose from, I think. Either he was completely, totally, irrevocably wrong...or He was who He said He was. Which is suspiciously similar to YAHWEH, "I AM that I AM".
As far as to the different faces of God, in one of the parts you like (Romans 1-2) Paul writes a very meaningful discourse on why we are all accountable for our actions, whether we know explicitly about God or not. This is very much related to your comments about Christians having "no rules to abide by".
(You can read it yourself, but I've picked out "the important bits"...its pretty long in this format)
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Basically, Paul is saying that no one has any excuse, because we have all seen the invisible qualities of God in the nature He created for us. Nature is as uniquely Him as any painting of Dali surely can be correctly identified. You got a feel for this when you took those pictures at your cabin. As to your comments on the parts you don't like, Paul continues by saying:
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
Whichs ties in nicely to my comments about God's holiness. He must do as His nature dictates.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Later, he writes:
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
I love Paul's writing style. It really pumps me up. He leaves no wiggle room at all, even for himself. I wish I had half the mind he had; I more sincerely wish I had half the zeal for Christ.
Every face of God presented in the Bible is true to Him. As Paul puts it "Who are you, O man, to judge God?". However, I do understand that it can be difficult to reconcile the actions taken by a sovereign God with human scruples. I have faith enough to know that He is true to His word.
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
It bugged me too. My thoughts were, "I didn't ask to be created. I had no choice in all of this. Where is my true freedom of choice? A forced hand is no choice at all!". That passage up there from Romans eased my mind.
The way I see it, God created something beautiful, perfect. Nature and Man were supposed to coexist in harmony. I think Christ's power over Nature (walking on water, water to wine, etc) are things that, perhaps, all men could have done, had things turned out differently. Nature may well have been "attuned" to us.
When we as a race chose to sever ourselves from Him, it was not to His delight. In many ways, it ruined everything for everyone. But God was magnanimous enough to basically go along with it, to limit His own power so that His creation could do precisely what He created it to do -- Live. He could have forced us to worship Him, as He forces Balak in Numbers 23-24. Instead, He watched for a man who embodied the principles God had. Abraham lived a way God liked, before the law existed he followed it. So God rewarded him. He made the entire creation subject to one man that would come from Abraham's seed.
He isn't being mean. He's just doing precisely what He promised. He didn't reject us; rather, it was we who wronged Him.
By what the scriptures tell us, Christ is, actively, right now, preparing a new nature for us. Paul writes to us that not only will we live eternally, it will be physical life. Not some ethereal, ghostly harp-strumming life. Real, physical, punch-you-in-the-nose, make love to your wife, eat drink and be merry, Dum vivimus, Vivimus! life! By basically just acknowledging that yes, there is a God, and He did reveal Himself to us in nature, and He did have a plan for us that we as a race botched pretty bad, we get to partake in that.
You really should read "Miracles" and "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, whereupon you will find that I agree with Him and have shamelessly stolen some of his ideas.
I find, in essence, that I agree with you wholeheartedly. I just can't believe in a God that doesn't love me unconditionally -- because that God doesn't exist.
Post a Comment
<< Home