Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

Here's something you might like, Timmy.

Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?: The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics

http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45
and,

Yahweh Wars and the Canaanites: Divinely-Mandated Genocide or Corporate Capital Punishment?

http://epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=63&ap=1

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

Thanks, yes these look interesting. Have read just the first page of the first one, so far, but this jumped out at me:

"Though certain OT texts present challenges and difficulties, navigating these waters is achievable with patient, nuanced attention given to the relevant OT texts, the ancient Near East (ANE) context, and the broader biblical canon."

That is very true! It is hard work to understand what God is really telling us in His "word", apparently. And with enough hard work and consultations with other hard-working, smart people, one can explain any challenges and difficulties in the Bible. Or in any book, for that matter. Funny, though, when different hard-working, smart people come to very different conclusions.

I dunno, would it have been too much to ask that God, the infinitely wise, powerful, loving Creator of the entire universe, who so desperately wants to save us all from His own wrath, could "write" us a clear instruction manual? One that is neither hard to understand nor easy to misconstrue? One that tells us plainly which laws, if any, we can start to ignore and when? One that's not open to countless interpretations, leading to endless arguing over what this or that scripture really means, and from there leading to the inevitable doubt and fear that you may have got it wrong after all (or slipped up in some detail of the obedience thereof) and will therefore end up in hell forever? Somebody's gonna say "Lord, Lord" only to hear "Depart from me", after all!

Back to reading. Maybe he'll answer. ;)

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

He did make it simple. Several times. Shall we begin ?

Adam and Eve -- Dont eat the fruit from THAT tree !........ simple enough you would think, but, nooooooo. We can't even do that.

10 Commandments --- All ten, simple as can be. Most are one liners, no complexity there. ........ Yet for some reason after they were given there is chapter after chapter of laws and by-laws. Why ? Doesn't say really, but, that warning on Preperation H about not taking it orally, yup, someone had to try it.

God came down HIMself-- told childrens stories face to face to make us understand.. ..... nope, diciples still didnt have a clue.

Finally!!! God returns to infill us, cant beat that.. cant write down for them, cant explain it to them then hey, I'll just dwell within them and guide them.. and HE did, filled them all, gave Peter the message of salvation, he told it to the people.........nope, whole rest of the NT is God's teachers having to go back to the churches and correct their understanding, put them back on the path.

Jesus spoke of the scripture and said, "Thy word is truth." The Bible itself is therefore not opinion. So there is by definition a correct understanding of every scripture -- and that means every scripture communicates a TRUTH that is not just someone's opinion. We've all met people who were more interested in being doctrinally correct than in being Christlike, and I recoil from that. I think you do too, and that's the impetus behind this thread. To me, the real issue is summed up in two questions:

1. Is the Bible the Truth?
2. Can the Bible be rightly understood?

If anyone answers the first question "no," there's not really anything to talk about. If they answer the first question "yes," and the second one "no," it's a pretty bleak outlook -- God gave us truth, but not the ability to grasp it. The Bible then becomes a book with precious little utility. All that content spread over 66 books...and not that much essential truth? Talk about vanity and vexation of spirit!

But are the answers supplied truth...or just opinion? How badly flawed do we think the translations are? I would also ask this -- if no English translation is inerrant, but God's inerrant word has been preserved, WHERE has it been preserved? Who has it? Who has access to it?

The word is rightly understood. It says so itself. So where does man keep going wrong ? Answer that one and your eyes will truley be opened. :bigbaby

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

I get frustrated with all the junk too, but I don't blame God. I believe the testimony He has given to us in His word. His desire is for everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. He isn't mean and doesn't play games. If someone seeks Him with their whole heart, they will find Him and He will show them his salvation.

Psalm 50:23 Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

Shhhh! I'm still reading!

;)

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

sowwy. :shhh

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

The story so far:

The new atheists have made a mistake. They think the descriptions of Bible heroes' failures (David's adultery etc.) constitute endorsement of those behaviors. Um... I didn't catch that in the quotes provided. But onward. I'm only on page 4. (Interruptions.)

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

(I was j/k. Post away! I'll get to it eventually. ;))

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

"The new atheists seem to think that if God existed, he should have a status no higher than any human being."

:spit

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

After discussing the slaughter of the Canaanites: "What then of the children? Death would be a mercy, as they would be ushered into the presence of God and spared the corrupting influences of a morally decadent culture."

Ah. Then why are human child murders so reviled? They should be heroes! Yes, I know, it's because they're human, and not God. Got it.

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

It's probably a mistake to read that article in pieces, but I keep getting interruptions. Like work, e.g.!

"The new atheists tend to view OT ethical considerations in a static manner-a one-size-fits-all legislation for all nations."

He has a point there. I think I make that mistake (if it's a mistake), too. It seems some other AFFers do, too. Maybe the prohibition of eating shellfish was only ever intended for Jews. Ditto Sabbath laws, killing rebellious children, mixed thread in clothing, homosexuality, tithing, etc. Again, would have been nice if it had been more clearly written.

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

"Love cannot be reduced to the restraining influence of laws, and enjoying God's presence is not identical to simply avoiding idols."

Very good point. No, really! Not TIC, no sarcasm. :thumbsup

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

Almost done. This is on the last page:

"If science alone gives us knowledge, as Dawkins claims (actually, this is scientism), then how can he deem Yahweh's actions to be immoral?"

Another good point. But, if I may, I would offer an answer: those actions are immoral according to mankind's commonly held views of morality, regardless of where those views came from: whether from man or God. Yes, God often violates His own laws. And yes, He is God so He can do whatever He wants. But why would He? (And yes, that question has an answer, too: because He had no choice. Had to deal with the people and their evils in extreme ways, at times. Yeah, no kidding!)

(Back to reading.)

OK, done, finally. ;)

Yes, it was an interesting article, and thanks again for the link.

Here's the concluding sentence:

"So we can, with Daniel Dennett, 'thank heaven' that those thinking blasphemy or adultery deserves capital punishment are a 'dwindling minority.'"

Amen! :winkgrin

To sum up, I don't think Copan's response to the "new atheists" hits its mark very well. He does have some good points, but it all boils down to not much more of a response, to the question of "Is Yahweh a Moral Monster", than "No. Because He's God. He can do whatever He wants."

He contrasts Mosaic law with other codes of the time, such as Hammurabi, and says (paraphrasing) "see how much better it is?" Gives an example, an Egyptian law that provides for a punishment of 100- to 200-stroke beatings, while "God's" law limits it (aside from capital offenses) to 40 strokes. Oh yes, that's much better. ;) He does admits that the law wasn't perfect. Just not as bad as the others, which were merely man's attempt to control man, not (as the Mosaic law is, which Copan takes as a given) God's attempt.

Another thing in the "plus" column (sorta) is the point he makes that atheism, as a basis for producing an ethos or a code of law or a standard of behavior, is worse than Christianity, which he admits has had "notable deviations from Jesus' teaching across the centuries (for example, the Crusades, Inquisition"), in terms of results. He contends, by quoting and agreeing with Dinesh D'Souza, that "Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history." OK, so even if this is so, it's just a matter of degrees. Atheism is "this" bad, and Christianity is only "this" bad. And if we can lay the blame for the "notable deviations" on imperfect Christians getting it very wrong, why not give atheists the same pass, too? What if they get it right, some time? Practice makes perfect! :winkgrin

(Disclaimer: I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. I think atheists get it wrong, a lot of times, by focusing on the God of the Bible as if that's the only possible "God". But what if there really is a God? One who didn't inspire those, or any other, writings, and didn't really instruct His people to commit atrocities in His name? What if the desists are right? Of course, that's a whole other topic!)

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

:chirp

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

Oh yeah, haven't replied to this yet!

OK.

:winkgrin

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

I find it hard to take anything KWSS1976 says on religion seriously with that bevis and/or butthead avatar. Sheesh, that is ridiculous for a "Christian" forum.

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

While I'm downing avatars, Timmy, your in the same boat.

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

:sad

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

Will you help me pick a new one? :woot

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

Not sure what brought me back here. It has been a long time. Met a log of good people over the years in these forums. I started this thread when I was 29 years old and now I am 45 with two kids in college.

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

Have your beliefs changed?

Re: Pros/Cons of the Three-step doctrine
 

Hi, deltaguitar.

I share the following link (titled Ro2,Jn3,Ac2) for your consideration, instead of re-writing everything it contains here. Let me know any of your thoughts, should you want to get into a conversation.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

Or, see these threads here in AFF:
John3 and Romans2: Part1
John3 and Romans2: Part2

-Don