Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

O K, I’ll start.
I have been reading other strands of this blog and making connections with the O T law books we are studying.
If I may refer back a lecture or two, there has been some discussion on the connection of Easter/Passover and infanticide. Now, we all seem to agree that it is reprehensible when practiced by Herod or the Pharaoh. But, when God orders the death of Egyptian firstborn, this is justice!? This is where I am disturbed about God as Pharaoh’s puppetmaster – hardening his heart so that his people cannot escape the full fate that demonstrates how Godly is the God of Abraham.
Elsewhere:
At 10:58am on 03 Apr 2010, Jean Cauvin wrote:
David states "the ‘loving’ Christian god is going to burn anyone who espouses another god’s name, in fire, for eternity.
The implication is that God cannot be love and at the same time punish anyone in Hell. This is illogical. Could a judge be loving and yet punish Nazis for the crimes of the Holocaust? Could a judge be loving and yet punish a serial rapist? Of course, he would. **How could anyone be loving and not punish these people.**
God loves and therefore He hates the opposite of love, which is sin.
my (**)

I am not sure ‘logic’ comes into it for me. I ‘feel’ that the South African Truth and Reconciliation model might well more closely approximate to what is godly.
Ah, but that is not what these books of Moses say, 'an eye for…' But have we have moved on for better or worse in the last 3 thousand years, though, even in democratic countries there is disagreement on the death penalty.
And, a question for you scholars – how have we gotten from there to here?

FF, you have identified the answer. We have left the bible behind. That is how we got from there to here. Many people have made that final step, and many more will make it in the future, including plenty who will continue to wish to self-identify as ...

Thank you Helio, interesting link, but not quite where I am. May I offer you in return a thought I find helpful from David Boulton – I recommend his book /Real like the daisies, or real like I love you/. It was at a Woodbrooke weekend course called /New light on Jesus/ taught by him and Tim Peet (aka Ashworth) that David said he was ‘haunted’ by Jesus. That is somewhere near where I am.
My faith is a poor thing, occasionally glimpsed out of the corner of my eye, disappears if I turn my head. I am a bit stronger on hope and charity. Christine Hayes said that in the Hebrew bible the word translated as faith would be better translated as trust. And someone told me that Rufus Jones said that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Puts me in mind – and this is not original but I can’t remember who said it – that I would rather believe in a god who does not exist, than fail to believe in one who does. So I think I will continue to try to live my life as if god exists.

This lecture, although complicated, was more accessible than the last. It served to remind me that these events did not take place in a vacuum. The Decalogue/Decalogues were juxtaposed with other collections of laws. Still, the biblical set came out looking quite good in comparison to some of the others.

It does raise the ugly issue of slavery and how this was condoned in the AHB.

This business of context fascinates me. Growing up in the Christian tradition I was exposed to a very narrow view of this period in time. Only later was I to learn that messiahs were quite common as was various raising of the dead /resurrection happenings….. and many holy men winging it to heaven. I regret clergy do not provide this context. Why do we have to discover these things for ourselves? Why do clergy feel they need to conceal so much?

I guess, as recent events confirm, disclosure on the part of the clergy is out and concealing is the order of …..all days.

Regards
DK

FF - # 3.

I hope you haven't been influenced in your use of analogy by the first episode (Prisoner Zero) of the new Dr Who series, broadcast on Saturday I think! That would be most unfortunate... ;-)

My reading of the Bible doesn't create the problem you identify. I see it as a carefully compiled collection of stories documenting man's search for "God" - it shows successes and failures, how we have got it right and how we can get it wrong. We learn from both. I would question the detail (at least) of the historicity of the Exodus accounts; for me the importance is what they show of the conceptualisation of the relationship of Israel, and non-Israel, with Israel's God.

Oh dear…… There are so many gods it is difficult for a simple atheist to keep up! Sigh………………………………………………………………………………..

Can I refer back to my post no. 1. I am not taking the bible as the word of god, or history. So to rephrase, what do we think the the redactors were saying about infantcide and god as puppetmaster, or alternatively, what do these passages tell us about man's developing understanding of old whomsoever-whatsoever? (I am indebted to Lional Blue for this terminology - he calls him Fred for short, I would prefer Chris, Pat, or other gender nonspecific nickname.)
I wouldn't get too superior about the Hebrew Bible's attitude to slavery, DK; it took Christians a good few centuries to decide it wasn't a good thing. ;-)

Hi FF.

You do know I'm non christian? I pretty much consider AHB and OT as basically the same. Faith and human rights just as Faith and morality don't sit too well together. I'm looking forward to a day faith, like slavery, dies out through lack of interest.

So do you think the bible is just an ordinary collection of writings created by humans?

Regards
DK