tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post2311879713478355721..comments2023-03-24T05:41:17.603-07:00Comments on OutsideTheBox: Approaching Belief Naturally (Part II)Cliff Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-3485436328240755312011-01-27T10:31:26.367-08:002011-01-27T10:31:26.367-08:00Peter,
Nice to encounter someone who thinks so mu...Peter,<br /><br />Nice to encounter someone who thinks so much like I do! Thanks for dropping by. I enjoyed perusing your blog; you are a prolific writer!<br /><br />It's nice that you are so close. Are you originally from Oregon? Maybe we could meet for coffee sometime.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-4274049788930241672011-01-25T22:31:28.143-08:002011-01-25T22:31:28.143-08:00Yes! 'Like a Child' just sent me your lin...Yes! 'Like a Child' just sent me your link! This is very much in line with some of my own wanderings. Especially this - "I am a believer in God, first and foremost, because I choose to be." Thanks for sharing...<br />PeterPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08898344279654975005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-54064663226003179302010-09-08T21:04:06.135-07:002010-09-08T21:04:06.135-07:00I just "re-discovered" this post and rea...I just "re-discovered" this post and realized I had already posted a comment. I really do need to give myself a break! Anyways, this sentence called out to me "The agnostic chooses to live his life as if there is no God, or as if there is." You are so correct there! You really should write a book someday. Your prose is so much more readable then most of these apologetic books I've been reading.Like a Childhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15991265512226039592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-33420369335349369492010-07-31T15:04:21.201-07:002010-07-31T15:04:21.201-07:00Like a Child said, “…display LOVE. It is the essen...Like a Child said, “…display LOVE. It is the essence of Christianity. Lets model love.”<br /><br />I couldn’t agree more. This may sound cheesy or corny or whatever but if everyone (Christian, Atheist, whoever) displayed more love the world would be a better place.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-10077954000497959502010-07-25T22:34:41.555-07:002010-07-25T22:34:41.555-07:00Welcome, Like a Child. I appreciated reading your ...Welcome, Like a Child. I appreciated reading <a href="http://likeachildscience.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">your blog</a> cover to cover. I hope you find value in reading here (though I would never expect you to read this entire blog!).<br /><br />For my other readers, Like a Child, a scientist-turned-stay-at-home-mom writes honestly and candidly of her own faith journey, and her struggle with doubt. I recommend her blog to you.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-88044898370891810852010-07-25T21:50:35.559-07:002010-07-25T21:50:35.559-07:00I wanted to clarify that I couldn't read all t...I wanted to clarify that I couldn't read all the 90 comments on this post. I will be reading more of your posts in the coming weeks!Like a Childhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15991265512226039592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-25192311534966464082010-07-25T21:02:37.050-07:002010-07-25T21:02:37.050-07:00Cliff- Loved this post...I think right now, I'...Cliff- Loved this post...I think right now, I'm choosing to live the Christian life more so than believing which is the hard part for me. I started to read through the comments but I just wont have time, as much as I'd like to. <br /><br />Your very last statement questioning why anyone would choose not to is a powerful one...and one that makes me hate my exposure to Calvinism because it makes me feel that God is unreal, b/c a God that would choose to completely cloud up people's mind seems insane. <br /><br />You know, the one thing I've learned is that there really isn't that much that separates me from an agnostic or an atheist (and I'm not really sure where I lie on this spectrum most of the time anyways). I don't know the answer to your question, but my first approach to someone that chooses not to is to display LOVE. It is the essence of Christianity. Lets model love. I have immense compassion for the plight of atheists nowadays. They get so much condemnation. Maybe we are just increasing the divide by displaying so much hate (even if they hate us, we aren't supposed to reciprocate hate).Like a Childhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15991265512226039592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-57222532968243527022010-07-19T18:25:47.002-07:002010-07-19T18:25:47.002-07:00Hi Rich.
Thanks for attempting to answer my quest...Hi Rich.<br /><br />Thanks for attempting to answer my questions. I wasn't really expecting them to be answered or explored here, and they should be the subjects of other posts. That being said,<br /><br /><i>I borrow rather heavily from Charles Finney for this one, as he develops it in his Systematic Theology. To paraphrase, "sin" is a deliberate, intellectual choice to treat the other human being (as well as creation itself) as something less, strictly for personal benefit, without regard for the consequences. As far as we can tell, only mankind has the capacity to make these kind of reasoned, moral choices.</i><br /><br />Sounds like normal evolution and the bulk of animal behavior to me. Does sin require reasoning? Are you equating or correlating morality with sin?<br /><br />Anyway, regardless, as a cornerstone of Christian theology, doesn't it strike you as peculiar that sin is so ill defined? Anyway, let's save it for another thread.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462218340570164741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-5868937410133322912010-07-19T13:34:50.196-07:002010-07-19T13:34:50.196-07:00Tom:
I'd like to take a [tentative] stab at p...Tom:<br /><br />I'd like to take a [tentative] stab at possible answers to your four questions. <br /><br />"<i>1) What is sin? In the context of other animals' existence and behavior, how are our behavior and mental capabilities different to require supernatural assistance to rescue us from oblivion while simultaneously enabling our spirit to live eternally? </i>"<br /><br />I borrow rather heavily from Charles Finney for this one, as he develops it in his Systematic Theology. To paraphrase, "sin" is a deliberate, intellectual choice to treat the other human being (as well as creation itself) as something less, strictly for personal benefit, without regard for the consequences. As far as we can tell, only mankind has the capacity to make these kind of reasoned, moral choices.<br /><br />"<i>2) In the cosmic battle with evil, why the sacrificial system? Why the proliferation of sacrificial sheep and goats to culminate in the death of God-made-man? </i>"<br /><br />I share Cliff's view of the sacrificial system being man-made. And I see hints that this is so all the way back in Genesis 4. The common evangelical explanation of Cain & Abel is that Cain's sacrifice was unacceptable because it wasn't a blood offering. But the Hebrew term for his offering (<i>minchah</i>) is the same one used for acceptable offerings described in Leviticus. And according to the story, God doesn't call him on his offering, but his attitude. I think the writer of Hebrews also saw this when he wrote "It is impossible for the blood of sheep and goats to take away sin". It seems to me that the whole OT sacrificial system was designed to wean [albeit, in stages] the ancient peoples off of depending on sacrifices for their piety.<br /><br />"<i>3) What about justice for those that did not choose Jesus for redemption? </i>"<br /><br />I go to Romans 2:12-16 for this one. Apparently, those who do by their good-hearted nature what God really wants, even if they don't know it, will be judged acceptably, while those who should have known better (even "believers") may not fare so well. But it is not given to any of us to make that final pronouncement on a person. All we can do is go on and live the best we know how - not simply "avoiding sin", but actually contributing to the betterment of those around us.<br /><br />"<i>4) How does life exist outside of its material frame?</i>"<br /><br />Good question. If "life" is strictly a process within this material system, there would have to be a different definition for other dimensional realities. I'm not sure we really know what constitutes "life" anyway.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-5533354751952621692010-07-18T12:40:47.155-07:002010-07-18T12:40:47.155-07:00Tom,
I like your four questions. I understand you...Tom,<br /><br />I like your four questions. I understand your “inability to construct a theology that makes sense -- that is logical to the way the world seems to operate, fair for all, and desirable.” If I shared the theological assumptions implicit in your questions, I too would be at a loss to construct a meaningful and reasonable theology and faith. <br /><br />Evolutionary science has adjusted my thinking about sin (and probably will continue to so). I am less obsessed with how sin affects the “next life” and more concerned with how it effects this one. I personally find that it is real, and that my on-going relationship with God is of great value to me, in this respect, here and now! I am more inclined to think the entire sacrificial system was of human origin, and that the death of Christ is full of powerful significance and many possible meanings, none of which are related to the O.T. sacrificial system. I am fully prepared to be totally surprised by eternal justice outcomes, being certain only of this: it will be totally fair, and entirely satisfying. Even though I’ve give it a lot of thought since the passing of my lover and best friend, I’m less troubled by questions of how life might exist outside of its material frame than I am inquisitive about <i>how life exists at all!</i> or for that matter, how it is that <i>anything</i> exists! And problems of evil, suffering, and meaning are not problems only for theists. Any well-ordered world-view must grapple with these questions ... and I find the theistic answers decidedly more satisfying.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-21316040979956564182010-07-18T12:37:27.317-07:002010-07-18T12:37:27.317-07:00Tanner,
Thank you for stopping by. Let’s stay in ...Tanner,<br /><br />Thank you for stopping by. Let’s stay in touch. Like you, I seek to own a faith that is reality-based, genuine, and rational. Navigating the world of ideas and all the hard data available to us today can be challenging, if not perilous to faith. But I firmly believe that truth is truth, wherever we find it, whether in the laboratory or from sources of divine revelation. Most, if not all, of the evolutionary creationists I know started out believing in the same young earth creationism you were taught in SDA churches. We have worked through most of the apparent theological conundrums, and strive to maintain Christian faith; however, what constitutes “Christian faith” becomes a little more fluid than many believers will find comfortable. This process has led me to develop a more natural approach to theology from ground up.<br /><br />I consider Tom a good friend. Whether we will ever end up on the same side of the theistic question is more than I can tell. But I have found him to be helpful in identifying inconsistencies in my thinking, a service for which I am thankful. I know many SDA people, and former SDA people. I recently met one young lady who is evolutionary and still in the SDA church ... so you are not alone!Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-54393996059821337182010-07-18T08:04:05.372-07:002010-07-18T08:04:05.372-07:00Hi Tanner.
I'm following this thread in that ...Hi Tanner.<br /><br />I'm following this thread in that I get emails from this post when somebody posts to it....<br /><br />I went to Mile High Academy in Denver, graduated in 1985, then attended Pacific Union College through 1989.<br /><br />I will say in my spiritual journey, I sincerely wanted to believe and evolution really was the nail in the coffin. That was 15 years ago, and aside from a few books and a close friend who I could freely discuss these issues with, I really felt alone in these pursuits. Since then, the internet has burgeoned and there are several blogs for ex-adventists such as wishingdoesntmakeitso.blogspot.com and ginandtonic4thesoul.blogspot.com. Cliff's blogroll has several useful resources for evolutionary creationists. Point is, you are not alone and there are people in whichever direction you go.<br /><br />While I entered atheism ~15 years ago, dealing with the vacuum left by theistic belief is something that I still deal with. Part of the discussion here (and the impetus for most bloggers) is that discussions aid the growth process, either toward or away from theistic belief for each participant.<br /><br />The thing that I've recently learned is that evolution is not directly a problem for theistic belief. That is, whether the world is young or old, whether Adam and Eve were literal, etc., is not core theology. What is core Christian theology is that we have sinned and that Christ died to atone for those sins and offer eternal life. Now, what evolution helps facilitate is a demand for answers to basic theological questions: 1) What is sin? In the context of other animals' existence and behavior, how are our behavior and mental capabilities different to require supernatural assistance to rescue us from oblivion while simultaneously enabling our spirit to live eternally? 2) In the cosmic battle with evil, why the sacrificial system? Why the proliferation of sacrificial sheep and goats to culminate in the death of God-made-man? 3) What about justice for those that did not choose Jesus for redemption? 4) How does life exist outside of its material frame? Along the way toward answering these questions, its easy to ask about theodicy, the meaning of life, the mind-body problem, etc. <br /><br />I choose atheism because of my inability to construct a theology that makes sense -- that is logical to the way the world seems to operate, fair for all, and desirable. This is an endless debate, but it is worth discussion.<br /><br />If you click on my profile, you can navigate to my long-dead blog where Cliff and I met. I recommend the original postings, which may echo some of your ideas/experiences. I hope to get a new blog going someday....Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462218340570164741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-33899367421571389242010-07-17T18:49:26.261-07:002010-07-17T18:49:26.261-07:00Cliff, thanks so much for your post. I've bee...Cliff, thanks so much for your post. I've been searching for what I believe for a while now and your post pretty much nails it for me. Like Tom, I too was raised Seventh-day Adventist (3rd generation) and went to Adventist schools through college. (I'd actually be interested in knowing where Tom went since I wonder if we overlapped any.) My big question recently has been evolution vs creation. I think the evidence for evolution is just way too overwhelming. In addition, I don't believe God would give me the intelligence I have and then not have me use it! So, I must believe that evolution is correct. For a Seventh-day Adventist, that's a huge leap. However, unlike Tom, I cannot make the leap to unbelief because like you I believe my belief is a choice. So, given it is a choice, I find your natural theology very appealing. So, once again, thanks so much for posting it.<br /><br />(And, Tom, if you're still following the discussion, my apologies for using you as a comparison in my comment. No disrespect is intended! Your choice is absolutely your own and it is not my place to second guess you.)Tanner Lovelacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02674404809167892499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-69856222129073464522010-07-03T09:12:59.287-07:002010-07-03T09:12:59.287-07:00Jason said, “But now to press a bit for more detai...Jason said, “But now to press a bit for more detail. You said earlier that I sounded much like you in the past. So, were you also convinced by…”<br /><br />No, I can’t say all of those things. I didn’t know all of that about you. I just meant you reminded me of me by the way you (fervently it seemed) didn’t believe in God, Jesus, or Christianity any more as you once did. That’s all.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-78321174280651555352010-07-03T09:05:06.835-07:002010-07-03T09:05:06.835-07:00Jason, said, “As for your reconversion, unfortunat...Jason, said, “As for your reconversion, unfortunately I can’t say anything substantive about your own experience of hearing a divine pull. It very well may be true and yet it does me little good…”<br /><br />Yes, all of what you said is true. Believe me, I know that. I didn’t write what I wrote to try to convince you of anything. I wrote it because you asked my why I reconverted. For all I know, what happened to me was all in my mind and imagination. I realize that. After this life perhaps God will say something like, “Hey, you know that experience was your imagination; I didn’t pull you or urge you in any kind of supernatural way. But you still came back to me and that’s cool.” For me, the experience changed my life and I started living my life like I believed there was this God and Jesus and I stepped out in faith and made a lot of changes and continue to do so. And I don’t regret it.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-28308135510475859702010-07-03T08:48:37.179-07:002010-07-03T08:48:37.179-07:00Concerning where I said that one of the reasons fo...Concerning where I said that one of the reasons for my deconversion was probably a smattering of not wanting to give up some areas of my life, Jason said, “But it appears to be (true) for you and I’ll accept your explanation.” Yes, please do. I would think there would be some other people too for whom this is true. So I would say such a creature exists. That wasn’t the only reason I deconverted or the biggest reason. In fact I didn’t even really think about this until I looked back. Which brings me to another of my reasons for deconverting:<br /><br />“intelligence”<br /><br />To me the whole Christian thing didn’t make sense. You made some good points about why there were plenty of reasons why Christianity was really no different than many other beliefs. So I know what you mean. The reason I put it in quotes was because sometimes we think we know more than we do. I believe that will be true for all of us for all of our lives.Mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-81635147044769000982010-06-28T20:55:04.995-07:002010-06-28T20:55:04.995-07:00Tom,
First, let me state my agreement with you in...Tom,<br /><br />First, let me state my agreement with you in your assessment of Jason's apostasy (as well as your own). You both lack the anger and stridency that often accompanies the choice to step out of faith. You are approachable, and easy to converse with. I hope that the same can be said of me.<br /><br /><i>"Cliff and Rich would chalk this up to having been raised in a fundamentalist religion, but I don't think so."</i><br /><br />... and you may be correct: we are probably guilty of over-simplification, at least. But it is curious that Rich and I (who are informed about biology and literary criticism and historicity issues) have a faith (and a moderate to conservative theology in many respects) that is not threatened by these matters; and yet for the two of you, these same issues demolished your faith. I'm not trying to blame fundamentalism. I am trying to understand why, when confronted with the same data, you apostatized (out of seeming necessity), and I did not.<br /><br />I do know this: as a general rule, fundamentalism does force false dilemmas upon young people trained in Biblical literalism and inerrancy who encounter the sort of data Jason has outlined here. And those false dilemmas are often disastrous to faith.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-58406439279741312992010-06-28T20:07:53.679-07:002010-06-28T20:07:53.679-07:00Jason,
It sounds like you have a very positive pe...Jason,<br /><br />It sounds like you have a very positive perspective on your apostasy. You demonstrate that it is not really the easy way out. You don't sound too angry or confused by the ordeal, nor demeaning with any critiques. I think that's all fruitful. That's the type of perspective I have tried to maintain, too.<br /><br />I, too, came from a conservative fundamentalist religion, raised in Seventh-day Adventism, and attended Adventist schools through college. It was when I started traveling, and especially when I read a book on evolution that things began to crumble for me. I then ventured, like you, into some of the literary criticism and Biblical historicity. It's quite helpful to understand the context of the scriptures to try and paint a picture of how religions manifest themselves. You put biology and the cultural/literary contexts together, and if you are like me, you see an absent deity and a list of human interests and foibles. Cliff and Rich would chalk this up to having been raised in a fundamentalist religion, but I don't think so. Sure God is multidimensional, but the theology surrounding him is a square peg for this round hole of the material world.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462218340570164741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-55533345221288696482010-06-28T18:55:29.896-07:002010-06-28T18:55:29.896-07:00Jason,
I read all your posts (thank you, btw!) an...Jason,<br /><br />I read all your posts (thank you, btw!) and was preparing a comment/response in my mind when I read Rich's response, which says exactly what I was thinking, but better, and more succinctly. <br /><br />Whether Mr. Wellhausen was 100%, 50% (which I think most likely) or 0% correct matters little to my faith; but then I suppose I've never held the Bible in the extremely high regard many fundamentalists do. If one has a belief approaching Bibliolatry, the revelations of textual criticism will no doubt be destructively jarring to faith.<br /><br />Rich's use of "brittle" is so apropos.Cliff Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342566023774158670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-77522714045180124262010-06-28T18:54:44.722-07:002010-06-28T18:54:44.722-07:00Rich,
I wasn't trying to win ground per say, ...Rich,<br /><br />I wasn't trying to win ground per say, only answer Cliff's question about why source theory helped lead to my decoversion. <br /><br />With the likely unnecessary qualification that any description of my long religious experience will be an oversimplification, you are broadly correct that I spent most of my time in the conservative wing of the evangelical tradition. I agree with you that if I had originally come from an Anglican or more liberal Lutheran branch that I would have been more predisposed to absorb my new understanding of the OT without as much doubt. I might have been less motivated to continue on and explore other portions of the bible or faith. Maybe so, maybe not. As I was becoming increasingly more liberal, I considered whether I just might end up in a different tradition. I knew long ago that the more mainline seminaries taught things such as JEPD for quite some time, even my christian college did, though I had little contact with the bible department. If I had remained in Christianity, it would have had to be within a community that saw the bible at lot different then I did in my youth. After my family stopped attending our conservative bible church, I visited a Methodist church just to give it at least one shot, but by that time I had pretty much lost confidence in the entire christian story.Jasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-12393048453221994172010-06-28T14:34:44.318-07:002010-06-28T14:34:44.318-07:00Jason:
It looks like you are trying to win ground...Jason:<br /><br />It looks like you are trying to win ground that was already conceded. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you were active in what would be called a fundamentalist-evangelical church, rather than Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran tradition. I've found the former to hold a much more rigid (hence brittle) view of the inspiration of scripture, while the latter are more accepting of the human element, and don't need all that much supernatural intervention to keep their faith alive.<br /><br />Rich G.Rich G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04666075844805615545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-54122297554080797092010-06-28T10:34:44.761-07:002010-06-28T10:34:44.761-07:00This isn't the first time or the last time P w...This isn't the first time or the last time P will be specific about who can do what at the temple and he is very consistent, only priests from the faimily of Aaron, not other Levites. Other sources, including Deuteronomy tell a different tale, where all levites are considered priests. Later books of the Bible will have mention of other priests who are levites, something conservative scholars usually admit but simply pass it off as Isreal being rebellious. P is clear that only Priests are allowed to sacrifice, and only at the temple in Jerusalem. P never has any one else make sacrifices in his version, and there is exactly no sacrifice mentioned at all until the tent of the meeting is created and these commandments are explicitly given to Aaron and his seed. But J has whole sorts of people making sacrifices including Abel, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Samuel, etc. And D not only considers all Levites Priests (D always refers to the “Levite Priests “while P always explicitly separates out the group by referring to the “Priests and the Levites”) but D allows for sacrificing at many different locations, which is outlined in later books which for a vast number of other different reasons is believed to have been edited together by the very guy who wrote Deuteronomy. <br /><br />Aaaahhh, I told myself I wasn't going to type this all out. And here I am. I won't go further, there is no way you would be convinced by reading my scattered thoughts and if you're really interested, you should read “Who Wrote the Bible” and decide for yourself. It wasn't my point to convince you, but only to answer your question as to why it would make me abandon my faith. And in this case it was to explain that I saw that the P source had a very polemic agenda that was all to clearly and transparently human. <br /><br />Still, I didn't lose my faith entirely. I just filed this away and plugged ahead. I never really was comfortable with it or found a good rationalization, but it wasn't enough to over throw my faith in Jesus. I finally accepted the polemics after deciding the Bible had errors and was often clearly the work of humans, but could still accept it was God's means of communicating to us; I read Enns and Sparks and tried to rebuild my confidence. But more was coming, specifically a much closer look at the New Testament itself. There wasn't one thing that made me abandon my faith, it was all the things added together. It took a great deal because I had believed for so long, my whole life really. Now, from this side, I see it all as clearly the product of men. If now believe if I had started from a non-belief, having grown up in a secular family, and then knowing what I know now, I would never understand why anyone every believed it. But oh did I ever.Jasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-62445444808390509142010-06-28T10:34:24.207-07:002010-06-28T10:34:24.207-07:00Mount Sinai (or Horab, depends on the source) has ...Mount Sinai (or Horab, depends on the source) has three separate accounts woven together, and when we unwind them it explains I lot of the strange detail in this events, such as who actually sees God, or hears him, or how Moses interacts with him. I probably don't need explain why doubting the validity of this events produces major doubts in me.<br /><br />But here was the real clincher. Here was the real reason I sat in church the next day and begged God to make himself known to me again. It was the polemics. The oftentimes embarrassingly straight forward and explicit polemics of the P source. And at this point it was to late to let my defense mechanism set in and doubt the whole validity of the documentary hypothesis because the P source was the source that was so clearly identifiable as a separate version. Its language, vocabulary, rules, themes and addition of Aaron (always Moses and Aaron instead of just Moses) is very consistent and found only inside P. P polemics. They had one thing they wanted and they we're going to write a history where it came off the lips of Yahweh himself and quite often. Only descendents of Aaron can be priests, and for just about anything you did, from sin, to eating meat, to just about any ceremony, you best be bringing them your donations and offerings. The rebellion of Korah (oh, and Dathan and Abiram) ends with such an explicit statement. This odd story, that appears to have two introductions, two different protestors challenging Moses authority and most telling for two completely different reasons, two different locations the challenge and test take place, and two different ways that people die, makes perfect sense once you separate out P from J and see what we have are two totally different rebellions interwoven together. Why? Why would someone do that? This is the major criticism against such a notion and I have to admit it would give me a great deal of pause if that fact that someone did weren't so patently obvious. (once again, having a foundation that the whole thing is a compilation firmly established already). P's version (which is the rebellion of Korah, where Korah and is followers claim they are just as holy and should have just as much access to Yahwah as Aaron, and then have a test where they burn incense but themselves get burned by Holy Fire). It concludes with this: <br /><br /><b><i>Numbers 16:39-40 And Eleazar the priest took the brazen censers, which they that were burnt had offered; and they beat them out for a covering of the altar, . to be a memorial unto the children of Israel, to the end that no stranger, that is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to burn incense before Yahweh; that he be not as Korah, and as his company: as Yahweh spake unto him by Moses.</i></b>Jasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-56763761704241645532010-06-28T10:33:12.458-07:002010-06-28T10:33:12.458-07:00Many of the stories appear clearly to be a compila...Many of the stories appear clearly to be a compilation of two of the sources and when you unravel them you see that the various authors told conflicting details. Are these major conflicts? Hm, some are, some aren't. But they were clearly mutual exclusive and couldn't both be true. Keep in mind that at the time I was first reading it I didn't accept that there were any historical errors in the Bible so this caused quite a stir. Some of the conflicting details though raised some serious questions. At the parting of the Red Sea with have both J and P material. What happens there is quite different. In J God blows a strong wind and the water simply subsides. In P the water parts as two standing walls, the more familiar imagery. How or why the Egyptians find themselves in the river is different in the two versions, and then we read about God closing up the walls and we read about him reversing the wind to bring the water back, completing both stories. There both there, its very strange not to have noticed though I will assert that when I was kid I never understood the addition of the comments about God causing these winds. The reason it is hard to see is because English translators do there best to smooth it over and make it more cohesive as a single event. You need a translator who is consistent with a one to one translation of certain terminology to expose the different authors. I don't have any material in front of me so the details are foggy. I know that the J source is somewhat cut up with single stranded sentences inside P paragraphs, perhaps others won't be convinced we could know with such accuracy which sentence belongs to which. I certainly wouldn't have been convinced starting with this event alone, I had to have been already convinced through much clearer examples that we had a compilation to begin with to then see it happening in events such as the Red Sea. <br /><br />So here's the deal, those two stories are different, and one of them did not take place. It doesn't mean that neither took place, but when you combine this new factoid with all the other reasons to doubt this story, it just adds that much more to the picture. But in this case we're not dealing with a conflicting detail such as who was Joseph sold to. We're talking about a major supernatural event. And if I start to doubt the supernatural events of the Old Testament, what exactly do I have that is distinguishable from simple story and myth.Jasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1276137109108719911.post-24991181777495053192010-06-28T10:32:35.823-07:002010-06-28T10:32:35.823-07:00Oh, why can't I just write a short response. ...Oh, why can't I just write a short response. What do I always end up with more then two pages. Perhaps secretly I am trying to break this blog record for longest comment section. Have I succeeded? Alright let's begin. <br /><br /><b><i>”The evidence you cite is indeed compelling; I do not deny that. I have always considered it likely. But the dating of the various sources is far less evidentially based. It involves considerable conjecture.”</i></b><br /><br />I agree with you that there is a lot of conjecture behind the dating and authorship and there continues to be a lot of debate about it to this very day. I do think the evidence is strong enough though to suggest most of it was written long after the events it supposedly narrates. But that doesn't matter, as you said. I don't care who wrote it or when, I don't know who wrote Chronicles or Kings or when they wrote it and yet I used to take it as the divine word of God just as much as Exodus. <br /><br /><b><i>I'm still wondering why this was so critical to you, and powerful enough to compel you to abandon faith? </i></b><br /><br />Simply accepting multiple documents and late date authorship did not make me abandon my faith. Even before I began to have serious doubts about Christianity, I found it very unlikely Moses actually wrote those books and yet it didn't matter to me at all. Nor did it matter to me that Luke and Matthew copied Mark, I knew that since college. I didn't care, Luke even says he had sources. <br /><br />Its the details that some of these insights draw out. But before I list a few, I want to emphasize that even after be challenged by the following, I still kept my faith in Jesus. Even when I thought most of the OT was non-historical, even then I still believed and called on the name of the Lord, though my confidence was eroding. It's impossible to give an exact time line of my decoversion since there was no hard starting point or ending point. I had doubts like everyone else my whole life then waxed and wanned though the years. But to put an artificial boundary on some major turning points in that journey I'll say this. I accepted common descent was a reality in December of 2006, and probably by the summer of 2009 I was pretty much a non-believer, though I still attended church for probably three or so more months. It took about three and a half years and no one thing was the lynchpin, no one moment or fact or argument that instantly drove me from faith. Over that time I just became increasingly weary about the truthfulness of especially the historic nature of my faith, and began slowly to realize my religion was very much like all the others, just with more market share in Western Civilization today. <br /><br />But it is true that the realization of multiple sources was a dominant factor in that journey, revealing the all to human history behind the text and raising many questions about it validity. If my memory serves me correctly, this would have been about April of 2008. I'll name a few direct threats to my beliefs at the time but also wish to mention that it also just led to more searching, more questioning, more confidence to really ask hard questions of later books in the bible, all of which ultimately led to the unraveling of the whole picture. Here are just a couple of problems I saw.Jasonnoreply@blogger.com