h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Gif

I am so sore from the whipping you gave me that I just haven't had the strength to respond! Anyway, the topic of CP is long past and I didn't realise that since Monday we've gone so far away from it. I've had estate/probate issues etc. to take up my time...

I think Gif that there is a case to be made for consistency in interpreting Proverbs re the use of correction. There is the sense that correction is to be done in a loving way. That is reiterated in Hebrews Chapter 12-- to give correction for personal profit.

To state that maiming/stoning is part of the plan of God's correction is to leap over the steps that correction/discipline is supposed to take, starting with counsel (Prov. 1-10 ). The next step is corporal punishment and as you rightly remark, the final step is death by stoning. That we do not stone our children today in no way diminishes the deserving of death in the eyes of God for wilful disrespect of parents. God said it and I in no way will dispute the righteousness of God in declaring it. Yes, it seems tough and harsh and perhaps too much so, but who am I to question God?


RC

Hi Rick,

I keep forgetting what a hard time this must be for you personally. Tapping away on a keyboard in reply to words on a screen, it's so easy to forget that the person on the other end might have other things going on in their life. I hope I haven't been too abrupt in my replies to you.

In answer to your final question, I would say you are a thinking, moral being - and presumably you believe that your moral sense was given to you by God, just as you believe the Bible comes from God. I can understand that you might not want to question God's will - but might you not at least question whether everything in the Bible is completely, totally, 100% God's exact words and nothing else? Especially in light of the difficulties we've had even understanding what the available text means in some places (as you say, it needs interpretation - but as soon as you do that, you're using your own judgement), never mind whether the text we have is the original, or what the source of the original was.

It seems to me that you're called to make a judgement between your own moral sense (or society's collective moral sense) and what's written in the Bible. For me, that's easy - since I don't think either comes from God, human morality is all we have. The thing I've never understood about the religious viewpoint is why you take the Bible above a moral sense? Given that, presumably, you believe both come from God and both require your own (falliable) interpretation?

Gif

Hi Gif

I appreciate your understanding (believe it!) and your comments show sincerity.

It is difficult to debate the issues of spirituality since they remain as abstracts within a world that largely seeks discovery by concrete, proven, historical examples. I acknowledge that the Bible is a document of antiquity not perceived to be relevant by today's standards. Yet if we regard it aright, we should easily discover the wisdom within that is still pertinent today, a wisdom that can also be found within the writings of other sages and philosophies.

The Christian Bible differs though, in the aspect of the needed redemption for a cursed and condemned world. There is no other comparable religion (to my knowledge) demanding faith in a sinless substitute. I have come to believe that if the Bible declared a loving and righteous God whose moral grounding was identical to that of humanity, and who made no demands for repentance and faith, Christianity would be universally accepted. Imagine! A God that allowed you and me to do everything that we pleased, making no judgements against us. But because He is angry with sinners and will one day call them to account by Jesus Christ, the gospel is rejected. Nobody wants to be told they are condemned and without hope apart from turning to God by repentance and faith in Jesus' atoning ministry.

I do have respect for people who challenge me to debate and like yourself, grow frustrated with responses that ultimately refer back to Scripture. I really cannot blame them for taking pot shots. It is to be expected since the Bible is largely deemed old-fashioned and rrelevant.

I regard the Bible as the truth; yet I agree with you that it does not contain the whole truth -- just that measure sufficient for human beings to absorb. To be confronted with the infinite truth would undoubtedly result in wholesale confusion since it would be impossible for the human mind to process. I believe God has deemed the Athanasian Canon (66 books) as sufficient for us to understand the holinesss of God and His purposes for the world.

I did not enter into the H2G2 discussion forums with a view to advance personnal theories since they would give rise to accusations that I was not biblical in my theology. But even with holding to such an outlook, it is very easy to be misunderstood when challenged to opine views not clearly dealt with in Scripture, since the accusation inevitably comes that I am making it up. In such situations I should simply have stated, " I cannot be sure " or " I don't know." It would have been less troublesome to have done that.

I have tried to be sincere and truthful but since the Bible is discounted as the truth by most of those entering into these religious discussions, it may be pointless for me to continue in these " debates, " since by definition, I am not always debating. Effers is right on and I cannot dispute her analysis. So I have decided to leave off visiting BBC h2g2 for the time being. I have too much stuff to handle and am needing more free time to get going on my second book that is about 1/3 done but which I haven't touched in months.

Thank you for your contributions to these forums, Gif. I would again say, that you need to be sincere about approaching God. And the fact that have attempted this suggests you are not the atheist that you claim. An atheist would never countenance approaching God, being absolutely convinced that He is figment of the imagination. You are probably more representative of agnostic belief.



Rick