Biblical passages that cause real difficulties to most thinking Christians

Asiaprod

As mentioned in the A&A forum, PDN brought up the issue that there are actually plenty of Biblical passages that cause real difficulties to most thinking Christians. I am always keen to learn and would be interested in hearing some of these and learning why they cause difficulties. For example, is it because they may have been miswritten, are to complex to understand, or do not apply in this day and age.
This is a serious request, please do not take it as an excuse to attack Christian beliefs please.

MrPudding

Obviously not that many then....

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

Obviously not that many then....

MrP

Well PDN is supposed to have loads ...

Perhaps putting [Christian Only] in the thread title might get more responses, at the moment it looks a bit like an attack the Christian type of thread.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

Well PDN is supposed to have loads ...

Perhaps putting [Christian Only] in the thread title might get more responses, at the moment it looks a bit like an attack the Christian type of thread.

Making it christian only makes it kind of pointless though. There have been a number of occasions where I would like to discuss something raised in a christian only thread, but obviously can't. Not great really.

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

There have been a number of occasions where I would like to discuss something raised in a christian only thread, but obviously can't.

That is kinda the point

Fanny Cradock

Do you want to give people a chance to reply before you start with the digs?

philologos

The only two books I have difficulty with before thinking about them and trying to find out the context of them are the books of Joshua and Judges.

Asiaprod

MrPudding wrote: »

Making it christian only makes it kind of pointless though. There have been a number of occasions where I would like to discuss something raised in a christian only thread, but obviously can't. Not great really.
MrP

This is why I do not want this to be a Christian Only thread. I want it open discussion if anything without the risk of descending into the usual chaos.

PDN

God ordering the Israelites to kill all the children in Jericho etc. is one passage that I doubt I will ever fully understand this side of heaven.

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you want to give people a chance to reply before you start with the digs?

Good point. It was only 24 hours and 40 views since it was posted. Sorry.

MrP

santing

Xhristy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The genealogies in Genesis may go back a bit in time and may extend a bit beyond the current story. Which is perfectly acceptable.

So Genesis 10 finishes past the story of Genesis 11.

wolfsbane

santing wrote: »

The genealogies in Genesis may go back a bit in time and may extend a bit beyond the current story. Which is perfectly acceptable.

So Genesis 10 finishes past the story of Genesis 11.

Exactly. Gen.11 is a detailed account of how the united people of Earth broke up into the many nations just described. A bit like Gen. 2 details man's creation that was given in Gen.1.

JimiTime

Maybe its just my black heart, but the killing of children by God is not a big deal to me. The bears mauling the young men that taunted elijah, I welcome actually. There were 4 year olds that I knew even as a kid myself, that they'd be trouble in later life. We as people can't judge though, so we must give children a chance to grow, make their decisions and hopefully change, even when it looks hopeless. If God see's the future of the child though, then there's no difference between the child and the man IMO. Surely the killing of children by men would not have been good for the mens mental health though. I wonder why God got men to kill, when he showed that he himself could and would kill when necessary. Thats the bit that troubles me in all the God judging bits.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe its just my black heart, but the killing of children by God is not a big deal to me. The bears mauling the young men that taunted elijah, I welcome actually. There were 4 year olds that I knew even as a kid myself, that they'd be trouble in later life. We as people can't judge though, so we must give children a chance to grow, make their decisions and hopefully change, even when it looks hopeless. If God see's the future of the child though, then there's no difference between the child and the man IMO. Surely the killing of children by men would not have been good for the mens mental health though. I wonder why God got men to kill, when he showed that he himself could and would kill when necessary. Thats the bit that troubles me in all the God judging bits.

Remind me not to ask you to babysit.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Remind me not to ask you to babysit.

As long as they don't call me baldy, 'Not so Gentle' Ben will stay in his cage:) I've got a big stick for the minor offences.:)

Dog Fan

As a child I always found a particular hymn titled "suffer little children to come unto me" to be very unsettling. Only later did i learn the the modern english translation was "let the little children come to me".

Strange thing the english language!

Sometimes I look at the death of Jesus as portrayed in the 4 gospels, and wonder how to reconcile the different accounts. From Jesus crying 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken me', to 'It is accomplished'.

I know that the gospel writers were addressing different audiences, and showing different aspects of the life and person of Jesus, but it gets confusing.

Oh, and I'm not sure JimiTime will be coming in my direction for babysitting anytime soon either! :pac:

JimiTime

Dog Fan wrote: »

Oh, and I'm not sure JimiTime will be coming in my direction for babysitting anytime soon either! :pac:

Awwww. And i got me a new big stick too:(

Steviemak

Genocide anyone??

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deuteronomy 7:1-5, NIV)

Fanny Cradock

Steviemak wrote: »

Genocide anyone??

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deuteronomy 7:1-5, NIV)

Indeed!

I would have a major issue with 1 Samuel 15:3. Here God, in no uncertain terms, orders the complete destruction of the Amalekites. That is the death of every being from man, to woman to child and all the way down to the lower animals. I've heard a few explanations but none have ever fully erased the unease I feel when reading these stories. For my part, I can only really explain away these actions if they were all obstacles to God's wider strategy, which culminated in Jesus on the cross. Still, the unease remains.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

--amadeus--

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe its just my black heart, but the killing of children by God is not a big deal to me. The bears mauling the young men that taunted elijah, I welcome actually. There were 4 year olds that I knew even as a kid myself, that they'd be trouble in later life. We as people can't judge though, so we must give children a chance to grow, make their decisions and hopefully change, even when it looks hopeless. If God see's the future of the child though, then there's no difference between the child and the man IMO. Surely the killing of children by men would not have been good for the mens mental health though. I wonder why God got men to kill, when he showed that he himself could and would kill when necessary. Thats the bit that troubles me in all the God judging bits.

I bumble about the internet a fair bit and I can honestly say that that post is the scariest thing I have ever seen.

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I bumble about the internet a fair bit and I can honestly say that that post is the scariest thing I have ever seen.

Yeah, I was wondering when someone would say that.

Zombrex

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I bumble about the internet a fair bit and I can honestly say that that post is the scariest thing I have ever seen.

Oh we say things like that around these parts all the time it has become old hat. :pac:

--amadeus--

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, I was wondering when someone would say that.

Well if it's just shock value you're after there are probably better places to be. Personally I would find it hard to reconcile the idea of a just, kind, loving and interventionist god with the idea that killing children is a-ok because they are destined to be scum.

And I thought we had free will anyway?

Zombrex

--amadeus-- wrote: »

And I thought we had free will anyway?

We do! Except when we don't!

Work that one out. :pac:

Riche670

Hi,

I'm new to this forum, so I'm unsure if the link I'm about to post has been discussed previously...

For me it posed MANY questions, and I have struggled to refute it's well made points. I had never really challenged my interpretations of the bible before reading this, so I tried to keep an open mind.

Read at your own risk: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/word_of_god_debate.html

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Well if it's just shock value you're after there are probably better places to be.

No, I just didn't beat around the bush. I could pretend to be horrified, but then reason about it, because thats the accepted thing. I'm not horrified by it though, so there's no point in pretending. If I believe God is Just, I'd be somewhat of a hypocrite to doubt he was just on these occasions.

Personally I would find it hard to reconcile the idea of a just, kind, loving and interventionist god with the idea that killing children is a-ok because they are destined to be scum.

Thats only a throwaway thought of mine, I'm not representing Gods reasoning on the matter. Whatever Gods reason is, I accept it. Don't get me wrong, I struggle to put a 'why' there. However, the judgement itself does not trouble me.

And I thought we had free will anyway?

You've just unearthed one of my own issues. If there is in fact a book of life. Surely the whole 'god is allowing us time to repent etc' does not make sense?

The Free Will - Pre-destined thing is something thats playing on my mind lately.

santing

Riche670 wrote: »

Hi,
Read at your own risk: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/word_of_god_debate.html

But also look at the Christian Answer to this web side "AnsweringInfidels.org":

Riche670

Thanks Santing.

I was completely unaware of that site, but upon searching it I see no direct reference to Emmet Fields article.

Also, I am unsurprised to see that someone/thing associated with organised religion is charging a fee for their services. See below:

**NEW UPDATE** On January 12th, John Loftus and David Wood debated the Problem of Evil on "The Debate Hour." Click here to download the debate. (It costs $1.75, but it's a fun discussion!)

Can I ask a question which I have not researched in anyway, but has been itching at me since a friend mentioned it?

Why did the position/title of Pope come into exsistence? Where in the bible was it planned, mentioned, recommended?

Something that annoys me about Catholicism is the amount of money involved...

PDN

Riche670 wrote: »

Hi,

I'm new to this forum, so I'm unsure if the link I'm about to post has been discussed previously...

For me it posed MANY questions, and I have struggled to refute it's well made points. I had never really challenged my interpretations of the bible before reading this, so I tried to keep an open mind.

Read at your own risk: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/word_of_god_debate.html

I read a little bit of it but it honestly didn't seem to be well enough thought out or argued for me to waste time reading all of it.

For example, consider this little gen of irrational thinking:

Silly Atheist Debater wrote:

And this seedy story goes on until Genesis 19:36 reads: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."

Now I know that is not what the Bible says to you who believe it to be "the word of God." But to me, it seems to say: "Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father." To me that story is pure filth, but others say there is no filth, and no immorality, in the Bible, so I do not know what that story says to others, but to me it is pure filth. And, to me, filth cannot be a part of "the word of God."

Why can 'filth' not be part of the Word of God? The Bible is not supposed to be "sugar & spice & all things nice" while all the time ignoring the brutish nastiness that characterises so much of humanity's experience and history. The Bible unsparingly details how Lot's family, despite having their undeserving hides rescued from destruction, practiced drunkenness, date-rape and incest. The idea that such honesty cannot possibly be the Word of God because it deals with 'filth' is an example of Mr Fields' irrational and subjective twaddle.

As I said, I don't want to waste my time reading more of this stuff - but if you think other parts of the article rise above this mediocre level then by all means articulate the argument you find impressive and start a new thread with it. We can then discuss it.

PDN

Riche670 wrote: »

Also, I am unsurprised to see that someone/thing associated with organised religion is charging a fee for their services. See below:

**NEW UPDATE** On January 12th, John Loftus and David Wood debated the Problem of Evil on "The Debate Hour." Click here to download the debate. (It costs $1.75, but it's a fun discussion!)

Professors in theology get paid just like academics in other subjects. Authors of books on religion get paid royalties like any other author.
A pastor who has trained for 5 years to gain the necessary qualifications will receive a salary for his work as a minister, just as other workers receive a salary.

Next week I am an invited speaker at a Church Conference in the US. They pay my air fare, hotels, car rental etc. and will pay me a nice fee for speaking at their Conference. I see that as no different from a speaker being invited to a secular Conference to share his/her insights and expertise on politics, science, or any other non-religious subject.

If you pay peanuts then you get monkeys.