My Objections to the faith

[SpiritLedEd]

I don't know who He is anymore, if the Bible is (in my opinion) no longer "the Word of God."

Very astute. Unlike Bishop Spong who still believes he knows who God is, while not believing the Bible. Still my question was what led you to disbelieve in it as the Word of God?

Yeah, I don't understand how some people can only believe in certain parts of the Bible and not others? You either believe it or you don't, you can't pick and choose. Like people who claim to be Christians but say it's OK to be gay. People like that, IMO, are only in it for the "warm fuzzies." They want just enough to make them feel good about themselves but not enough for it to be an inconvenience. I may not believe in the Bible myself anymore, but if someone else claims to be a Christian, I expect them to believe in it - all of it!

I don't even know where to start as far as no longer believing. Just reading the first page of the Bible brings about a trillion questions, but I guess I can start with: How is it that God created night & day on the First Day and the sun & moon on the Fourth? I know you can't really answer that to my satisfaction - there's really no logical answer (there are "answers," but they're ridiculous ones) - but that's just one of the many head-scratchers I can't get past.

Itzomi,

May I suggest a couple of Scriptures for you to meditate on?

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being (deciding to be) sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not understand."

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith, it is impossible to please God. because anyone that comes to Him must first believe that He exists and that He rewards those who diligently seek Him."

Isaiah 55: 8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."

God does not jump through peoples' intellectual hoops to win their acceptance. He is the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. He does not completely reveal Himself to us humans because we cannot handle it. It would literally blow us away. Exodus 33 speaks of Moses saying to God, "Show me your glory." "And the Lord said to Moses, 'I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you and I will proclaim my name THE LORD in your presence......but', He said 'you cannot see my face, for no one can see Me and live.'"(Ex 33:19-20)

[Itzomi]

Itzomi,

May I suggest a couple of Scriptures for you to meditate on?

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being (deciding to be) sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not understand."

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith, it is impossible to please God. because anyone that comes to Him must first believe that He exists and that He rewards those who diligently seek Him."

Isaiah 55: 8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."

God does not jump through peoples' intellectual hoops to win their acceptance. He is the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. He does not completely reveal Himself to us humans because we cannot handle it. It would literally blow us away. Exodus 33 speaks of Moses saying to God, "Show me your glory." "And the Lord said to Moses, 'I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you and I will proclaim my name THE LORD in your presence......but', He said 'you cannot see my face, for no one can see Me and live.'"(Ex 33:19-20)

Thanks, Ed, but I'm not asking for much here. Just to know why there's a night and day before the sun & moon were created.

[ConCo]

I'm afraid I don't see why there's a question....... So you're looking for an answer to what? Are you relying on your own solipsist understanding of 'day and night' only from a very Western (read 'Greek'), and very 'present time' understanding of 'day and night.' Did you ever think that to the 14th century BC Oriental mind, those words translated as 'day and night' may have carried very different implications? Come now, surely this has not escaped you? But, if you want YOU, yourself to be the sole arbitor of meaning, how can you hope to discuss anything intelligently with others?

Excuse me, but I wasn't the one bragging about my intelligence as you did in my original thread. I was asked why I didn't believe in the Bible and gave a sample, which was a sincere question and hardly deserving of such an arrogant response.

I'm not trying to be mean but, I really don't know what you want us to say! I'm trying to understand why you're even here, in a CHRISTian chat room sharing YOUR beliefs, when you already know that we disagree.

I don't think anyone minds witnessing to you, to encourage you to Repent of your sins, to receive The LORD JESUS into your heart as your personal Savior, and then tell you to study the WORD of GOD, by reading the BIBLE.

What I hope is that GOD has drawn you here through HIS HOLY SPIRIT to give you the opportunity to turn your life around by excepting HIS Son JESUS into your heart.

Other than that what do you want us to say?!

[Leonard]

I'm afraid I don't see why there's a question....... So you're looking for an answer to what? Are you relying on your own solipsist understanding of 'day and night' only from a very Western (read 'Greek'), and very 'present time' understanding of 'day and night.' Did you ever think that to the 14th century BC Oriental mind, those words translated as 'day and night' may have carried very different implications? Come now, surely this has not escaped you? But, if you want YOU, yourself to be the sole arbitor of meaning, how can you hope to discuss anything intelligently with others?

Excuse me, but I wasn't the one bragging about my intelligence as you did in my original thread. I was asked why I didn't believe in the Bible and gave a sample, which was a sincere question and hardly deserving of such an arrogant response.

Sorry you take it that way. I've read it several times and cannot find anything arrogant or insulting...... I AM challenging you to think in new ways, but that is not usually regarded as hostile. I thought we were having a perfectly good discussion. I first complimented you on your intellectual acumen as compared to Bishop Shelby Spong, who is not usually regarded as a slouch!

To me you seem to be quite a bright person. Perhaps you are finding insult where none was intended because you're a little sensitive right now. I assure you as long as you are intellectually honest, I have no intention of insulting you!

Maybe I'm a little brusque, but buck up my good lady! I'll try to be less brusque if you'll try and develop a little thicker hide. I really am quite interested in what you have to say, I'm simply having a very difficult time as to why this 'day and night' thing is a question for you.

Are you suggesting that 'day' and 'night' have ONLY the ONE meaning which you are allowing? The sun is after all only the bearer of light, and the moon is only a reflector (and a relatively poor one at that!). If we take day as the period of relative 'lightfulness' (if that is a real word), and night as the period of relative 'darkness,' then I really cannot see why you think they must be absolutely dependent on the motion of our planet for their existence. That certainly is the case as we are accustomed to in our day to day lives, but surely you can conceive that the world as it now is, may be radically different than it was in the past.

I can see literally limitless possibilities for explanations of that passage, including the very literal explanation. If you choose to reject every possible explanation, then it seems to me the onus of explaining the logic of your position lies with you, and not with the 'every possible explanation......'

It is perfectly alright with me if you choose not to believe. But let's not pretend that many plausible explanations do not exist. You've chosen to reject ALL of them, proclaiming ALL the explanations offered by some of the greatest minds throughout history, to be 'ridiculous,' and proclaiming 'there's really no logical answer.' As I say, many of the greatest intellects the world has ever produced have found one or another (or perhaps even several) of these arguments to be quite logical. I understand these explanations do not--at this time at least--satisfy YOU. But in retrospect, you must ask yourself WHY they do not satisfy you. I think that may be a very fascinating question for you to explore.

And actually, since you are already probably aware of all the typical 'Christian' answers to the puzzler you present, and since I probably have nothing to new to offer in that regard, I frankly admit I have no further explanation than any of those which you have already heard! (So much for bragging about MY intellect!)

I would then leave this piece of our discussion only asking that you consider my question above: If some of those answers were found fully logical and persuasive to some truly great minds, why is it that not one of those answers has any merit in your mind?

Since I have failed in my first assignment, and I have never dealt well with failure, can I try bumbling about with another of your objections?

I truly am enjoying the reparte'!!!

PS: It's very late, and I can't find 'spell check,' so I hope you'll be charitably disposed to any mispellings above.

PPS: I for one do not think that having questions--even very deep questions--disqualifies you from being a Christian. In fact YOU WILL BE A FAR BETTER CHRISTIAN FOR IT, than will be one who has never seriously questioned and investigated his faith. Your journey is a truly valuable one. Many people never get so far. Madame, I congratulate you!

Edited November 11, 2005 by Leonard

[Bread_of_Life]

Itzomi,

The answer is that the account of creation in Genesis, if taken literally, is incorrect. There are various problems with it - many even more fundamental than the question of light before the Sun and Moon.

If the Christian faith rested on the literal truth of the genesis account, then Christianity would also be incorrect. However, I think that this is where you're going wrong. The biblical account doesn't have to be true from beginning to end, nor does it have to be literal from beginning to end. The Genesis account, especially the description of the flood, does seem literal - however it likely is a compilation of 2 different creation myths (signifying man's relationship to God and the animals, and man's fall from grace, rather than anything else) - and a global flood myth built up from the very real Red Sea flood.

However, the fact that this is so doesn't mean we can reject the rest of the bible lock, stock and barrel. Nor does it mean we have to question our faith in Jesus, or the accounts of Jesus' life in the gospels. The bible is made up of many books, each of which are very different. The gospels are eye witness accounts of Jesus - Genesis is clearly not an eye-witness account, for example.

Anyway, I think the main question is "how do we reconcile the fact that genesis is wrong with Christianity", rather than "how do we reconcile the fact that the moon and the sun were created after light".

N

[Leonard]

Bread of Life: Unfortunately your answer, and some of the others in this thread demonstrate the greatest problem in Christianity today: Christians who want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they believe in.

Do you mean to suggest the Holy Spirit was NOT an 'eyewitness' to creation? Or do you mean the Genesis account was not inspired?

[Old Timer]

Itzomi has asked can someone believe the Bible when the first page, the creation of the earth and the universe, disagrees with modern science.

Unfortunately some Christians attempt to defend the creation description by describing the first readers of scripture as primitive people and not acquainted with modern science. Of course Itzomi correctly rejects this. The Hebrews of the Old Testament were certainly aware that the sun gave light and a period of light and darkness constituted a day.

But, these theistic evolutionists explain, the early chapters of Genesis are symbolic. They are spiritual. They are meant to teach a spiritual lesson not an historical one. This thinking proposes a god that wants to teach spiritual truths with historical lies. Why should anyone worship such a god? Of course there are spiritual lessons to be learned by the creation account but does God tell lies to demonstrate them? God created as Genesis describes exactly to proclaim those spiritual truths.

The argument that the knowledge of quantum physics was not understandable to Moses does not explain a creation in which light and darkness existed before the sun. Indeed the Bible foretells a future time when there will be light from God and no need for the sun. Is this a historical prophesy or just a spiritual one?

Finally, for the professed Christian, there is the testimony of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ. He, and the New Testament writers that followed Him, believed explicitly in the books of Moses and the early chapters of Genesis. Should we do less? If I cannot believe Moses why should I believe Matthew, John or Paul?

My advise to Itzomi: Read the Bible, starting at Genesis, and don

[Itzomi]

I'm trying to understand why you're even here, in a CHRISTian chat room sharing YOUR beliefs, when you already know that we disagree.

This is one reason why I haven't gone back to church. I sort of crave the company of Christians (since I was a Christian for so long it's hard to abandon it completely) but, of course, people would wonder why I'm even there? I guess the church (as well as some boards) is just a shrine for the saints rather than a welcoming community for those seeking answers. I really should stay away, then, as I'd have no business there.

As I said earlier, I was asked why I no longer believed in the Bible. (I only brought that up in my introductory thread because I wanted to be honest as to where I was coming from. Since most here are Christians, I didn't want to give the wrong impression, and it would explain why some of my views wouldn't be in line with everyone else's.) The whole sun & moon thing is most definitely not the only reason I no longer believe in the Bible; there are many reasons, but it was just the first thing that came to mind.

This is an apologetics thread, by the way. Don't you expect questions here? Besides, it's not like you don't already know non-believers can post in this area, and this area (Outer Court) only.

[Itzomi]

Sorry you take it that way. I've read it several times and cannot find anything arrogant or insulting......

You seriously don't see how pompous you come across? That's too bad. I'd be happy to discuss the subject further with you if that weren't the case, but I have a feeling I should end it here.

[Itzomi]

Itzomi has asked can someone believe the Bible when the first page, the creation of the earth and the universe, disagrees with modern science.

Unfortunately some Christians attempt to defend the creation description by describing the first readers of scripture as primitive people and not acquainted with modern science. Of course Itzomi correctly rejects this. The Hebrews of the Old Testament were certainly aware that the sun gave light and a period of light and darkness constituted a day.

But, these theistic evolutionists explain, the early chapters of Genesis are symbolic. They are spiritual. They are meant to teach a spiritual lesson not an historical one. This thinking proposes a god that wants to teach spiritual truths with historical lies. Why should anyone worship such a god? Of course there are spiritual lessons to be learned by the creation account but does God tell lies to demonstrate them? God created as Genesis describes exactly to proclaim those spiritual truths.

The argument that the knowledge of quantum physics was not understandable to Moses does not explain a creation in which light and darkness existed before the sun. Indeed the Bible foretells a future time when there will be light from God and no need for the sun. Is this a historical prophesy or just a spiritual one?

Finally, for the professed Christian, there is the testimony of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ. He, and the New Testament writers that followed Him, believed explicitly in the books of Moses and the early chapters of Genesis. Should we do less? If I cannot believe Moses why should I believe Matthew, John or Paul?

My advise to Itzomi: Read the Bible, starting at Genesis, and don