What I said was perfectly clear - you claim that these Bible writers had some other criteria for what was and wasn't important and can't be held to my modern expectations. ..... our reply just sounds like a weak attempt at a dodge with a bit of hand-waving thrown in.
Not even a
good attempt at a dodge Tim? And hand-waving too, my what a cliched animal I am!
It was no argument trick Tim. You made a statement (
"it might have been a teensy bit useful to actually detail this “War in Heaven” business") and before I answered without knowing the criteria on which you drew that conclusion (and therefore made possibly wrong assumptions) I thought I'd ask you to clarify. I would have thought that was perfectly reasonable, wouldn't you, when you think about it?
I think you are assuming a purpose for the Scriptures that I think is mistaken. (1) It is obvious that the Bible is not in the form of a scientific or history or ethics textbook, but a bunch of various types of documents written by many people at many different times and from many different perspectives. If it has a coherent purpose, then it is a little more subtle than what you are looking for, or not looking for. (2) It is clearly not aimed at giving masses of information in a linear fashion. So how to understand why?
I'm only guessing, like I said before, but I reckon it's because God's not in the business of starting a university so that those who pass the required exams get into heaven. He's after building relationships with those who want that. Explaining a lot of the things you want wouldn't help that much. Neither would recording the exploits of Othniel help you or I much either, but such communal history was important to the Jews, and I'm happy to let them have it. After all, the OT was
their book for back then, it's the NT that's our book for now.
So the further question is, why has God made it all a bit obscure and even a bit random? Remember I talked about God wanting to create autonomous beings? To do that, he chooses (I reckon) to keep himself at arms length, and to allow most of what happens on earth, including the establishment of his kingdom, to be done by
us. He doesn't talk to you directly (I'm guessing), but he gives me that privilege. And he doesn't force you to believe, he gives you the freedom to decide.
That's why Jesus spoke often in parables - so the truth would be there for those who wanted to know it but not rammed down the necks of those who don't want to know. I have said before that I think Jesus' life functions like a parable in that sense, and I think the whole Bible does too.
So I think you have made the wrong assumptions, used the wrong criteria, and come to the wrong conclusion. You think the same about me. I don't think there's any need for any "arm-waving" or dodging.
Like I've said before, I don't think you've presented any sort of case at all. Basing your conclusions on your expectations of how God "should" act seems very unsound to me. "I don't understand" isn't a premise that leads to "This is wrong" without a lot more argument.
But I will summarise my case again.
1. I believe the evidence of the universe, humanity, human experience and Jesus point very strongly to the existence of God. No other explanation fits the facts nearly as well. We can argue that, but for the purposes of this discussion, that's my starting point.
2. There are many strange things in the OT and some difficult and nasty things, I have agreed with you there already. But what to do with them? Unless they can be put together into an argument that is stronger than the reasons I believe (in #1 above), stopping believing them would only leave me with larger dilemmas - the things in #1 that naturalism cannot explain. I haven't seen such an argument, and you haven't offered anything more than "this looks funny to me". So I do what any sensible person does when confronted with apparently anomolous facts - I stick with what I know from the evidence and remain curious and agnostic about the things I can't explain. That is what science does, and I see no reason to be any different.
3. You, on the other hand, it seems to me, strain at the gnats of the difficult OT passages, and swallow the camels of the many things naturalism cannot explain or even come to terms with. So I continue to believe you are in error.
Now that surely isn't too difficult to see the logic of, even though I know you have come to a different conclusion. We could proceed in several ways from here, I suggest. We could stop discussing, we could argue the basic reasons for belief, we could discuss lesser matters on which we may be able to gain something from each other, or you could continue to accuse me of arm waving and dodging. I think friendship and interesting discussion from different viewpoints is more useful than more adversarial approaches. What's it to be?
