For argument's sake - Let's assume the Bible's stories

If you will look at Exodus, you will see where God gave specific instructions for constructing the Holy Temple (or Tabernacle).

You are correct. There are temples all over the world. But this is the Holy Temple. The Holy Temple built on the Temple Mount as directed God. It is the place where the Holy Of Holies is located. Where the Arc Of The Covenant should be housed. The Temple Of God where sacrifices are made to God. Not the Wal-Mart temples scattered around.

 

shalom

 

This may sound simplistic, but the way I think of it is this: The Creator-God described in Genesis says, "Let US . . . OUR image . . ." etc. Then Jesus is called the son of God, & also God. He is "one with the Father."

Suppose God is a family, like Smith? One family, more than one member? Jesus is the member that traveled away on a mission. A son, but still God; i.e., a member of the God family.

Whenever I think of deity, I can't help but see it as both a unified whole AND a composition of parts.

 

Some scattered thoughts on the topic:


1) Jonah and the fish (not a whale)
My life is not affected by whether or not I believe Jonah was swallowed by a fish. It has been affected by the love of God for the enemies of God's chosen people as revealed by God first sending Jonah to the Ninevites to warn them of destruction and second by God's compassion and forgiveness in relenting. I particularly like the contrast between Jonah and God. Jonah gets mad at God for showing compassion to the people of Nineveh. He essentially says that he didn't want to come preach in Nineveh because he knew God would be compassionate towards the Ninevites, "slow to anger and abounding in love." Jonah is aware of how much less his love is than God's love, and wants to see pain and destruction, not love and forgiveness heaped on his enemies.

2)The Creation Story
I'm sorry, I just don't see Genesis as a straight historical account, in light of current scientific theory. Carbon dating needs to be seriously disproven, to begin with. Also, Genesis has two different creation stories. The order of creation changes. In chapter 1, man is created after the vegetation and all other creatures. In chapter 2, starting in verse 4, there seems to be a competing story where man is created before vegetation and all other creatures. Woman is created only after all the other creatures are found unsuitable as a companion to Adam. Additionally, this examination of other creatures as possible companions for Adam seems really strange in light of Chapter 1 verses 27 and 28, where God at once creates both man and woman in his image and instructs them to be fruitful and multiply.

3)Freeing the Israelites and the plagues of Egypt
It is interesting that each of the plagues of Egypt has a possible natural explanation. Even if all those events were natural events, however, what is the likelihood of all of them happening back to back, in a short period of time. Further, what is the likihood of someone predicting each of those events, as Moses allegedly does? Perhaps God made those things happen through seemingly natural occurances, but it is still an act of God. The importance of the story is the compassion of God to a suffering and oppressed people. God is moved by divine, amazing love to alleviate suffering.

4)The contrast between the love towards the Israelites and the taking of the promised land.
A huge conflict (for me) comes in the contrast between the amazing love shown the Israelites and the harsh destruction of the people occupying the land God gives to the Israelites. God actually gets mad at the Israelites for sparing some of the people and animals in the land. Where is the amazing love of God in this story? Where is the God who, for Christians, "so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son?" Similarly, I am disturbed by the frequent petition in many of the Psalms to bring destruction/suffering upon the author's enemies, which contrasts with Jesus' instruction to love your enemies and give your robe and your cloak when they ask for your cloak.

5) The power of the Bible is the amazing, unworldly love of Jesus.
The importance of Jesus, to me, is in the amazing love he taught and lived. This is the essence of the Gospel, of the Christian faith. In his words and actions is revealed an amazing love that reaches out to the outcast and "sinners" and seeks redemption of the self-righteous religious types. The amazing, self-giving love of Jesus, that gives up his very life is the Gospel. It is the most direct revelation of the Divine in the Christian Scriptures. The mark of being Christ-like is a similar love that is self-giving to God and to others. Does this mean that Jesus had to be resurrected? You tell me. I think the resurrection gives power to Jesus' saying that anyone who would save his life will lose it and anyone who would lose his life will save it. Life, with a capital "L" is found in a giving, loving attitude towards all other people and God.

6) I cannot see the entire Bible as the inerrant Word of God
First, as shown in some of the examples above, I see some passages that conflict too much with Jesus' self-giving love. Second, other conflicts occur between different passages. Third, or at least related, Paul argues in Romans that we are not to live by the Law of Moses (Leviticus through Deuteronomy, including the Ten Commandments). Thus the Bible tells us that parts of the Bible are irrelevant to us.

 

Please do not refer to my religion as a joke.

 

OK. Care to explain the conundrum I proposed about your religion?

 

That's not my point, Sly. In fact, my religion's "conundrum" has little to do with the fact that you've called it "a joke". I would never call your -- or anyone else's religion "a joke". I may not agree with your religious philosophy, but I would never DARE to call it a joke.

 

It has everything to do with the fact that I called it a joke. But you are absolutely correct. It is not the religion itself that is the joke. I misspoke. It is the majority of its practitioners today. I have a high regard for Judaism.

 

Yeah, ok. And if you're referring to things like the ladies who show up at their churches/synagoggues for the purpose of showing off "the latest style", their mink coats, etc., ad nauseum, I might even agree with you on that... Frankly it's a constant source of amusment to me.

I recently did a video production of the dedication of a new Catholic Church in an upscale neighborhood. My production assistants and I were getting some real chuckles at the number of women who were there wearing mini-skirts that were almost up to their butts and b##bs that were almost falling out.