Questions of Faith I Am Dying To Have Answered
Posted: Tuesday, July 14, 2009
by Philip Yaffe
To try to pre-empt people from misreading between the lines, let me clearly declare that the purpose of this article is in no way to challenge anyone's faith, but rather to better define my own.
I am now approaching the proverbial three score and ten, which means that I am probably fairly close to meeting my maker. I grew up in a quasi-religious family, meaning that my parents observed certain religious rituals and rites of passage, but not others. I never joined them.
I have long since dismissed these ceremonies as superficial and unworthy of Him. My real concerns are about fundamentals. There are things about the Bible that I just don't understand.
I recognize that some people consider the Bible to be allegorical, such that inconsistencies in certain biblical accounts are irrelevant. What is important is the moral lesson. Other people consider the Bible to be the literal word of God, such that it must be taken exactly as written.
I have problems with both of these camps.
First, the literalists. I have a few questions about Genesis, the absolute foundation of the Bible. Please bear in mind that these are honest questions asked in hopes of receiving an honest answer.
According to Genesis, the Lord created Adam and Eve, and we are all descended from them. But the question is, how? Adam and Eve presumably had sexual relations to produce their children. But then what? If they children then had sexual relations with each other, or with the parents, to produce the next generation, and so on, wouldn't that have been incest? And isn't incest morally repugnant?
According to Genesis, Cain killed Abel and was banished by God to the land of Nod , where he met his wife. But how did she get there? Was she his sister?
The Bible is full of factual discrepancies like these. However, since I have serious doubts about the literal truth of the Bible, these do not concern me very much. Nevertheless, I must admit my constant surprise at people who do consider themselves literalists and have never, ever considered such discrepancies. They are surprised that anyone even inquires about them. This must take a massive amount of mental gymnastics or incredible insouciance.
More to the point, here are a few questions for literalists and allegorists alike. I have always been told that the Bible teaches morality. Would someone then kindly explain to me the following?
If God is the father of all mankind (whether you believe in Adam and Eve or not), then:
1. Why did he put the "tree of knowledge" in the Garden of Eden, knowing full well the danger it posed for them? Purposely putting temptation -- with unimaginable consequences -- before one's children does not seem a very a fatherly thing to do.
2. When Adam and Eve ate the apple, why did God punish not only them, but their children, their children's, their children's children's children, etc., down through the ages? Again, this does not seem to be a very fatherly thing to do.
3. Why did God designate the Israelites as his "chosen people," discriminating against all his other children? Once again, hardly a fatherly thing to do.
4. When God sent Moses to tell the Pharaoh "Let my people go!" Pharaoh refused. Instead of punishing Pharaoh, he punished all of Egypt , including sending famine, pestilence, and even slaughtering newborn infants. What kind of moral lesson are we to learn from this?
The fact is, the Bible is replete with examples of God, the Father, wreaking unspeakable havoc on the innocent, either directly or through his minions (the Chosen People). Where is the morality in all of this?
But the real kicker is the concept of Heaven and Hell. Heaven makes a certain amount of sense, rewarding children for being good. But Hell has no justification. This is not a punishment for misbehaving. It is an eternal punishment. Keep that word in mind. Eternal. Never-ending. Forever.
This means that He consigns his children unspeakable torment, with no hope of release. Ever. It is hard to imagine a less loving, less fatherly thing to do.
Yes, it can be argued that they were warned, and therefore the punishment is their own responsibility. However, this argument does not stand up to inspection.
Let's suppose that God has clearly established laws for the moral comportment of Man. Equally, let's suppose that He has clearly announced that failure to obey these laws will result in eternal damnation. Accepting these two ideas means that the concepts of sin and punishment become nonsense. Why? Because they are logically contradictory.
In view of the terrible consequences, who in his or her right mind would fail to obey? There would seem to be only two possible explanations:
The "sinner", for whatever reasons, simply does not believe that he or she is disobeying.
The "sinner" is not in his or her right mind. Who with properly functioning synapses would choose temporal gratification at the cost of eternal grief?
For God to cast such people into hell would not be punishing sin, but rather ignorance or mental illness. This is a hard concept to swallow.
Also bear in mind that the human life span compared to eternity is like the blink eye. Thus, a lapse that is virtually un-measurable on the time scale of eternity is avenged by punishment on a time scale beyond measure. Can anything anyone does in the nanosecond that represents our time on earth be so heinous as to deserve such bestial, unending retribution? Whatever happened to "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"?
The Bible is rife with such stories, not only in the Old Testament but also the New Testament, which proclaims the Apocalypse and the Final Judgment.
Here is a final question, not quite on the same cosmic scale as the forgoing, but nevertheless pertinent. Why are things such as avalanches, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, blizzards, droughts, and other blindly destructive events referred to as an "act of God"?
It is often argued that the perfection of the universe (the movement of the planets and stars in the sky, the rising and setting of the sun, the change of seasons, etc.) are proof that God exists and is keeping watch over his creation. Does the occurrence of these other phenomena mean that the universe is not perfect, i.e. there are certain things over which God does not have control? Or worse, that God periodically unleashes these devastatingly destructive forces for no apparent reason?
I find no answer to any of these things in the Bible, in any other holy book, or in conversations with purported learned and holy men. I have therefore long believed that I will get answers (if there are answers to be gotten) only after I pass on, but certainly not here and now. If there are answers to be had before that inevitable event, would someone please enlighten me as soon as possible? Having reached my 67th birthday, I can't help but feel that time is rapidly running out.
Philip Yaffe is a former reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Journal and a marketing communication consultant. He currently teaches a course in good writing and good speaking in Brussels , Belgium . His recently published book In the "I" of the Storm: the Simple Secrets of Writing & Speaking (Almost) like a Professional is available from Story Publishers in Ghent , Belgium (storypublishers.be) and Amazon (amazon.com).
For further information, contact:
Philip Yaffe
Brussels , Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)2 660 0405
phil.yaffe@yahoo.com,phil.yaffe@gmail.com
This Article has been viewed 457 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More comments1. Well, there were two trees in the midst of the garden, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9). God commanded the man, telling him he could eat freely of every tree in the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16). God knew what would happen if they ate of this tree, but He created them with the ability to make choices for themselves, a choice between obeying Him, or disobeying Him. Unfortunately, they chose to disobey His commandment. God wanted them and all of us to trust in Him, that He knows what is best for us. God bless you!!!2. God carried out his promised punishment, not because Adam and Eve could be considered guilty (for you are right - they did not understand right from wrong) but because they disobeyed and a good parent always carries out the punishment that they promise for disobedience. So then God promised to carry out a punishment and did so when Adam and Eve disobeyed because that is exactly what any good parent would do.3. God chose Israel for three (3) reasons:1] To be a model nation that would encourage other nations to want to come under God's rule (Exod. 19:3-8, Deut. 4:6-8).2] To prove that even with the knowledge of God's laws and every other advantage that man still needs the Holy Spirit to live by God's way of life. God knew they would break their covenant with Him ahead of time (Deut. 31:20-21).3] To write through the painful lessons of experience that only living God's way leads to happiness and breaking God's laws only brings misery (1 Cor. 10:1-11).4. Exodus 12:12 'For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments-- I am the LORD.
21 July 2009Dear Robert,I am disappointed but not surprised by your response. I have been here so many times before. You say that belief is everything. But believe what? Your reading of the Bible or someone else's? Both the Old and New Testament or just the Old Testament? Or some other religion entirely, such as Hinduism, Sikhism, Shinto, Taoism. There is such a smorgasbord of beliefs on offer. And even though some a very similar, they are prepared to let their differences rend them asunder, as appears to be imminent in the Church of England over the question or ordaining gay priests. The litany of squabbles over belief goes on indefinitely, which for me is a serious problem.However, my real concern in writing the article, and all the discussions I have had over the years, is trying to reconcile what appear to be contradictory accounts. In a nutshell, I constantly hear that God is Love, yet many of the biblical accounts seem to illustrate exactly the opposite. As I argued in the article, the concepts of heaven and hell make a mockery of the idea that God is Love.I look around the world and see so-called "acts of God", e.g. as avalanches, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, blizzards, droughts, and other blindly destructive events, constantly killing hundreds of thousands of people and smashing the lives of hundreds of thousands more. These also seem to make a mockery of the idea that God is Love.I accept the existence of God, being the name of some kind of inexplicable force or being that created the universe. What I have never been able to accept is all the contradictory statements made about this force or being. Your reply does not help. As you say, "At the end we shall have our answer." I hope you are right. I'm looking forward to it.Regards,Philip YaffePhillip, once again I am saddened that you are dispointed but it is all a matter of faith. Now one can go into God scientifically but that won't do, man can argue about other faiths, what man likes or dislikes believes or not, but that won't do either. Jesus Christ is, like it or not the separator. It is up to each person to choose. Now one can believe what they want to. The fact that you tend to tie God to man's way of thinking is the real issue here and God addresses that as well in the Word. So here you have the entire story of man from beginning to end and eternity and everything God stated that would come to pass did. That is pretty good for anyone but we are talking God. So the answers for you are there to seek and find or not, your choice. Once again, if a Christian and you refute the Word, and the Word is God made flesh, then you reject God. It is all there. There is nothing else required but profession and faith but of course God did provide all the answers if one seeks. Best wishes
Dear Rabbi Stanley,I went to your website as you recommended and was greeted by a sign saying "No heretics allowed... if not a heretic click ok." If this was meant as a joke, I do not consider it funny. I think I will pass on any further correspondences.Philip Yaffe
That "sign" is for any and everyone who comes there. I was not singeling you out. But if you're that touchy, you're right we will end here. I'm glad I didn't waste any time. I was having second doubts after reading your last posts. Good day.Rabbi Stanley
21 July 2009Dear Rabbi Stanley,I didn't think you were singling me out. If that is how you welcome everyone, it is clear that we have nothing to discuss. I'm glad I didn't waste any time either.Philip Yaffe
21 July 2009Dear Teresa,I appreciate the effort you are going to on my behalf. However, since we are proceeding from diametrically opposed starting points, I don't think it will come to anything. You say that, "this is written from the belief that the Bible is the complete and inerrant word of God, and as such will be written as fact. It is for informational purposes and not intended for debate." I do not believe that the Bible (or any other holy book, for that matter) is the complete and inerrant word of God. I do not see how we can bridge this chasm.I am pleased that you acknowledge that there must have been incest between the offspring of Adam and Eve. On all too many occasions when I have raised this point with so-called "true believers," they were shocked. The idea had never occurred to them and they were completely flummoxed about what to do with it.I am, however, puzzled by your explanation. You say that, "It has long been understood that incest is not only morally wrong; it has proven to cause various types of birth defects." This suggests that starting from the third generation, i.e. the children of Adam and Eve's children, were frequently afflicted with birth defects. Is this correct? Is it mentioned in the Bible?You explanation of how Cain met his wife and who she was is quite convincing. It's a shame that this has to be interpolated from the skimpy information in Genesis. There are many puzzling blanks in the Bible, which perhaps could also be explained by such interpolation, of which most people would not be capable. To avoid the problem, if it had been up to me, I would have called on the services of a good editor to vet the text before letting it go to print.I have very much enjoyed our conversation up to now. However, given our different ideas about the nature of the Bible, it seems pointless for it to go any further.Kind regards,Philip YaffeHi Philip, thank you for your honest reponse. I understand, but I am a little confused in that you said you wanted answers to biblical questions, so the only way to get those answers is to answer them from the bible.What I meant by my statement, "not meant for debate" is that I didn't want that particular article to be spent on debate as much as I wanted it to be informative as to why some Christians believe what they believe.I am not sure how you intend to ever get your answers if you won't listen to someone's explanation of your concerns just because they believe the Bible. How else would one answer - why would they give answers if they didn't believe it to be true and a viable explanation? You said you didn't see the answers to your questions in the Bible, yet they are there. So if you really want answers to your questions, I do hope you reconsider, you don't have to believe them, but at least you will have them answered. Either way, I am going to continue writing articles in response to your questions because I think many people are searching for an honest answer. Like said, I love your questions and I love to answer to the best of my ablity.What people choose to do with the answers is between them and God. I welcome the opportunity. And I thank you for jump-starting me to do something that I should have been more faithful to do in the past. I appreciate this time of sharing and do pray it continues, if not, that is okay too.I am praying for you. Blessings, Teresa
Some things are not for man's understanding. It is like light, too much will blind you. Man cannot began to conceived the mind of God in His totality. The Bible is His manuel. However, some of us, I guess, will get a manuel with a washing machine and argue the instructions. Sinful man will always wonder. Some of us are like satan, want all of Go'd's knowledge...Forget it...We will move toward our learned spiritual psyche as a Trans-individual Psyche of ego-ameliorate. We will mirror on humanity and sacred way of life as a commutual society progression of Trans-individualism, probing in favor of higher life rationale, liberty, and alteration. From the beginning to end, our learned will discover substantial spiritual guiding ideologies and methods in realizing our elevated temperament. We will apply these lessons and understand that God is our own ultimate being (Laconic, Dr. Clarence Rucker, Jr. PhD CCJP ICCS.)"We will move toward our learned spiritual psyche as a Trans-individual Psyche of ego-ameliorate"
What exactly does this mean?
Is the capitalisation of "Trans-individual Psyche" significant?
This guy is not sincere, he's playing everyone. He's already admitted that he's on the opposite side of the pole, he just wants attention.Rabbi StanleyHow is he "playing everyone"? It seems he is merely presenting a different viewpoint, and asking questions."Some people are abusive, but you are different" Please, that's exactly what I mean by playing someone. I'm done here. Rabbi Stanley
22 July 2009Dear Teresa,Perhaps I spoke too rashly. It's only because over the years, every time I have asked these questions of biblical literalists, the hoped-for dialogue has always degenerated into the unproductive assertion "Believe what I tell you, because I am in touch with God and you aren't." It has also often degenerated into obtuse personal attacks, already evident in exchanges with at least one other respondent to my article: "This guy is not sincere, he's playing everyone. He's already admitted that he's on the opposite side of the pole, he just wants attention."You, however, seem to be different. Our interaction has been amicable and your first article calm and thoughtful. Given our different ideas about the literal truth of the Bible, I still think it unlikely that we can ever come to much of an agreement. I will nevertheless continue reading your articles. And perhaps comment on them if there seems to be a reasonable chance of our coming to a meeting of minds.Philip YaffeHI Philip, I responded to this comment under my article. But I realized I forgot to answer your question regarding birth defects.In my article I mentioned that God did not condemn the act of marrying within until after the deliverance from Egypt. Therefore, there were no defects as a direct result of this act, because it was not sin until God declared it so. Throughout the Bible is weaved that the consequence of sin is decay of the physical and spiritual condition of man.So in light of this, my belief is that birth defects began after that time. If there were birth defects, it was as a result of the orginal sin of Adam and Eve and not because of incest. I will be discussing the affects of sin in part two. I hope this helps, but might make a little more sense after reading part 2.
1 August 2009Dear Teresa,The English and French Bible's do not seem to be in agreement. Using your Bible, you say that God called out to Cain, "What is this you have done?" Cain replied, "I'm not my brother's keeper." My Bible puts the events in a different order. The Lord said to Cain, "Where is Abel, your brother?" Cain replied, "I don't know. Am I my brother's keeper?" Then the Lord said: "What have you done?" Is there some way of determining which version is correct?Best regards,Phil
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.