Thoughts While Watching Christopher Hitchens Debate, or, Different Starting Points

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

I was very curious to watch the late writer of "God Is Not Great" debate. Would he be abrasive? Charming? Would he make the Christian cry?

My first thought was, "Man, William Lane Craig looks a lot more professional than Christopher Hitchens. More well-put-together."

My second thought was, "Actually, I like that Christopher Hitchens doesn't look as professional. He's playing it cool. He doesn't care about appearances. Like Jesus. I like that."

Then as I watched the debate, I appreciated how cordial and humble the two men were to each other (especially since, from what I understand, Hitchens wasn't always so cordial in all of his debates), though their views differ so greatly and though they are both extreme proponents of those views, very vocally trying to win others over to their sides. I'm not talking about the merits of their debating techniques here, which are tiresome for me to discuss (I don't feel like using words like "non sequitur" today), but rather the qualities of the men themselves.

I thought, I wouldn't mind sitting down with Christopher Hitchens one day and chatting over coffee if he were still alive. He was an interesting guy (and, honestly, though our position on the most important thing differs, we would agree on a few surprising things).

He had some really good points. From his line of reasoning, I can totally see why he wouldn't believe in God. Though I strive to love God with my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and though I belong to Him forever, I am by no means one-sided in my way of viewing things. I pray that I never get to a point where I can't understand people who are different from me, where I can't relate to those who don't believe. I pray that, instead, my understanding and compassion keep growing and growing.

In fact, I'm a lot more like Christopher Hitchens than I am like Jesus. Because I am a fleshly creature, who is naturally inclined to only believe what I see with my own eyes, it is still far easier for me to question God than believe Him, even after years on this journey. Faith is always a fight.

Something fascinating to me was the way Christopher Hitchens argued for the absence of a deity by talking about chaos and random destruction in the universe, how he talked about the colossal waste of so many species dying out before humans ever came to exist, etc. I have to be honest, if I started that way, I don't know if I would ever come to believe in Jesus either. Yes, the heavens declare the glory of God; yes, I look up at the stars and immediately feel drawn into a Presence that is higher than my own; and yes, the intricacy of creation leaves all men without excuse. However, without the cross and resurrection, I might never get beyond the mystery and even fear of the cosmos to actually try to know the Creator of it all.

You see, I didn't start with the cosmos. I started with Jesus.

The smallest expression of God - a human, even a baby for a time, and in some ways a child for all time ("Our Lord's childhood was not an immature man-hood; our Lord's childhood is an eternal fact" - Oswald Chambers). Not the vastness of the universe, the mysterious depths of the ocean, the colors of the sunrise. No, what enchanted me was Jesus, and I reasoned from Him onward. I continue to reason from Him onward. We Christians find Him so captivating, so romantic, so challenging to follow and yet impossible not to pursue. We fail time and time again, are constantly forced to confess our hypocrisy and basically taste dirt, so that we might have the chance of being like Him in at least some way, and being with Him forever. So intimate and lowly in his washing of his disciples' feet and in his healing of lepers; so powerful and prophetic in his defeat of death, promising that He will come again to judge and renew the whole world. When I look at Him, it's not that I still don't have questions (in fact, many of the same questions as Hitchens); it's just that they don't seem relevant to my having or not having faith. His Presence commands faith; for me, there is no other adequate response.

While William Lane Craig started with the historical resurrection and life of Jesus and reasoned from there (and therefore determined that some mysteries about God are irrelevant to whether God does or does not exist), Christopher Hitchens started with the universe and the history of the whole world (and therefore, I suppose, determined that the resurrection of Jesus was irrelevant). One spoke from intimate, firsthand knowledge of the Spirit, the other from the far-off lens of an objective observer. If you start by looking at the universe first, not being captivated by Jesus, it can sometimes seem to be just a meaningless (though awe-inspiring) ticking of events. If you start from Jesus, everything flows from Him ("...all things were created through him and for him" [Colossians 1:16]) , and the universe is all part of God's unsearchable plan and design. Though both Craig and Hitchens seemed like intelligent, likable guys in their own ways, there was no way they could ever meet in the middle.

I read that Hitchens drank all the time mainly because he was afraid of being bored. He struggled with boredom all his life, particularly with people. In my own small way, with my comparatively feeble intelligence, I can understand that problem. I still struggle sometimes with dissatisfaction and boredom when I am looking away from Jesus. It's hard to be bored with people, though, no matter how intelligent you are, if you genuinely believe each is a reflection of the invisible God, and if you want to see the Kingdom come in each of their lives. It's hard to be bored if you're constantly looking into the face of the Source of inexhaustible love, wonder, and glory.

I am terrified, as Hitchens was, as Dawkins is, by reports of religions suppressing truth, of people being brainwashed into doing horrifying things in the name of a deity, of people espousing hurtful points-of-view without being mindful of the experiences of others. I hate these things. But I don't think the answer is that there is no God. I don't think the answer is that faith is always harmful (although I would say that faith is only as good as what you place your faith in, and if what you place your faith in has no merit, then your faith is indeed harmful).

I think that often when we think of faith in a negative sense, we really mean lack of free inquiry. True faith requires freedom. When I watch Hitchens and Dawkins interview or debate with people, I notice a real and striking difference between those who have grown up with freedom to choose their beliefs and those who have been swept up in/grown up in a system that does not allow them to deviate, that does not allow them to question or hold different viewpoints. Jesus encouraged questions; in fact, He usually raised more questions than gave answers. When I talk with Him today, He continues to do the same thing. Often, I am walking in continuous questions, the only definite answer being "Trust me. Abide in me." I have learned to delight not in answered questions, but rather in Him and His Presence.

Once you experience the fullness of knowing Jesus, you forever have a different starting point. You can never look at things the same way again. For me, He lights up everything else and gives it meaning. Through my life experiences, struggles and inquiry, I can't help but start from Jesus and look onward from there. These are just my humble thoughts as I think about the very honest and true questions that people like Hitchens raise.

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.... We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.... This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: 

"God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."

24 years

I don't think that God's grading me on how well I understand election vs. free will, or how well I can explain the genocides in the Old Testament, or any of the other burdens other men try to put on my back so I can prove myself a real Christian, someone who fits the mold and isn't heretical.

I think, perhaps, He really means what he says: that he freely gives love and grace through his perfect and precious son Jesus - love and grace that I have accepted with all my heart. Love and grace that I still must remind myself to accept every morning when I wake up, lest I fall back into slavery to what others think of me and what culture tells me to do.

I think, perhaps, He desires with all His heart that I love Him and love His people, rather than that I understand Him perfectly and explain Him without contradiction to others.

After all, "his ways are beyond searching out," right? Doesn't he sit enthroned above the earth? Isn't it foolish to think I can ever understand all his ways or explain away everything He does so that He never angers me, never terrifies me, never awes me, never confuses me?

I think it's impossible to ever get to that point, where I can understand God well enough that I can point a finger at others and say without a doubt that THEY'RE WRONG. May I never, ever be one of those "ministers of the gospel" who smiles smugly and self-assuredly while others walk away confused and lonely. I ask that instead I'm the one who prays with them and puts a blanket around their shoulders. I may not understand, but I love you, and I know that He does too.

However,

One thing I think is perfectly possible,

and that the Word agrees is perfectly possible,

is to tell of the Jesus I know and love intimately,
to tell what He has done for me,
what He has done for others,
what He has done for the world.

I can tell of the new life He gives.
I can tell of His healing power, both physically and spiritually.
I can talk about how I continue to struggle with things all the time, dark things like depression and loneliness and feelings of unworthiness
(not unlike the writer of the Psalms),
and how,
while He hasn't completely cured me of those things,
He holds me and walks me through those times,
step by step,
never leaving, even though He may be the only one who walks beside me.

I can tell of how I am fearfully and wonderfully made,
(how you are fearfully [with great care] and wonderfully made),
even though sometimes I look at myself and wonder why he saw fit to make me,
why I'm here,
what I'm doing,
where I'm going.
I can still say, "I believe You when You say I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Though my heart doesn't agree right now, and my head doesn't know where I'm headed, I know in my soul that You have a purpose for my life."

I can't explain all His ways,
But I can say those things.
I can believe Him.
I can do that.

Thoughts on Womanhood

I was a little girl who loved reading - anything she could get her hands on.

From the Bible - even things in the Old Testament that I "wasn't supposed" to read yet (Hey Mom, do you know what's in Genesis 19? Well, if you don't remember, then I'M not going to tell you)...

To history and science magazines like Kids Discover and National Geographic World...

To fiction like Goosebumps and Harry Potter...

To poetry like Shel Silverstein...

and everything in between.

I was a little girl who loved to WRITE.

I would write stories about ducks and aliens and princesses (usually not all at the same time),
poems about nosy neighbors, and endangered species, and towels that became epically-proportioned monsters because no one cleaned them.

I wrote plays, I wrote songs and even composed them on the piano, I designed video games with just notebook paper, with multiple levels and various monsters and bosses to defeat.

Then I began to be told that these things weren't enough.

It wasn't enough to create, to be comfortable in myself as God's creation.
I wasn't supposed to write fanciful stories or dream up video games in my spare time.

I watched MTV and saw women being valued only for their bodies.
I watched much of Christianity and saw women being valued only for their servitude.
I watched at school and saw girls being valued only for their powers of manipulation and exclusion.

so how was I to fight back?

with intellect, right?

No one could value me for only my body if my conversation was good enough. No one could value me for only my servitude if my ideas were good enough. No one could value me just for my popularity (or devalue me for the lack thereof) if I had really good grades.

I became angry and defiant, perhaps not always on the outside but on the inside.

I became prideful.

And I deceived myself by thinking these things were virtues.

The problem was, though, that I found that whatever other virtues I possessed (intellect, good conversation, hard work),
people could still dismiss me if they wanted to.
People could still treat me like just a body, "just a girl," or something else to be written off.
There is no way to safeguard against dismissal.
Or rejection.
Or humiliation.

But I tried, oh, I tried.

I dreamed of being something important, something that couldn't be dismissed
like a lawyer
or a professor
somebody important
an inspiration for other women
and someone all men would respect

I worked hard. I overcommitted myself. I strived, I strived, I strived.

I was not interested in a family
or kids
or being thought of as anything like a "homemaker"

Then my heart began to change.

Now before you think I did a complete 180...
I'm single
I'm just as curious about the world as I ever was
I love "weird" people, the ones who don't quite fit the mold they're assigned, who don't quite say or do what they're "supposed" to
I thirst for knowledge of all kinds
Faith, philosophy, science, history
and most of all

the knowledge of the Most High.

But as I began to let go of my anger
my defiance
my pride
and began to give it to God
to receive his freedom
his lightness
to spend time with these women I used to think I never wanted to emulate -
[devoted wives
moms
homemakers]
I began seeing something.
I used to imagine that all these women were held back,
that they had settled for something less.

But instead I met women who were kind, wise, discerning, patient -
role models,
inspirations for other women,
respected by any man whose respect was worth having.

I began to be estranged from my previously-held ideas that women needed to fight, to be assertive, take no prisoners
because, oddly enough,
I began to realize that there is more fight in a discerning woman than an aggressive one
more resolve in a patient woman than in a selfishly ambitious one
more passion in a caring woman than a detached woman
more confidence in a selfless woman than a narcissistic woman
more beauty in a wise woman than a seductive woman

and as I met women who showed respect to their husbands and the utmost love to their children, and constantly welcomed guests into their homes,
or treated their small groups as their children, took international students under their wing as their adopted brothers and sisters, took the homeless into their homes for meals without fear
I began to realize that what I had heard was wrong
That these women had not given up their dreams or talents
Among them were actresses, painters, linguists, teachers, naval officers, dentists, counselors, scholars
They listened to God and longed to become who He created them to be, down to every last detail.

I thought,
I am created by an amazing Creator
He knew exactly what He was doing by giving me all my abilities, desires and passions
Yet He also knew exactly what He was doing by creating me as a woman with tenderness and compassion for the least of these and the helpless, a deep desire to love and be loved

And I thought,
Why can't I be all the things God has put in my heart? Maybe not all at once, but through the course of life?

Why can't I be a wife, a mom, a writer, a painter, a teacher, a historian, a reader, a scientist, a dreamer?
Why are we often taught that these things are mutually exclusive?

What is a mom, a wife, a homemaker anyway?
Have we created all these trappings around each of these titles that are not of God?
For instance, what if the point of Proverbs 31 is not the things this woman does, but the ways in which she does them - with a noble heart, with wisdom, and above all with fear of the Lord?
Every woman is a unique creation
an image-bearer
reflecting different aspects of His amazing nature

So perhaps being a mom doesn't mean she has to hover around her kids, shuttle them to everything under the sun, and lose a sense of her own self in them
Perhaps it really does just mean she needs to love them with all her heart, and seek the Lord when she can't by her own strength
For man looks at outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.
Perhaps being a wife doesn't mean she has to have a knockout figure, act perfect all the time, fit a certain "mold"
Perhaps it really does just mean she needs to love her husband with all her heart, and seek the Lord when she can't by her own strength.
Perhaps being a homemaker doesn't mean she has to keep everything perfectly clean, buy only cute and matching things, cook like a pro, have something constantly baking in the oven
Perhaps it really does just mean loving her family with all her heart, and seeking the Lord when she can't.
After all, what is a home anyway?
What is making a home?
Is it building walls, is it painting furniture, is it mopping floors?
Isn't a home rather made of people, just as the church is made of people?
Isn't homemaking, then, primarily building up your family, cultivating hospitality, creating a space of openness and freedom and security and laughter?

so say the stay-at-home mom is able to keep a perfectly clean home (or perhaps she scrambles around cleaning up little ones' vomit all day and then is taken down by a migraine and the husband comes home to a mess)
or say the doctor doesn't have as much time to clean her home, but builds up her family with the purest love in her heart, instilling in her children the love of science and the love of helping people that have driven her to her ministry/career,
most importantly, say they both seek the Father and instill in their homes a love of Him above all,

aren't they both homemakers?
Aren't they both equally women - unique, beautiful creations of the Most High?

I hear the phrase "Biblical womanhood" so often, its meaning debated as we try to figure out what that all means.
I think there are a lot of different ways to be a woman
because there are a lot of different ways to be a human
and I praise God that He has given me legs to play soccer with kids, arms to hold them when they're sad, a brain to create stories, a mouth to tell them, and hands that can bake cookies, hold a book, play an instrument, or wield a scalpel.
I praise Father that even though I'm single, and sometimes my feet get black from walking on my ever-dusty floor (you'll understand if you live in this country), I can proudly call myself a homemaker - not because I love to decorate, clean, or cook, but because I love to welcome my precious friends into my home and create a space in which they can find refuge and a warm heart.

And at the end of the day I love to hear my Father whisper above all the other voices that no matter what my daily life looks like, or how my brain is wired, or how many mistakes I make, He sees my heart and its motivations...and He loves the woman He has created.

What I Learned from Editing Wikipedia

Photo cred: Josephine Icaro

We're all doomed.

Okay, not really, although I really wouldn't wish on ANYONE to try to edit a Wikipedia page at all involving religion, politics or other controversial matters. It is dangerous territory.

It's like that time in my first-ever high school debate meet when I made the unfortunate mistake of calling the United States a "democracy," and the next girl got up and said "democratic republic" with a look so smug you would have thought she'd just won a case in the Supreme Court. Never mind that the word "democratic republic" had little to do with actually winning the debate. That's how I feel when editing Wikipedia. Everyone out there is that girl.

Information is an important, yet dangerous thing. It's why critical thinking skills are emphasized from the time we're tiny children all the way through college. You can't just take everything you read or hear at face value. Even "facts" can say different things, depending on the presenter's biases.

First, some background on why I attempted to edit a page in the first place. I am reading the Old Testament right now, namely the prophets. There are two idols these prophets are always raging against: Baal and Asherah. It's always, get rid of your Baals and tear down your Asherah poles, because Yahweh is angry. He's the one who's helped you people, so why do you go off running to other gods? In the Bible, both gods are imports from other nations.

Remember that famous story with Elijah? Okay, there are a lot of famous stories. In the one I'm thinking of, he was the only prophet of Yahweh left in the land, but he challenged 850 other prophets (450 of Baal and 400 of Asherah) to a duel of sorts. They both put sacrifices on altars and asked their gods to rain down fire from heaven to consume the sacrifices. The Asherah prophets aren't mentioned after, so maybe Elijah gathered them to just be an audience, but the Baal prophets go crazy and dance around and cut themselves and call on Baal, and he still doesn't answer. 450 of these guys, crying out for a few hours, and still no answer. But at Elijah's first request, even after drenching the wood and sacrifice with water, Yahweh rains down fire from heaven and consumes the whole thing. This is just one example of Asherah being clearly named as an idol, in the ranks of Baal, not at all related to or approved by Yahweh.

Asherah is mentioned many times in the Old Testament; if you search her name on Bible Gateway, she will show up approximately 40 times. And each time her name is mentioned, it is usually coupled with a command, like "Cut down your Asherah poles!"

I then looked up Asherah on Wikipedia to find out more about what kind of goddess she was. She was a Near East fertility goddess, check; she was imported to Israel from Canaan, check; she was the consort of El (another god who functioned as a sort of Yahweh in another nation), check; most scholars the world over now accept that she was Yahweh's consort - wait - what?

That contradicts everything I'm reading in the Bible.

Okay, you might be totally bored at this point, but bear with me. It's not just about information, but how information is presented. Read this:

"The majority of scholars the world over now accept that Yahweh had a consort...Further evidence includes the many female figurines unearthed in Israel, supporting the view that Asherah functioned as a goddess and consort of Yahweh and was worshiped as the Queen of Heaven."

First of all, there is a HUGE difference between the phrase "Yahweh had a consort" and the phrase "At one time, the Israelite people worshiped Asherah as Yahweh's consort." The first phrase necessitates that the Bible has been falsified (there is a theory floating around that Asherah was Israel's female goddess and was edited out of the Bible by chauvinist men). Since the Bible as it is now only refers to Asherah as an idol and not as God's wife, such a phrase as "Yahweh had a consort" would mean that the "editing" theory was definitely true. The second phrase (made up by yours truly) acknowledges that Asherah was worshiped as a goddess by most of Israel at one point (and the Bible already tells you that; it must have been pretty hard for Elijah being the ONLY Yahweh prophet left in the country in the above story!), but leaves room for the monotheistic Hebrew faith that we know by the famous phrase: "The Lord our God, the Lord is one."

Here is what the artifacts show and that the Bible corroborates, as far as I can tell: The Israelites worshiped Asherah, they had her buried with them, and she was known as "The Queen of Heaven" (this title is also acknowledged in the Bible, though as idolatry, and is one of the reasons Yahweh's wrath came down upon his people). Those things are true. One of the articles I read says that after the Israelites' exile to Babylon, which is what I'm reading about right now, is when their faith solidified (or re-solidified if you believe as I do that the Torah has not been edited) as monotheistic. And from the perspective of one who believes the Bible, I believe their faith became monotheistic because of all the prophets who had foreseen that Israel would go into exile under Yahweh's wrath, due to their continuous idolatry. Even after Elijah's miracles, it took exile to Babylon for them to see that Yahweh's prophets had been right all along, and that Yahweh was the one true God. Now, I don't expect people who don't rely on the Bible to trust that, but it definitely makes sense to me.

The problem is that when people spin true artifacts and evidence to suit their preconceived notions. And I don't just mean atheists. Christians do this too. It's a huge problem, and we have to let facts just stand as facts and theories stand as theories. It's like what Lee Strobel said at the beginning of The Case for Christ: The evidence may all line up and seem to point one direction, until you reexamine it closely and see that it points even more clearly in the opposite direction. We have to leave room for this and make sure that our biases don't infect our reading of historical data.

When I tried to edit part of the Wikipedia article to acknowledge that, though there many references to Asherah in the Bible, none of them are positive or acknowledge her as the genuine Queen of Heaven, someone immediately changed it back because of biblical citations (a controversial change-back given that the subject was the Hebrew people, though understandable). They also deleted my encyclopedic citation for undisclosed reasons. What's ironic, however, is that up above in the same article, someone referenced Jeremiah, and this reference has not been removed because it doesn't cast doubt upon the research of those who believe the Bible was edited.

I changed it again the other day, in such a way that I believe makes the article more neutral while still not contradicting what a source said. So far no one has touched it, but perhaps someone will have changed it back by the time you read this. If you have a Wikipedia account, read the talk page for Asherah, and you will see that I am not the first person to take issue with the unequivocal phrasing that "Yahweh had a consort." And some of those people express their reasons better than I have here.

All that to say, this is what I learned, or re-learned: Don't take everything you read at face value. Realize that people can phrase factual findings to support any conclusions they want to support. This includes even what I'm writing here. When you read something that troubles you or casts doubt, look into that claim. If you are a Christian, read the Bible and know that Book like the back of your hand. Then, even though you can't convince anyone else of anything, you can at least stand your own ground and know why you believe what you do.

Okay, that's enough. As important as this stuff is to realize, I'd rather be out learning how to live more like Jesus than writing things like this.

Chronicling, Commanding and Condoning

I've seen this image floating around on websites like Facebook and Pinterest.

The point I believe it's trying to make is that, first of all, gay marriage shouldn't be wrong because it's a lot better than some other marriages cited in the Bible, and second of all, that "traditional marriage" isn't even necessarily one man and one woman. Yes, I understand that it's a joke. But I also understand that it could give rise to some big problems.

In the process of getting its point across, it suggests harmful half-truths. There is a lot of damage being done because people are seeing this graphic who have not read the Bible, and they are now thinking that the Bible is a backwards, outdated book no one should take seriously today (actually, this is probably just reinforcing previous conceptions). Graphics like this give people an excuse to write off the Bible (not just write off, but downright hate it) and doubt its relevance. This graphic does not allow for the complexity and the massive time span of the book, which is unlike any other in the world as far as the sheer number of writers and the incredible span of time and cultures.

Because I'm reading through the Bible chronologically, I just finished reading probably the most "shocking" books in the Bible, and they all appear on this graphic: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (also Judges, which does not appear on this graphic but is also a pretty rough book to read). So this stuff's all pretty fresh in my memory.

First of all, let me say that I'm not writing this as someone who's just trying to raise a defense for my own point of view. I will be honest and say up front that there are some things in the Bible that I don't understand, and that at this point in time am not qualified to explain. But I also feel that I have to stand up for the whole truth, and I'd like to think that I would uphold this principle even if it meant fighting for someone who does not share my point of view.

Some fundamental truths to understand about the Bible: Much of it is comprised of stories that are not necessarily meant to be parables, or to be emulated in any way, but rather to be historical accounts of events that occurred. In fact, there are two books that most people find very boring - 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles - that really are just lists of who was whose son and how long each guy lived. Just because something is chronicled in the Bible does not mean that God condoned it or commanded it, or that it's an example for our behavior.

Another fundamental truth: God is holy, and His standard of justice is higher than ours. Even as a Christian, this is one aspect that I often find difficult to understand or even agree with on my own. As a human, my way seems right to me, but in reality, God alone is the judge (Proverbs 21:2). So sometimes the things God condones or commands may seem very harsh, especially in the older books of the Bible, but these instances underline the fact that God hates wrongdoing much more than we do. But in the same way, He loves goodness and truth much more than we do.

The Bible does chronicle that many men had several wives and/or concubines in the old times, even men who were counted righteous before God and otherwise served him with all their hearts. However, nowhere does God command or commend this behavior. In fact, Deuteronomy 17:17 even says that kings should not have multiple wives. Other than that, old books of the Bible are not didactic about this matter. Nevertheless, anyone who studies the Old Testament cannot help but come away with the knowledge that having multiple wives causes problems. (Who'd have thought, right?) Just look at the relationship struggles of Abraham, Jacob, and David, for starters. Seriously, what a headache.

The "wives subordinate to their husbands" phrase does not do justice to the Hebrew ezer kenegdo, which means something like a helper who comes alongside. This is the term God used to describe woman at the beginning. Other than woman, guess who the phrase usually refers to when it's used in the Old Testament? God. The phrase does not refer to a servant to be trampled upon, but rather help that comes from above, a kind of rescue in times of trouble. Granted, at the Fall, God said that the husband would rule over the wife, but this is a result of sin twisting the way we relate to each other; this is not the way God wants relationships between husbands and wives to be. Later, in the New Testament, we are told that a godly husband's leadership should take the form of Christlike love and sacrifice. I could go more deeply on this subject, but there are entire books that do that. As for interfaith marriages, they are forbidden for the people's own good, because God wants us to be of one heart and mind rather than having strife and distance in marriage. Also, arranged marriages were the rule for hundreds of years across cultures, and still are in many. This practice was definitely not confined to the Bible, and I would argue it is not inherently bad but can be twisted by sin, like everything else.

God's commands are probably the most difficult issues to wrestle with here. Some of them are much easier to understand within context. For instance, the law about a brother-in-law marrying his brother's widow was actually of benefit to the woman in that time period. As many stories in the Old Testament reveal, having a child, especially a son, was considered vital. A woman often would agonize until she had been blessed in that way (Rachel and Leah even used having children as a kind of one-upmanship). Most women must have seen this law as a way to ensure their happiness. Hardly any would have dreamed of saying, "What?! I'm being forced to marry my brother-in-law since my first husband died and left me without a son?!" They just wouldn't have seen it that way. They would have rejoiced that they still had a chance to have a son.

Another law that makes sense within the culture is that of a rape victim marrying her rapist. Again, this is definitely not God's ideal marriage. Nevertheless, this law was given to protect the woman. I just got done watching Pride and Prejudice. The situation with Lydia in that movie is a little bit different because, of course, she loves Mr. Wickham and deliberately runs away with him. But the principle is similar. Had Lydia parted from Mr. Wickham without getting married, she would have been seen as "tarnished forever" in Victorian culture. Her only chance for marriage and children, and therefore "happiness" for her in that time period, was with this man. Free him from his obligation to marry her, and the woman will hardly rejoice in either culture. In fact, this Old Testament law could be seen as much better than what happened in Lydia's situation. Mr. Wickham had to be secretly bought off in order to marry her, whereas the Old Testament law commands that the man who has done such a thing pay restitution.

But then there are other commands that seem shocking even given the historical context. Moses commanding that every Midianite be killed seems horrific, as well as his commanding that the soldiers take the unmarried women for themselves. However, the book of Judges sheds a little light on this situation. In Judges, God also commands that the Israelites kill every single person in the places they are overtaking, without mercy. But this time, they do not obey. And by the end of Judges, the things that are happening in Israel are so depraved that even the reader almost wants God to smite the people off the face of the earth. The Israelites are completely corrupted by the people they let survive. Again, the Bible isn't didactic about this. It doesn't say, "Now see kids, if the Benjamites had just obeyed...." No. The book relates the monstrous things that are happening, the twisted moral code, the unthinkable ways people are treating each other, and simply says repeatedly, "In those days Israel had no king; every man did as he saw fit." So even though God's standard of justice might seem too harsh much of the time, we discover that it is necessary because of human depravity.

God does command that a woman be stoned who is found to not be a virgin when she is married, but this is in line with all the rest of his commands on adultery and many other sins, which generally demand death. The fact is, the penalty for sin has always been death, according to the Bible. When Jesus came and fulfilled all the requirements of the law by his death, our obedience to God took a different form, but the principle remains the same. I can only receive mercy because Jesus took my judgment, not because God lowered his standard of justice. I deserve death and am spiritually dead in my sin (and in most countries, including the United States and especially my beloved Texas, can easily be put to physical death for my sin), and I cannot stand before a holy God. The only way to the life abundant here as well as life eternal is to be covered by the sacrifice of Jesus. Again, this is not my standard of justice. Mine is much lower. But then again, I am not God. I did not watch as my beautiful creation that I had breathed into existence and carefully crafted into perfection welcomed death and destruction with open arms. I did not watch as my creations began murdering each other, began raping each other, began stealing from each other. I am not qualified to be the ultimate Judge.

I know these explanations will not settle all the issues brought up by the graphic, nor will they persuade people to agree with the biblical point of view who don't already, but hopefully they at least shed some light on what is really written and the meaning behind it.

Love,
Your fellow truthseeker