I’ve been in a discussion with an online acquaintance about the evolution of God from the beginnings of Judaism to today. The point I was trying to make was that the God of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, has changed pretty dramatically over the years so that the God most Christians claim today cannot be the same God.
An example I was using was the battle of Jericho when God told Joshua how defeat the Canaanites at Jericho. The Israelites obeyed God’s strategy and when the Jericho walls fell, they killed every man, woman, child and beast (except for a spy and her family). Following the battle, one of Joshua’s men took some gold and silver from the city, something expressly forbidden by God (I find it rather odd that He would permit the slaughter of every living thing in the city, but not permit the taking of gold or silver). In retaliation, God permitted the death of 36 Israelites attempting to capture the city of Ai and then directed that the thief be burned to death.
So I asked my online acquaintance, the following question when he told me that this was, in fact, the same God he now believed in as a “born-again Christian”:
What I'm trying to understand is, given certain facts about the bible, how does someone of faith discuss them?
His response was:
I think that a person of faith has to ultimately realize that there are things beyond our comprehension, to some extent. That's what faith does. It takes what we see as limitations and makes us ponder the bigger picture.
I find that to be an entirely unsatisfactory answer. It’s as though he’s saying, “Ignorance allows me to believe whatever incongruent and inconsistent notions I want.” So, my question is, is this an accurate portrayal of faith? Does faith allow an individual to believe in an incongruent being with no hint of doubt in that being?
