The Violent Old Testament God in Sunday School Yesterday

[_aussieguy55]

I am currently reading a book called The Harlot by the Side of the Road:Forebiddent Tales of the Bible by Jonathan Kirsch. Could have been called Stories from the Bible they never told you in Sunday School. No wonder some banned the Bible in the past and the priests and rabbi's ommited stories in the public readings. Tell me when David paid several hundred foreskins of enemies for another wife, what on earth does one do with those foerskins? Make a quilt? Absolom in 2 Samual 16 has sex with several of King Davids concubines on the roof of the royal palace. Missed that story in Sunday school.Interesting how you never find these kinds of stories in the Book of Mormon.

[_Chap]

Fortunately, since there is no real entity corresponding to 'The Old Testament God', there is no problem about different texts written by different people at different times saying different things about the deity they describe.

They don't have to be consistent. We don't have to worry about which is the 'over-riding' characteristic of 'The Old Testament God' either. He is not just a literary creation, but a series of different literary creations who relate only thematically.

There - that's nice and simple, isn't it?

Yep, just like Aristotelean physics, nice and simple! Unfortunately, it also shares the same problem that Aristotelean physics has - that of being wrong.

Please excuse me for not having noticed your response, but I was traveling.

Did I miss the bit where you explained why we have to treat a deity named in the scriptures of the ancient Hebrews as actually existing, when we do not extend the same courtesy to the deities named in ancient Indian or Babylonian or Greek writings?

Somehow I don't think that a response amounting to no more than 'you're wrong, LOL' really cuts it.

Absent a proof by you that Yahweh, Elohim, El Shaddai and the rest of them are really there (unlike, say, Zeus and Jove, who are not real) , doesn't our starting point have to be that any ancient piece of writing about deities by ancient people is no more than that - a piece of writing, in which the entities described have no necessary link to reality?

[_Aristotle Smith]

Please excuse me for not having noticed your response, but I was traveling.

No problem.

Did I miss the bit where you explained why we have to treat a deity named in the scriptures of the ancient Hebrews as actually existing, when we do not extend the same courtesy to the deities named in ancient Indian or Babylonian or Greek writings?

No you didn't miss it. Since you wrote a flippant response with no argument for your position, I simply returned the favor. If you want to have a discussion about the existence or non-existence of God, then let's have one.

Somehow I don't think that a response amounting to no more than 'you're wrong, LOL' really cuts it.

Of course it doesn't. Then again, your response didn't either. Let's be serious, no one is going to write a lengthy post explaining a complex topic on a discussion board. I don't expect it from you, please return the favor.

Absent a proof by you that Yahweh, Elohim, El Shaddai and the rest of them are really there (unlike, say, Zeus and Jove, who are not real) , doesn't our starting point have to be that any ancient piece of writing about deities by ancient people is no more than that - a piece of writing, in which the entities described have no necessary link to reality?

Not if you have warrant for believing that the Deity of the Old Testament exists, and that there is no other deity. But then, any proof I would give would be rejected by you on the grounds that it doesn't rise to the level of adequate proof. You also need to realize that on my view of things, your rejections would invalid as well. The discussion will likely get nowhere because we are each going to deploy different criteria for what constitutes evidence.

[_Chap]

Please excuse me for not having noticed your response, but I was traveling.

No problem.

Did I miss the bit where you explained why we have to treat a deity named in the scriptures of the ancient Hebrews as actually existing, when we do not extend the same courtesy to the deities named in ancient Indian or Babylonian or Greek writings?

No you didn't miss it. Since you wrote a flippant response with no argument for your position, I simply returned the favor. If you want to have a discussion about the existence or non-existence of God, then let's have one.

Somehow I don't think that a response amounting to no more than 'you're wrong, LOL' really cuts it.

Of course it doesn't. Then again, your response didn't either. Let's be serious, no one is going to write a lengthy post explaining a complex topic on a discussion board. I don't expect it from you, please return the favor.

Absent a proof by you that Yahweh, Elohim, El Shaddai and the rest of them are really there (unlike, say, Zeus and Jove, who are not real) , doesn't our starting point have to be that any ancient piece of writing about deities by ancient people is no more than that - a piece of writing, in which the entities described have no necessary link to reality?

Not if you have warrant for believing that the Deity of the Old Testament exists, and that there is no other deity. But then, any proof I would give would be rejected by you on the grounds that it doesn't rise to the level of adequate proof. You also need to realize that on my view of things, your rejections would invalid as well. The discussion will likely get nowhere because we are each going to deploy different criteria for what constitutes evidence.

Oh, I do not enter into discussion with religious believers on the internet in the hope that they are going to exclaim 'Blimey! I was wrong, governor! You got me banged to rights!' or words to that effect. I am quite sure you will never change your mind about the reality of Yahweh as a result of anything you could possibly read on this board. I am sure most other non-theists who post here have the same low level of expectation.

But the object is not to deconvert confident theists in front of an admiring crowd, but simply to recall to the less committed third party reading the thread that there is a great deal of ancient writing (and some modern writing too) about deities of various kinds from many different parts of the world. Each genre of god-writing has its own group of fans, claiming that their particular genre is special, in that it alone tells us about a really existing entity rather than just whatever its writers happened to imagine. We have no reason to believe any of them is right. The default option is that all that writing about deities, whether in the Bible or out of it is just that - stuff that people wrote down, with no necessary relation to reality. Most religious believers agree with that - except in so far as their own tradition is concerned, of course.

That is why, faced with a question about what 'the deity of the Old Testament' is really like, the reasonable default option has to be that all we have in front of us in the Old Testament is a mass of related but not necessarily consistent literary creation springing out of a complex and evolving cultural context. It doesn't have to have any unified overall message, any more than the mass of ancient Mesopotamian texts referring to deities does. Anyone who wants to maintain that any given tradition is (unlike all other traditions) special, needs to tell us why, and if they won't or can't, why should they expect to be given the benefit of the doubt?

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes, I do believe that God is jealous in the sense that he doesn't want people worshipping other Gods.

Ok.

As for God being destructive, capricious, etc., my guess is that you are referring to the standard complaints about the invasion of Canaan or the destruction of the Ammonites. As I have already explained on this thread, since those events never happened, this isn't an issue for God. If you have another episode demonstrating the "vindictive, desructive, and capricious God" then please be specific about which ones you have in mind.

Well yes those. And others. How about the flood and the accounts there about God wishing he had never created man? And what about Abraham and his negotiating with God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the then following destruction? How about God turning Lot's wide into a pillar of salt for looking back? How about God negotiating with the devil over Job and what God allowed to happen to Job simply to test him? How about Elijah being allowed to send a bear to kill young men who mocked him and the incident with the priest's of Baal? How about Jericho and its destruction? How about God punishing the wandering Israel with snakes because of their murmurings and how about how the Egyptians had the crap beat out of them by God? How about David's conquerings? Are those not factual as well?

I am not sure which of these might be viewed as simply stories and not historical fact because I have not delved into this clearly as much as you have. But it seems pretty clear that there are lots of accounts of God sending wrath on some group of humans or another.

Only if you are a pre-millenialist, which most Mormons tend to be. Those who are post-millenialists or amillinealists (like myself) end up reading the book of Revelation much differently.

In the future, please understand the terms you are using/quoting before hurling accusations. As an amillenialist, I don't believe in the millenium, nor in the rapture. Thus, your accusation misses the mark.

Excuse me. I have often noted I am not as well read as you are in these things. And I did miss the amillenialist (Like myself) comment and was focusing on the post-milleniallist remark. So you do not believe in tribulation period leading up to the coming of Christ. Good for you. I like that idea.

Mormons are pre-millenialists, thus they believe in the same thing as pre-millenial dispensationalists, they just don't call it the rapture.

If I understand it correctly Mormons simply believe all people will be on earth during the horrible wrath of God is poored out on humans before Jesus comes again. Post Millinialist's believe those who believe in Jesus will be raptured before the wrath of God is poured out on humans.

Sure seems like nobody really knows what is going to happen.

And before you accuse me of ignoring the Bible (again), amillenialism has been the position of the vast majority of all Christians who have ever lived and the position of the vast majority of Christians who now live. Pre-millenialism is largely an American phenomenon that came about in the 19th century.

Did I accuse you of ignoring the Bible?

But it seems that there is a lot of it you think is simply stories and don't take a lot of it literally which I am quite fine with. There is a lot of it I would like to forget was possibly literal as well.

[_Blixa]

I don't see how you can read God's response to Job and feel that it's an expression of "love." Just a sample, from chapter 38:

3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?

You don't tell someone to brace himself like a man if you're going to comfort him. You don't use sarcasm if you're speaking to him in love. You don't start listing your achievements if you're uninterested in self-aggrandizement. This is not a loving response. This is God giving Job what-for.

California Kid, we are trying to communicate across a complicated subject. I could confess that there are ways I can see your point of view. There are pieces of the Bible I view as disgusting. I realize I distance my heart from some images of God in the Bible. Yet I see very differently than you. You have quoted one of my lifelong favorite passages in the Bible, one that presents meaning when dogmas turn to wood.

I believe "brace yourself" can be a most loving expression though obviously not always.

I'm with huckleberry on this one---sort of. I have to say that it is currently one of my favorite passages as well, and probably because I have a hard time resolving it in any complete fashion. "Loving," "sarcastic" and "self-aggrandizing" all seem to fall short to me. I don't entirely know what to make of it and that is part of what I like about it.

[_honorentheos]

As for God being destructive, capricious, etc., my guess is that you are referring to the standard complaints about the invasion of Canaan or the destruction of the Ammonites. As I have already explained on this thread, since those events never happened, this isn't an issue for God. If you have another episode demonstrating the "vindictive, desructive, and capricious God" then please be specific about which ones you have in mind.

Well yes those. And others. How about the flood and the accounts there about God wishing he had never created man? And what about Abraham and his negotiating with God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the then following destruction? How about God turning Lot's wide into a pillar of salt for looking back? How about God negotiating with the devil over Job and what God allowed to happen to Job simply to test him? How about Elijah being allowed to send a bear to kill young men who mocked him and the incident with the priest's of Baal? How about Jericho and its destruction? How about God punishing the wandering Israel with snakes because of their murmurings and how about how the Egyptians had the crap beat out of them by God? How about David's conquerings? Are those not factual as well?

I'm working on sorting this out as well. Can the reverse be applied? Can any historical actions from the past be used to demonstrate that God exists and has the positive traits described?

Is there a story in the Old Testament that clearly shows an action was commanded by God for which there is physical, archeological evidence that it occurred and gives us insight into His Nature?

[_SteelHead]

I'm working on sorting this out as well. Can the reverse be applied? Can any historical actions from the past be used to demonstrate that God exists and has the positive traits described?

Is there a s the Old Testament that clearly shows an action was commanded by God for which there is physical, archeological evidence that it occurred and gives us insight into His Nature?

In a nutshell, no.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Well yes those. And others. How about the flood and the accounts there about God wishing he had never created man? And what about Abraham and his negotiating with God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the then following destruction? How about God turning Lot's wide into a pillar of salt for looking back? How about God negotiating with the devil over Job and what God allowed to happen to Job simply to test him? How about Elijah being allowed to send a bear to kill young men who mocked him and the incident with the priest's of Baal? How about Jericho and its destruction? How about God punishing the wandering Israel with snakes because of their murmurings and how about how the Egyptians had the crap beat out of them by God? How about David's conquerings? Are those not factual as well?

I am not sure which of these might be viewed as simply stories and not historical fact because I have not delved into this clearly as much as you have. But it seems pretty clear that there are lots of accounts of God sending wrath on some group of humans or another.

Univeral flood and destruction of Jericho are not historical. Some of the others are too small scale to be amenable to archaeology. David's conquerings are up in the air, investigation into 10th century Israel is currently the focus of intense research and debate. If you asked me a couple of years ago I would have said unhistorical. But, the evidence is trending in the other direction now. I don't see this as causing much of a problem because the stories seem to make clear that there are lots of territorial and political considerations involved. Not that that makes killing o.k., but the realities of politics and having aggressive neighbors sometimes makes war inevitable. The Egyptian story probably didn't happen, at least not on the massive scale as portrayed in Exodus. In any case, I would think that some amount of butt-kicking in exchange for freedom from slavery is more of a quid pro quo, rather than a serious problem for God's justice. The she bear incident obviously happened as this amazingly accurate historical re-enactment makes clear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2jmT35fygc

Mormons are pre-millenialists, thus they believe in the same thing as pre-millenial dispensationalists, they just don't call it the rapture.

If I understand it correctly Mormons simply believe all people will be on earth during the horrible wrath of God is poored out on humans before Jesus comes again. Post Millinialist's believe those who believe in Jesus will be raptured before the wrath of God is poured out on humans.

Briefly here are the options:

Pre-Millenialism: The world gets worse and worse. At some point the righteous are taken up from the Earth. This is what dispensational Christians call "The Rapture." At this point there is what is called the 7 years of tribulation at the end of which Christ returns again and rules for 1000 years. Mormons believe the same thing, without the 7 years of tribulation. Because of this, the second coming and the taking of the righteous are simultaneous for Mormons, thus there is no need to identify the first part of the process as "The Rapture." In Mormon thought, it all gets rolled into one big event called "The Second Coming."

Post-Millenialism: Here, the kingdom of God rules for 1000 years and then Jesus returns at the end of millenium. In this version the millenium is brought about by means that are not overtly miraculous.

A-Millinialism: For various reasons, the book of Revelation is seen as symbolic, thus a 1000 year span of time is simply symbolism that need not represent any state on Earth for any length of time.

As for who believes what, conservative EV's and Mormons tend to be pre-millenialists. Post-Millenialism was favored in the 19th century by EV Christians and some liberal Christians today. Amillenialism is the view of most Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, etc.

[_huckelberry]

"Loving," "sarcastic" and "self-aggrandizing" all seem to fall short to me. I don't entirely know what to make of it and that is part of what I like about it.

I like this characterization, I probably even agree with the "sort of" for my comments.

I am tempted to say that in some portions of the Old Testament God is not separable from the tragic paths of nature. That is not allowable as dogma so perhaps the sense can only be inferred, concepts fail to clarify because there are too many unknowns.