The terrible God of the Old Testament

[_Inconceivable]

It is unclear what the fire wil be.

Is it a literal fire, as in a nuclear holocost? Or is it the spiritual fire of the Holy GHost?...

The advent of the spiritual fire of the holy ghost has been witnessed and recorded thousands of years previous to Smith's birth. That's a stretch.

A literal fire is what is prophesied. Joseph Smith died in a firefight without demonstrating his fireproofness.

rant off.

[_Gazelam]

It is unclear what the fire wil be.

Is it a literal fire, as in a nuclear holocost? Or is it the spiritual fire of the Holy GHost?...

The advent of the spiritual fire of the holy ghost has been witnessed and recorded thousands of years previous to Smith's birth. That's a stretch.

A literal fire is what is prophesied. Joseph Smith died in a firefight without demonstrating his fireproofness.

rant off.

Your not understanding me.

What I mean is the Earth itself being filled with the Spirit of the Lord. Not the return of the gift of the Holy GHost that the Apostles and others received on the Day of Pentecost.

Basicly the earth being tranfigured, so that only the righteous are able to dwell here. I'm not real up on all of my Millenium prophecies, so I can't remember off the top of my head the timetable for stuff like that occuring.

[_Inconceivable]

Inconcievable, I fallowed your link where you gave some better explanation of your thoughts than tossing around unthinking insults.

You asked what would be the response people would have to the command to cleans and kill innocent people. That is what is called in modern times the draft. What is the proper moral response to the draft? Is it better to have the baby killing done by expendable professionals or should you be obligated to participate yourself.

This after all is the real question and one many people have had to struggle with or endure in real life.

Huck, I did not toss around an unthinking insult. I think your premise is nuts.

I would defend to the death the safety and wellfare of my family among other things. I would go so far as concur with a preemptive strike upon an agressor.

When a prophet of God declares he has been commanded by Him to take the peaceable Followers of Christ and slaughter entire cities at the edge of the sword - including children and other innocents incapable of defending themselves, I would prefer to frag my CO.

[_huckelberry]

Inconceivable notes, "I would defend to the death the saftey and welfare of my family amoung other things. I wold go so far as concur with a preemtive strick upon an agressor."

Sounds to me you and Moses are pretty much in agreement.

That is unless you figure you know a way to engage in war without hurting innocent members of the other side. Do you figure a preemptive strike should be mild enough to not hurt anybody? After all preemptive strikes result in retaliation unless you really disable the opponent. Other wise that opponent comes back to bite you.

In the modern US we can attack places on a limited scale because we can withdraw from the conflicts across an ocean and behind our overwhelming defenses. If you are a tribe in the desert and the enemy lives over the hill they can come back in the night and slit your throat. Their women might do the same. Their children will in a few years. To contemplate a preemptive strike must involve reflection on the difficulty of turning the war off once started.To respond to somebody elses attack might drag you into the same problem.

Maybe our country should have given a bit of thought to this problem.
.........................................................
adding,
I actually think it would have been a good thing if our President had reviewed the Deutornomic laws of holy war very carefully before embarking on a venture with no resolution. Not because I think wacking everybody is an option. It is not and that fact is a military problem.

[_Inconceivable]

Huck,

Moses? The US?

Theocratic dictatorship and a democratic republic? Are you aware of the the distinctions?

[_AmazingDisgrace]

I still can't get past the premises of the original post.

You believe that the Old Testament contains the best possible concept of God. You also believe the Old Testament inaccurately ascribes negative characteristics to God and claims that He pronounces laws that are grotesque. How are these two ideas compatible?

If you have an independent concept of God that differs from that presented in the Old Testament, what do you need the Old Testament for? Why not consider the Greek myths to be scripture? Zeus does plenty of questionable things too, but that just means it's not the real Zeus they're describing.

[_Inconceivable]

Gaz,

Noah did not drown. He was preserved to feed and care for all the fluffy, feathery and not so fluffy animals as well as his family. He made it to the other side of the earth's flood (or it's baptism/rebirth).

The earth has yet to be cleansed by fire and Joseph Smith is dead. Yelling fire when there is none can do little more than create the illusion.

Huck,

sorry about the hijack.

I admit that God did not command me to do it and I am not particularly justified - This is one of the many reasons I think moses and I have little in common.

[_Black Moclips]

It is not difficult to get to the loving God if you 1) believe all the good stuff, and 2) blame the bad stuff on inaccurate stories and men twisting scripture. You can do that with anything and get to a positive result. I guess in order to make that approach valid, wouldn't you need to subject the "good stories" to the same sort of skepticism and the bad ones?

[_huckelberry]

Huck,

Moses? The US?

Theocratic dictatorship and a democratic republic? Are you aware of the the distinctions?

We are having difficulty getting on the same page. I have puzzled a bit about your comment. I think it is possible that for a few years in the desert Isreal was something close to a theocratic dictatroship. I have serious doubts. If however it was for a while under Moses nothing of that dictatorship survives into the period afterwards. (see Judges) A highly controlling social structure which dicatatorships indicates does not seem to exist in the period of the kings either. Instead a diversified and divided mix seems in view. Maybe for a spell under the Maccabean kings the situation was dictitorial.

I am not in favor of such arrangements. I think the preferred model in Old Testament is local councils.

But despite the fact that political institutions are clearly different over the 3000 year time gap between the United states and Moses there are some striking similarities. Both countries are founded by invading foreigners who brutally displace previous inhabitants. Both countries are mired in brutal cival war after their founding.

But more to my original point is that even in our democratic republic war introduces situations where we do not personally get to choose. With a draft nobody asks if you like the war. Instead they tell you when and where to report for service. I you instead voluteer for military service they will not ask you if you agree with the military mission. They will tell you when you ship out.

But I was thinking of something simpler. Being part of a society involves people in the war that help construct that particular society. Those wars are never nice they include in a variety of forms all of the hairraising brutalities of the Old Testament rules of war. In ,modern times the killing of women and babies is normally done from a distance but it kills.

[_huckelberry]

I still can't get past the premises of the original post.

You believe that the Old Testament contains the best possible concept of God. You also believe the Old Testament inaccurately ascribes negative characteristics to God and claims that He pronounces laws that are grotesque. How are these two ideas compatible?

If you have an independent concept of God that differs from that presented in the Old Testament, what do you need the Old Testament for? Why not consider the Greek myths to be scripture? Zeus does plenty of questionable things too, but that just means it's not the real Zeus they're describing.

I did not suggest that the idea of God was independent of the Old Testament. I am interested in the picture of God which imerges through the whole story. In other words I insterpret pieces by relating them to the whole. In that context the meaning of certain pieces may change. There are portions of the Bible which describe only peoples actions and not what God wants. You see I do not really think that the Old Testament ascribes qualities I do not like to God. I think lazy interpretation allows poor images to remain unchallenged. The Old Testament itself is involved in challenging old ideas so is a process of clarifing its own concept.

I like the reasonable question about comparing to Greek Gods. After all that was behind the first post I made about best availible view of God. I have in some odd way loved and read several times the Iliad. I am a bit attracted to Athena. Strong lady who values clarity of thought. Further I can find fascination in the stories of courage and determination. But of course it is a vaste lark, a camping trip intoxicated by the beauty of fires burning around the winedark sea. But there is the cacophany of iron on shield and uncounted dyings. All that fades into the night of that winedark sea.

There is a sort of beauty in seeing life as a brutal contest where how we aquit ourselves in conflict is what really matters. Valor is commemorated and gets the spoils while weakness is forgotten in the mire.


This picture in the Iliad was the major scriptural reference point for hellenistic people. It is what gave a reference point to life. But lets face it. Despite the beauty of Brisis and the wine dark sea, this is a brutal affair. People are gladiators who perform for the Gods. Sometimes the performance is a result of some divine intrigue but more importantly it is for entertainment. Mortals are expendable. Now that is a true war god picture. Beautiful fun and harsh. Compare to the Old Testiment and you find a God concerned with family crops care for the poor and for children. A God is there who complains and is hurt in heart when people cheat and opperess each other. The comparison would make a Greek wonder if it wasn't writen by a woman.

Am I tossing out the war portion of the Old Testament. Hardly. I may well find some of that difficlult but I do not want to break up the story. As I mentioned I am looking for the image found in the whole and that includes the God of War.