THIS is what we're striving to be???

[_truth dancer]

Hi Inconceivable... :-)

I would conclude that much of cannonized scripture is thematic of wicked men attempting to justify deplorable behavior by attributing there acts to a diety they neither know nor serve.

OK, I could be wrong here but just a couple of thoughts. :-)

First, I do not believe the Old Testament has anthing to do with God, but is a story of humanity. It is about some men's (not to be confused with humankind), search for meaning, or God.

For four million years or so humans were hunter/gatherers, then within only a few thousand years they settle down, own property, and a whole new way of life emerges. Once the Nomadic tribes took over, we see the origins of patriarchy, war, and rulers just pop (comparatively speaking), into existence. I'm so not an expert but as I think of this incredible, species altering change, it seems there was a period of time where they went from a "society" with virtually NO structure, rules, or guidelines to a time where all these things existed in the form we have recorded in ancient texts. I do not know how long that would have been... maybe five or ten thousand years? (I'm going from the first known villages to the first written history).

Anyway, my point is, I do not get a sense these were horrible, terrible men (even though it certainly appears so from reading ancient texts, and I could easily be wrong), but maybe more like, human males who were attempting to move from the primitive to civilized?

Does that make sense?

I'm probably not explaining myself very well. Let me give you an example or two.

The, "eye for an eye," idea, while it is completely horrific, is actually one step up from the previous way of life which was... kill anyone who harms you. The "eye for an eye" limits the revenge.

I've actually even wondered if the story of Abraham being stopped from killing Isaac is a myth about human consciousness moving into a place where infanticide was no longer the way of life. Certainly infanticide was not uncommon for millions of years... at some point in our expanding consciousness, humans moved into a way of life where this was considered wrong.

And, while I am completely and utterly disgusted at how women are regarded and treated in the Old Testament, I have wondered if, in some way, it was a slight bit better than a society where women were used in ways even more cruel. In a primitive society where men were all powerful, and where there were NO rules at all, men could rape and kill women at will.

In other words, life was very stable for millions of years as we roamed the earth, then very quickly, completely changed. Could it be that it took some time to find a way to manage? (I actually think we are still in the process and have a very long way to go but this is another thread.... smile).

If I look at the Old Testament as a story about how various men attempted to move into civilization I can sort of deal with it... it tells us of the origins of a human society (from a male perspective), moving from a primitive way of life into one with some sort of conscious awareness, albeit rather minimal. OTOH, if I look at the Old Testament as a reflection of GOD, or the word of God, I am repulsed and sicked.

I believe, without exception, humans project onto God their ideas. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the LDS church, and each individual, in my opinion, projects onto God the ideals they hold as good/right/holy. The Old Testament, is a reflection of how the men who wrote the various books, thought of God... as Joseph Campbell writes, "The flame throwing, warring diety."

I have the sense that humans who were able to create some sort of God who was aware of their actions may have survived better than those who did not. :-)

The Old Testament helps us understand how modern society got to where we are. Ohhh but we have a long way to go! :-)

Anyway... off to yoga,

~dancer~

[_Scottie]

That's an interesting theory, TD.

If I can add one thing to that, it seems that humans have a need to believe in a diety of some sort. I'm not sure what kind of evolutionary role this filled, but it seems to exist.

In my opinion, this is why a perfectly normal person can debunk every other non-truth out there, yet still hold on to their religion with all the conviction in the world.

[_Infymus]

Perhaps some of you apologists could give me a list of good things that God does, cause I'm not seeing it.

~ I have heard many times if you lose your wallet or your keys, he is the right man for the job..

Monitor Coffee Spit Cleanup on isle six please ;)

[_Zoidberg]

To imagine that God had no problem with the daughters being given to the mob is totally bizarre to my reading. I cannot even beging to imagine that God had no problem with it. I also am at a loss for a theory of what interpretive filter or method would yield the conclusion God had no problem with it.

Is there a rule that says if it happened or is related in the Bible God approves of the action?

God's messengers were there at the time, and there is no description of them rebuking Lot for such a generous offer to the mob. Or if it happened, it was not found important enough to either pass this knowledge down to descendants or include it in the Bible, even though it came from God's messengers. In this case, not much damn must have been given about the words of God's messnegers. Which makes the whole Bible dubious. Who knows what else could have been omitted?

Take your pick.

by the way, a similar story is described in Judges 19. In that case, a woman was gang-raped to save her husband (the kind host was willing to throw his virgin daughter in with the guest's wife, but, after some haggling, they settled on just the wife). No mention of God condemining that behavior. In either Lot's case or the Levite's case.

Yet the same God sends a bunch of bears to munch on a bunch of children for making fun of the prophet.

No rebuke? The angels saved the girls and turned back the mob. You speak as if the were indifferent to the situation. We do not get in on a dress down of Lot? Generally the Bible does not dress down individuals except for leaders. Lot is not a leader. In fact he has to be taken by the hand by the angel and led out of town.

I am puzzled by the phrase something left out. The Old Testament history is a pamphet length rendition of a thousand years of time. Saying an enormous amount is left out would be making an understatement. It is history through very condensed vigenettes. In that style there is a lot unsaid.

Or, even better: if you actually believe Joseph Smith translated the Bible, you can hold on to the notion that Lot did not want to give his daughters to the mob. That still doesn't explain Judges 19. A much more plausible explanation is that it was a fairly common practice back then to offer women to mobs in order to protect male guests. Man, were people hospitable back then!

If there was anything to learn from Lot's story, the Levite and his host didn't learn anything, it seems.

[_huckelberry]

To imagine that God had no problem with the daughters being given to the mob is totally bizarre to my reading. I cannot even beging to imagine that God had no problem with it. I also am at a loss for a theory of what interpretive filter or method would yield the conclusion God had no problem with it.

Is there a rule that says if it happened or is related in the Bible God approves of the action?

God's messengers were there at the time, and there is no description of them rebuking Lot for such a generous offer to the mob. Or if it happened, it was not found important enough to either pass this knowledge down to descendants or include it in the Bible, even though it came from God's messengers. In this case, not much damn must have been given about the words of God's messnegers. Which makes the whole Bible dubious. Who knows what else could have been omitted?

Take your pick.

by the way, a similar story is described in Judges 19. In that case, a woman was gang-raped to save her husband (the kind host was willing to throw his virgin daughter in with the guest's wife, but, after some haggling, they settled on just the wife). No mention of God condemining that behavior. In either Lot's case or the Levite's case.

Yet the same God sends a bunch of bears to munch on a bunch of children for making fun of the prophet.

No rebuke? The angels saved the girls and turned back the mob. You speak as if the were indifferent to the situation. We do not get in on a dress down of Lot? Generally the Bible does not dress down individuals except for leaders. Lot is not a leader. In fact he has to be taken by the hand by the angel and led out of town.

I am puzzled by the phrase something left out. The Old Testament history is a pamphet length rendition of a thousand years of time. Saying an enormous amount is left out would be making an understatement. It is history through very condensed vigenettes. In that style there is a lot unsaid.

Or, even better: if you actually believe Joseph Smith translated the Bible, you can hold on to the notion that Lot did not want to give his daughters to the mob. That still doesn't explain Judges 19. A much more plausible explanation is that it was a fairly common practice back then to offer women to mobs in order to protect male guests. Man, were people hospitable back then!

If there was anything to learn from Lot's story, the Levite and his host didn't learn anything, it seems.

I am having some sense that I may be misunderstanding you. I do not understand what your question is about the story in Judges which you are referring to. I do not see any reason to doubt your observation that the Levite didn't learn anything from Lots angelic visitors. He behaves as a person without sense.

I think Joseph has a personal reason to change the Lot detail. He is in the businsess of building up the illusion of authority and superior understanding for religious leaders like himself.

[_huckelberry]

[quote="truth dancer"]Hi Inconceivable... :-)

[quote]I would conclude that much of cannonized scripture is thematic of wicked men attempting to justify deplorable behavior by attributing there acts to a diety they neither know nor serve.[/quote]

OK, I could be wrong here but just a couple of thoughts. :-)

First, I do not believe the Old Testament has anthing to do with God, but is a story of humanity. It is about some men's (not to be confused with humankind), search for meaning, or God.

For four million years or so humans were hunter/gatherers, then within only a few thousand years they settle down, own property, and a whole new way of life emerges. Once the Nomadic tribes took over, we see the origins of patriarchy, war, and rulers just pop (comparatively speaking), into existence. I'm so not an expert but as I think of this incredible, species altering change, it seems there was a period of time where they went from a "society" with virtually NO structure, rules, or guidelines to a time where all these things existed in the form we have recorded in ancient texts. I do not know how long that would have been... maybe five or ten thousand years? (I'm going from the first known villages to the first written history).

Anyway, my point is, I do not get a sense these were horrible, terrible men (even though it certainly appears so from reading ancient texts, and I could easily be wrong), but maybe more like, human males who were attempting to move from the primitive to civilized?

Does that make sense?

I'm probably not explaining myself very well. Let me give you an example or two.

The, "eye for an eye," idea, while it is completely horrific, is actually one step up from the previous way of life which was... kill anyone who harms you. The "eye for an eye" limits the revenge.

I've actually even wondered if the story of Abraham being stopped from killing Isaac is a myth about human consciousness moving into a place where infanticide was no longer the way of life. Certainly infanticide was not uncommon for millions of years... at some point in our expanding consciousness, humans moved into a way of life where this was considered wrong.

And, while I am completely and utterly disgusted at how women are regarded and treated in the Old Testament, I have wondered if, in some way, it was a slight bit better than a society where women were used in ways even more cruel. In a primitive society where men were all powerful, and where there were NO rules at all, men could rape and kill women at will.

In other words, life was very stable for millions of years as we roamed the earth, then very quickly, completely changed. Could it be that it took some time to find a way to manage? (I actually think we are still in the process and have a very long way to go but this is another thread.... smile).

If I look at the Old Testament as a story about how various men attempted to move into civilization I can sort of deal with it... it tells us of the origins of a human society (from a male perspective), moving from a primitive way of life into one with some sort of conscious awareness, albeit rather minimal. OTOH, if I look at the Old Testament as a reflection of GOD, or the word of God, I am repulsed and sicked.

I believe, without exception, humans project onto God their ideas. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the LDS church, and each individual, in my opinion, projects onto God the ideals they hold as good/right/holy. The Old Testament, is a reflection of how the men who wrote the various books, thought of God... as Joseph Campbell writes, "The flame throwing, warring diety."

I have the sense that humans who were able to create some sort of God who was aware of their actions may have survived better than those who did not. :-)

The Old Testament helps us understand how modern society got to where we are. Ohhh but we have a long way to go! :-)

Anyway... off to yoga,
[color=violet]
~dancer~[/color][/quote]

Dancer, I wonder if I should ask your pardon for what I am going to say... There is a lot which you say here which I agree with completely. I enjoyed your post. Sorry, in compensation I am sure we can keep other points of disagreement safely in place.

I think the Old Testament is worth understanding for its historical value even if one does not believe in a divinity. It is a real glimpse through the door to the barbaric times that the human race is trying to move away from. It is a slow process of change as you take pains to point out. I do not think we should forget the problems our present flawed systems attempt to overcome.

I wonder if you and I are the only ones on the board see the important element in the sacrifice of Isaac story is the end of human sacrifice. I think it is important. Human sacrifice is very pervasive and widespread through a layer of human history. My ancestors in Sweden only gave the practice up under one thousand years ago. I could wonder if there is a connection to the length of time they held on to pillage as a supplement to commerce which is also common in the older layer of human history.

In a related larger sense I see a central concern in the Old Testament is the question of should people have a king and if you have a king how do you keep the king responsible. Those are not easy questions and not brought to a successful conclusion in the time fram covered by the Bible. The story or moral choas at the end of Judges has the concluding summary: "In those days there was no king in Israel all the people did what ws right in their own eyes." That can naturally suggest a king would be a big help. A king could establish an authority with enough strength to create some law and order.

So a king is a solution but one which itself is a problem. How does one covince the king to respect human rights? People have been working on that one for that following three thousand years. Some real progress has been made for which we should be zealous to continue.

[_huckelberry]

Hi Inconceivable... :-)

I would conclude that much of cannonized scripture is thematic of wicked men attempting to justify deplorable behavior by attributing there acts to a diety they neither know nor serve.

OK, I could be wrong here but just a couple of thoughts. :-)

First, I do not believe the Old Testament has anthing to do with God, but is a story of humanity. It is about some men's (not to be confused with humankind), search for meaning, or God.

For four million years or so humans were hunter/gatherers, then within only a few thousand years they settle down, own property, and a whole new way of life emerges. Once the Nomadic tribes took over, we see the origins of patriarchy, war, and rulers just pop (comparatively speaking), into existence. I'm so not an expert but as I think of this incredible, species altering change, it seems there was a period of time where they went from a "society" with virtually NO structure, rules, or guidelines to a time where all these things existed in the form we have recorded in ancient texts. I do not know how long that would have been... maybe five or ten thousand years? (I'm going from the first known villages to the first written history).

Anyway, my point is, I do not get a sense these were horrible, terrible men (even though it certainly appears so from reading ancient texts, and I could easily be wrong), but maybe more like, human males who were attempting to move from the primitive to civilized?

Does that make sense?

I'm probably not explaining myself very well. Let me give you an example or two.

The, "eye for an eye," idea, while it is completely horrific, is actually one step up from the previous way of life which was... kill anyone who harms you. The "eye for an eye" limits the revenge.

I've actually even wondered if the story of Abraham being stopped from killing Isaac is a myth about human consciousness moving into a place where infanticide was no longer the way of life. Certainly infanticide was not uncommon for millions of years... at some point in our expanding consciousness, humans moved into a way of life where this was considered wrong.

And, while I am completely and utterly disgusted at how women are regarded and treated in the Old Testament, I have wondered if, in some way, it was a slight bit better than a society where women were used in ways even more cruel. In a primitive society where men were all powerful, and where there were NO rules at all, men could rape and kill women at will.

In other words, life was very stable for millions of years as we roamed the earth, then very quickly, completely changed. Could it be that it took some time to find a way to manage? (I actually think we are still in the process and have a very long way to go but this is another thread.... smile).

If I look at the Old Testament as a story about how various men attempted to move into civilization I can sort of deal with it... it tells us of the origins of a human society (from a male perspective), moving from a primitive way of life into one with some sort of conscious awareness, albeit rather minimal. OTOH, if I look at the Old Testament as a reflection of GOD, or the word of God, I am repulsed and sicked.

I believe, without exception, humans project onto God their ideas. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the LDS church, and each individual, in my opinion, projects onto God the ideals they hold as good/right/holy. The Old Testament, is a reflection of how the men who wrote the various books, thought of God... as Joseph Campbell writes, "The flame throwing, warring diety."

I have the sense that humans who were able to create some sort of God who was aware of their actions may have survived better than those who did not. :-)

The Old Testament helps us understand how modern society got to where we are. Ohhh but we have a long way to go! :-)

Anyway... off to yoga,

~dancer~

Dancer, I wonder if I should ask your pardon for what I am going to say... There is a lot which you say here which I agree with completely. I enjoyed your post. Sorry, in compensation I am sure we can keep other points of disagreement safely in place.

I think the Old Testament is worth understanding for its historical value even if one does not believe in a divinity. It is a real glimpse through the door to the barbaric times that the human race is trying to move away from. It is a slow process of change as you take pains to point out. I do not think we should forget the problems our present flawed systems attempt to overcome.

I wonder if you and I are the only ones on the board see the important element in the sacrifice of Isaac story is the end of human sacrifice. I think it is important. Human sacrifice is very pervasive and widespread through a layer of human history. My ancestors in Sweden only gave the practice up under one thousand years ago. I could wonder if there is a connection to the length of time they held on to pillage as a supplement to commerce which is also common in the older layer of human history.

In a related larger sense I see a central concern in the Old Testament is the question of should people have a king and if you have a king how do you keep the king responsible. Those are not easy questions and not brought to a successful conclusion in the time fram covered by the Bible. The story or moral choas at the end of Judges has the concluding summary: "In those days there was no king in Israel all the people did what ws right in their own eyes." That can naturally suggest a king would be a big help. A king could establish an authority with enough strength to create some law and order.

So a king is a solution but one which itself is a problem. How does one covince the king to respect human rights? People have been working on that one for that following three thousand years. Some real progress has been made for which we should be zealous to continue.

[_huckelberry]

Hi Inconceivable... :-)

I would conclude that much of cannonized scripture is thematic of wicked men attempting to justify deplorable behavior by attributing there acts to a diety they neither know nor serve.

OK, I could be wrong here but just a couple of thoughts. :-)

First, I do not believe the Old Testament has anthing to do with God, but is a story of humanity. It is about some men's (not to be confused with humankind), search for meaning, or God.

For four million years or so humans were hunter/gatherers, then within only a few thousand years they settle down, own property, and a whole new way of life emerges. Once the Nomadic tribes took over, we see the origins of patriarchy, war, and rulers just pop (comparatively speaking), into existence. I'm so not an expert but as I think of this incredible, species altering change, it seems there was a period of time where they went from a "society" with virtually NO structure, rules, or guidelines to a time where all these things existed in the form we have recorded in ancient texts. I do not know how long that would have been... maybe five or ten thousand years? (I'm going from the first known villages to the first written history).

Anyway, my point is, I do not get a sense these were horrible, terrible men (even though it certainly appears so from reading ancient texts, and I could easily be wrong), but maybe more like, human males who were attempting to move from the primitive to civilized?

Does that make sense?

I'm probably not explaining myself very well. Let me give you an example or two.

The, "eye for an eye," idea, while it is completely horrific, is actually one step up from the previous way of life which was... kill anyone who harms you. The "eye for an eye" limits the revenge.

I've actually even wondered if the story of Abraham being stopped from killing Isaac is a myth about human consciousness moving into a place where infanticide was no longer the way of life. Certainly infanticide was not uncommon for millions of years... at some point in our expanding consciousness, humans moved into a way of life where this was considered wrong.

And, while I am completely and utterly disgusted at how women are regarded and treated in the Old Testament, I have wondered if, in some way, it was a slight bit better than a society where women were used in ways even more cruel. In a primitive society where men were all powerful, and where there were NO rules at all, men could rape and kill women at will.

In other words, life was very stable for millions of years as we roamed the earth, then very quickly, completely changed. Could it be that it took some time to find a way to manage? (I actually think we are still in the process and have a very long way to go but this is another thread.... smile).

If I look at the Old Testament as a story about how various men attempted to move into civilization I can sort of deal with it... it tells us of the origins of a human society (from a male perspective), moving from a primitive way of life into one with some sort of conscious awareness, albeit rather minimal. OTOH, if I look at the Old Testament as a reflection of GOD, or the word of God, I am repulsed and sicked.

I believe, without exception, humans project onto God their ideas. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the LDS church, and each individual, in my opinion, projects onto God the ideals they hold as good/right/holy. The Old Testament, is a reflection of how the men who wrote the various books, thought of God... as Joseph Campbell writes, "The flame throwing, warring diety."

I have the sense that humans who were able to create some sort of God who was aware of their actions may have survived better than those who did not. :-)

The Old Testament helps us understand how modern society got to where we are. Ohhh but we have a long way to go! :-)

Anyway... off to yoga,

~dancer~

Dancer, I wonder if I should ask your pardon for what I am going to say... There is a lot which you say here which I agree with completely. I enjoyed your post. Sorry, in compensation I am sure we can keep other points of disagreement safely in place.

I think the Old Testament is worth understanding for its historical value even if one does not believe in a divinity. It is a real glimpse through the door to the barbaric times that the human race is trying to move away from. It is a slow process of change as you take pains to point out. I do not think we should forget the problems our present flawed systems attempt to overcome.

I wonder if you and I are the only ones on the board see the important element in the sacrifice of Isaac story is the end of human sacrifice. I think it is important. Human sacrifice is very pervasive and widespread through a layer of human history. My ancestors in Sweden only gave the practice up under one thousand years ago. I could wonder if there is a connection to the length of time they held on to pillage as a supplement to commerce which is also common in the older layer of human history.

In a related larger sense I see a central concern in the Old Testament is the question of should people have a king and if you have a king how do you keep the king responsible. Those are not easy questions and not brought to a successful conclusion in the time fram covered by the Bible. The story or moral choas at the end of Judges has the concluding summary: "In those days there was no king in Israel all the people did what ws right in their own eyes." That can naturally suggest a king would be a big help. A king could establish an authority with enough strength to create some law and order.

So a king is a solution but one which itself is a problem. How does one covince the king to respect human rights? People have been working on that one for that following three thousand years. Some real progress has been made for which we should be zealous to continue.

[_Buffalo]

Lets take a look at the God of the Bible that many, including Mormons worship, and what they believe is the pinnacle of perfection...

- He is an egotistical megalomaniac who demands worship from His followers day and night. If a society lapses into a period where they do not worship God, He may or may not "cleanse" them off the face of the Earth.
- He rules by fear. Most people don't worship Him because He is a benevolent, kind and merciful God. No, they do it because they don't want to go to hell. Few dictators have been able to instill this sense of fear into their subjects.
- He has no qualms that 1/3 of His children (plus those on Earth that go there) will be in the Eternal Torment of hell.
- He has no problem killing babies, burning cities, turning people into pillars of salt, flooding the entire world population (minus a lucky few on the ark), etc.
- He selects prophets that have less than stellar reputations, and then commands them to further sully their reputations by lying about immoral acts to fulfill His strange commandments, which make no sense in the first place.
- He makes promises that He doesn't keep...the biggest being that if God makes a promise, He HAS to keep it.
- Of all the options available to an all powerful God to subdue a drunken man, He chooses to have His servant lop off his head.

Any others that you all would like to add?

Now, I'm to understand that THIS is what we are trying to emulate? When we reach the CK, THIS is the kind of person that we will turn into? No thanks, I want no part of that.

Perhaps some of you apologists could give me a list of good things that God does, cause I'm not seeing it.

I certainly wouldn't invite this shady character to dinner.

[_Some Schmo]

I certainly wouldn't invite this shady character to dinner.

Ever get the feeling god's an angry drunk on a million year bender?

(Thanks for reviving this thread, Buff. I love that you do that. Get's me all misty and nostalgic-like).