Questions about the God of the Old Testament

[_zeezrom]

Zee,

What would rule out, to your thinking:
(3) God is the same and people are the same
?

It appears that you've concluded that (3) is to be ruled out from the start. Or, I could be totally misreading your thought experiment, in which case I'm sorry for having done so and would welcome correction.

Thank you for the question, CK! Since this is someone else's thread, I hope they don't mind the intrusion. I will try to keep it concise.

I should have clarified an assumption I make: I take the liberty to assume that the Bible authors *really* believed what they wrote as literal truth. I do not think they created the Bible as a subterfuge. I feel I'm being generous in my assumption, but it is a happier way to look at mankind. I believe they thought God really had a hand in helping their people at the expense of other peoples. I believe they felt God wanted them to do the things they did to other peoples. This is analogous to someone saying Joseph Smith had good intent when he wrote the Book of Mormon and created his theology.

So, the things spoken of in the OP were not considered to be morally bad by the authors. I believe the authors felt the divine acts were good. Otherwise, why would they attribute them to God?

Today, it is different. Today, people consider the things mentioned in the OP to be bad.

Since the Old Testament authors and people today think differently about what was written, the people (their opinions) have changed. Therefore, the authors of the Bible are *different* than the people of today. Therefore, the people have changed and God has not changed.

Rarely do people consider the idea of people always being the same and God changing. Maybe the authors of the Bible really did write what they were told (directly by God). Maybe God really wanted that horrible stuff to happen. Maybe there was a revolt in heaven and now a better God rules the heavens.

[_zeezrom]

CK,

Let me add that it is my opinion that there was at least one revolt in heaven (likely one of many) that occurred in 1834. It was a really big deal, CK. We say "earth-shattering". Well, this event was Universe-shattering!

Zee.

[_cksalmon]

I should have clarified an assumption I make: I take the liberty to assume that the Bible authors *really* believed what they wrote as literal truth. I do not think they created the Bible as a subterfuge. I feel I'm being generous in my assumption, but it is a happier way to look at mankind. I believe they thought God really had a hand in helping their people at the expense of other peoples. I believe they felt God wanted them to do the things they did to other peoples.

Yes. That is, indeed, a very generous way of approaching the alleged Old Testament event(s).

It doesn't commit you to personally advocating their actions, but it does commit me, given a belief in Old Testament as scripture, to defending them.

That's a good move on your part, and I appreciate the fact that it is a good move on your part.

This is analogous to someone saying Joseph Smith had good intent when he wrote the Book of Mormon and created his theology.

But, I don't grant this analogy at all, Zee. I believe Joseph Smith was a charlatan and a buffoon. I couldn't point to any action or pronouncement of his that I would describe as having been motivated by good intent.

What you wrote next strikes me as very consequential, however. And I'd like to think on it.

[_huckelberry]

So why did the Amalekites get killed? Those of you who do not actually believe in God should be clear enough to not use any God told the Isrealites to kill them sort of reason. (actually it appears that a wider variety of people than just Isrealites decided it was a good idea). Unbelievers do not have a god to lead or mislead these people. There must have been some other reason for Amalekite unpopularity.

The other objectionable events listed are not decisions people made but events witnessed. (or perhaps the way events were remembered over long periods Old Testament time)

People have had some tendancy to view the world as harsh and dangerious. Children died all the time. Why? They saw God as reflecting the harshness of the world. God was dangerous and utterly beyond our judgements of just.

The Bible is a long cultural history in which people hunt long and hard to find evidence of a God less brutal than they themselves are. It does not start with any such assurance.

[_sock puppet]

Second, before one flushes a worldview down a toilet based on problems that worldview certainly has, one has to realize that one has to have a worldview (you can't inhabit what philosophers call "The view from nowhere"). I think most serious thinkers will admit that their preferred worldview will have major problems for which there are no good answers. Having said that, you will find no shortage of people (on this board and elsewhere) who are willing to blithely sweep aside the problems in their own worldview without much thought while not allowing the same privilege to those holding opposing worldviews.

This is false. One could simply say that they don't know the origin of the world, or have a philosophy on life. Of course that would leave you with nothing to counterattack instead of answering these questions.

But even if you were right, and I'm forced to choose, I'll take the worldview that doesn't involve a God who murders children.

But if you want Jesus, there's that baggage of the Old Testament god that comes with Jesus. What a dilemma.

[Guest]

This is false. One could simply say that they don't know the origin of the world, or have a philosophy on life. Of course that would leave you with nothing to counterattack instead of answering these questions.

I don't see AS as trying to preempt the discussion, but rather posit, rather non-controversially to my mind, that all worldviews are susceptible to legitimate critique.

Critique? yes. Legitimate? that's debatable.

To take the example you've given, even if we profess ignorance with regard to the origin of the word, or it doesn't strike us as a particularly bothersome or pressing issue, it's still a philosophical problem.

It might be a philosophical problem to someone who finds the origin of the world a compelling or even intriguing question. It's not much of a problem, philosophically or otherwise, to someone who lives their life mentally without caring how the world originated--the world is here, he's living on it. Case closed for him.

---------

One could simply say that they don't know the origin of the world, or have a philosophy on life. Of course that would leave you with nothing to counterattack instead of answering these questions.

By parity of argument, mightn't one simply say that he doesn't know why God saw fit to kill infants, for example, as in your citations (1 Samuel 15:3, et al)?

No parity there. If I believe in the god(s) of the Bible, I must reconcile this God killing infants with a God that commands that I shall not kill. A little bit of hypocrite there. A God who says, do as I say not as I do, essentially. The reason this is a more compelling question than the world's origin is it impacts how I will live my life, if I otherwise would want to go about my life killing people. Since I do not, I blithely ignore it, except for the humor that comes from realizing there are people that believe (a) it is "bad" to kill other people, (b) God is omnibenevolent, but (c) God kills people. It's even funnier to see these believers find refuge in the mysterious--we don't know God's reasons for doing so. God works in mysterious ways. Not so mysterious. God's a hypocrite. That's not too mysterious. Funny, but not mysterious.

[_sock puppet]

Rarely do people consider the idea of people always being the same and God changing. Maybe the authors of the Bible really did write what they were told (directly by God). Maybe God really wanted that horrible stuff to happen. Maybe there was a revolt in heaven and now a better God rules the heavens.

Maybe God (all powerful, all knowing) exists and is a mean son of a bitch, and as a group of billions, some of us are just as mean sons of bitches, but others of us are better, better even than God. 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Maybe God is absolutely corrupt. Maybe our goodness only lies in our limitations of power, by our individual circumstances, to cause harm to others.

Maybe being all knowing depresses the hell out of God, contributing to his mean disposition. Maybe our hope lies in our limitations of understanding, by our individual circumstances, of how dire existence may actually be.

[_sock puppet]

People have had some tendancy to view the world as harsh and dangerious. Children died all the time. Why? They saw God as reflecting the harshness of the world. God was dangerous and utterly beyond our judgements of just.

The Bible is a long cultural history in which people hunt long and hard to find evidence of a God less brutal than they themselves are. It does not start with any such assurance.

Let's take this a step further. Mankind has a long cultural history in which people have hunted long and hard to find a way to explain the brutality of life, the brutality we inflict on each other and so ancient man made a pinata (God, as a concept) that we could then take whacks at (attribute to God these atrocities). But this made life even scarier, more bleak. So beginning shortly before what is referred to as the Meridian of Time, instead of blaming God for the atrocities, we've given God a make over. In more recent times we've turned the ogre that we blamed things on into an all good, all loving individual that is looking out for us and will right all of the injustices we're enduring 'in this life'.

[_Hoops]

It's as if the "brights" on this board are the first ones to think of this, but the general air seems to be that the rest of us are blind to what we read in the Old Testament and that only truly just, compassionate and brilliant ones have recognized what is in the Old Testament and have "come to their senses."

these are legitimate questions, and they are ones that folks have been wrestling with for centuries. And the answers can not be found by simply plucking verses, scenes, or stories from the whole and condemning them.

(I retreat in no way from my position that the Old Testament is inspired).

I would offer, first, that one might understand what the Old Testament is: a history of Israel. Second, one should read the Old Testament with the understanding (or temporary belief) that there is such a thing as sin. Third, that the world described in the Old Testament, the cultures, the societal norms, the intentions of tribal peoples, is nothing like what we know today. Another: that the Old Testament was written from Israel's perspective, or Israel's attempt to live a relationship with God. Another: that Noah's story is supportive of the idea that when the Bible speaks to culturally induced violence, it is speaking to something entirely foreign to our thinking.

When one adequately addresses those (one way or the other), and probably more, then one can dive into specific instances of violence either allowed or ordained by God.

I'm not dismissing the questions. They are real and must be addressed. As a Christian, as one who believes God can and has intervened in human history, it's imperative that one answers these questions. But to say that violent event A happened and therefor God is cruel or the Old Testament is fable is simplistic.

[_Hoops]

I understand if you want to keep worshipping God, I mean you certainly don't want to end up eating the flesh of your sons or daughters.

If you think I'm representative of a believing Christian at all, then I'm left to wonder what, if anything, you understand about what being a Christian is all about.