Questions about the God of the Old Testament

[_Stormy Waters]

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 cannot see the context or the history that could make killing every man, woman, and child justifiable.

[_Stormy Waters]

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)?

Would that, as a matter of course, leave you with nothing to counterattack instead of answering any questions raised against your own worldview?

Saying that you don't know why God killed infants is a terrible concession to make. 'God kill infants for unknown and unexplainable reasons.' If there is a good reason to do something as barbaric as killing infants, why not tell us? Especially considering that a number of people will lose their faith in him because of it.

[_harmony]

In the history of the family, reverence for children is a missing factor, until the Victorian era. Heck, marriage was a missing factor, except for clans/tribes and kings. Slaves, peons, peasants, servants... they didn't get married and their children were property.

6000 years ago, keeping track of a sheepherder in the middle of nowhere would have been impossible. Verifying Abraham's existence and his family and his story is equally impossible. The Old Testament is myth, plain and simple, written eons after whatever incident is supposedly was the original source, and with an agenda of domination and conquering. Isreal did not exist as anything more than one of many warring tribes, all competing for the same resources. Killing infants was the norm, not an abberation. Children, especially infants, of the enemy would not be useful to the winning tribe, as they would have been considered tainted and worse... mouths to feed with no benefit to the tribe.

Don't make it anything other than it is: myths shrouded in time, written to further the agenda of whoever was in charge at the time.

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's real history.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Hooper

It's as if the "brights" on this board are the first ones to think of this,

The "brights"! (Love it. Can I use it?) :)

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."

Indeed.

I am left to only wonder why the majority of these people became brilliant, just, and compassionate only and exactly at the moment they left their former belief system. (Bizarre in my opinion)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_SteelHead]

I think hoops was referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights

[Guest]

Where are the supplements to the Bible? Where are these new God-speaks written?

All sorts of Christians think that God inspires peoples communication. I do not think that there is any reason to add them to cannon. In recent years Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King have spoken Gods word. I do not see any shortage of predecessors. Consider Thomas Aquinas.

isn't it odd that I consider fallible human thoughts as inspired? I do not imagine that Mr King or Aquinas had perfect thoughts, understood God perfectly. Composed of the searching thoughts of men lead by the inspiration of God is how I understand the Bible to be inspired in its formation.

I might add the clarification that I do not think disregarding harsh and difficult portions of the Old Testament is a good way of understanding the whole.

What's different about God-speak (~4000 BC to ~120 AD) that has been canonized from the later God-speak (~120 AD to current) that is not, that which you consider 'fallible human thoughts'?

Was the ~4000 BC to ~120 AD from God-speak that's been canonized as the Bible infallible?

Why did God move ~120 AD from clear, infallible speak that could be canonized to merely inspiring the fallible human thoughts?

[_huckelberry]

Are you speaking of the Old Testament God whose love endures forever, who sets free slaves, who is protector of women, children, and the helpless, who protects his people and asks that they love one another and take care of the helpless?

Did he tell his people to love one another as they exterminated the Amalekites? Did he tell them to take care of each other when they killed the infants?

ps 136
who made the sun to govern the day, His love endures forever
the moon and stars to govern the night, His love endures forever
to him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, His love endures forever
and brought Israel out from among them, His love endures forever
with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, His love endures forever
to him who divided the Red Sea,His love endures forever
who swept Pharaoh and his army into the sea, His love endures forever.
who struck down great kings, His love endures forever.

[_Hoops]

as one who believes God can and has intervened in human history,

Why was God so active then, and now not so much a word or whimper in centuries? I have not seen mainstream Christians accept what it is claimed God is telling certain men, prophets, for nearly two millennia now. Why then? Why not now too?

How do you know He's not as active?

Because mcs believe Jesus is the last prophet, and since He lives, there's no need for another. There's a line somewhere...?

"It is finished."

[_huckelberry]

What's different about God-speak (~4000 BC to ~120 AD) that has been canonized from the later God-speak (~120 AD to current) that is not, that which you consider 'fallible human thoughts'?
......................................
Huck notes, I thought I was clear. I think they both have the same kind of inspiration. Their location in history is different.
......................................

Was the ~4000 BC to ~120 AD from God-speak that's been canonized as the Bible infallible?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Huck note, What in the world is in the Bible from 4000 or 3000 or 2000 BC? I think that the word infallible is hopelessly unclear.
...........................
why did God move ~120 AD clear, infallible speak that could be canonized to merely inspiring the fallible human thoughts?
...................................
I do not think he did.

[_huckelberry]

6000 years ago, keeping track of a sheepherder in the middle of nowhere would have been impossible. Verifying Abraham's existence and his family and his story is equally impossible. The Old Testament is myth, plain and simple, written eons after whatever incident is supposedly was the original source, and with an agenda of domination and conquering. Isreal did not exist as anything more than one of many warring tribes, all competing for the same resources. Killing infants was the norm, not an abberation. Children, especially infants, of the enemy would not be useful to the winning tribe, as they would have been considered tainted and worse... mouths to feed with no benefit to the tribe.

I think you have a valid point about killing infants in warfare.

"the Old Testament is myth." Even if there is myth in the book, the Bible is a compilation of different sorts of writing from different times. There are important portions written as, or close to, the time events happened in real history. The later kings, prophets, captivity, exile and return from exile, would be examples. Yes Abraham is ancient story written down much much later.I think it is mistaken to characterize the whole library as being the same sort of story telling as Genesis.