Your strangest Bible Passage

[huckelberry]

doc, you slap me in the face . Ok you see it all very differently than I do. I have been puzzling over why. A theory.

You appear to be thinking of god as an authoritarian religious or political figure like a king or a Warren Jeffs. I am thinking of god as the source of our life and being who called Mary as part of a larger life creating project not some private adventure. Of course if there is no god, there was no king or authority pressuring Mary, she got pregnant the usual way.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

You appear to be thinking of god as an authoritarian religious or political figure like a king or a Warren Jeffs.

Well, if the scriptures are to be believed, God is MUCH worse than Warren Jeffs or any king that has ever lived. God condones slavery, rape, genocide and much, much more.

I really hope the scriptures aren’t true and that God is actually decent and honorable.

[Philo Sofee]

You appear to be thinking of god as an authoritarian religious or political figure like a king or a Warren Jeffs.

Well, if the scriptures are to be believed, God is MUCH worse than Warren Jeffs or any king that has ever lived. God condones slavery, rape, genocide and much, much more.

I really hope the scriptures aren’t true and that God is actually decent and honorable.

Of course, if that was the only thing they said about God, your point would hold. But truly, this out of context approach ignoring all else in the total of what scripture says simply doesn't hold water... I mean, we need to keep it a little real, right? That appears to me to be how the atheists approach it, and it was, in part, just this serious misleading context which caused me to realize atheists are not all that interested or interesting when it comes to the scriptures and their whole meaning. Another angle on this is the ancient writers comprehension themselves. They may not have understood context either and so what they write can and ought to be seriously looked at in order for a more realistic understanding.

Reading it in translation and without a Jewish cultural context can sometimes help. And on the other hand, knowing the ancient Jewish context is not ours can also help. Just because it is written does not mean it is literal. The reading of the Jewish Zohar has helped me enormously to see all the critiques against scriptures have been because we are just lamely accepting them on a mere literal basis. That can be very problematic. I am coming to realize that is is just such "strange passages" that hold clues to something other than a wooden literal reading and thinking. That doesn't mean I have the answer, far from it. But I now know I can yet look at it again in a different light, one that could lead me into a much better understanding than just thinking, Oh it's written therefore that's how it happened. That, honestly, is quite naïve, no offense intended.

Just because Mormonism literalizes everything doesn't mean I have to. Why continue accepting their take on things when they obviously lead to such ridiculous problems? I would suggest it is Mormonism that one ought to quit believing, and take a closer look at the scriptural meaning with help form others more adept at it than Mormons are.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Well, if the scriptures are to be believed, God is MUCH worse than Warren Jeffs or any king that has ever lived. God condones slavery, rape, genocide and much, much more.

I really hope the scriptures aren’t true and that God is actually decent and honorable.

Of course, if that was the only thing they said about God, your point would hold. But truly, this out of context approach ignoring all else in the total of what scripture says simply doesn't hold water... I mean, we need to keep it a little real, right? That appears to me to be how the atheists approach it, and it was, in part, just this serious misleading context which caused me to realize atheists are not all that interested or interesting when it comes to the scriptures and their whole meaning. Another angle on this is the ancient writers comprehension themselves. They may not have understood context either and so what they write can and ought to be seriously looked at in order for a more realistic understanding.

Reading it in translation and without a Jewish cultural context can sometimes help. And on the other hand, knowing the ancient Jewish context is not ours can also help. Just because it is written does not mean it is literal. The reading of the Jewish Zohar has helped me enormously to see all the critiques against scriptures have been because we are just lamely accepting them on a mere literal basis. That can be very problematic. I am coming to realize that is is just such "strange passages" that hold clues to something other than a wooden literal reading and thinking. That doesn't mean I have the answer, far from it. But I now know I can yet look at it again in a different light, one that could lead me into a much better understanding than just thinking, Oh it's written therefore that's how it happened. That, honestly, is quite naïve, no offense intended.

Just because Mormonism literalizes everything doesn't mean I have to. Why continue accepting their take on things when they obviously lead to such ridiculous problems? I would suggest it is Mormonism that one ought to quit believing, and take a closer look at the scriptural meaning with help form others more adept at it than Mormons are.

Thank you Philo. I recognize that I have fallen into that trap. Can you please PM a couple of book suggestions?

[dastardly stem]

Well, if the scriptures are to be believed, God is MUCH worse than Warren Jeffs or any king that has ever lived. God condones slavery, rape, genocide and much, much more.

I really hope the scriptures aren’t true and that God is actually decent and honorable.

Of course, if that was the only thing they said about God, your point would hold. But truly, this out of context approach ignoring all else in the total of what scripture says simply doesn't hold water... I mean, we need to keep it a little real, right? That appears to me to be how the atheists approach it, and it was, in part, just this serious misleading context which caused me to realize atheists are not all that interested or interesting when it comes to the scriptures and their whole meaning. Another angle on this is the ancient writers comprehension themselves. They may not have understood context either and so what they write can and ought to be seriously looked at in order for a more realistic understanding.

Reading it in translation and without a Jewish cultural context can sometimes help. And on the other hand, knowing the ancient Jewish context is not ours can also help. Just because it is written does not mean it is literal. The reading of the Jewish Zohar has helped me enormously to see all the critiques against scriptures have been because we are just lamely accepting them on a mere literal basis. That can be very problematic. I am coming to realize that is is just such "strange passages" that hold clues to something other than a wooden literal reading and thinking. That doesn't mean I have the answer, far from it. But I now know I can yet look at it again in a different light, one that could lead me into a much better understanding than just thinking, Oh it's written therefore that's how it happened. That, honestly, is quite naïve, no offense intended.

Just because Mormonism literalizes everything doesn't mean I have to. Why continue accepting their take on things when they obviously lead to such ridiculous problems? I would suggest it is Mormonism that one ought to quit believing, and take a closer look at the scriptural meaning with help form others more adept at it than Mormons are.

I disagree that there is an “atheist approach” going on here. Sure scholars like Francesca Stavrakopoulou are atheists but her approach is wholly scholarly and takes in as her treatment the whole meaning, culture etc of the Bible. It seems silly to me to dismiss such great scholarship on the basis of the scholar answering one question (do you believe in god) in the negative. I find that approach wholly apologetic, which is a definable and identifiable approach often reserved for works that fall out of the category of scholarship altogether. I hate to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, but I can’t disagree more with philo on this, no offense to him or anyone.

Read her work. Consider the snippet I quoted from her. Check her sourcing and material. You won’t be disappointed. Do not dismiss legitimate shcolarship because they are reasonable people who conclude there likely is no god, particularly as defined by biblical tradition.

[dastardly stem]

This conversation reminded me of God: an Anatomy by Francesca Stavrakopoulou. Here she describes how God was a sexual deviant of sorts:
......see previous post for long quote


God, given the Bible is scripture, inspired, and true, illustrates abuse in relationships and exalts in that illustration—seeking love and devotion focused on him. Israel and eve may have been his willing spouses, but they also were his subordinates. As it is I can’t figure out how either were really said to consent. It all seems to speak to gods support for rape.

Stem, I did not quite understand how God is seen as a sexual deviant in your quote. I read that a couple of prophets use descriptive imagery that is clearly old fashioned patriarchal clearly not woke. In thiis present discussion it might sound as though Gods ripping Israel out of Egypt was a rape.

As for Eve and God the quote is explicit that Adam and Eve had sexual intercourse and Cain resulted. The article points out how the phrase echos older mythology or deities speaking a role of more strength for Eve. Ok.

It is true that any relationship we have with god is very unequal. His excess of power in unfair. After all I was forced into this existence without any choice. I was in fact too young to do much except cry out and hope for the best. Perhaps I should see all birth as a divine rape.

I must admit that our creator may call on us to duty beyond our choice. We meet problems not of our choosing. Perhaps Mary had some negatives as a result of the duty god called her to. I can understand seeing it as a duty, raising a child which she did not ask for. Life is like that. It appears she handled her call well and receives respect as a result.

If you would, read her book. I think it’d clear up plenty. The whole story of Israel being god’s sexual partner and the ramifications of such a metaphor clearly defines god as a sexual deviant and such deviancy is supposedly a good thing on ancient thinking. There is no explicit passage saying Adam is the father. Eve credits Yahweh not Adam as the father. As dr Stavrakopoulou points out the Hebrew indicates this clearly. Her allusion to Mary is mentioned in this whole context as well. God was considered a sexual being in ancient thought who had all the body parts we have ( like Mormonism teaches). That time has rendered the Bible metaphor for the sake of maintaining religious faith and hope for religious relevance doesn’t take away the teachings in the Bible.

[Philo Sofee]

Wonderful stuff Dastardly! Yes her book is incredible, and it makes my point. People, even anciently took things literal, as is one option. As a finite view this obviously makes sense, but since we limited humans cannot grasp the whole, we choose that which would make the most sense to us, whatever reflects us and our understanding we will pursue. But it is, I will say again, but one point of view, regardless of whichever book it is elaborated in. Just because ancient Jews literalized their understanding does not stop us from seeing it in other ways which in their own literalness the ancient peoples missed (or deliberately obscured? Carl Ruck comes to mind here as does Brian Muraresku). One is not forced into the literal views of the ancients, when in point of fact, they often literalized in order to hide their more spiritual believed points. Just like Jesus did with his parables, there are always more than one mere meaning to truth. Truth has many facets when it comes to theology. I didn't invent it that way, it's just how it is.

Zeus is every bit as anthropomorphized as Yahweh is, but that literalness does not take away at all in any manner other meanings of less literalness concerning Zeus as Carl Ruck has also, so powerfully demonstrated in his scholarship in several books (5 I have read so far).

Thanks for the book suggestion, it is definitely on my list of to gets now. I'm looking forward to reading it.

[dastardly stem]

Wonderful stuff Dastardly! Yes her book is incredible, and it makes my point. People, even anciently took things literal, as is one option. As a finite view this obviously makes sense, but since we limited humans cannot grasp the whole, we choose that which would make the most sense to us, whatever reflects us and our understanding we will pursue. But it is, I will say again, but one point of view, regardless of whichever book it is elaborated in. Just because ancient Jews literalized their understanding does not stop us from seeing it in other ways which in their own literalness the ancient peoples missed (or deliberately obscured? Carl Ruck comes to mind here as does Brian Muraresku). One is not forced into the literal views of the ancients, when in point of fact, they often literalized in order to hide their more spiritual believed points. Just like Jesus did with his parables, there are always more than one mere meaning to truth. Truth has many facets when it comes to theology. I didn't invent it that way, it's just how it is.

Zeus is every bit as anthropomorphized as Yahweh is, but that literalness does not take away at all in any manner other meanings of less literalness concerning Zeus as Carl Ruck has also, so powerfully demonstrated in his scholarship in several books (5 I have read so far).

Thanks for the book suggestion, it is definitely on my list of to gets now. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Good to hear. I feared we were coming upon some irreconcilable disagreement. I’ll be back later because something’s mentioned reminded me of something I need to look back up.

[dantana]

Copy that

[dantana]

That appears to me to be how the atheists approach it, and it was, in part, just this serious misleading context which caused me to realize atheists are not all that interested or interesting when it comes to the scriptures and their whole meaning.

Is this similar to how some suggest that only those immersed in and self appointed as scholars in all things Russian are to be allowed to opine on Russians allegedly murdering Ukrainians?

Only those who have great insight into the culture of the hundreds of tribes down through history that decided their god was the best and only liked them and greenlighted them to kill anybody who had stuff they wanted.