A bloodthirsty god?

[Autodidact]

For some reason, I find it rather pathetic that those who criticize religions for being dogmatic dogmatically cling to notions that religions have largely abandoned.

Just from reading RF, there are many posters here who believe all of these "notions" to be the truth.

 

[Autodidact]

For some reason, I find it rather pathetic that those who criticize religions for being dogmatic dogmatically cling to notions that religions have largely abandoned.

For example, they say they believe in evolution, but when they meet the evolution of religion, like theologically expanding concepts of infinity and eternity and supreme values, they decry the change rather than celebrate its advancement. Religion, they think, must conform to their biased preconceptions or be discredited.

God is in man and man in God, but while God is, man is becoming.

You're using too broad a term. The thread is not about religion. It's about the God described in the Old Testament. Some may worship some other, less violent God, but that God is clearly murderous, vengeful and arbitrary.

 

[Riverwolf]

You're using too broad a term. The thread is not about religion. It's about the God described in the Old Testament. Some may worship some other, less violent God, but that God is clearly murderous, vengeful and arbitrary.

You know, until a few days ago, I did believe the same thing. But I was actually reading the Holy Scriptures, a translation of the Old Testament by Jews with Jewish ideology in mind without Christian bias, and I discovered something. Remember the part where God is talking to Abraham, and he's asking if he'd spare the city if there were only ten righteous men in it, and God said he would? That made me realize that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was the only possible action to be taken, because the cities were so sinful and so corrupt that there were only two possibilities if the cities were spared: that their influence would spread to the rest of the world and God would be forced to flood the world again, which he said he wouldn't do again, or the cities would simply destroy themselves over time, slowly and painfully. Sometimes being cold is the only thing to do, when there are no innocents in a city. As for the rest of the rules in the Torah, they were set down so there would be order, and many more lives would be spared among the Israelites and other nations, regardless of whether or not that actually happened.

As for the deeds carried out in Joshua onwards, those are stories. They aren't meant to be taken literally, nor is the God portrayed in those stories necessarily God himself. The writers were simply recording what the Israelites were doing, and the only way to make it acceptable for the people was to say "God told us to."

It turns out that YHWH of the Old Testament is hardly all-seeing and all-powerful. Creating a world is easy-peasy. But throughout Genesis, it is made clear that YHWH cannot do everything that he would want to do, and that he is as much distressed about what he has to do as everybody else. But there is no other way.

Just because you can create a world doesn't mean you can run it.

 

[gnostic]

As for the deeds carried out in Joshua onwards, those are stories. They aren't meant to be taken literally, nor is the God portrayed in those stories necessarily God himself. The writers were simply recording what the Israelites were doing, and the only way to make it acceptable for the people was to say "God told us to."

If so much of the biblical events are stories then it stand to reason that God is nothing more than story character. Hence, God/Yahweh/Allah is nothing than a mythological being; no more real than Enki, Zeus and Odin.

How can you possibly believe in something is that isn't real? Very easily, considering that countless numbers of Christians and Muslims believing in a non-existent deity in what you call "story-books" and what they call "scriptures".

 

[Riverwolf]

If so much of the biblical events are stories then it stand to reason that God is nothing more than story character. Hence, God/Yahweh/Allah is nothing than a mythological being; no more real than Enki, Zeus and Odin.

How can you possibly believe in something is that isn't real? Very easily, considering that countless numbers of Christians and Muslims believing in a non-existent deity in what you call "story-books" and what they call "scriptures".

So if you use an entity that you believe exists in a fictional story, that automatically causes the entity to not exist? The Torah is to be taken as literally as possible. The other stories are to be taken no more literally than the parables of Christ. They are stories written to provide a moral or message. After all, to the imaginative mind, a fictional story is better for getting a life-lesson across than a boring non-fiction essay.

"Artists use lies to tell the truth."
-V for Vendetta

BTW, I believe in the existence of ALL the gods that have ever been worshiped. However, I worship none of them.

 

[gnostic]

What's a cengnostic?

 

[Autodidact]

You know, until a few days ago, I did believe the same thing. But I was actually reading the Holy Scriptures, a translation of the Old Testament by Jews with Jewish ideology in mind without Christian bias, and I discovered something. Remember the part where God is talking to Abraham, and he's asking if he'd spare the city if there were only ten righteous men in it, and God said he would? That made me realize that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was the only possible action to be taken, because the cities were so sinful and so corrupt that there were only two possibilities if the cities were spared: that their influence would spread to the rest of the world and God would be forced to flood the world again, which he said he wouldn't do again, or the cities would simply destroy themselves over time, slowly and painfully. Sometimes being cold is the only thing to do, when there are no innocents in a city. As for the rest of the rules in the Torah, they were set down so there would be order, and many more lives would be spared among the Israelites and other nations, regardless of whether or not that actually happened.

As for the deeds carried out in Joshua onwards, those are stories. They aren't meant to be taken literally, nor is the God portrayed in those stories necessarily God himself. The writers were simply recording what the Israelites were doing, and the only way to make it acceptable for the people was to say "God told us to."

It turns out that YHWH of the Old Testament is hardly all-seeing and all-powerful. Creating a world is easy-peasy. But throughout Genesis, it is made clear that YHWH cannot do everything that he would want to do, and that he is as much distressed about what he has to do as everybody else. But there is no other way.

Just because you can create a world doesn't mean you can run it.

Well of course you can just choose not to believe what's writtin there; that's what I do myself. My point is that the fictional character as portrayed there does display these characteristics.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well of course you can just choose not to believe what's writtin there; that's what I do myself. My point is that the fictional character as portrayed there does display these characteristics.

As a fictional character in the stories, yes, YHWH does display bloodthirsty and genocidal traits. But, when you go deep into the human subconscious, we all feel that way sometimes. Gods as works of fiction in my opinion represent the human psyche, regardless of whether or not they actually exist. I don't think you'd have much luck explaining to a common person the scientific aspects of the human psyche and tendencies, but if you tell them that the gods have our faults and problems, then portray them doing very human things, they'll understand it. The only problem with that is it promotes pointing fingers at things, which I don't approve of.

 

[Riverwolf]

What's a cengnostic?

I made up that word. :angel2: It combines cent, which is a hundred, and gnostic, which is knowledge. Basically, my religion takes knowledge from hundreds of sources, always evolving with new knowledge obtained.

 

[Harmonious]

So what sins did this generation of Amakelites commit?

Why should this generation of Amakelites pay for what their forefathers have done to the Israelites in Moses' time? The Amakelites in the previous generation had already pay for their crimes, when Moses' army defeated them.

The answer may seem too pat for you, but it more or less works.

There is a reason why the Jews have no idea who Amalek are anymore in this generation. If we did, we would be obgligated to kill them.

But, as it stands, we have NO IDEA who they are. And therefore, there is nothing to be done.

Is that petty and vindictive of god to punish the sons for the sins of the fathers? It is a long time to hold grudges. Why is the slaughters of women and children even necessary?

God knows the potential of these people better than you do.

More than that, I couldn't tell you.

Punishment? Revenge? 1 Samuel 15 proves that God is petty and bloodythirsty tyrant, not a loving god, pretending to be a parent. Do parent punish their children with death? What lesson can a child learn if he is dead?

Sorry, but the example of parent-child example does not work well in this scenario of 1 Samuel 15.

Eh. Maybe not. But God knew that the descendant of Agog, the Amalek king left over would indeed have it in for the Jews, as per Haman in the Book of Esther.

God knows these things, and God has reasons.

But it also fits God's will that Jews have no idea who the descendants of these people are today. So I imagine that any living descendants of Amalek are in the clear.

 

[gnostic]

The answer may seem too pat for you, but it more or less works.

There is a reason why the Jews have no idea who Amalek are anymore in this generation. If we did, we would be obgligated to kill them.

But, as it stands, we have NO IDEA who they are. And therefore, there is nothing to be done.

Having no knowledge of your neighbour is a very poor excuse for war and genocide. It is killing born out of fear and ignorance, which leads to bigotry and hatred. The genocide of Amalekites is no better than what Hitler ordered in the Holocaust.

God, or at least Samuel on God's behalf, made it quite clear why the Israelites must slaughter every living beings - for what happened in the Exodus. It is very specific. There were no other reasons presented. If there was any other reasons, then it is not given. Nothing in 1 Samuel 15 suggest that the current generation of Amalekites were Israel's enemy.

It still make God looks nothing more than a bloodthirsty tyrant, because centuries have passed between Moses' time and that of Saul's. Moses already defeated the Amalekites at that time, so punishing the Amalekites in Saul's time is really uncalled for and unnecessary bloodshed, all in God's name.

Does a god need to punish a person once, and again against another person 5 or 6 generations later? How is such god "just"?

Personally I don't believe in the story of god, Samuel, Saul and David, but I understand that there is another reason (or reasons) for the 1 Samuel book. Plot and theme....and good old fashion propaganda.

Looking at this 1 Samuel from a literary perspective is the following explanations.

The people of Judah wants a hero, hence David. Though David is not the 1st king, he is view as the best. So what is better way to elevate David to national hero's status than by inventing story about his rise to power (ie kingship)? So the theme is David's rise.

Saul needs to be the fall guy, so he loses God's favour (plot), because Saul didn't kill the Amalekite king, when he slaughtered everyone else, including women and children.

When you view Amalekite genocide as part of the whole picture, then you get one riveting story...but such a story is propaganda.

I don't think Samuel, or even David, wrote 1 Samuel, or even 2 Samuel, because Samuel died in the middle of the 1st book. My guest that these books were written during the reign of Josiah, in the 2nd half of the 7th century BCE.

Eh. Maybe not. But God knew that the descendant of Agog, the Amalek king left over would indeed have it in for the Jews, as per Haman in the Book of Esther.

God knows these things, and God has reasons.

But it also fits God's will that Jews have no idea who the descendants of these people are today. So I imagine that any living descendants of Amalek are in the clear.

If you had the gift of foresight or prophecy, and you knew that your neighbour's child would one day grow up and massacre 12 women, would you -

• kill the child, to prevent the child from fulfilling his destiny?
• let the child live, find other means of preventing the destiny come into fruition?
• let the child live and do nothing about it?

If god is omniscient and omnipotent, then why did god planted the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, when he already know the outcome. Who is the real arch-tempter of man? The serpent? Or the god?

 

[Harmonious]

Having no knowledge of your neighbour is a very poor excuse for war and genocide. It is killing born out of fear and ignorance, which leads to bigotry and hatred. The genocide of Amalekites is no better than what Hitler ordered in the Holocaust.

I think you completely misread me. The idea is that because we DON'T know who they are, we are FORBIDDEN to try to follow this commandment.

Wow. That was the most bizarre misreading I've ever come across.

God, or at least Samuel on God's behalf, made it quite clear why the Israelites must slaughter every living beings - for what happened in the Exodus. It is very specific. There were no other reasons presented. If there was any other reasons, then it is not given. Nothing in 1 Samuel 15 suggest that the current generation of Amalekites were Israel's enemy.

It still make God looks nothing more than a bloodthirsty tyrant, because centuries have passed between Moses' time and that of Saul's. Moses already defeated the Amalekites at that time, so punishing the Amalekites in Saul's time is really uncalled for and unnecessary bloodshed, all in God's name.

You know... Hundreds of years have passed between Moses and King David. How do YOU know that God's commanded revenge was unnecessary?

Not every act in history was recorded in the texts.

Does a god need to punish a person once, and again against another person 5 or 6 generations later? How is such god "just"?

As I said, you don't KNOW what was done intermittently. God does. God keeps track of these things.

God knows everything that happens, every thought a person has, every scheme that exists and both those that come to fruition and those that come to naught, and everything in between.

You don't know that what God commanded was not justified. You just assume it is because of the radio silence on the matter. For all we know (which we don't), there might have been people being killed by Amalek, and that is why God commanded a strategic strike at that moment.

The biggest difference between you and me on this point is that I give God the benefit of the doubt. I'm not even sure that you see that there IS a doubt to give benefit for.

Personally I don't believe in the story of god, Samuel, Saul and David, but I understand that there is another reason (or reasons) for the 1 Samuel book. Plot and theme....and good old fashion propaganda.

Looking at this 1 Samuel from a literary perspective is the following explanations.

The people of Judah wants a hero, hence David. Though David is not the 1st king, he is view as the best. So what is better way to elevate David to national hero's status than by inventing story about his rise to power (ie kingship)? So the theme is David's rise.

Saul needs to be the fall guy, so he loses God's favour (plot), because Saul didn't kill the Amalekite king, when he slaughtered everyone else, including women and children.

When you view Amalekite genocide as part of the whole picture, then you get one riveting story...but such a story is propaganda.

Interesting concept.

I don't understand why you would assume the need for propaganda. If King David was looking for propaganda, WHY on earth would the stories of his every foible, mistake, and weakness be included? Honestly... What good does the story of Batsheva do for David? What good does the rebellion and death of Avshalom do for King David's image? The fact that King David went into exile rather than facing down his son? What possible good could it do him to include the story wherein King David's son raped his half-sister?

How are you deciding that this is all propaganda?

I don't think Samuel, or even David, wrote 1 Samuel, or even 2 Samuel, because Samuel died in the middle of the 1st book. My guest that these books were written during the reign of Josiah, in the 2nd half of the 7th century BCE.

Interesting. That is the first time I've heard THAT theory. But I'll go with the fact that it actually was the truth, and that Samuel wrote most of Samuel 1, and that either Nathan or Gad picked up the slack and continued writing the end of Samuel 1 and all of Samuel 2.

I'm not sure where you got your theory, but if it makes you happy to believe it, go ahead.

If you had the gift of foresight or prophecy, and you knew that your neighbour's child would one day grow up and massacre 12 women, would you -

• kill the child, to prevent the child from fulfilling his destiny?
• let the child live, find other means of preventing the destiny come into fruition?
• let the child live and do nothing about it?

I would let the child live and find other means of preventing the destiny from coming to fruition. But then again, I am a human. That is how I am SUPPOSED to comport myself.

God has the ability of knowing lots that people don't know. And He has His reasons... which you have made clear that you don't trust.

If god is omniscient and omnipotent, then why did god planted the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, when he already know the outcome.

To give people a choice.

You know, according to Judaism, human beings are the only creatures in existence with free will? Every other creature, including angels, demons, and weird animals with the power of speech, does only what God commands it to do, and nothing else.

Only humans have the ability to choose to do the right thing or the wrong thing.

Who is the real arch-tempter of man? The serpent? Or the god?

Hmm... You know, this choice only makes sense if you decide that the real sin that got everyone booted from the Garden of Eden was eating fruit.

It wasn't.

While you might say that God probably tempted Adam and Eve by creating the concept of forbidden fruit, the thing is that EATING FRUIT isn't the problematic sin.

The sin that got everyone ejected from the Garden of Eden is their attitude towards each other. Adam badmouthed Eve, and God for giving Eve to him. Eve blamed the snake. Even the snake's problem wasn't so much that it convinced Eve to eat the fruit, but that it spoke badly of God.

I don't know if you are aware, but the sin of Evil Speech is probably the most unsung but the worst of all sins according to Judaism. It is because of Evil Speech and baseless hatred caused thereby that the Jews are in exile all over the world and are without the Temple.

I am convinced that if either Adam or Eve would have stood up and took responsibility for taking and eating the fruit, we would not be HERE, but enjoying God's presence in the Garden of Eden this very day.

 

[gnostic]

You don't know that what God commanded was not justified. You just assume it is because of the radio silence on the matter. For all we know (which we don't), there might have been people being killed by Amalek, and that is why God commanded a strategic strike at that moment.

Again I'll repeat that God did give reason to Samuel and Saul, and it was quite specific.

1 Samuel 15:2

"Thus said the LORD of Hosts: I am exacting the penalty for what Amalek did to Israel, for the assault he made upon them on the road, on their way up from Egypt...."

This reason referred to Exodus 17:8-16, when the Israelites at Rephidim. The Israelites won the battle.

If you choose to ignore my quote about the specific reason why God commanded genocide, then that's your prerogative.

 

[Harmonious]

Again I'll repeat that God did give reason to Samuel and Saul, and it was quite specific.

1 Samuel 15:2



This reason referred to Exodus 17:8-16, when the Israelites at Rephidim. The Israelites won the battle.

If you choose to ignore my quote about the specific reason why God commanded genocide, then that's your prerogative.

That is the initial reason for the commandment, and will ALWAYS be cited as the reason for destroying Amalek. I don't question that.

But what I AM saying is that perhaps something has happened between the generation of Amalek that sinned and the destruction that God commanded in Samuel. That is the piece of this that I think you are missing.

 

[gnostic]

The sin that got everyone ejected from the Garden of Eden is their attitude towards each other. Adam badmouthed Eve, and God for giving Eve to him. Eve blamed the snake. Even the snake's problem wasn't so much that it convinced Eve to eat the fruit, but that it spoke badly of God.

I don't know if you are aware, but the sin of Evil Speech is probably the most unsung but the worst of all sins according to Judaism. It is because of Evil Speech and baseless hatred caused thereby that the Jews are in exile all over the world and are without the Temple.

This is the 1st time I have heard of this explanation. The usual explanations I get from others, are one of the following:

• Simply a test on free will.
• For eating the fruit itself.
• Disobedience for eating the fruit. (This is more about the prohibition and not eating the fruit.)

 

[gnostic]

That is the initial reason for the commandment, and will ALWAYS be cited as the reason for destroying Amalek. I don't question that.

But what I AM saying is that perhaps something has happened between the generation of Amalek that sinned and the destruction that God commanded in Samuel. That is the piece of this that I think you are missing.

Perhaps.

It give no other reason for the genocide. As you said, there could be other reason not written in Samuel.

However, I view book of Samuel as book of literature, as I told you before. Every book have a specific theme (and plot) and purpose. The purpose of Samuel is not really about Samuel, but David, and in the 1st book it is about how David rise to power...with God help.

God had David anointed after the genocide. God sent spirit to torment Saul, causing delusion and paranoia. David is not perfect, granted, but from God's own mouth, David was God's chosen one. Without the genocide...or if he did as command and spare no one, then Saul might have remained as king, and David would still be a shepherd. But that's not the case, is it?

The genocide of Amalekites was only leading to Saul's downfall, but the Amalekites by themselves is not important without Saul's fall in the story, is it not?

Hence no other reasons why the Amalekites were massacred were needed. Why? Because the Amalekites are not the true purpose of the story.

So you are pushing for reason that don't exist.

Take the Genesis for example. The true purpose of the story is not about the creation of Adam or about the survivors of the Flood, but about the genesis of the Israelites, with their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jacob's sons.

 

[Harmonious]

This is the 1st time I have heard of this explanation. The usual explanations I get from others, are one of the following:

• Simply a test on free will.
• For eating the fruit itself.
• Disobedience for eating the fruit. (This is more about the prohibition and not eating the fruit.)

Interesting.

 

[Harmonious]

Perhaps.

It give no other reason for the genocide. As you said, there could be other reason not written in Samuel.

However, I view book of Samuel as book of literature, as I told you before. Every book have a specific theme (and plot) and purpose. The purpose of Samuel is not really about Samuel, but David, and in the 1st book it is about how David rise to power...with God help.

God had David anointed after the genocide. God sent spirit to torment Saul, causing delusion and paranoia. David is not perfect, granted, but from God's own mouth, David was God's chosen one. Without the genocide...or if he did as command and spare no one, then Saul might have remained as king, and David would still be a shepherd. But that's not the case, is it?

The genocide of Amalekites was only leading to Saul's downfall, but the Amalekites by themselves is not important without Saul's fall in the story, is it not?

Hence no other reasons why the Amalekites were massacred were needed.

So you are pushing for reason that don't exist.

Your reasoning only makes sense if you ONLY believe in the Biblical text as literature. Otherwise, I'd seriously scratch my head to figure out why any of this would be "useful" or "important."

I'm sorry. The concept of Bible as Literature doesn't work for me. It is too much of a cognitive dissonance to deal with for me.

If you believe that it is actual history, albeit not the complete history, then what I am saying makes perfect sense. It just wouldn't be something you would agree actually happened, as you don't believe in it.

Which is your right.

 

[Riverwolf]

The Tanakh, from what I've read of it, is part history, part literature. The events depicted in it are historical, but artistic license has been taken by the authors so as to make it a better read. The Jews did annihilate the Amalakites. In the Tanakh, it is written that the reason was given by God.

That's what I've gotten from reading the posts, anyway. I haven't actually read the Tanakh's history books yet. (only parts of Joshua... not a very pleasant book to say the least)

 

[gnostic]

I'm sorry. The concept of Bible as Literature doesn't work for me. It is too much of a cognitive dissonance to deal with for me.

If you believe that it is actual history, albeit not the complete history, then what I am saying makes perfect sense. It just wouldn't be something you would agree actually happened, as you don't believe in it.

Valid points.

I would give you some more frubals, but I have already given them to you for your 1st reply here. Damn system won't let me give you more.