OT God's Wrath

[Jayhawker Soule]

So God killed people for immoral conduct. Why hasn't he killed people for immoral conduct in the past few thousand years or so?

You're babbling: it's embarrassing -- stop it. :slap:

 

[Rainbow Mage]

It's a good question. Why hasn't God killed anybody for immorality the last few thousand years or so? I know what I think on the matter, and some won't like my opinion. I think that the god of Israel never did the things the Tanak describes. I think an ancient warrior people projected their primitive ideas and notions onto god. I think the religious leaders back then who wanted the Canaanites dead, lied and said god wanted it, when god wanted no such thing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a good question. Why hasn't God killed anybody for immorality the last few thousand years or so? I know what I think on the matter, and some won't like my opinion. I think that the god of Israel never did the things the Tanak describes. I think an ancient warrior people projected their primitive ideas and notions onto god. I think the religious leaders back then who wanted the Canaanites dead, lied and said god wanted it, when god wanted no such thing.

:clap

(It's always delightful to find someone with such presumptive certainty regarding what god wants.)

 

[JustWondering]

You're babbling: it's embarrassing -- stop it. :slap:

If you don't know how to answer my question, it is ok to say "I don't know".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you don't know how to answer my question, it is ok to say "I don't know".

And if you don't know how to ask an intelligent question it's OK to just shut up. :yes:

But let's revisit your silly drivel briefly ...

God (as described in the OT) tends to "wipe out" folks, not for being unbelievers, but for immoral conduct (the flood), or clear affronts against a nascent Israelite nation.

So God killed people for immoral conduct. Why hasn't he killed people for immoral conduct in the past few thousand years or so?

Perhaps because the ancient Israelites evolved meta-narratives attributing to God occurrences that were either mythic or entirely natural. What these narratives introduced into the religious terrain of the Middle East was a theosophy wherein human ethical conduct mattered. To be sure, the narratives were heavily laced with folk etymology, folk history, and nationalist bombast, and the definition of human ethical conduct reflected the times, but these facts make the introduction no less remarkable. In a world of gods who were entirely arbitrary and oft times frivolous we find a religion where God punishes people rather than simply toying with them and where the claim of being created in the image of God seeks to say something deeply important about the value of human life and human community.​

Of course, none of this suffices to shield the Tanakh against juvenile muckraking. But that's OK -- it's enough to know that most juveniles evenually grow up ...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

And if you don't know how to ask an intelligent question it's OK to just shut up. :yes:

But let's revisit your silly drivel briefly ...

Perhaps because the ancient Israelites evolved meta-narratives attributing to God occurrences that were either mythic or entirely natural. What these narratives introduced into the religious terrain of the Middle East was a theosophy wherein human ethical conduct mattered. To be sure, the narratives were heavily laced with folk etymology, folk history, and nationalist bombast, and the definition of human ethical conduct reflected the times, but these facts make the introduction no less remarkable. In a world of gods who were entirely arbitrary and oft times frivolous we find a religion where God punishes people rather than simply toying with them and where the claim of being created in the image of God seeks to say something deeply important about the value of human life and human community.​

Of course, none of this suffices to shield the Tanakh against juvenile muckraking. But that's OK -- it's enough to know that most juveniles evenually grow up ...

Jay, I am in the beginnings of an old book by Bertrand Russell The History of Western Philosophy.

In it, I have to say I am learning so much about how subtleties are introduced, like you speak of here with human ethics. Have you looked at that book before? Anyway, your post just reminded me of some of the things I am reading about.

 

[rusra02]

If God existed as described in the Old Testament he would be the only true God. All other gods would be imaginary gods thought up by unbelievers to worship. Since God (as described in the OT) has no problem with wiping out unbelievers why didn't he destroy (for example) all followers of Hinduism and/or Shintoism a long time ago since that is how he would act as described in the OT?

The Bible has the answer to this question. Far from being cruel and hateful, Jehovah is love (1 John 4:8) He takes no delight in the death of wicked ones. Acts 17:24-30 explains: "The God that made the world and all the things in it, being, as this One is, Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in handmade temples, neither is he attended to by human hands as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all [persons] life and breath and all things. And he made out of one [man] every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of the dwelling of [men], for them to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. For by him we have life and move and exist, even as certain ones of the poets among you have said, ‘For we are also his progeny.’

​

“Seeing, therefore, that we are the progeny of God, we ought not to imagine that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, like something sculptured by the art and contrivance of man. True, God has overlooked the times of such ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent."
Acts 14:15-17 adds: We...are declaring the good news to you, for you to turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them. In the past generations he permitted all the nations to go on in their ways, although, indeed, he did not leave himself without witness in that he did good, giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts to the full with food and good cheer.”
Jehovah is having the good news of his purposes preached in all the inhabited Earth. Millions have accepted him as the true God, many formerly idol worshipers. It is God's love that motivates everything he has done and will do (John 3:16)​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay, I am in the beginnings of an old book by Bertrand Russell The History of Western Philosophy. ... Have you looked at that book before?

I read it quite some time ago.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

What these narratives introduced into the religious terrain of the Middle East was a theosophy wherein human ethical conduct mattered. To be sure, the narratives were heavily laced with folk etymology, folk history, and nationalist bombast, and the definition of human ethical conduct reflected the times, but these facts make the introduction no less remarkable. In a world of gods who were entirely arbitrary and oft times frivolous we find a religion where God punishes people rather than simply toying with them

Ah there's that classic religious Jewish arrogance, as if the Gentiles can't develop a truly moral religious system, and only the ancient Jews did it. Give me a break please. Have you ever read any ancient Egyptian literature, such as the Negative Confessions, or the Pyramid Texts? The people who follow the old gods were plenty moral then, and we're still plenty moral now. Don't be so narrow minded.

 

[JustWondering]

Perhaps because the ancient Israelites evolved meta-narratives attributing to God occurrences that were either mythic or entirely natural. What these narratives introduced into the religious terrain of the Middle East was a theosophy wherein human ethical conduct mattered. To be sure, the narratives were heavily laced with folk etymology, folk history, and nationalist bombast, and the definition of human ethical conduct reflected the times, but these facts make the introduction no less remarkable. In a world of gods who were entirely arbitrary and oft times frivolous we find a religion where God punishes people rather than simply toying with them and where the claim of being created in the image of God seeks to say something deeply important about the value of human life and human community.

So you are asserting that the OT is basically a collection of old superstitious tales and legends?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ah there's that classic religious Jewish arrogance, as if the Gentiles can't develop a truly moral religious system, ...

What is arrogant and, in fact, inherently antisemitic is the sick assertion that any positive statement about Judaism is an attack on Gentiles.

Parenthetically, I suspect that I know far more about Easter philosophies than you imagine ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So you are asserting that the OT is basically a collection of old superstitious tales and legends?

You're childishness is becoming tiresome.

 

[JustWondering]

Perhaps because the ancient Israelites evolved meta-narratives attributing to God occurrences that were either mythic or entirely natural. What these narratives introduced into the religious terrain of the Middle East was a theosophy wherein human ethical conduct mattered. To be sure, the narratives were heavily laced with folk etymology, folk history, and nationalist bombast, and the definition of human ethical conduct reflected the times, but these facts make the introduction no less remarkable. In a world of gods who were entirely arbitrary and oft times frivolous we find a religion where God punishes people rather than simply toying with them and where the claim of being created in the image of God seeks to say something deeply important about the value of human life and human community.

So, are you asserting the great flood, the tower of babel, and the destruction of sodom and gomorrah are myths and legends that should not be taken literally? Yes, no, maybe?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, are you asserting the great flood, the tower of babel, and the destruction of sodom and gomorrah are myths and legends that should not be taken literally? Yes, no, maybe?

Closer would be folk etiology and midrash but, no, I certainly do not take them literally.

 

[JustWondering]

Closer would be folk etiology and midrash but, no, I certainly do not take them literally.

So you agree with me that God as described by the OT does not exist? Early stories in the OT were mans attempt to understand the natural world around him by attributing natural occurences to God. Just like some Christians you see today who believe hurricanes, earthquakes, and AIDS where sent by God to punish certain people for various transgressions.

 

[Levite]

So I have to interpret whats in the bible the way you interpret it? Why do people need lessons to understand what is in the bible? It seems pretty clear cut to me.

Are you saying the great flood, the tower of babel, and the destruction of sodom and gomorrah mentioned in the bible are just stories and should not be taken literally? If so, what purpose do these stories serve?

I am saying that it is presumptuous to take a document written by Jews, for Jews, in the Jewish language, read a translation of it into another language, and then interpret it in a way that it was never designed by its writers or its audience to be interpreted, and then criticize the text itself.

People need lessons in understanding what is in the Bible because it is a deeply complex series of texts compiled over hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Not to mention that, unless you are fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic-- it is written in a language you don't speak, and it is written in an antique high poetic style that even fluent speakers of Hebrew and Aramaic find challenging. There has never been a translation that successfully captures all of the nuances and possibilities of the Hebrew original. For these reasons alone one should require teaching in order to understand it. And that is not even taking into account the fact that the text was designed to have many multiple meanings, and it was designed to be read alongside an interpretive oral tradition (whether the Rabbinical Oral Torah or other, older systems now lost to us is irrelevant-- it was designed for use in tandem with other materials). Teaching is necessary, in fact, specifically to counteract the tendency of superficial readers to go, "It seems pretty clear cut to me."

And yes, I am saying that many of the stories in the Tanakh are not meant to be taken literally. They may be there to teach us other things-- things that may not necessarily be the "obvious conclusions" one might expect. They may be moral lessons in and of themselves, or they may be exegetical parables, or they may simply be contextual mythos to establish the totality of the "canvas" on which the many authors are "painting" their texts.

Simplistic thinking will kill the experience of learning Torah.

 

[Levite]

Ah there's that classic religious Jewish arrogance....

Please, that's not anything Jewish. That's just him.

 

[JustWondering]

I am saying that it is presumptuous to take a document written by Jews, for Jews, in the Jewish language, read a translation of it into another language, and then interpret it in a way that it was never designed by its writers or its audience to be interpreted, and then criticize the text itself.

People need lessons in understanding what is in the Bible because it is a deeply complex series of texts compiled over hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Not to mention that, unless you are fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic-- it is written in a language you don't speak, and it is written in an antique high poetic style that even fluent speakers of Hebrew and Aramaic find challenging. There has never been a translation that successfully captures all of the nuances and possibilities of the Hebrew original. For these reasons alone one should require teaching in order to understand it. And that is not even taking into account the fact that the text was designed to have many multiple meanings, and it was designed to be read alongside an interpretive oral tradition (whether the Rabbinical Oral Torah or other, older systems now lost to us is irrelevant-- it was designed for use in tandem with other materials). Teaching is necessary, in fact, specifically to counteract the tendency of superficial readers to go, "It seems pretty clear cut to me."

And yes, I am saying that many of the stories in the Tanakh are not meant to be taken literally. They may be there to teach us other things-- things that may not necessarily be the "obvious conclusions" one might expect. They may be moral lessons in and of themselves, or they may be exegetical parables, or they may simply be contextual mythos to establish the totality of the "canvas" on which the many authors are "painting" their texts.

Simplistic thinking will kill the experience of learning Torah.

So in short, the Jewish God is not big, scary, and running around smiting people?

 

[Levite]

So in short, the Jewish God is not big, scary, and running around smiting people?

Well, I went through five years of rabbinical school, and several more years learning in various yeshivot, and I have yet to see any smiting. Nor, I must say, do I know many people who find God scary. Complex, maybe. Difficult, maybe. Incomprehensible, sometimes. But not scary.

 

[TheKnight]

If the wrathful, jealous, and genocidal Old Testament God existed do you really think he would allow religions that worship idols and other gods to exist, let alone flourish for thousands of years? I think there would be far fewer religions and many more followers of abrahamic religions in the world if God as described in the OT actually existed.

You are also ignoring the fact that God wishes the Jewish people not to worship other gods. There is nothing that says that non-Jews can't worship whoever they like (yes, I know about the Noahide commandments, but those are a midrashic invention of the Rabbis of the Talmud. There is no evidence those "commandments" ever existed prior to the Talmudic period, nor even any evidence that the Rabbis of the Talmud ever imagined any non-Jews would follow them).

So do you not believe that the Noahide commandments are binding upon Gentiles?