So was God wrong?

[Blackdog22]

I often hear Christians say that the horrors of the Old Testament were from the Old Testament and the New Testament is a New Covenant with Gods people as if that somehow justifies the atrocities of the Old Testament.

My question is do you think that murdering someone by stoning for being, Gay, a witch, working on the sabbath, being part of another belief system, etc is acceptable and just? If not then are you saying that God was "wrong" at one point? If God was once wrong and is also supposed to be perfect then how should I as an observer take this?

 

[fallingblood]

I often hear Christians say that the horrors of the Old Testament were from the Old Testament and the New Testament is a New Covenant with Gods people as if that somehow justifies the atrocities of the Old Testament.

My question is do you think that murdering someone by stoning for being, Gay, a witch, working on the sabbath, being part of another belief system, etc is acceptable and just? If not then are you saying that God was "wrong" at one point? If God was once wrong and is also supposed to be perfect then how should I as an observer take this?

You're trying to get a simple answer for a very difficult question. Also, you are misrepresenting what the OT states. Yes, there is some truth, but it is much more difficult than that.

What does it all mean in the end though? The Bible is a human book, written by humans. It may have had some inspiration from God, but it is still a human book. Thus, if anyone is wrong it is humans.

 

[No Good Boyo]

You're trying to get a simple answer for a very difficult question. Also, you are misrepresenting what the OT states. Yes, there is some truth, but it is much more difficult than that.

What does it all mean in the end though? The Bible is a human book, written by humans. It may have had some inspiration from God, but it is still a human book. Thus, if anyone is wrong it is humans.

Actually it's a very simple question he's asking. Is the horror of the OT justified. If god is omni-scient,present,petent etc then he would have known the future before it happened and would not need to create a second installment of his best seller.

Yes, written by man, but is meant to be the divine inspiration or divine word of god. If this is not so, then why do so many believe and worship it. If it is merely the work of man, then it holds no more merit than any other book.

 

[Skwim]

You're trying to get a simple answer for a very difficult question. Also, you are misrepresenting what the OT states. Yes, there is some truth, but it is much more difficult than that.

Only difficult because Christians have made assertions that fly in the face of the presumed facts. If you want to assert that god is an all-loving being---which is frequently done---then you're faced with explaining away the not-so-nice things he's done. Things that done by anyone else would be immediately condemned. The field of Christian apologetics only exists because of the need wrought by such problematic issues. To be a good Christian one must be willing to compartmentalize the brain and close the doors on those compartments that interfere with the comfort drawn from the others.

 

[TheKnight]

I often hear Christians say that the horrors of the Old Testament were from the Old Testament and the New Testament is a New Covenant with Gods people as if that somehow justifies the atrocities of the Old Testament.

My question is do you think that murdering someone by stoning for being, Gay, a witch, working on the sabbath, being part of another belief system, etc is acceptable and just?

Why wouldn't it be? Let's say we take God out of the equation. If a group of free individuals come together and create a society for whatever reason, should said group not be free to make whatever rules it likes for its society?

If everyone in my society disagrees with a particular behavior of yours, is it not our prerogative to enforce our social standards? And if it isn't, then why isn't it? Because you believe that your life has some intrinsic value that we should recognize? Because you have some abstract indisticnt theory about why it is immoral for us to enforce our standard? Because you don't like it? Because it makes you unhappy?

What reason could you come up with for being able to correctly and logically say that a society should not make up its own standards and enforce them?

 

[Autodidact]

You're trying to get a simple answer for a very difficult question.

It's only difficult if you rely on the Bible as a holy text. For those of us who don't, it's a very easy question. Killing babies, capturing sex slaves, selling people--all wrong.

Also, you are misrepresenting what the OT states. Yes, there is some truth, but it is much more difficult than that.

Really? The OT doesn't describe page after page of atrocities, infanticide, genocide, slavery, sexual slavery, selling your daughter into slavery, and the like? Really? Do I really have to fill post after post with the maximum number of characters quoting passages, verbatim, that are just that?

What does it all mean in the end though? The Bible is a human book, written by humans. It may have had some inspiration from God, but it is still a human book. Thus, if anyone is wrong it is humans.

So you think it's just inaccurate?

 

[Autodidact]

Why wouldn't it be? Let's say we take God out of the equation. If a group of free individuals come together and create a society for whatever reason, should said group not be free to make whatever rules it likes for its society?

I don't know whether they would as a matter or circumstance, but certainly not as a matter of morality. For example, if they pass a law that all first-born sons must be killed, that would be wrong, a bad law.

If everyone in my society disagrees with a particular behavior of yours, is it not our prerogative to enforce our social standards?

No, unless it's harming someone.

And if it isn't, then why isn't it?

Because your rights end at the beginning of my nose.

Because you believe that your life has some intrinsic value that we should recognize?

Well, value equal to yours.

Because you have some abstract indisticnt theory about why it is immoral for us to enforce our standard?

Simple equity.

Because you don't like it? Because it makes you unhappy?

It's almost as though subscribing to some religions makes people morally retarded.

What reason could you come up with for being able to correctly and logically say that a society should not make up its own standards and enforce them?

Because all human beings are morally equal. Duh.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I often hear Christians say that the horrors of the Old Testament were from the Old Testament and the New Testament is a New Covenant with Gods people as if that somehow justifies the atrocities of the Old Testament.

My question is do you think that murdering someone by stoning for being, Gay, a witch, working on the sabbath, being part of another belief system, etc is acceptable and just? If not then are you saying that God was "wrong" at one point? If God was once wrong and is also supposed to be perfect then how should I as an observer take this?

Well first off hell no. Most of the atrosities done in the old testiment were actually done by man; this also happened with both Catholocism and Christianity (Crusade, Witch Trials). How would this make the Divine wrong?:angel2: By the way, the Divine I believe in is beyond conventional.:angel2:

 

[Tathagata]

You're trying to get a simple answer for a very difficult question.

And I take it you don't have an answer to this "difficult question."

Also, you are misrepresenting what the OT states.

No he's not. He's spot on with regards to what the OT states:

Kill gays:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- Lev. 20:13

Kill witches:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." -- Exodus 22:18

Kill people who work on the Sabbath:

"Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death" -- Exodus 31:14

Kill people who believe differently:

[SIZE=-1]"If there be found among you ... man or woman, that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman ... and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."[/SIZE] -- Deuteronomy 17:2-7



.

 

[fallingblood]

It's only difficult if you rely on the Bible as a holy text. For those of us who don't, it's a very easy question. Killing babies, capturing sex slaves, selling people--all wrong.

Wrong according to who? We are talking about an ancient civilization, living in a world with a very different view of what was ethical. And we are also talking about certain contexts. Simply listing atrocities, with out the literary and historical context really shows nothing. Because we can show these things in a variety of other cultures, which at the time, were seen as acceptable.

And then again, we have to understand that such writing it made by humans. What humans want, and what humans may think God has stated, does not always portray what God wants or the such (assuming there is a God).

Really? The OT doesn't describe page after page of atrocities, infanticide, genocide, slavery, sexual slavery, selling your daughter into slavery, and the like? Really? Do I really have to fill post after post with the maximum number of characters quoting passages, verbatim, that are just that?

We're talking about a book that is also full of war. Yes, atrocities are committed during wars. However, not all of these things are commanded by God. So yes, it is misrepresenting what the OT says as it is taking the acts out of a historical and cultural context.

So you think it's just inaccurate?

I think it, in many regards, is as accurate as other books of the same genres. There are clear contradictions in it, clear improbabilities, and clear historical inaccuracies. The simple reason is because it was written by humans. This does not automatically mean it wasn't divinely inspired (I don't believe that), but that humans are flawed.

 

[Tathagata]

Well first off hell no. Most of the atrosities done in the old testiment were actually done by man

Yeah, atrocities done by man because GOD COMMANDED THE ATROCITY. Also, did you not forget that God committed global hydro-genocide? God's destruction of the entire world's population is far worse than any atrocity ever possible done by man!!!!!!

"Every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."
-- Genesis 7:4


.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually it's a very simple question he's asking. Is the horror of the OT justified. If god is omni-scient,present,petent etc then he would have known the future before it happened and would not need to create a second installment of his best seller.

Yes, written by man, but is meant to be the divine inspiration or divine word of god. If this is not so, then why do so many believe and worship it. If it is merely the work of man, then it holds no more merit than any other book.

The "horror" of the OT is justified, for the most part, if placed in a historical and literary context. We are talking about a very different time period. A very different culture. We can't judge that time based on our idea of how things should be now, as simply, it wasn't like that during the period recorded in the OT.

As for the divinely inspired bit (I don't believe such), it would be logical that it would still be flawed based on humans. Divinely inspired does not equal infallibility.

 

[fallingblood]

Only difficult because Christians have made assertions that fly in the face of the presumed facts. If you want to assert that god is an all-loving being---which is frequently done---then you're faced with explaining away the not-so-nice things he's done. Things that done by anyone else would be immediately condemned. The field of Christian apologetics only exists because of the need wrought by such problematic issues. To be a good Christian one must be willing to compartmentalize the brain and close the doors on those compartments that interfere with the comfort drawn from the others.

Or one could simply assume that God is all-loving, and that the Bible is written by man. One has to assume that everything in the Bible is exactly what God wanted in order to come to the idea that God has doe so many not-so-nice things. If one realizes that many of those actions were simply committed by man, for whatever reason (except being commanded by God), then those actions fall upon man. That is all how I see it, and many others do as well.

 

[Blackdog22]

Or one could simply assume that God is all-loving, and that the Bible is written by man. One has to assume that everything in the Bible is exactly what God wanted in order to come to the idea that God has doe so many not-so-nice things. If one realizes that many of those actions were simply committed by man, for whatever reason (except being commanded by God), then those actions fall upon man. That is all how I see it, and many others do as well.

Do you think it not possible then for God to have a book that is without flaws? Are you saying he chose the wrong prophets and the wrong authors? Surely God could find a way to create a book that doesn't make him look bad right? If he is incapable of this then what kind of God is he and what does this say for the accuracy for the Bible as a whole? Including love, mercy, grace, justice, etc?

 

[fallingblood]

And I take it you don't have an answer to this "difficult question."

I'm not a Jew. I am not fully aware of all of the details on Jewish law, which can be quite complicated. So yes, I don't have a complete answer for a difficult question. Also, the fact that there is so much debate on these subjects, and has been for such a long time, would suggest that it isn't black and white, that the Law as supposedly commanded by God isn't black and white.

No he's not. He's spot on with regards to what the OT states:

Kill gays:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- Lev. 20:13

There are various interpretations of this text. There is even debate among Jews as to what it exactly means. More so, there are laws regarding killing others, which would be in effect here as well.

Kill witches:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." -- Exodus 22:18

Yet we see at least one witch who Saul met with. So it must have not been as straight forward if the leader of the Hebrews would go meet with a known witch (and that no one else killed the witch either).

Kill people who work on the Sabbath:

"Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death" -- Exodus 31:14

Yet we see, in the Bible, people who work on the Sabbath. A good story is the incident with Jesus. His was accused of working on the Sabbath, yet no one, as we know, tried to kill him. More so, there are additional rules as to what work can be done on the Sabbath. And even there, there is various interpretations of those rules. It isn't black and white.

Kill people who believe differently:

[SIZE=-1]"If there be found among you ... man or woman, that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman ... and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."[/SIZE] -- Deuteronomy 17:2-7

And yet, we see various other individuals, of different religions, being somewhat respected in the area, or at least tolerated. The area was even over ran with Greeks, Persians, Romans, etc. Yet, we see no widespread massacre in our records of the Hebrews killing all who are of different religions. Again, showing that it wasn't black and white. Also, you took the verse out of context, and deleted some very important aspects. Maybe if you read the entire passage, you would see something different.


And I think you helped make my point. That misrepresenting the text is part of what the OP was doing, and you did so as well.

 

[Skwim]

Or one could simply assume that God is all-loving, and that the Bible is written by man.

But on what basis would anyone assume that god is all-loving? From the Christian perspective god's character is known to be X Y & Z because "the Bible tells me so." What they don't do is take into account everything that is said in the Bible; either forgetting about the contradictory and damning passages, or picking and choosing those that support their needs, deeming them to be true, and then claiming the troublesome passages to be false.

 

[fallingblood]

Do you think it not possible then for God to have a book that is without flaws? Are you saying he chose the wrong prophets and the wrong authors? Surely God could find a way to create a book that doesn't make him look bad right? If he is incapable of this then what kind of God is he and what does this say for the accuracy for the Bible as a whole? Including love, mercy, grace, justice, etc?

Does God really need to? I think not. We can see this clearly based on the fact that we do have a book that is so flawed (many do acknowledge this), yet it is still considered divinely inspired.

Maybe God doesn't want to control us like mindless zombies, and instead wants to give us some choices. Maybe he wanted to get the gist of his information out, and that was good enough.

 

[fallingblood]

But on what basis would anyone assume that god is all-loving? From the Christian perspective god's character is known to be X Y & Z because "the Bible tells me so." What they don't do is take into account everything that is said in the Bible; either forgetting about the contradictory and damning passages, or picking and choosing those that support their needs, deeming them to be true, and then claiming the troublesome passages to be false.

When one looks at the Bible for what it is, a collection of books (be it inspired or not), written by humans, from a human perspective, and based on human actions, one could begin to see god as all-loving. When people become aware that the Bible is a book, that does not necessarily always portray what God wanted, but what people did, then one can see God as all loving.

When the Bible is not seen as the literal word of God, god can be seen as all loving.

 

[Blackdog22]

Does God really need to? I think not. We can see this clearly based on the fact that we do have a book that is so flawed (many do acknowledge this), yet it is still considered divinely inspired.

Maybe God doesn't want to control us like mindless zombies, and instead wants to give us some choices. Maybe he wanted to get the gist of his information out, and that was good enough.

You don't think accurate information about what is required to go to heaven or hell, if such a thing exists, could help out with those choices? You don't think that the people slaughtered to death in the name of God would have appreciated the guy picking slightly better authors?

Also a book as flawed as the Bible could hardly be considered divine, at least I have higher standards than that, but that maybe a personal thing.

 

[Tathagata]

The "horror" of the OT is justified, for the most part, if placed in a historical and literary context.

You have not demonstrated this to be the case. This is mere bare assertion on your behalf.

We are talking about a very different time period. A very different culture. We can't judge that time based on our idea of how things should be now, as simply, it wasn't like that during the period recorded in the OT.

So you're saying that mass slaughter of entire cities was completely A-OK because it was a different time period. Yeah, what else is OK to you that happened in a different time period? Is the Holocaust also OK simply cause it happened half a century ago? Who are we to judge right? They lived in a different time period, we just don't understand their culture!

You have a VERY twisted sense of morality! Perhaps you should rethink what you are saying!

Btw, the atrocities came from God as well, does God change over time like culture does? I thought God was immutable?!!!!!

As for the divinely inspired bit (I don't believe such), it would be logical that it would still be flawed based on humans. Divinely inspired does not equal infallibility.

Oh, ok, so all the bad parts that you don't like are mans work, but the nice parts come from God. But if you believe morality comes from God, what part of you is deciding what is good and what is bad regarding the Bible? Isn't what you believe is good or bad based on the Bible in the first place?


.