So was God wrong?

[fallingblood]

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.

The OT deals very little with the afterlife. Hell is a product of Christianity. And really, is a product that really originates outside of the NT even (there are some spots here and there that may talk about a hell in the modern sense, but then there are other places that stress something very different with the afterlife).

So no, I don't think it would be necessary to give a lot of requirements for such a thing. Especially if one believes that there are many ways to heaven, and this particular way simply suits what some people need.

As for people being slaughtered in the name of God, most of the stories in the OT were written after the fact. They believed that God was involved in everything. So if they won, God made it so, if they lost, same thing. More so though, we are talking in the context of a war. It really didn't matter what God would have said here as they were in war and fighting a war. Really, nothing horrific, as compared to other wars during that time, is really seen.

Also, I never said the Bible was divine. I simply suggested that it could be divinely inspired. Which is different from being divine.

 

[horizon_mj1]

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


.

So you are telling me that God asked certain tribes to pillage other tribes?

 

[sirat]

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.

salaam friend,

That is laugh out loud funny. It is the funniest oversight I have seen in a long time.

wa salaam

sirat

 

[Tathagata]

So you are telling me that God asked certain tribes to pillage other tribes?

Yes.

"Thou shalt utterly destroy them - the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee."
-- Deuteronomy 20:17


.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Yes.

"Thou shalt utterly destroy them - the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee."
-- Deuteronomy 20:17


.

Well then I quess if the leader of the tribe was not influenced by anything (I mean by this rusted rye or any such other mind altering substance found in nature) yes God was in fact guilty; are ya gonna sue Him?:angel2:
By the way I thought some humans survied this "Great Flood" of which you speak?

 

[Skwim]

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.

It still requires picking and choosing. If a person is going to be honest with oneself the bad cannot be ignored. What is loving god doing creating evil? What is a loving god doing killing 70,000 people because one man makes a mistake? So unless a person purposely ignores such things I fail to see how looking at the Bible one could begin to see god as all-loving. To me seems a bit psychotic: "Worship me." "Love me." "Fear me."

 

[Sum1sGruj]

God had His reasons, which I can see, but I guess I'm the only one that sees it..

 

[Autodidact]

Wrong according to who?

Me. Do you disagree?

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.

Yes, we have made a lot of moral progress since then. But remember, the OP is about God. Is God's goodness merely what some primitive people thought was 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).
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.

It's not misrepresenting. In that context, God commands, expects and rewards horribly brutal atrocities.

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.

Pretty useless then as a moral guide, isn't it?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

In that case, we certainly should not use it as a source of moral authority.

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.

How do you sort the wheat from the chaff?

 

[ellenjanuary]

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?

How full is your glass, at the bottom of the ocean?

YHWH speaks to me through the Old Testament. I speak for YHWH on a blog so offensive, I would not link it here. Once they stoned the fornicators, now they fornicate the stoners. I can be a deviant, among consenting adults; but to take my diet pills in a spoon I could get twenty years. Still does not diminish the glory of YHWH, nor make him less cool.

Justice is a human invention, arguably one of the finer achievements; but justification can only be mortal.

And they cannot stomach the "atrocities of the OT," yet chirp gleefully at Armageddon? Without the Old, there is no New, testament; as such believers seem to testify.

 

[Autodidact]

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.
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.
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).
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.
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.

That's interesting. Actually, he directly quoted it. So for you, directly quoting a text is the same a misrepresenting it?

To the extent who argue away the barbarity of these passages, it's by rendering them difficult to interpret, which just creates another set of problems, doesn't it?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Or try this hypothesis out and see if it's consistent with all the facts: Maybe God doesn't exist.

 

[Autodidact]

The OT deals very little with the afterlife. Hell is a product of Christianity. And really, is a product that really originates outside of the NT even (there are some spots here and there that may talk about a hell in the modern sense, but then there are other places that stress something very different with the afterlife).

So no, I don't think it would be necessary to give a lot of requirements for such a thing. Especially if one believes that there are many ways to heaven, and this particular way simply suits what some people need.

As for people being slaughtered in the name of God, most of the stories in the OT were written after the fact. They believed that God was involved in everything. So if they won, God made it so, if they lost, same thing. More so though, we are talking in the context of a war. It really didn't matter what God would have said here as they were in war and fighting a war. Really, nothing horrific, as compared to other wars during that time, is really seen.

Also, I never said the Bible was divine. I simply suggested that it could be divinely inspired. Which is different from being divine.

Of course, bear in mind, in the same book, it's God who commands them to go to war.

 

[Autodidact]

So you are telling me that God asked certain tribes to pillage other tribes?

If you believe in the Bible. That happens a LOT. In fact, when He does so, He often commands a specific tribe to kill everyone and everything of the other tribe. That's pretty common.

 

[Blackdog22]

God had His reasons, which I can see, but I guess I'm the only one that sees it..

Excellent! So the old man who was stoned to death for picking up sticks on Sunday was done for which reason?

[SIZE=-1]They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day ... and the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones."
The Israelites find a man picking up sticks on the sabbath. God commands them to kill him by throwing rocks at him. [Numbers [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]15:32-36[/SIZE]]

Or how about when God commands animals be slaughtered for generations when the people were under a famine? Did God decide they weren't skinny enough so they had to waste animals by burning their flesh because...... God likes burning flesh?

 

[Blackdog22]

If you believe in the Bible. That happens a LOT. In fact, when He does so, He often commands a specific tribe to kill everyone and everything of the other tribe. That's pretty common.

Don't forget taking the virgins for the tribesmen, while every non virgin is slaughtered. Good Godly justice.

 

[Autodidact]

God had His reasons, which I can see, but I guess I'm the only one that sees it..

Well, when only one person sees something, that person is probably either a genius, or deluded.

 

[Autodidact]

God had His reasons, which I can see, but I guess I'm the only one that sees it..

Tell me, Sum, in your value system, what reasons could justify commanding a fully armed soldier to stab a baby to death with his sword?

 

[fallingblood]

It still requires picking and choosing. If a person is going to be honest with oneself the bad cannot be ignored. What is loving god doing creating evil? What is a loving god doing killing 70,000 people because one man makes a mistake? So unless a person purposely ignores such things I fail to see how looking at the Bible one could begin to see god as all-loving. To me seems a bit psychotic: "Worship me." "Love me." "Fear me."

Love is a subjective term though. Because I love my son, I punish him when he misbehaves. That isn't something bad, it is something that will, hopefully, be a benefit.

Now, that can't explain it all, but looking at it from a nonliteral, historical point of view, a lot can be explained. If I see God being involved in everything, when I'm punished, I can see that being from him. When I have a major success in (what we would consider) a barbaric war, and kill 70,000 people, I can see that being from God. When a city is suddenly destroyed in an "act of God," I can see God in that. Thus, my view of life will interpret various acts as being from God. However, at the same time, I would also see a Godly plan for everything. So, even the bad things that happen must have a greater purpose. It then makes sense to contribute everything to a supreme God, the bad and the good. These are all human attributions though based on one idea of love. And that should be stressed. These are human attributions based on one idea of love.

That is why a historical context is needed. To judge everything by today's standards simply is not practical. Especially when we can't be sure that our understanding as of today is the correct understanding.

 

[Skwim]

God had His reasons, which I can see, but I guess I'm the only one that sees it..

​

"GOD HAS HIS REASONS!"
​