The God of the Old testament.

Akrasia · 08-01-2008 8:46pm #1

Is the God of the Old Testament the same god as christians follow today?

The Christian god as revealed by Jesus, is a relatively loving, merciful, compassionate and pacifist god who wants us all to love our neighbours and do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

In contrast, Yahweh, the god of the Old testament was a vengeful, jealous, violent, vindictive, racist, genocidal, misogynistic entity, who told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse, and that we should murder our neighbours if they don't express belief in him or if they break any one of a huge number of arbitrary rules he imposed on his people.

What is the role of the old testament in modern christianity? The morals within appear to be very warped, and the stories about creation and early events (like the flood) are flatly contradicted by all available science.

If you accept some of the positive or inspirational messages in the Old Testament, does that mean you ought to accept all of the violent and immoral parts too? If the old testament is the word of god, (as many believe).

It is often said in defence of Yahweh, that he is harsh, but he also gave people the opportunity to turn away from their evil ways and repent (and so he was fair) But this does not seem to stand up when we look at how God often orders the murder, rape and torture of innocents as a way to get the sinful to change their minds. In these cases, no opportunity was given to these people to change their ways, often, they were not doing anything wrong and were being punished simply by virtue of being female, or a slave, or a child or of the wrong race, religion or sexual orientation.

Was there really a significant difference between the way Yahweh treated his chosen people and how Hitler treated the Aryan race and loyal members of the Nazi party? (as mentioned by another poster on a different thread) If you were obedient and enthusiastic for the cause, you would be rewarded handsomely, but if you were of a different ethnicity, or if you were jewish or gay or a gipsy, you would be oppressed and tortured and eventually wiped out to make way for the 'promised land' for the 'chosen people'. Hitler ordered the invasion of other nations to provide living space for his people with little regard to the welfare of the people who were already living there, much like how Yahweh ordered the israelites to invade the promised land and drive out the existing populations to maintain a pure race?

How can two completely different versions of god both refer to the same deity? Did God suddenly change his personality 2000 years ago? Did he see the errors of his ways and decided that we should be compassionate instead of vengeful, sharing and tolerant instead of insular and greedy?

kelly1 · 09-01-2008 10:49am

Akrasia wrote: »

Is the God of the Old Testament the same god as christians follow today?

Yes, we just have a different understanding of His nature thanks to Jesus.

Akrasia wrote: »

In contrast, Yahweh, the god of the Old testament was a vengeful, jealous, violent, vindictive, racist, genocidal, misogynistic entity, who told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse, and that we should murder our neighbours if they don't express belief in him or if they break any one of a huge number of arbitrary rules he imposed on his people.

Could I suggest that you provide quotes to support your claims. You've made very serious accusations against God. BTW, I don't know a whole lot about the OT but you seem to know it quite well.

I'm currently reading the "Dialogue" of St. Catherine of Sienna and it in she says that God punishes all sins but in the days before Christ people were punished during their lives on earth and since then they are punished in Purgatory. This applies of course only to the just.

Zombrex · 09-01-2008 12:01pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Could I suggest that you provide quotes to support your claims. You've made very serious accusations against God. BTW, I don't know a whole lot about the OT but you seem to know it quite well.

The issue has never been if God does those things (he does by the way, I can pull out OT passages if you like), but rather the excuse that he can because he is God, and therefore nothing he does is bad, by definition.

So to properly discuss this the Christians need to ask themselves what act Akrasia describes would actually cause you trouble?

interestinguser · 09-01-2008 12:05pm

From Genesis 19 (New International Version):

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

What moral guidance can one take from this passage?

kelly1 · 09-01-2008 12:08pm

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue has never been if God does those things (he does by the way, I can pull out OT passages if you like), but rather the excuse that he can because he is God, and therefore nothing he does is bad, by definition.

So to properly discuss this the Christians need to ask themselves what act Akrasia describes would actually cause you trouble?

I would appreciate it if you or Akrasia could provide quotes to support these claims:

"[God] told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse."

and

"God often orders the murder, rape and torture of innocents"

God bless,
Noel.

neuro-praxis · 09-01-2008 12:13pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Is the God of the Old Testament the same god as christians follow today?

Yes he is.

The Christian god as revealed by Jesus, is a shockingly loving, merciful, compassionate and fascinating god who call on all of us to respond to his love and share it with our neighbours and treat others in the way he has treated us.

Christians believe that in Jesus we see the fullness of YHWH, the god of the Old testament, who was a merciful, passionate, patient, God entity, who began his revelation to man by making a covenant with Abrahm stating that if he failed to deliver on his side he would be torn asunder and if Abrahm failed to deliver on his side, YHWH would be torn asunder. Ultimately, this first encounter between God and man came to its conclusion on Golgotha. There is no serious difficulty reconciling YHWH with Jesus.

The Old Testament is viewed as God-inspired writing by Christians. The "morals within" are in fact an interpretation you have brought to the text, an interpretation that couldn't stand up in any debate, private Bible study or seminary class.

If YHWH is real, then surely he is the one who defines good? If YHWH is not real, then surely everything, even the "inspirational messages" is ethically uninteresting if not negative? Comparing it to NAZIism is preposterous.

No less preposterous than your references to "creation stories" or indeed the alleged arbitrary racism of the Levitical Codes which are stunning in contrast to its contemporaries and which are, whether you like it or not, the very basis of the modern ideal of democracy that I for one espouse.

The only way a chasm can open up between Jesus and YHWH, the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian, is to create one through ignorance.

That doesn't mean there are not real ethical, hermunetial and historic issues to be wrestled with but I think that this approach is definitely bound to end in polemical and aggressive counter-stating instead of an informed and reasoned discussion.

PDN · 09-01-2008 12:21pm

interestinguser wrote: »

What moral guidance can one take from this passage?

The same moral guidance you can take from any passage - by seeing what is good and worthy of imitation and what is bad and to be avoided.

Any father should, upon reading this passage, see that Lot compromised himself by choosing to live in Sodom and behaved and spoke disgustingly. The historical books of the Old Testament, including Genesis, frequently record events that reflect badly on the people involved (including the heroes of the stories such as Noah, Moses, David etc.).

interestinguser · 09-01-2008 12:28pm

Any father should, upon reading this passage, see that Lot compromised himself by choosing to live in Sodom and behaved and spoke disgustingly.

You are saying he said these things because he choose to live in Sodom? I don't see how this is clear from the text.
Were not the angels there to take him and his family from the place because god left they should be saved? This was a man who was willing to hand over his daughters to be gang raped.

PDN · 09-01-2008 12:58pm

interestinguser wrote: »

You are saying he said these things because he choose to live in Sodom? I don't see how this is clear from the text.
Were not the angels there to take him and his family from the place because god left they should be saved? This was a man who was willing to hand over his daughters to be gang raped.

Lot put himself in this situation by choosing to live in such a place. Abraham gave Lot the choice of where to settle and Lot chose the area around Sodom for reasons of material gain (Genesis 13:5-11). It didn't take Lot long to get in trouble and Abraham had to launch a rescue mission after Lot and his family were kidnapped by a rival king (Genesis 14:1-16). His wife was turned into a pillar of salt because Lot begged to be allowed to stay in Zoar, within sight of Sodom, instead of obeying the angelic instructions to get well clear of the place (Genesis 19:15-26). Lot, as we have already seen, was a crap father, and even after his escape from Sodom he got drunk and committed incest with his daughters (Genesis 19:30-38). His descendants were the Moabites and the Ammonites - bitter enemies of Israel. In fact, everything we are told about Lot is overwhelmingly negative and is certainly not presented as an example to be followed. No open-minded reader of the text would possibly reach such an absurd conclusion as to see any approval of Lot's actions concerning his daughters.

Amazingly, the New Testament actual refers to Lot as "righteous Lot" (2 Peter 2:7) and for a very good reason. Lot did manage to do one solitary good thing - he believed. He trusted the word of warning and fled accordingly. This is entirely consistent with the New Testament's assessment of Abraham (another guy who did some dodgy stuff that is recorded in Genesis but certainly not offered as an example to follow) as "righteous" for one reason alone - "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Galatians 3:6).

The message I get from this is a wonderful one, that even a greedy, useless ratbag like Lot can obtain redemption and salvation by trusting in God's offer of salvation.

However, I have to admit that I approach the Bible with an open mind, a desire to really understand what it teaches, and a hope that I will find something that helps me live a better life. For that reason, each time I read the Bible, I ask God the Holy Spirit to help me understand the text. When I do this I find that the Bible is fairly clear and easy to understand.

I appreciate that if I approached the Bible with a closed mind, a desire to come to a negative interpretation, and using it a source book for proof texts to attack my opponents then I might well be confused and find myself complaining that the Bible isn't clear.

kelly1 · 09-01-2008 1:02pm

Good post PDN! Nowhere does it say that God wanted Lot to hand his daughters over to be raped. Why would God ask someone to commit evil?

robindch · 09-01-2008 1:17pm

kelly1 wrote:

Why would God ask someone to commit evil?

Quite apart from god allowing/commanding all kinds of misfortune to befall Job, the OT god demanded that Abraham kill his son. Is that not evil?

BTW, the islamic festival of Eid al-Adha two weeks or so ago celebrates Abraham's (Ibrahim's) willingness to murder.

kelly1 · 09-01-2008 1:22pm

robindch wrote: »

Quite apart from god allowing/commanding all kinds of misfortune to befall Job, the OT god demanded that Abraham kill his son. Is that not evil?

I'm sure you're also aware that God was testing Abraham's faithfulness and didn't allow Abraham to go ahead with the sacrifice.

As for Job, I'd be quite confident that he was richly rewarded for his faith in God. God does nothing except what's ultimately good for us. This life is only a pilgrimage to our final destination.

PDN · 09-01-2008 1:24pm

robindch wrote: »

Quite apart from god allowing/commanding all kinds of misfortune to befall Job, the OT god demanded that Abraham kill his son. Is that not evil?

BTW, the islamic festival of Eid al-Adha two weeks or so ago celebrates Abraham's (Ibrahim's) willingness to murder.

And what was the cause of death of the son? Or are you actually referring to a killing that never actually took place? In which case I guess we must hold God responsible for all the non-existent atrocities that have never actually occurred?

Purely as a matter of interest, Muslims do celebrate this event, but in a garbled version where Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the intended sacrifice. Obviously the intended killing of an Arab is more acceptable to Islam. Camus (and the Cure) would be happy.

Akrasia · 09-01-2008 1:33pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Good post PDN! Nowhere does it say that God wanted Lot to hand his daughters over to be raped. Why would God ask someone to commit evil?

Where did Lot get his morals from that he thought it was less evil to hand his innocent daughters over to be brutally raped, than to allow men to have sex with each other? Why didn't the angels stop him?

And I don't think the message as outlined by PDN is a wonderful one at all. I think it is pretty horrific that someone could do such awful awful awful things and god would still rush to his side to protect him simply because Lot Believed in him. That is not a good message, that is the worst possible message in my mind. It gives anyone carte blanche to do anything they like as long as they are loyal to the idea that God exists.

You probably interpret it differently, but you can not deny that my interpretation is valid, at least on some level, and that it is likely that this passage has encouraged warped individuals to do very nasty things in the past.

Akrasia · 09-01-2008 1:37pm

kelly1 wrote: »

.

As for Job, I'd be quite confident that he was richly rewarded for his faith in God. God does nothing except what's ultimately good for us. This life is only a pilgrimage to our final destination.

So heaven is like earth? There are VIP areas and scaled rewards? some people only get a 2 bedroom cloud out on the commuter belt near the M 5billion, while the people god feels guilty about torturing get penthouse apartments in the trendy part of heaven?

What if Job had forsaken his god because of the torture he was put through, would he have been cast down into hell? Would that have been fair? to stop believing in a god who promised good but delivered only the most horrific torture and abuse?
Why would it be fair for god to reward Lot, a bad man, just for believing in him, but forsake Job, a very good man, if he had wavered in his faith?

PDN · 09-01-2008 1:41pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You probably interpret it differently, but you can not deny that my interpretation is valid, at least on some level, and that it is likely that this passage has encouraged warped individuals to do very nasty things in the past.

I certainly can deny that your interpretation is valid.

And yes, I am sure that have been hundreds of times throughout history that someone who is biblically illiterate enough to reach such an interpretation has had angels in their house while a crowd outside wanted to homosexually rape said angels. In these many cases I guess that thousands of virgin young women have been handed over to be raped by homosexuals over the years thus saving the lives of myriads of angels. :rolleyes:

God give me patience!

Never have I seen such an apt signature at the foot of a post.

Akrasia · 09-01-2008 1:43pm

PDN wrote: »

And what was the cause of death of the son? Or are you actually referring to a killing that never actually took place? In which case I guess we must hold God responsible for all the non-existent atrocities that have never actually occurred?

Purely as a matter of interest, Muslims do celebrate this event, but in a garbled version where Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the intended sacrifice. Obviously the intended killing of an Arab is more acceptable to Islam. Camus (and the Cure) would be happy.

I find the moral difficulties in that story not about whether god actually killed Isaac in the end, but that god expected Abraham to be fully prepared to kill his only son just because he was commanded by god. What would have happened to Abraham if he had refused?

There are a lot of crazy fundamentalist nutjobs out there who think god commands them to kill in his name. The story of Abraham and Isaac could easily be one of the justifications that they use.

Akrasia · 09-01-2008 2:01pm

PDN wrote: »

I certainly can deny that your interpretation is valid.

And yes, I am sure that have been hundreds of times throughout history that someone who is biblically illiterate enough to reach such an interpretation has had angels in their house while a crowd outside wanted to homosexually rape said angels. In these many cases I guess that thousands of virgin young women have been handed over to be raped by homosexuals over the years thus saving the lives of myriads of angels. :rolleyes:

God give me patience!

Never have I seen such an apt signature at the foot of a post.

So the bible doesn't give any messages, it is only a historical record of things that happened exactly the way they did? Give me a break. The whole point of reading the bible is so people can try to understand the nature of god, and what he expects of them in this world.
It is unlikely that any of the events described in any of the bible stories (old testament or new) would ever happen again exactly as they were described, does this mean none of the messages in the bible should be applied to different or modern situations?

But we don't even need to interpret stories in the bible to have warped morals handed down by god. There are places where god specifically orders his followers to murder adulterers

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,

you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

for being a rebellious son

21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

or for a woman having sex before marriage

13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

kelly1 · 09-01-2008 2:11pm

Akrasia wrote: »

So the bible doesn't give any messages, it is only a historical record of things that happened exactly the way they did? Give me a break.

You seem a bit prone to jumping to false conclusions.

Zombrex · 09-01-2008 2:18pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I would appreciate it if you or Akrasia could provide quotes to support these claims:

"[God] told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse."

and

"God often orders the murder, rape and torture of innocents"

God bless,
Noel.

If I or Akrasia can will that cause you trouble? Or will you dismiss it as simply being an act of a God that cannot do bad and therefore cannot have been immoral?

Zombrex · 09-01-2008 2:29pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm sure you're also aware that God was testing Abraham's faithfulness and didn't allow Abraham to go ahead with the sacrifice.

And ... ?

Are you saying that it is only immoral to demand someone execute their son if you actually make them go ahead with it.

Did Abraham's son know he wasn't going to be killed? This is under any standard at the very least child abuse.

And for what exactly?

God already knew if Abraham would do it or not. It wasn't necessary to put either Abraham or the son through that just to demonstrate a point that God already knew.

(thats a noodle scratcher for the idea of free will as well)

kelly1 wrote: »

As for Job, I'd be quite confident that he was richly rewarded for his faith in God.

Wouldn't he have been richly awarded anyway. Again what purpose does murdering everyone around him serve?

kelly1 wrote: »

God does nothing except what's ultimately good for us.

Well yes if you start from that axiom then by definition nothing God does is anything other than for the ultimate good of us. But there is nothing demonstrating that in the Bible. God does a ton of terrible things, you add this axiom in later to excuse them all.

But you run into a problem because since that axiom is clearly not demonstrated in the Bible, the things in the Bible only becomes good when you apply this axiom, how do you actually know the axiom itself is true? God can't demonstrate it himself.

By the very act of believing it you make it impossible to actually judge if it is true or not, because even the things that appear bad are dismissed as actually good.

You get lost in yet another cyclical reasoning feed back loop, where it becomes impossible to actually judge things on their own.

Zombrex · 09-01-2008 2:49pm

PDN wrote: »

The same moral guidance you can take from any passage - by seeing what is good and worthy of imitation and what is bad and to be avoided.

If you already know the good and the bad how are you talking moral guidance from it?

PDN wrote: »

Any father should, upon reading this passage, see that Lot compromised himself by choosing to live in Sodom and behaved and spoke disgustingly.

Lot is described in the Bible as a "righteous man"

The message is that Lot was so righteous that he would give up his daughters rather than have the men harm messengers of the Lord. That is put forward as a good thing, in the same way that Abraham being willing to kill his son for the Lord is considered a good thing.

Or at least that is a valid interpretation, as Akrasia says.

Your excuse that the daughters didn't get raped, or that the son didn't get killed, is really missing the point. The point isn't that these actually happened, it is that being willing to do them for God is put forward as the correct way to be.

kelly1 · 09-01-2008 3:45pm

Wicknight wrote: »

If I or Akrasia can will that cause you trouble? Or will you dismiss it as simply being an act of a God that cannot do bad and therefore cannot have been immoral?

I would certainly be troubled if I discovered that God did something evil. But I don't believe God is capable of evil because it is absolute anathema to Him.

The claims I'm disputing are:

"[God] told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse." and "God often orders the murder, rape and torture of innocents".

Akrasia is claiming that God ordered the commission of sin and I'm waiting for evidence of this.

If God however decides to take a life, that's not for us to question because it would always be for good, e.g. the salvation of souls. None of us fully understands the ways of God because we can't see the ultimate reality or the mind of God. God might for instance allow someone to die in a car crash because He knows that in the future that person would have gone to Hell had they been allowed to live and instead they end up in Purgatory. This would be an example of God's mercy.

robindch · 09-01-2008 3:46pm

PDN wrote: »

Purely as a matter of interest, Muslims do celebrate this event, but in a garbled version where Ishmael, rather than Isaac, was the intended sacrifice.

Well, muslims claim that christians have the garbled version, citing contradictions in the Genesis account.

PDN wrote: »

Or are you actually referring to a killing that never actually took place?

Are you really suggesting that it's morally acceptable behavior for a father to take his only child, tie him up, put him on top of a pile of firewood on an altar, then pull out a knife with the full intention to murder him?

What would an open-minded reader of the text think about this?

neuro-praxis · 09-01-2008 4:02pm

I agree with Robin that of course it would be a bad thing for Joe Father on the street to take his son, tie him to a pyre and raise a knife to him. But that is not what the Biblical story of Abraham and his son Lot deals with.

Ultimately, to reject this section of Genesis as immoral is to categorically rule out of bounds the event to which it pointed- the death of God's son on the cross.

SubjectSean · 09-01-2008 4:14pm

IMO right at the start

Then the JEHOVAH God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- therefore the JEHOVAH God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.

this is not Love.

Zombrex · 09-01-2008 5:41pm

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I agree with Robin that of course it would be a bad thing for Joe Father on the street to take his son, tie him to a pyre and raise a knife to him. But that is not what the Biblical story of Abraham and his son Lot deals with.

Well that is kinda the point.

Christians claim that God reveals how good he is. But as you admit God does and orders things that if anyone else did them they would be considered immoral. But Christians work under the assertion that because God and only God is doing them, it is not immoral.

So how then can you say that God reveals how good he is. God reveals how bad he is, but because of the axiom that God can only do good, you state that these bad things are actually good things.

So where does the axiom that God can only do good come from? It certainly doesn't come from the Bible.

Zombrex · 09-01-2008 5:52pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I would certainly be troubled if I discovered that God did something evil. But I don't believe God is capable of evil because it is absolute anathema to Him.

The claims I'm disputing are:

"[God] told us it is better to rape a virgin child than for two men to have consensual intercourse." and "God often orders the murder, rape and torture of innocents".

Akrasia is claiming that God ordered the commission of sin and I'm waiting for evidence of this.

Certainly

Evidence of the rape of innocents -

Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

A Hebrew man may select a wife from the virgin female captives (the non-virgins are killed along with the men). She may "mourn" for a month the fact that you killed her father and mother, and they you may have sex with her.

I have heard some Christians attempt to justify this by saying that I don't know for certain that the female "wife" doesn't actually want to be his wife and have sex with the soldier who genocided her people. Therefore I can't say this is an example of rape.

I don't tend to dignify that with a response.

kelly1 wrote: »

If God however decides to take a life, that's not for us to question because it would always be for good, e.g. the salvation of souls.

Yes but how have you come to that conclusion in the first place, the conclusion that God is always good?

To say that this is revealed in the Bible is nonsensical, because you can only justify these things if you have already decided that God only does good.

PDN · 09-01-2008 7:58pm

robindch wrote: »

Well, muslims claim that christians have the garbled version, citing contradictions in the Genesis account.Are you really suggesting that it's morally acceptable behavior for a father to take his only child, tie him up, put him on top of a pile of firewood on an altar, then pull out a knife with the full intention to murder him?

What would an open-minded reader of the text think about this?

An open-minded reader would see it as interesting, but (like having kids at 100 years old) hardly something to be emulated. Abraham lived at a different time under very different conditions. BTW, Jewish tradition reckons Isaac was 33 years old at the time - which would make him a willing participant. Anyways, no harm was done so it's hardly worth all the false outrage.

I find the slaughter in the Book of Joshua much more troubling, but trolls generally seem to pick texts that are much less disturbing.

Anyway, I'm off to Zimbabwe in 10 minutes & don't expect to have any internet connection for the next 9 days - so have fun with this one.

Schuhart · 09-01-2008 9:56pm

PDN wrote: »

BTW, Jewish tradition reckons Isaac was 33 years old at the time - which would make him a willing participant.

So suicide is OK? How about volunteering to be eaten?

PDN wrote: »

I find the slaughter in the Book of Joshua much more troubling, but trolls generally seem to pick texts that are much less disturbing. Anyway, I'm off to Zimbabwe in 10 minutes & don't expect to have any internet connection for the next 9 days - so have fun with this one.

Pot stirrer.

We're dedicated troublemakers, with memories that last for a fortnight or more and attention spans that would shame a Mayfly. We'll have the Book of Joshua read and a thread waiting for your return.

Akrasia · 09-01-2008 10:16pm

Schuhart wrote: »

So suicide is OK? How about volunteering to be eaten?Pot stirrer.

We're dedicated troublemakers, with memories that last for a fortnight or more and attention spans that would shame a Mayfly. We'll have the Book of Joshua read and a thread waiting for your return.

The Book of Joshua is basically the action adventure episode of the Old testament. Joshua leads the Israelites to war against the Babylonians and basically goes from town to town defeating the defending armies and murdering the civilian population 'leaving nobody alive'

It's a brutal and murderous rampage of the chosen people as they invade the homes of innocents and wipe them out. It's basically genocide

BrianCalgary · 10-01-2008 12:35am

robindch wrote: »

.Are you really suggesting that it's morally acceptable behavior for a father to take his only child, tie him up, put him on top of a pile of firewood on an altar, then pull out a knife with the full intention to murder him?

What would an open-minded reader of the text think about this?

What you need to understand is the point of the entire story.

When reading it any father would be quite emotional over Abraham's plight and putting yourself in his place and wondering how you would deal with the whole episode.

Then after you sort out the stomach sickness you can realise how God felt when He sent His son to be sacrificed and the pain He went through.

And to wicknight: I guess you have a communication with all of the brides from OT times to know that were unwilling participants in the marriage to their Hebrew men?

Or maybe they did choose to love their husbands and were quite willing. But I guess you would never entertain such a thought would you?

And to Akrasia: it would be worth a study of the religious practices of th epeople that were defeated by teh Hebrews and you would see that they weren't really innocents after all.

Akrasia · 10-01-2008 1:04am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What you need to understand is the point of the entire story.

When reading it any father would be quite emotional over Abraham's plight and putting yourself in his place and wondering how you would deal with the whole episode.

Then after you sort out the stomach sickness you can realise how God felt when He sent His son to be sacrificed and the pain He went through.

Its completely different. Abraham was supposed to be a mortal father, who lived to provide for his son (like every other good father). His belief in god was based on faith and trust, even when his god ordered him to do things that were utterly wrong and depraved according to any objective standard of moral behaviour, he still did them based on faith, even though he knew that there was an evil satan who he knew would also be tempting him to breach gods will.
That is a psychological torture incomparable to any 'pain' that god would have gone through having sent a made up part of himself to die as part of his own plan for humanity.

Yahweh was an immortal deity who conjured up a son out of nothing, and offered up this son as a 'sacrifice' knowing full well that the son would be resurrected and would live forever in paradise.

And to wicknight: I guess you have a communication with all of the brides from OT times to know that were unwilling participants in the marriage to their Hebrew men?

Or maybe they did choose to love their husbands and were quite willing. But I guess you would never entertain such a thought would you?

Yeah, cause it is only natural and human to desire, and lust after the person who murdered your entire family and ethnic group. But regardless of that ludicrous hypothesis, the fact is that god offered the victims as spoils of war, not specific women to specific men, as if that would have justified things, but he offered the women of a city to the conquering army of his 'chosen people.

There is no way in hell that anyone could reasonibly suggest that all those relationships, between virgin children and battle hardened warriors, were consensual.

And to Akrasia: it would be worth a study of the religious practices of th epeople that were defeated by teh Hebrews and you would see that they weren't really innocents after all.

Not all of them were 'innocents' at least some of them were guilty of violent and evil acts, but so were some of the Israelites. Are you seriously arguing that all of the non Israelites were worthy of rape murder and enslavery but the 'Hebrews' by virtue of being born of jewish parents, were entitled to rape torture and murder other people?

philologos · 10-01-2008 8:13am

Akrasia wrote: »

Yahweh was an immortal deity who conjured up a son out of nothing, and offered up this son as a 'sacrifice' knowing full well that the son would be resurrected and would live forever in paradise.

Out of respect to us would you mind not using the full and complete name of the Lord our God?

Exodus 20:7 wrote:

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

The "Lord" in Biblical texts is replaced with the full name you've just used, to safeguard against blasphemy.

Akrasia wrote:

The Book of Joshua is basically the action adventure episode of the Old testament. Joshua leads the Israelites to war against the Babylonians and basically goes from town to town defeating the defending armies and murdering the civilian population 'leaving nobody alive'

I'm pretty sure there were no Babylonians in Israel at Joshua's time.

Philistines, Amorites, Amelekites, Girga****es (excuse the swear filter) and Jebusites were the only tribes there.

Zombrex · 10-01-2008 11:48am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What you need to understand is the point of the entire story.

When reading it any father would be quite emotional over Abraham's plight and putting yourself in his place and wondering how you would deal with the whole episode.

Then after you sort out the stomach sickness you can realise how God felt when He sent His son to be sacrificed and the pain He went through.

God mentally tortured Abraham's son so that we would better understand how He felt when Jesus was killed?

that is ridiculous.

Why is it so hard to simply say "No, that was a bad thing to do, he should not have done that like that"

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Or maybe they did choose to love their husbands and were quite willing. But I guess you would never entertain such a thought would you?

Generally women who have been captured in wars and given as "wives" to the conquering male soldiers who have just butchered their family and friends don't tend to be "quite willing" to love their new husbands after a month.

Watching the way you and others attempt to justify what was in essence sex slavery it is not hard to see why exactly myself and others say that religion is dangerous

If this was carried out by any other army, from Alexander the Great to Japan in WWII to the recent wars in Rwanda and Somalia you would no doubt say it was horrific.

But because it is carried out under the justification of your own religion your standards of morality go out the window and you bend over backwards to excuse and justify it.

Notice what the Japanese Prime Minister said "There is no evidence there was coercion" These 200,000 foreign women were perfectly happy to have sex with Japanese soldiers in make shift brothels that they were forced to live in, just like these women of conquered tribes were perfectly happy to be forced to marry the Hebrew soldiers and have sex with them after a month of captivity.

Even if you say that some of these women were actually happy to be the wives of the soldier (the soldier picked them, they didn't pick the soldier), are you honestly saying that all of them were?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And to Akrasia: it would be worth a study of the religious practices of th epeople that were defeated by teh Hebrews and you would see that they weren't really innocents after all.

How "innocent" are the Hebrews?

You justify the genocide of an entire people because (it is claimed) they used human sacrafice in religious rituals.

Human sacrifice is terrible, it is immoral, but you are kinda missing the point of why it is terrible if you think a justified solution is to kill everyone, men women and child, of tribes that carry it out.

If 1 out of 10 people are sacrificed in a religious ritual how is it a better solution that you kill all 10 of them?

How are the babies of such a tribe anything other than innocent?

How can you say that a people who sacrifice children in a religious ritual is wrong, but the genocide of all the children who belong to that people is ok?

Zombrex · 10-01-2008 11:54am

Jakkass wrote: »

Out of respect to us would you mind not using the full and complete name of the Lord our God?

Out of respect to us would you mind not justify sex slavery and genocide :mad:

[EDIT]
Apologies Jakkass, this is your first post on this thread, you have not put forward your view and it was unfair of me to put you in with the other posts, the people I actually object to
[/EDIT]

philologos · 10-01-2008 6:49pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Out of respect to us would you mind not justify sex slavery and genocide :mad:

[EDIT]
Apologies Jakkass, this is your first post on this thread, you have not put forward your view and it was unfair of me to put you in with the other posts, the people I actually object to
[/EDIT]

I was just wondering for the sake of facilitating the discussion you would do that, and I will be glad to answer your questions if they have scriptural references with. I'm rather familiar with the Old Testament, but perhaps not 100% foolproof.

Excelsior · 11-01-2008 4:30pm

Wicknight wrote: »

God reveals how bad he is, but because of the axiom that God can only do good, you state that these bad things are actually good things.

So we're here back to a re-working of the Euthyphrean dilemma? Are ethics good because God loves them or are does God love them because they are good?

Can I put it to you Wicknight that what you are claiming is that for God to be logically consistent and/or ethically rigourous, he should be subject to the laws of morality?

But for Christianity, God is the Creator of all contingency, even morality. The Creator cannot be subject to the creation.

This of course, doesn't for a moment coerce you to believe that Abraham was called by God to threaten Isaac as a sign post to when God's son would freely give his own life but I hope it does show that there is no logical difficulty with the portrait of God's character presented in this portion of Genesis.

Zombrex · 11-01-2008 5:20pm

Excelsior wrote: »

So we're here back to a re-working of the Euthyphrean dilemma? Are ethics good because God loves them or are does God love them because they are good?

Well not exactly.

It is often claimed on this forum that we can know God is good because of what he does. God reveals that he is good to us through his actions, such as in the Bible. This reveal should make it clear to us how good God is, the extension being that he is actually God because God is good, so we know God is who he claims to be because of the good he demonstrates.

Kinda like saying that I know my girlfriend loves me not because she says "I love you", but by what she does to demonstrate she loves me.

The problem becomes if I decide because my girlfriend loves me that anything my girlfriend does means she loves me I lose the ability to actually properly judge this.

My girlfriend may sleep with my best friend and then poor urine in my mouth while I sleep (don't ask me where i got that from), and if I was judging that I would say she doesn't love me.

But I've tied my hands some what by previously saying that anything she does means she loves me, so even when she sleeps with my best friend that still means she loves me because anything she does means she loves me.

But then how can I make the judgment in the first place that she really loves me, the judgment that was used to make the axiom that what ever she does she does out of love for me.

You get into a cyclical feedback loop where it becomes impossible to make judgments about the actual nature of God.

The question is why do theists here believe that God can only do good things and therefore everything God does must be good?

Bearing in mind the descriptions in the Bible of horrible things carried out under God's order, can you explain the justification for that without using a circular argument or a predefined definition (God can only do good things because God is God and God is defined as only being able to good things)?

Excelsior wrote: »

Can I put it to you Wicknight that what you are claiming is that for God to be logically consistent and/or ethically rigourous, he should be subject to the laws of morality?

But for Christianity, God is the Creator of all contingency, even morality. The Creator cannot be subject to the creation.

But if that is true it becomes impossible for us to actually say "God is good"

If "good" cannot be defined by us then we have no frame of reference to actually judge God and determine that he is in fact good.

Put it another way, how would you know if God was in fact bad? Would that concept even make sense?

How would you determine that the actions of the other "gods" of other religions are in fact bad, and therefore it is unlikely they exist?

"Good" and "bad" as concepts become meaningless.

As does saying God can only do good. God can do what ever he likes, and everything will be "good", but as such "good" becomes a meaningless concept, like saying my girlfriend who sleeps around "loves" me.

What is the point of a word like "good" if anything can be "good" based on if a specific person does it. If I say that no matter what my girlfriend does is "love", it becomes meaningless because my girlfriend can do anything I still call it love.

This applies equally for the idea that God loves everyone. How can anyone possibly judge that if they define anything God does as "love". Again the concept becomes meaningless.

Why would you worship a creature like that when you cannot tell if he is good or bad? You could be worshiping Satan and you wouldn't know because you cannot determine yourself if the actions of the being you worship have merit on their own.

Excelsior · 11-01-2008 6:54pm

Thanks for the response Wicknight. I am waiting for a .NET runtime library to install so I thought I might have a go at explaining myself.

Wicknight wrote: »

The question is why do theists here believe that God can only do good things and therefore everything God does must be good?

You start your reasoning in a fine place when you say that Christians often talk about how we can know God through his goodness. Personally, being the cheeky little bollix that I am, I am inclined to work through a framework of God's beauty, but we'll leave that high-falutin' intellectualising aside and say that you are indeed right. Christians claim we can know God is good because of what he does.

But Christians on the internet, especially myself, are loose-tongued sloppy thinkers. And any robust Trinitarian theism has to begin in or very near to the claim that God is the non-contingent Being. Before we get to soft and soppy Excelsior territory of "isn't beauty beautiful" or BrianCalgary's "isn't goodness good" both Excelsior and BC say that God is the free agent.

He could have freely chosen in his magesterial power to act differently from the way he did. But having chosen to act in the way he did, by at least creating this universe and all that is in it, he has been bound by his ordained power for the last 14 billion Earth years to act a certain way that is consistent with the reality he created.

By ordained power, I am ransacking Thomas Aquinas, and I mean the reduced freedom that God chooses for himself by ordaining certain things to be. In choosing to create a universe of Order, for example, he chose not to create a universe of chaos. So this is ordained as against magesterial, totally free choice.

For Christians, if God is the source of all being, then any ethical positions we as humans come to hold (and I do fully assert that humans who do not worship the Trinity can assert truthful ethics- its not a Christian club!) arise from and take place within his Creation.

I guess what I am saying here is that an outworking of his Creativity is the balanced relationship between his creatures and creations that we call ethics. A different universe could conceivably have a different Good and maybe on the otherside of the Jordan we can hear tell of these other places but here and now, Good has been laid out by God.

Maybe I am not answering your question but just laying out my illogic (as you see it) in greater details. Apologies if that is the case.

Wicknight wrote:

Bearing in mind the descriptions in the Bible of horrible things carried out under God's order, can you explain the justification for that without using a circular argument or a predefined definition (God can only do good things because God is God and God is defined as only being able to good things)?

To be honest, I can't.

Certainly not within a bulletin board format where I should be brief and concise and where anything I say can and will be warped against me.

These issues of Harem and so on cause me great angst and I do a lot of work thinking, talking and praying to work it out. This of course leaves me prone to all kind of accusations that you sceptics can throw at me and I will take them on the chin. But fundamentally, the creature will find it hard to put the Creator in the dock. If ethics is a real pursuit, grounded in some meaningful ontology and not just the cultural values of the day then they must be rooted in the reality that is Created (speaking as a Christian of course!). The Creator is the only one with a God's-eye-view.

I understandably don't want to/have time for a textual assessment of the passages that particularly disturb me.

Wicknight wrote:

If "good" cannot be defined by us then we have no frame of reference to actually judge God and determine that he is in fact good.

In a sense you are right of course. We can't judge God. We don't have the authority. But we do have a frame of reference to assess God and that is his frame of reference. To demand that Christianity should provide you with a God that allows an external source of authority above him is to a priori reject Christianity.

Wicknight wrote:

Put it another way, how would you know if God was in fact bad? Would that concept even make sense?

Well of course it could be a diabolical plot. But there is that idea that has so obsessed me- that while I was still a long way off, God drew near to me and embraced me. Grace and its reconciliation is as far from bad as can be. You might even say it is the ultimate expression of Good.

Wicknight wrote:

How would you determine that the actions of the other "gods" of other religions are in fact bad, and therefore it is unlikely they exist?

.NET is installed now so I hope I haven't offered you gibberish. This last question is a really great one. But it is a rebuttal to an argument made of the "God is good because he does good" variety you are dealing with in your post. Christians can only make that kind of an argument if they have laid out, I think, a much more robust foundation in the form of Trinitarian Monotheism.

If God is the Uncreated Creator that for example, John claims him to be, then he is not in competition with other Gods. We rule out the other claims of God not because some argument is extended showing them to be Bad or Less Beautiful but because they weren't created by the Creator, who is the only uncreated being.

Akrasia · 11-01-2008 8:26pm

Excelsior wrote: »

You start your reasoning in a fine place when you say that Christians often talk about how we can know God through his goodness. Personally, being the cheeky little bollix that I am, I am inclined to work through a framework of God's beauty, but we'll leave that high-falutin' intellectualising aside and say that you are indeed right. Christians claim we can know God is good because of what he does.

We don't know what god looks like, so I'll presume yo mean because god has created such beauty?

but we only know beauty in contrast with things that are not beautiful, and seeing as god created everything, that means he created beauty as well as ugliness, light as well as dark. if God has given Humans the aesthetic value of beauty, he has also given us repulsion.

But Christians on the internet, especially myself, are loose-tongued sloppy thinkers. And any robust Trinitarian theism has to begin in or very near to the claim that God is the non-contingent Being. Before we get to soft and soppy Excelsior territory of "isn't beauty beautiful" or BrianCalgary's "isn't goodness good" both Excelsior and BC say that God is the free agent.

He could have freely chosen in his magesterial power to act differently from the way he did. But having chosen to act in the way he did, by at least creating this universe and all that is in it, he has been bound by his ordained power for the last 14 billion Earth years to act a certain way that is consistent with the reality he created.

So you're saying that because something is better than nothing, the fact that god created the universe means that he did good, and because he did that first good thing, that he can do no wrong after that?

isn't that a bit like saying that the inventor of the nuclear weapon did something good (because something is better than nothng) and even if he uses that nuclear weapon to destroy a city full of innocents, that must be good too?
(And just to confuse things even more, God created the physics that allowed nuclear weapons to have been developed, he created people with the ability to invent them, and he allowed them to be used against innocents.
Are nuclear weapons good?

For Christians, if God is the source of all being, then any ethical positions we as humans come to hold (and I do fully assert that humans who do not worship the Trinity can assert truthful ethics- its not a Christian club!) arise from and take place within his Creation.

I guess what I am saying here is that an outworking of his Creativity is the balanced relationship between his creatures and creations that we call ethics. A different universe could conceivably have a different Good and maybe on the otherside of the Jordan we can hear tell of these other places but here and now, Good has been laid out by God.

God commanded the rape of virgins in the bible. He commanded the murder of adulterers and 'rebellious sons'. We do not condone such actions today. What does that mean? that we have rebelled against gods morals? Or has God changed his mind about what constitutes good and evil?

To be honest, I can't.

Certainly not within a bulletin board format where I should be brief and concise and where anything I say can and will be warped against me.

These issues of Harem and so on cause me great angst and I do a lot of work thinking, talking and praying to work it out. This of course leaves me prone to all kind of accusations that you sceptics can throw at me and I will take them on the chin. But fundamentally, the creature will find it hard to put the Creator in the dock. If ethics is a real pursuit, grounded in some meaningful ontology and not just the cultural values of the day then they must be rooted in the reality that is Created (speaking as a Christian of course!). The Creator is the only one with a God's-eye-view.
I understandably don't want to/have time for a textual assessment of the passages that particularly disturb me.

Why would god have disturbing passages in his bible? Did he never hear of public relations or marketing?
Why would God make it so hard to understand his own bible? Its supposed to be a book of guidance and instruction about how we are supposed to understand god and how we should live our lives. Surely he would have known the consequences of including all that blood and violence and rape and pillage into his own bible? Was he just messing with our heads?

In a sense you are right of course. We can't judge God. We don't have the authority. But we do have a frame of reference to assess God and that is his frame of reference. To demand that Christianity should provide you with a God that allows an external source of authority above him is to a priori reject Christianity.

We can't judge god, but we can judge the bible, and because the issue of whether or not God exists is by no means certain, the bible is our only source of information about him, If the bible appears to me to be illogical and unbelievable, why should I believe that it has any divine inspiration?

Well of course it could be a diabolical plot. But there is that idea that has so obsessed me- that while I was still a long way off, God drew near to me and embraced me. Grace and its reconciliation is as far from bad as can be. You might even say it is the ultimate expression of Good.

Wouldn't the devil be capable of fooling you into thinking you are being loved? (if a woman can do it, why not satan?)

If God is the Uncreated Creator that for example, John claims him to be, then he is not in competition with other Gods. We rule out the other claims of God not because some argument is extended showing them to be Bad or Less Beautiful but because they weren't created by the Creator, who is the only uncreated being.

but that is a human claim. and humans are wrong all the time. The claim that the christian god is the uncreated creator is not a good argument that no other gods exist, because other gods make similar claims themselves. All those claims have equal weight in argument, and at the very most only one of them can be correct, all of the other creation claims are wrong. If the same logical argument is wrong at least 99.9% of the time, it is not convincing to say 'but this time is different'

We do know that the christian god is very jealous and is extremely touchy about people worshiping other gods or idols. How do we know that the Christian god is not just some angel or demon with limited powers (but enough powers to do magic tricks like raising the dead and turning water into wine) who has decided to pretend that he is the creator and demand that we worship him?

Zombrex · 12-01-2008 12:04am

Excelsior wrote: »

He could have freely chosen in his magesterial power to act differently from the way he did. But having chosen to act in the way he did, by at least creating this universe and all that is in it, he has been bound by his ordained power for the last 14 billion Earth years to act a certain way that is consistent with the reality he created.

You appear to be saying that because the act of creating the universe was good (in your opinion), God is therefore bound to continue to act good, at least as far as the universe is concerned.

I'm not sure why you claim that the creation of the universe would necessarily have to be considered good (what if God created us all to suffer because he gets a kick out of us suffering), or why even if it was God is then bound to continue to act good to everything in the universe.

Excelsior wrote: »

In choosing to create a universe of Order, for example, he chose not to create a universe of chaos. So this is ordained as against magesterial, totally free choice.

Yes, but the assumption is that he did this for a good reason. That appears to be an unsupported reason. Order is not necessarily good, or at least it doesn't have to be. Order is as necessary for evil as it is for good.

Excelsior wrote: »

Maybe I am not answering your question but just laying out my illogic (as you see it) in greater details. Apologies if that is the case.

Well you are still working under cyclical logic, because you are using the existence of God as support for how you interpret that God actually exists.

Excelsior wrote: »

But fundamentally, the creature will find it hard to put the Creator in the dock.

Which I think is part of the problem.

The idea that either God doesn't exist, or that God is bad, is too upsetting for Christians that they simply choose to not consider it seriously. There is too much to lose if either of those are true.

Excelsior wrote: »

If ethics is a real pursuit, grounded in some meaningful ontology and not just the cultural values of the day then they must be rooted in the reality that is Created (speaking as a Christian of course!). The Creator is the only one with a God's-eye-view.

True, but by the same token you cannot judge that what the Creator is.

Is the Creator worth worshipping? Is the Creator bad or malicious? Is the Creator mean spirited or evil?

The idea that he can't be because he is the Creator and by the act of Creation demonstrates that he is Good simply, in my view, doesn't hold because it works on the assumption that there is no purpose to create something unless it is good.

Unfortunately human history demonstrates that wrong, as man has created many things, including human slaves (African slaves were breed to produce more slaves), for purposes other than good.

Excelsior wrote: »

In a sense you are right of course. We can't judge God. We don't have the authority.

Well its not that we don't have the authority. It is that we are unable, if we work under assumptions such as everything God does is good, to compare God against any other framework of justice if we disregard or own framework.

We become simply puppets, sworn to follow a master simply because he is the master without consideration over whether we actually should.

It is often said (honestly, I truly believe) by atheists that if your Christian God actually existed they (and me) would still refuse to worship him, because he is evil, even if you believe that he defines what is or is not evil in the first place.

Now you may say that we are not able to judge a god, a creator, he judges us. But I, obviously, disagree because I don't accept the assumption that a god, a creator, can only be good.

Excelsior wrote: »

But we do have a frame of reference to assess God and that is his frame of reference.

That doesn't make sense because it is his frame of reference in the first place. If he is in fact evil he won't produce a frame of reference that makes that clear to us.

It would be like a judge asking the criminal was it wrong what he did. He will simply say "no", and the judge will go "ok, he says it wasn't wrong, obviously it wasn't wrong"

Excelsior wrote: »

To demand that Christianity should provide you with a God that allows an external source of authority above him is to a priori reject Christianity.

Well yes, that is the point. Christianity has a fundamental flaw in that it says on the one hand that it can properly assess that God is in fact good, while on the other hand stating that God can only be good. How can you tell the former or the latter?

Again it would be like the judge boasting that he is able to properly judge the criminal, while at the same time he does this by simply asking the criminal "Was it wrong what you did?"

Excelsior wrote: »

Well of course it could be a diabolical plot. But there is that idea that has so obsessed me- that while I was still a long way off, God drew near to me and embraced me. Grace and its reconciliation is as far from bad as can be. You might even say it is the ultimate expression of Good.

Well for you it is. But then isn't that the point. Is it for everyone? Was it for those child and women killed by the Hebrews?

To say that God treats you good and therefore he must be universally good is to extend your own specific circumstance out beyond where they really should extend.

it would be like a bus boy in his hotel saying Al Capone always tipped me well, I don't accept what the papers are saying about him. I don't accept he could be bad because he was always good to me.

Excelsior wrote: »

If God is the Uncreated Creator that for example, John claims him to be, then he is not in competition with other Gods. We rule out the other claims of God not because some argument is extended showing them to be Bad or Less Beautiful but because they weren't created by the Creator, who is the only uncreated being.

Well you are ignoring the other option. Your god doesn't exist, but one of those gods does.

The argument appears to be, if I understand it well, that it is obvious those gods don't exist because they don't reveal themselves to be good, where as your god does.

Needless to say I don't find that argument convincing. Your god, in my view, reveals himself to be as bad as any other god, which would surely make him as less likely to exist as any other of the gods Christians dismiss.

Akrasia · 12-01-2008 2:49am

I have this flying machine. On the instructions, it says that it will fly forever, all I have to do is believe in it.

I throw it up into the air, and it flies for a few seconds and then falls to the ground.

One of two things happens. Either I don't believe in it enough, or it does fly forever, and when it falls, it just so happens to coincide with the end of forever.

What is wrong with that logic? According to the instructions the two explanations I gave are the only two possible options.

Christians tend to ignore the third possibility, that the instructions were wrong.

The third possibility is by far the most likely, but christians put so much faith in the validity of the instructions that they are not prepared to entertain the thought that they're following faulty instructions even for a second, and instead limit their discourse to the other two inferior options.

Excelsior · 12-01-2008 11:18am

Wicknight wrote: »

You appear to be saying that because the act of creating the universe was good (in your opinion), God is therefore bound to continue to act good, at least as far as the universe is concerned.

Let's clear up one thing. The freedom that any agent, contingent or not has is bound in some degree for that agent to exist in the first place. For example, God is not free to make it so that he does not exist. I mean, I guess he is but I wonder if you'd accuse him of deicide within 15 seconds of his suicide.

The point I am trying to make humourously is that some actions that God is potentially capable of would de-God God.

Christians proclaim a God who is good but who is also faithful (trustworthy/reliable in everyday language). A God that would change his mind and decide he is tired with this Universe of his after a few billion years and move on to something more interesting is not "God" as Christians and Jews proclaim him. He is in a sense bound by his love, covenantally to continue being good to the Creation he calls "Good".

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure why you claim that the creation of the universe would necessarily have to be considered good (what if God created us all to suffer because he gets a kick out of us suffering), or why even if it was God is then bound to continue to act good to everything in the universe.

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."

"The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it."

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, but the assumption is that he did this for a good reason. That appears to be an unsupported reason. Order is not necessarily good, or at least it doesn't have to be. Order is as necessary for evil as it is for good.

The only adequate way for me to respond to this is to preach. Apologetics is not something you brooding folks take kindly too so I will simply say that I continue to assume that life is good. It's short but sweet.

Well you are still working under cyclical logic, because you are using the existence of God as support for how you interpret that God actually exists.

It is not faulty logic unless I share your assumptions about how the world really is. I have said it before and will again, none of you have met my wife or my best friends and all I can do is tell you that they really do love me. Within that relational framework, it is not only possible but necessary for me to flexibly account for their actions.

Wicknight wrote:

The idea that either God doesn't exist, or that God is bad, is too upsetting for Christians that they simply choose to not consider it seriously. There is too much to lose if either of those are true.

Oh come on Wick! Are you in a silly mood? I was an atheist as hardcore as you for similar reasons. My life would be a lot easier and a lot more profitable without this God-bothering to contend with. This is rephrased as "Christians need a crutch", which is considerably more silly than me or BC saying "isn't maths remarkably effective"!

Wick wrote:

The idea that he can't be because he is the Creator and by the act of Creation demonstrates that he is Good simply, in my view, doesn't hold because it works on the assumption that there is no purpose to create something unless it is good.

Forgetting the adolescent ramblings of other posters, I do actually think there is supreme moral worth in Creation. For one thing, ethics, aesthetics and all the other things we spend our life pursuing are contingent on it. But on a very personal level, I refuse to believe that my newly born niece is nothing but the pinnacle of what is Beauty and what is Good.

In your attempt at thorough-going scepticism you slip into a troubling slide towards nihilism where things we don't understand so obscure what is plainly obvious that you end up arguing that this world need not be very good at all.

If that is the case, you have lost connection with your reasonable doubt and you are wasting your time communicating with not-very-good people over the Internet. We could find you some Gnostic cults to join and become a hermit monk with....

Wick wrote:

Unfortunately human history demonstrates that wrong, as man has created many things, including human slaves (African slaves were breed to produce more slaves), for purposes other than good.

It is a different category of creation. When I make a table in my shed, I don't stand back and say "it is good" in the way that God does. I have not "CREATED" the table in quite the same sense!

Wick wrote:

Well its not that we don't have the authority. It is that we are unable, if we work under assumptions such as everything God does is good, to compare God against any other framework of justice if we disregard or own framework.

Actually, the framework that limits you is the doctrine of God generally, not the benficience of God. It his total otherness that limits your authority to judge him, not some specific claim we make about his goodness.

Wick wrote:

We become simply puppets, sworn to follow a master simply because he is the master without consideration over whether we actually should.

I have a nephew who is 3 and he stamped his foot once when told no and said, "Is that no because of a reason or is it no because you said so Mommy!"

The reason we laugh about this is that as adults, we can see that they are the same thing. If Fionn can't trust that his Mommy is making decisions to best of her ability, then he can trust nothing at all for there is no hope for him. I won't labour the point but I feel it has serious merit as a response to your position. When a toddler thinks that he knows better than his parent, he is inevitably just thinking that "I want" is the ultimate moral good.

Wick wrote:

It is often said (honestly, I truly believe) by atheists that if your Christian God actually existed they (and me) would still refuse to worship him, because he is evil, even if you believe that he defines what is or is not evil in the first place.

Now you may say that we are not able to judge a god, a creator, he judges us. But I, obviously, disagree because I don't accept the assumption that a god, a creator, can only be good.

And this is the nub- I agree. A Creator God could have been bad. He could have been competing with other gods and humanity. We could all imagine Mesopotamian-style religion. But I believe THE God is good because of what he is, ultimately in how that expresses itself in Jesus of Nazareth and the Resurrection. But again, to make this point draws us into a much bigger and off topic discussion. You know the rigmarole anyway.
Excelsior "Grace"
Wicknight "Proof"

Wick wrote:

It would be like a judge asking the criminal was it wrong what he did. He will simply say "no", and the judge will go "ok, he says it wasn't wrong, obviously it wasn't wrong"

It's not at all like that. And besides, lots of criminals admit their crimes were wrong.

Wick wrote:

Again it would be like the judge boasting that he is able to properly judge the criminal, while at the same time he does this by simply asking the criminal "Was it wrong what you did?"

So God is in the dock?

Wick wrote:

To say that God treats you good and therefore he must be universally good is to extend your own specific circumstance out beyond where they really should extend.

I wouldn't say in that instance that God had treated me "good" cos that is like a primary schoolboy calling something "nice". He treated me with Grace and offers the same to everyone. This works out down the line that we must call him good but that is not the first, second or even third implication of his Grace.

Wick wrote:

it would be like a bus boy in his hotel saying Al Capone always tipped me well, I don't accept what the papers are saying about him. I don't accept he could be bad because he was always good to me.

Was Al Capone that guy who died in place of everyone else?
Cos I love that guy!

Wick wrote:

The argument appears to be, if I understand it well, that it is obvious those gods don't exist because they don't reveal themselves to be good, where as your god does.

The argument actually is that if this God is real, by the definition of this God, no other God is real. In the same way, if that lady in my house is my wife, then no other woman is my wife.

Akrasia · 12-01-2008 4:46pm

Excelsior wrote: »

I have a nephew who is 3 and he stamped his foot once when told no and said, "Is that no because of a reason or is it no because you said so Mommy!"

The reason we laugh about this is that as adults, we can see that they are the same thing. If Fionn can't trust that his Mommy is making decisions to best of her ability, then he can trust nothing at all for there is no hope for him. I won't labour the point but I feel it has serious merit as a response to your position. When a toddler thinks that he knows better than his parent, he is inevitably just thinking that "I want" is the ultimate moral good.

but mommy doesn't always know best.

Sometimes the toddler is right and the adult is wrong.

I know one person who I am very close to, who was sexually assaulted when she was a very young child, and she tried to tell her mother and she knew it was wrong, but her mother dismissed her, and allowed it to continue.

Zombrex · 13-01-2008 2:42am

Excelsior wrote: »

Let's clear up one thing. The freedom that any agent, contingent or not has is bound in some degree for that agent to exist in the first place. For example, God is not free to make it so that he does not exist. I mean, I guess he is but I wonder if you'd accuse him of deicide within 15 seconds of his suicide.

The point I am trying to make humourously is that some actions that God is potentially capable of would de-God God.

Certainly. But it also must be made clear that "God" assuming he exists, is not bound by the definition that you wish him to be.

If you define God as being something that can only be good, that does not mean that what ever is out there must match your definition of it. Your definition could simply be wrong.

Excelsior wrote: »

Christians proclaim a God who is good but who is also faithful (trustworthy/reliable in everyday language). A God that would change his mind and decide he is tired with this Universe of his after a few billion years and move on to something more interesting is not "God" as Christians and Jews proclaim him.

That is rather irrelevant. It simply means that "God" is not what you believe or wish him to be.

There is no requirement for God to exist that he must match how your religion defines him. Your religion's understanding could simply be wrong.

Bear in mind I'm not saying it is or it isn't. I put this forward merely to highlight the circular argument that you are using.

Its like saying "A lion can fly, that is a lion, therefore it can fly"

I may very well say "How do you know it can fly", to which the reply is "It can fly because I have defined that a lion can fly, and that is a lion"

I may very well agree that it is a lion, but that doesn't mean it flies.

To define God as good, and then to point to "God" and say that he therefore must be good, is a logical falsity.

Excelsior wrote: »

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."

Again you are using the Bible to support what God says. If God either doesn't exist or is not actually good then the Bible cannot be trusted, and therefore it cannot be used to support the original statement. Again it is circular reasoning.

Excelsior wrote: »

The only adequate way for me to respond to this is to preach. Apologetics is not something you brooding folks take kindly too so I will simply say that I continue to assume that life is good. It's short but sweet.

Again this is your personal experience. Others have hard painful lives. Your religion even attempt to explain this as the result of man's sin.

Excelsior wrote: »

It is not faulty logic unless I share your assumptions about how the world really is.

Not really. It is fault logic in of itself. I don't understand where your wife comes into this.

Excelsior wrote: »

Oh come on Wick! Are you in a silly mood? I was an atheist as hardcore as you for similar reasons. My life would be a lot easier and a lot more profitable without this God-bothering to contend with.

Possibly, but I doubt you would be happier (see below). And when you die you would cease to exist, which I doubt appeals to you.

Excelsior wrote: »

This is rephrased as "Christians need a crutch"

Well I wouldn't define it in those terms. "All humans" need a crutch would be a better way if one must use that phrase. Religious behaviour is not confined to Christianity. The same pattern is repeated across the world and across history. The details of the "crutch" change vastly from culture to culture, from time period to time period, but all societies from approx 70,000 BC (the earliest evidence of ritual religion, found in Africa) onward to something like Scientology, have incorporated some form of "crutch" to deal with what they either didn't understand or that troubled them. Before that we simply didn't do this. We left our dead where they were. We ignored the stars and the sessions. Religion as a cultural force is a by product of our advancing intelligence.

Excelsior wrote: »

But on a very personal level, I refuse to believe that my newly born niece is nothing but the pinnacle of what is Beauty and what is Good.

Well, ok, but that can of course be used to justify anything.

When ever I hear a theist say something like "I refuse to believe.." it is always followed by something very passionate, something very poetic, but something that ultimately doesn't mean anything in any tangible way.

Everyone believes their niece/nephew/son/daughter is the pinnacle of beauty and goodness. We believe that because all humans have a very strong emotional instinct that draws them to new born babies, particularly relations, for the purposes of keeping them safe and provided for.

Its wonderful, but it has nothing to do with the logic of the question of does God exist, though it may have a lot to do with the question of why we, as humans, want God to exist (to protect, to provide, to make us moral etc).

Excelsior wrote: »

In your attempt at thorough-going scepticism you slip into a troubling slide towards nihilism where things we don't understand so obscure what is plainly obvious that you end up arguing that this world need not be very good at all.

You hint here why you, and humans in general, need for God to exist when you say things like that Excelsior.

To you a world without a God, a protector, a source of morality, a creator, is dangerous and devoid of morality, because without this authority who is going to make us be moral, who is going to protect us from the danger.

A world that has not been defined as "good" by its creator, which is in turn good and requires goodness, is a world were we don't have to be good, in world in which we can be bad. And that is not a world you want to live in, or a world you want your niece to be in.

To say that life would be easier for you if you were an atheist is simply not true. I imagine you would find life as an atheist terrifying.

Excelsior wrote: »

It is a different category of creation. When I make a table in my shed, I don't stand back and say "it is good" in the way that God does. I have not "CREATED" the table in quite the same sense!

That doesn't really matter. The point is that things can be created for bad reasons. The category of these different things is irrelevant. An African slave is not a coffee table, and a coffee table is a not a machine gun.

Excelsior wrote: »

Actually, the framework that limits you is the doctrine of God generally, not the benficience of God. It his total otherness that limits your authority to judge him, not some specific claim we make about his goodness.

But you claim about his goodness judges him, it judges him good.

Which is impossible for you to do. You don't know if God is good or bad, because if God is in fact bad you can't tell because you have ability to judge that against anything else and you assert that everything God does is good.

Excelsior wrote: »

The reason we laugh about this is that as adults, we can see that they are the same thing. If Fionn can't trust that his Mommy is making decisions to best of her ability, then he can trust nothing at all for there is no hope for him. I won't labour the point but I feel it has serious merit as a response to your position. When a toddler thinks that he knows better than his parent, he is inevitably just thinking that "I want" is the ultimate moral good.

Well I'm not a toddler.

But as Akrasia points out, if a child is being molested by his parents, his objection goes beyond "I want"

While a child may argue and fight with his parents because of superficial needs, such as a chocolate bar, or a new toy, a child also knows, when it comes down to it, when an adult is truly doing something wrong.

He knows this because of the 5 million years of evolutionary instincts that have begun to awaking in his mind. He knows that if his father hits him that is wrong. He may not understand it, he may not be able to rationalise it. He may in fact not be able to accept that it actually is wrong, or may attempt to direct the feeling of wrongness on himself, blame himself. But at some level he knows it is wrong.

The point I assume you are making is that we are children unable to judge our parent, our Creator. And I suppose at the end of the day my discussion with you would be like trying to explain to a child that their parent is wrong. It is something that one does not accept easily.

So I put my position forward less as an attempt to convince you and more as simply an explanation of what I feel and believe.

Excelsior wrote: »

And this is the nub- I agree. A Creator God could have been bad. He could have been competing with other gods and humanity. We could all imagine Mesopotamian-style religion. But I believe THE God is good because of what he is, ultimately in how that expresses itself in Jesus of Nazareth and the Resurrection. But again, to make this point draws us into a much bigger and off topic discussion. You know the rigmarole anyway.
Excelsior "Grace"
Wicknight "Proof"

I'm not asking you for proof. As most of the posters on this forum who follow my posts know I don't believe in "proof". Proof is something that belongs in mathematics.

I am simply asking for reason. Why do you believe?

Excelsior wrote: »

It's not at all like that. And besides, lots of criminals admit their crimes were wrong.

Possibly, but we still don't ask them.

The ultimate point is that if you expect God to tell you if he is good or bad you can simply not logically accept the answer because if God was bad he may still tell you that he was good.

This is why we don't ask people are they lying, have they done wrong. Because we cannot trust the answer.

To assert that God is good because God says that he is good is circular reasoning, because if God was bad he may very well still say that he is good.

Excelsior wrote: »

I wouldn't say in that instance that God had treated me "good" cos that is like a primary schoolboy calling something "nice". He treated me with Grace and offers the same to everyone. This works out down the line that we must call him good but that is not the first, second or even third implication of his Grace.

You don't need to preach to me Excelsior

The point of my sentence was that your particular circumstances have little bearing on the ultimate question of the goodness of God. And your assertion that he offers the same to everyone is simply religious doctrine. You don't actually know if he does or not, you assume he does because you believe he did to you and other Christians.

Excelsior wrote: »

The argument actually is that if this God is real, by the definition of this God, no other God is real. In the same way, if that lady in my house is my wife, then no other woman is my wife.

As I explained at the start, your definition does not define God. Your definition may simply be inaccurate.

JoeB- · 13-01-2008 4:12pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What you need to understand is the point of the entire story.

When reading it any father would be quite emotional over Abraham's plight and putting yourself in his place and wondering how you would deal with the whole episode.

Then after you sort out the stomach sickness you can realise how God felt when He sent His son to be sacrificed and the pain He went through.

And to wicknight: I guess you have a communication with all of the brides from OT times to know that were unwilling participants in the marriage to their Hebrew men?

Or maybe they did choose to love their husbands and were quite willing. But I guess you would never entertain such a thought would you?

And to Akrasia: it would be worth a study of the religious practices of th epeople that were defeated by teh Hebrews and you would see that they weren't really innocents after all.

Ridiculous.

God wasn't forced to send his son by a more powerful creature. God wasn't bullied into doing it under a threat of eternal torture. God freely chose to send a part of himself to attone for a sin which he decided to punish everybody for commited by a fictional character. Pathetic. Not even mentioning that God is omniscient so these outcomes were hardly a surprise to him... poor old God, to create the world knowing full well what implications it would have for him and yet to be torn to the stomach at having to play his preordained part... farcical.

And what about these brides? to have their families killed, to be kidnapped, to be forced into marraige... yes Brian, it is concievable that they were willing participants. Are you serious? It beggars belief... and you choose to believe in and adore this monster? (This is why I despair when I think of the religiosty of the world, such twisted logic). The point is that God gave the kidnappers the right to take the women against their will, so he is saying that raping people against their will is fine. End of story.

It doesn't matter if the women choose this because even it they didn't it would happen anyway... so they explicitily were not given a choice... now I clearly have entertained the thought you suggested and it sickens me.

And your final point... it doesn't matter if you are killing non-innocents... to commit genocide is wrong... but of course you'll argue that it's not. You can chat to Hilter about it in Heaven... because God most likely considers him a fine man, a great man, capable of ruthless bloodthirsty violence.

Asiaprod · 14-01-2008 12:56am

JoeBallantine wrote: »

And your final point... it doesn't matter if you are killing non-innocents... to commit genocide is wrong... but of course you'll argue that it's not. You can chat to Hilter about it in Heaven... because God most likely considers him a fine man, a great man, capable of ruthless bloodthirsty violence.

Joe, please cool it a little, you are very close to breaking the charter and I would hate to ruin an interesting debate.
Asia

BrianCalgary · 14-01-2008 9:38pm

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Ridiculous.

God wasn't forced to send his son by a more powerful creature. .

You are right, He did it out of love for us.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

God wasn't bullied into doing it under a threat of eternal torture..

And neither was Abraham. He was told to do it by God and he obeyed God. the whole account is about faith and trust. As well as to understand the act that God commited for us in the NT.

The rest of your post I'm going to ignore.

Do you understand the covenenat that God had with Abraham and how it was set up and how it works?

Akrasia · 15-01-2008 11:22pm

And neither was Abraham. He was told to do it by God and he obeyed God. the whole account is about faith and trust. As well as to understand the act that God commited for us in the NT.

The rest of your post I'm going to ignore.

Do you understand the covenenat that God had with Abraham and how it was set up and how it works?

Um, the old testament was around thousands of years before Jesus was sacrificed.

And the sacrifice of gods son was not explicitly foretold in any passage in the OT, so how were the jewish people supposed to interpret that story back then? Were they supposed to just trust that everything would work out in the future?

Are we supposed to trust now that genocide in the old testament is ok, because god sacrificed his chosen people to genocide? Did god plan the holocaust as some kind of lesson for future generations (don't worry, we'll find out about it in another 50 years when the desciples of hitler finally get around to writing the new new testament)

I never understood how god sacrificing his son would be considered to be a good example, Is a human sacrifice a good thing? is it good for me to sacrifice my son to god If I believe God tells me to? That's what Abraham was asked to do. Wasn't part of the justification for the destruction of Sodom that they performed human sacrifices on children?

The God of the Old testament.

Comments